Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

I cant quote you B'flat because I keep getting blocked , but there is one glaring problem with this experiment and as such your so called evidence, also another, not so bad but will effect accuracy .

Read the description as to how the experiment was done ,You want to be right so bad you miss the bloody obvious.

I will give you a few days if you haven't worked it out I will let you know .

I took me about 20 seconds.

Edited by peter
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The “Nature of Reality” forum was recently hosting a thread where heated discussion was taking place regarding our plane, “a flat, nonrotating Earth” as nasa themselves reference multiple times in mul

🤣     So this plate is the same size as my fan then?    

Posted Images

EXPERIMENT 2.

Along the edge of the water, in the same canal, six flags were placed, one statute mile from each other, and so arranged that the top of each flag was 5 feet above the surface. Close to the last flag in the series a longer staff was fixed, bearing a flag 3 feet square, and the top of which was 8 feet above the surface of the water--the bottom being in a line with the tops of the other and intervening flags, as shown in the following diagram, Fig, 4.

FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

On looking with a good telescope over and along the flags, from A to B, the line of sight fell on the lower part of the larger flag at B. The altitude of the point B above the water at D was 5 feet, and the altitude of the telescope at A above

p. 14

the water at C was 5 feet; and each intervening flag had the same altitude. Hence the surface of the water C, D, was equidistant from the line of sight A, B; and as A B was a right line, C, D, being parallel, was also a right line; or, in other words, the surface of the water, C, D, was for six miles absolutely horizontal.

If the earth is a globe, the series of flags in the last experiment would have had the form and produced the results represented in the diagram, Fig. 5. The water curvating from

FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

C to D, each flag would have been a given amount below the line A, B. The first and second flags would have determined the direction of the line of sight from A to B, and the third flag would have been 8 inches below the second; the fourth flag, 32 inches; the fifth, 6 feet; the sixth, 10 feet 8 inches; and the seventh, 16 feet 8 inches; but the top of the last and largest flag, being 3 feet higher than the smaller ones, would have been 13 feet 8 inches below the line of sight at the point B. The rotundity of the earth would necessitate the above conditions; but as they cannot be found to exist, the doctrine must be pronounced as only a simple theory, having no foundation in fact--a pure invention of misdirected genius; splendid in its comprehensiveness and bearing upon natural phenomena; but, nevertheless, mathematical and logical necessities compel its denunciation as an absolute falsehood.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The above-named experiments were first made by the author in the summer of 1838, but in the previous winter season, when the water in the "Old Bedford" Canal was frozen, he had often, when lying on the ice, with a good telescope observed persons skating and sliding at known distances of from four to eight miles. He lived for nine successive months within a hundred yards of the canal, in a temporary wooden building, and had many opportunities of making and repeating observations and experiments, which it would only be tedious to enumerate, as they all involved the same principle, and led to the same conclusions as those already described. It may, however, interest the reader to relate an instance which occurred unexpectedly, and which created such a degree of con-fusion, that he was repeatedly tempted to destroy the many memoranda he had previously made. Up to this time all his observations had been made in the direction of Welney, the bridge there affording a substantial signal point; but on one occasion, a gentleman who resided within a few miles of the temporary residence already alluded to, and with whom conversations and discussions had been repeatedly held, insisted upon the telescope being directed upon a barge sailing in an opposite direction to that previously selected. Watching the slowly receding vessel for a considerable time, it suddenly disappeared altogether! The gentleman co-observer cried out in a tone of exultation, "Now, sir, are you satisfied that the water declines?" It was almost impossible to say anything in reply. All that could be done was to "gaze in mute astonishment" in the direction of the lost vessel--compelled to listen to the jeers and taunts of the apparent victor. After thus wonderingly gazing for a considerable time, with still greater astonishment the vessel was seen to suddenly come again into view? Obliged to admit the reappearance of the vessel; neither of us could fairly claim the victory, as both were puzzled and equally in an experimental "fix." This condition of the question at issue lasted for several days, when, one evening conversing with a "gunner" (a shooter of wild fowl), upon the strange appearance referred to, he laughingly undertook to explain the whole affair. He said that at several miles away, beyond the ferry-house, the canal made a sudden bend in the shape of the letter V when lying horizontally, and that the vessel disappeared on account of its entering into one side of the triangle, and reappeared after passing down the other side and entering the usual line of the canal! After a time a large map of the canal was found in a neighbouring town, Wisbeach, and the "gunner's" statement fully verified.

The following diagram will explain this strange, and for a time confounding, phenomenon.

FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

A, represents the position of the observer, and the arrows the direction of the vessel, which, on arriving at the point B, suddenly entered the "reach" B, C, and disappeared, but which, on arriving at C, became again visible, and remained so after entering and sailing along the canal from C to D. The ferry-house and several trees, which stood on the side of the canal, between the observer and the "bend," had prevented the vessel being seen during the time it was passing from B to C. Thus the "mystery" was cleared away; the author was the real victor; and the gentleman referred to, with many others of the neighbourhood, subsequently avowed their conviction that the water in the "Bedford Level" at least, was horizontal, and they therefore could not see how the earth could possibly be a globe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

EXPERIMENT 3.

A good theodolite was placed on the northern bank of the canal, midway between Welney Bridge and the Old Bedford Bridge, which are fully six miles apart, as shown in diagram, fig. 7. The line of sight from the "levelled" theodolite fell

FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

upon the points B, B, at an altitude, making allowance for refraction, equal to that of the observer at T. Now the points B, B, being three miles from T, would have been the square of three, or nine times 8 inches, or 6 feet below the line of sight, C, T, C, as seen in the following diagram, fig. 8.

FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

Link to post
Share on other sites

EXPERIMENT 4.

On several occasions the six miles of water in the old Bedford Canal have been surveyed by the so-called "forward" process of levelling, which consisted in simply taking a sight of, say 20 chains, or 440 yards, noting the point observed, moving the instrument forward to that point, and taking a second observation; again moving the instrument forward, again observing 20 chains in advance, and so on throughout the whole distance. By this process, without making allowance for convexity, the surface of the water was found to be perfectly horizontal. But when the result was made known to several surveyors, it was contended "that when the theodolite is levelled, it is placed at right angles to the earth's radius--the line of sight from it being a tangent; and that when it is removed 20 chains forward, and again 'levelled,' it becomes a second and different tangent; and that indeed every new position is really a fresh tangent--as shown in the diagram, fig. 9, T 1, T 2, and T 3, representing

FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

the theodolite levelled at three different positions, and therefore square to the radii 1, 2, 3. Hence, levelling forward in this way, although making no allowance for rotundity, the rotundity or allowance for it is involved in the process." This is a very ingenious and plausible argument, by which the visible contradiction between the theory of rotundity and the results of practical levelling is explained; and many excellent mathematicians

p. 19

and geodesists have been deceived by it. Logically, however, it will be seen that it is not a proof of rotundity; it is only an explanation or reconciliation of results with the supposition of rotundity, but does not prove it to exist. The following modification was therefore adopted by the author, in order that convexity, if it existed, might be demonstrated. A theodolite

FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

was placed at the point A, in fig. 10, and levelled; it was then directed over the flag-staff B to the cross-staff C--the instrument A, the flag-staff B, and the cross-staff C, having exactly the same altitude. The theodolite was then advanced to B, the flag-staff to C, and the cross-staff to D, which was thus secured .as a continuation of one and the same line of sight A, B, C, prolonged to D, the altitude of D being the same as that of A, B, and C. The theodolite was again moved forward to the position C, the flag-staff to D, and the cross-staff to the point E--the line of sight to which was thus again secured as a prolongation of A, B, C, D, to E. The process was repeated to F, and onwards by 20 chain lengths to the end of six miles of the canal, .and parallel with it. By thus having an object between the theodolite and the cross-staff, which object in its turn becomes a test or guide by which the same line of sight is continued throughout the whole length surveyed, the argument or explanation which is dependent upon the supposition of rotundity, and that each position of the theodolite is a different tangent, is completely destroyed. The result of this peculiar or modified survey, which has been several times repeated, was that the line of sight and

p. 20

the surface of the water ran parallel to each other; and as the. line of sight was, in this instance, a right line, the surface of the water for six miles was demonstrably horizontal.

This mode of forward levelling is so very exact and satisfactory, that the following further illustration may be given with

fig11.jpg

advantage. In fig. 11, let A, B, C, represent the first position, respectively of the theodolite, flag-staff, and cross-staff; B, C, D, the second position; C, D, E, the third position; and D, E, F, the fourth; similarly repeated throughout the whole distance surveyed.

The remarks thus made in reference to simple "forward" levelling, apply with equal force to what is called by surveyors the "back-and-fore-sight" process, which consists in reading backwards a distance equal to the distance read forwards. This plan is adopted to obviate the necessity for calculating, or allowing for the earth's supposed convexity. It applies, however, just the same in practice, whether the base or datum line is horizontal or convex; but as it has been proved to be the former, it is evident that "back-and-fore-sight" levelling is a waste of time and skill, and altogether unnecessary. Forward

p. 21

levelling over intervening test or guide staves, as explained by the diagram, fig. 11, is far superior to any of the ordinary methods, and has the great advantage of being purely practical§ and not involving any theoretical considerations. Its adoption along the banks of any canal, or lake, or standing water of any kind, or even along the shore of any open sea, will demonstrate to the fullest satisfaction of any practical surveyor that the surface of all water is horizontal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is working out brilliant as I can refute all your diagrams in one foul swoop instead of dragging it out one at a time over days.

think about it ,your wasting a lot of time writing

Don't quote what others have said ,think

It doesn't matter what you write about canals lakes theodolites etc think about what you are trying to prove or disprove .

You may come to the conclusion I'm trying to string you along ,I'm not, 

Edited by peter
Link to post
Share on other sites

EXPERIMENT 5.

Although the experiments already described, and many similar ones, have been tried and often repeated, first in 1838, afterwards in 1844, in 1849, in 1856, and in 1862, the author was induced in 1870 to visit the scene of his former labours, and to make some other (one or more) experiment of so simple a character that no error of complicated instrument or process of surveying could possibly be involved. He left London (for Downham Market Station) on Tuesday morning, April 5, 1870, .and arrived at the Old Bedford Sluice Bridge, about two miles from the station, at twelve o'clock. The atmosphere was remarkably clear, and the sun was shining brightly on and against the western face of the bridge. On the right hand side of the arch a large notice-board was affixed (a table of tolls, &c., for navigating the canal). The lowest edge of this board was 6 feet 6 inches above the water, as shown at B, fig. 12.

FIG. 12.
FIG. 12.

A train of several empty turf boats had just entered the canal from the River Ouse, and was about proceeding to Romsey, in Huntingdonshire. An arrangement was made with the "Captain" to place the shallowest boat the last in the train; on the lowest part of the stern of this boat a good telescope was fixed--the elevation being exactly 18 inches above the water. The sun was shining strongly against the white notice-board, the air was exceedingly still and clear, and the surface of the water "smooth as a molten mirror;" so that everything was extremely favourable for observation. At 1.15, p.m., the train of boats started for Welney. As the boats receded the notice-board was kept in view, and was plainly visible to, the naked eye for several miles; but through the telescope it was distinctly seen throughout the whole distance of six miles. But on reaching Welney Bridge, a very shallow boat was procured, and so fixed that the telescope was brought to within 8 inches of the surface of the water; and still the bottom of the notice-board was clearly visible. The elevation of the telescope being 8 inches, the line of sight would touch the. horizon, if convexity exists, at the distance of one statute mile;. the square of the remaining five miles, multiplied by 8 inches, gives a curvature of 16 feet 8 inches, so that the bottom of the notice-board--6 feet 6 inches above the water--should have been 10 feet 2 inches below the horizon, as shown in fig. 13--

FIG. 13.
FIG. 13.

B, the notice-board; H, the horizon; and T, the telescope.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Disregard all that shit you have just cut and pasted  , in this instance what would be the first consideration even before you decided how to formulate the experiment to prove or disprove you hypotheses, I can't give you anymore clues with out telling you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Distance to the Horizon Calculator

This is a rough guide to determine the distance of the horizon based on the observer's height above mean sea level. The screen will work in Metric or Imperial measurements.

Enter the height above Sea Level either in Metres or Feet. Press the Calculate button and the distance of the horizon will be displayed in Kilometres or Miles.

The Mathematics behind this Calculation

Diagram

This calculation should be taken as a guide only as it assumes the earth is a perfect ball 6378137 metres radius. It also assumes the horizon you are looking at is at sea level. A triangle is formed with the centre of the earth (C) as one point, the horizon point (H) is a right angle and the observer (O) the third corner. Using Pythagoras's theorem we can calculate the distance from the observer to the horizon (OH) knowing CH is the earth's radius (r) and CO is the earth's radius (r) plus observer's height (v) above sea level.

Example

Sitting in a hotel room 10m above sea level a boat on the horizon will be 11.3km away. The reverse is also true, whilst rowing across the Atlantic, the very top of a mountain range 400m high could be seen on your horizon at a distance of 71.4 km assuming the air was clear enough.
 
Link to post
Share on other sites

EXPERIMENT 6.

The following important experiment has recently been tried at Brighton, in Sussex. On the new or Western Pier a good theodolite was fixed, at an elevation of 30 feet above the water, and directed to a given point on the pier at Worthing, a distance of at least ten statute miles. Several small yachts and other vessels were sailing about between the two piers, one of which was brought to within a few yards of the Brighton Pier, and directed to sail as nearly as possible in a straight line towards the pier at Worthing; when the top of the mast, which scarcely reached the theodolite, was observed to continue below the line of sight throughout the whole distance, as shown in fig. 14--A,

FIG. 14.
FIG. 14.

representing the theodolite, and B, the pier at Worthing. From which it is concluded that the surface of the water is horizontal throughout the whole length of ten miles. Whereas, if the earth is a globe, the water between the two piers would be an arc of a circle (as shown in fig. 15), the centre of which would

FIG. 15.
FIG. 15.

be 16 feet 8 inches higher than the two extremities, and the vessel starting. from A, would ascend an inclined plane, rising

p. 24

over 16 feet, to the summit of the arc at C, where the mast-head would stand considerably above the line of sight. From this point the vessel would gradually descend to the point B, at Worthing. As no such behaviour of the vessel was observed, the ten miles of water between the two piers must be horizontal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

EXPERIMENT 7.

The sea horizon, to whatever distance it extends to the right and left of an observer on land, always appears as a perfectly straight line, as represented by H, H, in fig. 16. Not only does

FIG. 16.
FIG. 16.

it appear to be straight as far as it extends, but it may be proved to be so by the following simple experiment. At any altitude above the sea-level, fix a long board--say from 6 to 12 or more feet in length--edgewise upon tripods, as shown in fig. 17. Let

FIG. 17.
FIG. 17.

the upper edge be smooth, and perfectly levelled. On placing the eye behind and about the centre of the board B, B, and looking over it towards the sea, the distant horizon will be observed to run perfectly parallel with its upper edge. If the eye be now directed in an angular direction to the left and to the right,

p. 25

there will be no difficulty in observing a length of ten to twenty miles, according to the altitude of the position; and this whole distance of twenty miles of sea horizon will be seen as a perfectly straight line. This would be impossible if the earth were a globe, and the water of the sea convex. Ten miles on each side would give a curvature of 66 feet (102 x 8 = 66 feet 8 inches), and instead of the horizon touching the board along its whole length, it would be seen to gradually decline from the centre C, and to be over 66 feet below the two extremities B, B, as shown in fig. 18. Any vessel approaching from the left would be seen to

FIG. 18.
FIG. 18.

ascend the inclined plane H, B, C, and on passing the centre would descend from C towards the curvating horizon at H. Such a phenomenon is never observed, and it may be fairly concluded that such convexity or curvature does not exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

EXPERIMENT 8.

A very striking illustration of the true form of the sea horizon may be observed from the high land in the neighbourhood of the head of Portsmouth Harbour. Looking across Spithead to the Isle of Wight, the base or margin of the island, where water and land come together, appears to be a straight line from east to west, a length of twenty-two statute miles. If a good

p. 26

theodolite is directed upon it, the cross-hair will show that the. land and water line is perfectly horizontal, as shown in fig. 19.

 

FIG. 19.
FIG. 19.

FIG. 20.
FIG. 20.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the earth is globular, the two ends east and west of the Isle of Wight would be 80 feet below the centre, and would appear in the field of view of the theodolite as represented in fig. 20. As a proof that such would be the appearance, the same instrument directed upon any object having an upper outline curved in the smallest degree, will detect and plainly show the curvature in relation to the cross-hair a b; or the levelled board employed in experiment 7, fig. 18, will prove the same condition to exist; viz., that the margin of the Isle of Wight is, for twenty-two miles, a perfectly straight line; and instead of curvating downwards 80 feet each way from the centre, as it certainly would if convexity existed, it is absolutely horizontal.

From the lighthouse on Bidstone Hill, near Liverpool, the. whole length of the Isle of Man, on a clear day and with a good telescope, is distinctly visible, and presents the same horizontal base line as that observed in the Isle of Wight.

From the high land near Douglas harbour, Isle of Man, the whole length of the coast of North Wales is often plainly visible to the naked eye--a distance extending from the point of Ayr, at the mouth of the River Dee, towards Holyhead, not

p. 27

less than fifty miles. Whatever test has been employed, the line, where the sea and the land appear to join, is always found to be perfectly horizontal, as shown in the following diagram; fig. 21.

FIG. 21.
FIG. 21.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

whereas, if the earth is spherical, and therefore the surface of all water convex, such an appearance could not exist. It would of necessity appear as shown in fig. 22.

FIG. 22.
FIG. 22.

A line stretched horizontally before the observer would not only show the various elevations of the land, but would also show the declination of the horizon H, H, below the cross-line S, S. The fifty miles length of the Welsh coast seen along the horizon in Liverpool Bay, would have a declination from the centre of at least 416 feet (252 x .8 inches = 416 feet 8 inches). But as such declination, or downward curvation, cannot be detected, the conclusion is logically inevitable that it has no existence. Let the reader seriously ask whether any and what reason exists in Nature to prevent the fall of more than 400 feet being visible to the eye, or incapable of detection by any optical or mathematical means whatever. This question is especially important when it is considered that at the same distance, and on the upper outline of the same land, changes of level of only a few yards extent are quickly and unmistakably perceptible.

p. 28

[paragraph continues] If he is guided by evidence and reason, and influenced by a love of truth and consistency, he cannot longer maintain that the earth is a globe. He must feel that to do so is to war with the evidence of his senses, to deny that any importance attaches to fact and experiment, to ignore entirely the value of logical process, and to cease to rely upon practical induction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 First of you assume that the earth is a perfect sphere ,which it is not, so using a simple 2d representation of a geometrical construct known as a circle  to explain actual reality doesn't cut it due to the never ending variables, in my opinion.

2 In my view we can discount all the experiments you site using lakes canals locks etc as they are not at sea level and are influenced by the topography

3, The last one you site I dealt with before ,So I will have to repeat myself. If you are standing on a sphere (sea level) from the observers perspective you are on the highest point and no mater in which direction you look the ground slopes away from you , and being earth you can only see a couple of mile to the horizon, however if you observe from a higher position the horizon is much further, therefore you are able to see further , why is that ,if the earth was flat why can't you see 200 or 300 miles at see level ,As I have said before It is all a matter of  the position and perspective of the observer

4 the theodolite, from your perspective you are looking through an aperture that is an inch at best  how is a line an inch long going to show any curvature ,it doesn't matter what you are looking at  from your perspective you are looking at something that is an inch wide, not to mention magnification accuracy, point of focus and parallax correction that would come into it.

5 I wont entertain No 7 ,I cant believe you put that up  

6 This is where variables come in to play as we are at sea level I will comment.  I would love to know the height of each pier ,you state the given height of the theodolite  on one pier  but not the height of the point observed on the other, you don't give the height of the mast on the boat in question compared to that of the observer, you haven't taken into account wind speed and direction every 200mts over the course of the distance, as being a sailing vessel that will alter the lean of the boat thus altering the height of the mast ,you also have to take into account  chop along the course due to the wind ,there is obviously a fare bit, because they are out sailing,  as this will alter the height of the mast,  the time of this rather lax experiment was done if at all would have a bearing as the relevant tides at each pier will have an affect over the entire length of the course and remember the observer is once again looking through a 1 inch aperture .

I would also like to know what scientist did this experiment and what qualifications he or she has, as it would seem to me a laser would be the most accurate tool to use under circumstances .

Maybe it's just me but for a scientist to carry out an experiment like that ,with so many variables seems nonsensical and quite frankly I think you have just cut and pasted all of these out of the FE play book without giving them much thought 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bflat

 

You can repeat something a million times and it doesn't make it true. There is ZERO proof that the Earth is flat. There is however some thousands of photographs of the Earth from satellites showing the Earth's curvature, I even posted some a few pages back which you have yet to acknowledge which basically shows your hand, that you lack the strength to admit you're wrong. And I'm not talking about NASA. Flat Earth fools need to stop retorting with, but NASA this or that. I don't give a shit about NASA, they are not the end all be all of space exploration.

 

Here is this presentation AGAIN. I posted it in another thread, maybe the Steven Greer thread, I don't remember. If the Earth is flat and we are closed in by a dome, please explain to me how zero point energy works and AGAIN, how we haven't used up all the oxygen after these THOUSANDS of years of various species breathing oxygen and using oxygen for cars, airplanes, fire, locomotives, etc etc.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

With the posting restrictions blocking my ability to actually post information, this forum is starting to suck. Who knew that the David Icke forum would have been inhabited by flat Earth morons. It is very sad to see his old forum gone and this new one turned to shit from some alleged hackers, and now flat Earth clowns won't even acknowledge PHOTOS of Earth from satellites.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Messenger said:

Here is this presentation AGAIN. I posted it in another thread, maybe the Steven Greer thread, I don't remember. If the Earth is flat and we are closed in by a dome, please explain to me how zero point energy works and AGAIN, how we haven't used up all the oxygen after these THOUSANDS of years of various species breathing oxygen and using oxygen for cars, airplanes, fire, locomotives, etc etc.

 

oh come on , used up the oxygen??? wtf are you rattling your cot about? co2 plankton o2 or for spherists does o2 float about in space and come in through the atmosphere?? jeeze louise you have really put it up now

 

dont you see the issue here? i mentioned it a few pages back, both spherists and flatearthists have counter-arguments to the issues.

 

 

Edited by zArk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter, how dare you use common sense! :classic_laugh:

 

Yeah, how can a person NOT know what TOPOGRAPHY is? How can a person lack such basic intelligence to not even LOOK IT UP if they don't know?!

 

Hmmm, I don't know what a word means, I guess I will simply deny it's existence, never mind that there is this book called the DICTIONARY that DEFINES words.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, zArk said:

 

oh come on , used up the oxygen??? wtf are you rattling your cot about? co2 plankton o2

 

dont you see the issue here? i mentioned it a few pages back, both spherists and flatearthists have counter-arguments to the issues.

 

 

Isn't that what flat Earthers believe? That there is some glass dome that encloses the Earth? :classic_laugh:

 

How high is that glass dome? Do you have any actual numbers of photographs of it?

 

Flat Earthers are proof that humanity are not evolving intellectually but in fact are getting dumber. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Messenger said:

With the posting restrictions blocking my ability to actually post information, this forum is starting to suck. Who knew that the David Icke forum would have been inhabited by flat Earth morons. It is very sad to see his old forum gone and this new one turned to shit from some alleged hackers, and now flat Earth clowns won't even acknowledge PHOTOS of Earth from satellites.

 

the pictures have been shown over the years to be created images and Nasa admits it takes slithers of images and pastes them together

 

a few pages back the 2d map creation was shown and it is visa-versa... creating 3d models from 2d images

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Messenger said:

and AGAIN, how we haven't used up all the oxygen after these THOUSANDS of years of various species breathing oxygen and using oxygen for cars, airplanes, fire, locomotives, etc etc.

 

i dunno messenger, looks like you wrote that oxygen is piped into the atmosphere from space and co2 dissolves into the solar system

 

weirdo.... even the spherists would social distance from you now

Link to post
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

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...