The Flat Earth/Globe Earth Discussion Thread

[bflat]

Just now, peter said:

I'm pleased your back ,you have certainly lived up to my expectations sorry for the sarcasm ,but really 

 

I didn't  use o because observer started with it  I used it as a point on the diagram I wanted to keep the explanation simple for you by not introducing an extra letter

WHAT? We are concerned with the distance to the horizon. You simply cannot see Canada from NM unless you are much higher than the 100,000 feet I gave you.

 

 

[peter]

1 minute ago, bflat said:

WHAT? We are concerned with the distance to the horizon. You simply cannot see Canada from NM unless you are much higher than the 100,000 feet I gave you.

 

 

Mate I cant do this any more ,you won , but before I go

Why is o a barrier

[bflat]

5 minutes ago, peter said:

also why must it be a physical barrier to the sphere

My gawd, son... you really get none of this. To be clear, the horizon IS a physical barrier in your globe world.

[peter]

11 minutes ago, bflat said:

My gawd, son... you really get none of this. To be clear, the horizon IS a physical barrier in your globe world.

Yes but if you looked at my explanation I was not using o as the horizon it was an intersection point above the horizon 

We will have to agree to disagree You know I"m wrong and I know your wrong so at least we cane secure in the fact we are both wrong

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, peter said:

You know I"m wrong and I know your wrong so at least we cane secure in the fact we are both wrong

 

Correct ....... It is a realm created via individual perception.

 

and ....

 

 

and ....

 

earthquake

[Guest]

Orwell's book 1984

 

Below is an excerpt where O'Brien explains to Winston how Big Brother uses its power to control the human mind.

 

O'Brien - "Power is power over human beings. Over the body and above all over the mind...Already our control over matter is absolute."

Winston - "But how can you control matter? You don't even control the climate or the law of gravity. And there are diseases, pain, death."

O'Brien - "We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull. There is nothing we could not do. You must get rid of those 19th century ideas about the laws of nature. We make the laws of nature."

Winston - "But you do not! You aren't even masters of this planet! ...The world itself is only a spec of dust. And man is tiny. Helpless. How long has he been in existence? For millions of years the earth was uninhabited."

O'Brien - "Nonsense. The earth is as old as we are. No older. How could it be older? Nothing exists except through human consciousness."

Winston - "But the rocks are full of bones of extinct animals. Mammoths and mastodons and enormous reptiles which lived long before man was ever heard of."

O'Brien - "Have you ever seen those bones Winston? Of course not. 19th century biologists invented them. Before man, there was nothing. After man, if he could come to an end, there would be nothing. Outside man there is nothing"

Winston - "But the whole universe is outside us. Look at the stars. Some of them are a million light years away. They're out of reach forever."

O'Brien- "What are the stars? They are bits of a fire a few km away. We could reach them if we wanted to or we could block them out. The earth is the center of the universe. The sun and stars go around it. For certain purposes of course, that is not true. When we navigate the ocean or when we predict an eclipse, we often find it convenient to assume the earth goes around the sun and the stars are millions upon millions of km's away. But what of it? Do you suppose it is beyond us to produce a dual system of astronomy? The stars can be near or distant according as we need them. Do you suppose our mathematicians are unequal to that? Have you ever gotten double think?...The real power, the power that we have to fight for night and day is not power over things, but power over men...How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?"

Winston - "By making him suffer."

O'Brien - "Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering how can you be sure that he's obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of our own choosing. Do you begin to see then what kind of world we are creating?"

[Golden Retriever]

1 hour ago, ink said:

 

Below is an excerpt where O'Brien explains to Winston how Big Brother uses its power to control the human mind.

 

Talking of the alleged Freemason Eric Arthur Blair aka George Orwell, he was undecided about a globe earth.

 

27 December 1946

 

"SOMEWHERE or other—I think it is in the preface to Saint Joan—Bernard Shaw remarks that we are more gullible and superstitious today than we were in the Middle Ages, and as an example of modern credulity he cites the widespread belief that the earth is round. The average man, says Shaw, can advance not a single reason for thinking that the earth is round. He merely swallows this theory because there is something about it that appeals to the twentieth-century mentality.

 

Now, Shaw is exaggerating, but there is something in what he says, and the question is worth following up, for the sake of the light it throws on modern knowledge. Just why do we believe that the earth is round? I am not speaking of the few thousand astronomers, geographers and so forth who could give ocular proof, or have a theoretical knowledge of the proof, but of the ordinary newspaper-reading citizen, such as you or me.

 

As for the Flat Earth theory, I believe I could refute it. If you stand by the seashore on a clear day, you can see the masts and funnels of invisible ships passing along the horizons. This phenomenon can only be explained by assuming that the earth’s surface is curved. But it does not follow that the earth is spherical. Imagine another theory called the Oval Earth theory, which claims that the earth is shaped like an egg. What can I say against it?

 

Against the Oval Earth man, the first card I can play is the analogy of the sun and moon. The Oval Earth man promptly answers that I don’t know, by my own observation, that those bodies are spherical. I only know that they are round, and they may perfectly well be flat discs. I have no answer to that one. Besides, he goes on, what reason have I for thinking that the earth must be the same shape as the sun and moon? I can’t answer that one either.

 

My second card is the earth’s shadow: when cast on the moon during eclipses, it appears to be the shadow of a round object. But how do I know, demands the Oval Earth man, that eclipses of the moon are caused by the shadow of the earth? The answer is that I don’t know, but have taken this piece of information blindly from newspaper articles and science booklets. Defeated in the minor exchanges, I now play my queen of trumps: the opinion of the experts. The Astronomer Royal, who ought to know, tells me that the earth is round. The Oval Earth man covers the queen with his king. Have I tested the Astronomer Royal’s statement, and would I even know a way of testing it? Here I bring out my ace. Yes, I do know one test. The astronomers can foretell eclipses, and this suggests that their opinions about the solar system are pretty sound. I am therefore justified in accepting their say-so about the shape of the earth.

 

If the Oval Earth man answers—what I believe is true—that the ancient Egyptians, who thought the sun goes round the earth, could also predict eclipses, then bang goes my ace. I have only one card left: navigation. People can sail ships round the world, and reach the places they aim at, by calculations which assume that the earth is spherical. I believe that finishes the Oval Earth man, though even then he may possibly have some kind of counter.

 

It will be seen that my reasons for thinking that the earth is round are rather precarious ones. Yet this is an exceptionally elementary piece of information. On most other questions I should have to fall back on the expert much earlier, and would be less able to test his pronouncements. And much the greater part of our knowledge is at this level. It does not rest on reasoning or on experiment, but on authority. And how can it be otherwise, when the range of knowledge is so vast that the expert himself is an ignoramous as soon as he strays away from his own speciality? Most people, if asked to prove that the earth is round, would not even bother to produce the rather weak arguments I have outlined above. They would start off by saying that ’everyone knows’ the earth to be round, and if pressed further, would become angry. In a way Shaw is right. This is a credulous age, and the burden of knowledge which we now have to carry is partly responsible."

 

http://www.telelib.com/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/tribune/AsIPlease19461227.html

Edited July 8, 2020 by Golden Retriever

[Guest]

To add my above post quoting 1984 .... and why not as it is on topic considering the title of this thread .... the conversation continues thus ....

 

O'Brien:

It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined.

A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but MORE merciless as it refines itself. Progress in our world will be progress towards more pain.

The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love or justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement.

Everything else we shall destroy-everything.

Already we are breaking down the habits of thought which have survived from before the Revolution.

We have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman.

No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer.

But in the future there will be no wives and no friends.

Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm.

Our neurologists are at work upon it now.

There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party.

There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother.

There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy.

There will be no art, no literature, no science.

When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science.

There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness.

There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life.

All competing pleasures will be destroyed.

But always-do not forget this, Winston-always there will be the intoxication of power,constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler.

 

Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless.

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face for ever.’

Edited July 8, 2020 by ink

[Messenger]

7 hours ago, bflat said:

You just don't get any of this because you are parroting complete nonsense that was taught to you by ignorant people that you unfortunately trusted.

 

Toilet water spins based on the angle the water goes into the bowl. It is that simple and IT DOES NOT SPIN BACKWARDS IN AUSTRALIA!

 

Just ridiculous how many times I have to point this out to the true believers.

I've never been to Australia so I haven't seen it for myself, I've only heard people mention that the water in the bowl spins "backwards", or rather the "opposite direction", compared to the states and other parts of the world.

 

A quick search turns up the reason for this as being the Coriolis effect. So it sounds like once again you are denying the nature of physics in this physical world. Outside of this physical realm yeah I'm sure everything is completely different. But right now I just carried four bags of heavy groceries up a flight of stairs and it reminded me of this forum and the idiots who claim that there is no such thing as gravity. It would have been nice if my groceries knew that so they felt much lighter.

[Messenger]

2 hours ago, bflat said:

My gawd, son... you really get none of this. To be clear, the horizon IS a physical barrier in your globe world.

No people get it, you just don't want them to get it because we are getting too close to unraveling the fucking lies about the space program and underground bases.

[Messenger]

11 hours ago, zArk said:

 

however the scientific prevailing conclusions that we are existing in a virtual reality environment is A-OK ????

science , the spherist science, is off its rocker. Inventing all manner of nonsense like black holes for instance

as it extrapolates out from its spherist base it finds the only conclusion is that the entire universe is a hologram.

 

lol.... what a crock of nonsense

 

trillions of pounds/stones/tonnes of physical matter that the same science says doesnt exist

 

brilliant ...keep it up

Right, so you operate in completely different conditions than everyone else. You're not affecting by gravity at all, right? You are a waste of time, even though time doesn't exist outside of this dimension.

[zArk]

40 minutes ago, Messenger said:

Right, so you opy state in completely different conditions than everyone else. You're not affecting by gravity at all, right? You are a waste of time, even though time doesn't exist outside of this dimension.

 

Density does the job

 

But your post is dense so it sinks to the bottom with all the other crap

 

The less dense is above your post

 

See how it works?

Edited July 8, 2020 by zArk

[peter]

2 hours ago, zArk said:

 

Density does the job

 

But your post is dense so it sinks to the bottom with all the other crap

 

The less dense is above your post

 

See how it works?

If you have a large rock ( and I'm not talking about pumice ) which is very dense and go to the the beach and lay it on some coarse sand which less dense why doesn't it sink

[Guest Gone Fishing...]

On 5/31/2020 at 5:24 AM, bflat said:

If conditions are just right, you can see Polaris from just south of the equator.

https://astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2018/12/polaris-from-the-southern-hemisphere

 

Please try and hit my points now and leave these red herrings behind.

 

l'm working my way slowly through this huge thread.
l've spent most of my life in the south of England.
From the age of around 8 or 9 l was keen on the night sky and had my own telescope.
l'm no expert , just interested.
l spent nearly 2 years in Australia / NZ / Fiji over a decade ago, travelling extensively.
The night sky (which was vastly more clearer that the UK / Europe) was completely alien to me.
l recognised no stars / constellations at all..
Can this be explained in your model of our physical plane ?
Thanks

[oddsnsods]

1 hour ago, peter said:

If you have a large rock ( and I'm not talking about pumice ) which is very dense and go to the the beach and lay it on some coarse sand which less dense why doesn't it sink

 

 

You can throw a rock off the side of a cliff..always falls towards earth..why not side of cliff. Density my fat arse.

 

 

Edited July 8, 2020 by oddsnsods

[bflat]

8 hours ago, ink said:

Correct ....... It is a realm created via individual perception.

Wait, we are talking objective reality here. The horizon is either a physical barrier or it is not. We don't have the luxury here of having it both ways. This is their story... not mine!

 

The fact is that Shul was flying around at about 85,000 feet. Using high school level mathematics that no one can dispute, the physical barrier would start at 357.6 miles.

 

I gave @peter 100,000 feet to give him as much benefit for  his belief as humanly possible. Pythagoras showed us over 2000 years ago that this would place the horizon at 387.9 miles.

 

And as previously explained, for Shul to see what he saw (freaking Canada!), if we lived on a freemason's ball that has a circumference of 25,000 miles, HE WOULD NEED TO BE ABOUT A MILLION FEET ABOVE NEW MEXICO! This would place the horizon at 1239.8 miles.

 

My math is correct... there is no way we are hanging from a freemason's ball!

[bflat]

11 hours ago, Basket Case said:

l'm working my way slowly through this huge thread.
l've spent most of my life in the south of England.
From the age of around 8 or 9 l was keen on the night sky and had my own telescope.
l'm no expert , just interested.
l spent nearly 2 years in Australia / NZ / Fiji over a decade ago, travelling extensively.
The night sky (which was vastly more clearer that the UK / Europe) was completely alien to me.
l recognised no stars / constellations at all..
Can this be explained in your model of our physical plane ?
Thanks

Keep going... I have covered that in some depth.

[Guest Gone Fishing...]

2 minutes ago, bflat said:

Keep going... I have covered that in some depth.

l'm just starting page 15 and now about to go get some ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzs.
l will keep going and catch up.
 

[peter]

53 minutes ago, bflat said:

Wait, we are talking objective reality here. The horizon is either a physical barrier or it is not. We don't have the luxury here of having it both ways. This is their story... not mine!

 

The fact is that Shul was flying around at about 85,000 feet. Using high school level mathematics that no one can dispute, the physical barrier would start at 357.6 miles.

 

I gave @peter 100,000 feet to give him as much benefit for  his belief as humanly possible. Pythagoras showed us over 2000 years ago that this would place the horizon at 387.9 miles.

 

And as previously explained, for Shul to see what he saw (freaking Canada!), if we lived on a freemason's ball that has a circumference of 25,000 miles, HE WOULD NEED TO BE ABOUT A MILLION FEET ABOVE NEW MEXICO! This would place the horizon at 1239.8 miles.

 

My math is correct... there is no way we are hanging from a freemason's ball!

You obviously didn't read my reply ,or as usual have miss represented it once again

You have obviously invested a great deal of time into this,  and personally I don't care if you are right or wrong ,but the evidence you put up needs to be consistent so we can go through all the points and agree or disagree,if you think all my explanations are bullshit ,that's your prerogative,but I will say it once again ,you are using a

2 D representations for actual 3 D  reality ,you are also assuming  the angle and point of observation  is completely fixed which again is  incorrect .

What if Shul was making an offhanded statement ,instead of saying I can see for ever up here ,he said I can see Canada from here ,and the fact that you base part of your theory in hearsay from a fellow that obviously wants to blatantly push your side of the argument,is in my opinion fraught with danger as verifiable evidence, also we have the problem of the possibility of, for want of a better word, devious editing  of the transcript so therefore I can't accept  this as hard fact  as the assumptions you have put forward are heavily biased no matter how much you would like that to be so

Edited July 9, 2020 by peter

[Messenger]

These fools are just wasting time while they are on the clock. But, they do drive some of us to do more research.

 

Notice how they never actually acknowledge or refute the information provided, they simply post bullshit to bury posts which contain actual good information.

 

No response to the Coriolis effect

[bflat]

1 hour ago, Messenger said:

These fools are just wasting time while they are on the clock. But, they do drive some of us to do more research.

 

Notice how they never actually acknowledge or refute the information provided, they simply post bullshit to bury posts which contain actual good information.

You're projecting.

 

1 hour ago, Messenger said:

No response to the Coriolis effect

Because it does not exist. And actually, we have been through this nonsense with other posters. Read the thread, right?

 

Your toilet example is literally retarded. Which way does the water spin on the equator?!?!?!?!

[bflat]

And let's see... we are over 60 pages in, plus the 40+ from the previous thread and we still have people who do not understand relative density. What a shame, really.

 

 

I mean, let's see now... why do rain drops fall through air? And why do air bubbles rise through water?

 

Gravity... LMAO!

Edited July 9, 2020 by bflat

[peter]

2 minutes ago, bflat said:

And let's see... we are over 69 pages in, plus the 40+ from the previous thread and we still have people who do not understand relative density. What a shame, really.

 

 

I mean, let's see now... why do rain drops fall through air? And why do air bubbles rise through water?

 

Gravity... LMAO!

Mate I understand density, believe me after this thread I really understand it ,as I said if you have a dense igneous rock sitting on loosely packed sand at the beach ,how come the rock doesn't sink through the sand, lovely picture by the way   LAMO ,how big is your ass? with all the LAMO's through this thread I didn't think you would have one left

[jonesthepost]

14 hours ago, ink said:

 

Correct ....... It is a realm created via individual perception.

 

and ....

 

 

and ....

 

earthquake

 

So damn true; if people don’t get consequences for their bad behaviour, it will continue; I wonder what will happen then...

[bflat]

2 hours ago, peter said:

Mate I understand density

Mate, you don't; you clearly do not.