A Flat Earth not Round ...?

[Azt]

I did a quick search on the subject on this forum but just found google related posts (not really on the subject about a flat earth .. just wondering if someone has more info on this subject or did some more resource, on the youtube this vid (although not really well executed (music for impact ... and other things that I would not do it) is a good start on the thoughts.

g3nmNfJsKEg

Maybe this vid below is better ...

87cWHh7t904

[araucaria]

If a quick search turned up nothing, then try a slow search - you'll find stuff in the controversial section that Bill Ryan and Avalon do not endorse - and you will see why you will get no joy this time around.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?51485-The-earth-is-flat-not-round.-We-are-being-mind-set-by-Annunaki-Illuminati-TPTB&p=962405&viewfull=1#post962405

[DarMar]

well that novelty on internet is spreading fast and much videos came out in last years, and few betters on that theory.
here you have few threads about it, just do bit more search.

also here is the place where you can discuss holographic planes, giant space bugs, mantis parents, talking trees, drinking blood banksters, energy out of nothing, secret flying triangles ... but do not pull that flat question out of box because you will insult intelligence of some people.
enjoy discovering :)

[loveoflife]

Trouble at mill.

I find this very interesting. Flat Earth Shill Wall of Shame (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/06/flat-earth-shill-wall-of-shame.html) The waters are very muddy here.

Eric Dubay has done extensive research and here shames many other researchers as shills, the major one being The Flat Earth Society. If he is right so much controlled opposition makes me wonder.

Fascinating subject, i never knew that there were so many anomalies in the ball earth model backed up by experimentation.

Imagine if a flat earth was true and became mainstream it would cause many to question everything about reality.

Everything is not as it seems.


Remember the quantum double slit experiment. If you can get enough people to believe what they are observing, will that change what we call reality?

fwXQjRBLwsQ

Then there is the science of the holographic universe to consider.

8-r3pW-G5BI

Then there is the electric universe.

5AUA7XS0TvA

There are also much information about a Geocentric Earth that is also claimed to be proven by experiments, such as The Michelson Morley experiments.

Radical new documentary claims Copernicus and four centuries of science is wrong (http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins-human-origins-science/radical-new-documentary-claims-copernicus-and)

p8cBvMCucTg

Lets face it though the majority will believe what is in the textbooks and consider any deviation insane.

[Sunny-side-up]

Just realise one thing, just one thing!

Every thing is an ILLUSION a DREAM.
Open your mind and attune to the corresponding vibrations and well!
every-thing and any-thing goes!

Prison-Planet, Prison-Solar-System, Electro-Magnetic-Holographic-Universe!
Time-Lines, Inter-dimensions!

We even have what we call our BRAIN, well that a RECEIVER, one of it's main tasks is to turn our vision upside down O.O

It gathers Elecro-Magnetic-Radio information and tells us that it is solid and real lol

You tell me where here is, You tell me what is real, you tell me what it's actual shape is?

[loveoflife]

Just realise one thing, just one thing!

Every thing is an ILLUSION a DREAM.
Open your mind and attune to the corresponding vibrations and well!
every-thing and any-thing goes!

Prison-Planet, Prison-Solar-System, Electro-Magnetic-Holographic-Universe!
Time-Lines, Inter-dimensions!

We even have what we call our BRAIN, well that a RECEIVER, one of it's main tasks is to turn our vision upside down O.O

It gathers Elecro-Magnetic-Radio information and tells us that it is solid and real lol

You tell me where here is, You tell me what is real, you tell me what it's actual shape is?

I have looked at all the above information and only one thing is certain that i do not know if what i am being told is truth by the alternative community or the mainstream.

Its is not easy to be a sceptic and maintain an open mind at the same time. All i can do is go with whatever resonates for me and go with that and know there will always be someone or something to contradict and debunk.

There is also much i have resonated with that i have had to let go of, life is more of a process than a belief.

[M0JFK]

One of the early founders of the FE movement and its infiltration of the movement to discredit it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DOKWF0cm9c

[loveoflife]

One of the early founders of the FE movement and its infiltration of the movement to discredit it.



Or is he as Eric Dubay claims a shill?.

[regnak]

how can the earth be flat ?

really silly idea :confused:

[loveoflife]

how can the earth be flat ?

really silly idea :confused:

I hope that you are not asking me. Though i do recommend watching some of the videos, they may make you think.


It was not so long ago when someone would have said "how can the earth be a ball ? really silly idea :confused:"

What is also interesting about this most radical of conspiracies is that many consider it to ridiculous to even consider and dismiss it off hand without investigation. There are many conspiracies in the alternative community just as far fetched when first heard of.

I looked at all the other conspiracies, this was the only one left.

[Selkie]

Flat earth? Hollow earth? Spherical earth? I'll stick with the spherical earth paradigm.

[regnak]

well if you believe that I have a bridge I want to sell you

:(

maybe I biased but that means there is no sun, stars, moon , satellites , :shielddeflect::silent:

[Sierra]

Hello everyone :)

I've moved this thread to the members only, controversial sub forum.

Please continue your discussion. :)

Regards, Sierra

[loveoflife]

well if you believe that I have a bridge I want to sell you

:(

maybe I biased but that means there is no sun, stars, moon , satellites , :shielddeflect::silent:

baby bathwater

Now your being silly.

I can see the sun, moon, etc, though the horizon looks flat and i have no sensation of being on a ball that rotates at 1000 mph while orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph. The sun 93 million miles away is dragging the solar system through space at 486,000 mph. This does sound fantastic, though its what science tells us.

Or the Earth is stationary, (this is what it feels like to me) and everything orbits the Earth.

There are equations for each version.

When looked at and compared the flat geocentric Earth does make sense and is much simpler. Of course i have no proof for either, all i am doing is repeating what i have been told.

I would need to get up there to see for myself, as i do not trust NASA.

So i am open minded to and sceptical of both models.

A flat earth fits in with the following, that is if you take it to extremes, (as if its not extreme enough).


“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys information, religions destroy spirituality, banks destroy our economy and governments destroy freedom.”

[Wind]

I suppose human imagination has no limits.

[Bill Ryan]

.
I would personally like this to be the last flat earth post ever made on Avalon. :)

Here's how to find the others:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Aprojectavalon.net+%22flat+earth%22

So unintelligent. All those flat planets out there, and somehow, ever since the invention of the telescope hundreds of years ago (and space probes with cameras!) we always see each of them from the exact top down. Please get smarter!

:bearhug:

[Camilo]

It's hard to beileve some people still engage in this kind of sillyness.

[Prodigal Son]

take away a dimension and guess what you have? a flat earth :)

seriously though, 500 years ago the Catholic Church killed people for saying the earth was NOT flat .. that oughta tell you something ;)

[regnak]

Well trusting Nasa I say no

Well I read that when they went to the stars from orbit they could not see the Sun what they said is that you need the lensing affect of a atmosphere to see the Sun in a visible light spectrum

Other secrets NASA using's a 27 hour day in orbit instead of our 24 hours in a day

NASA is keeping secrets yes

flat earth are you in the middle ages really

[M0JFK]

And according to Eric Dollard (and a fellow radio amateur) You can only see the sun within a planets envelope and that you can not see the sun or the stars in outer space. I would think that if and it is a big "IF" the FE movement is correct and that we are in some simulated enviroment then almost 90% of what is on Avalon is nearly all fake. Makes you think does it not? After all are not some well respected scientist these days not saying we live in a hologram? I am open on this subject and I think the FE put forward some credible evidence. It could also be a project to really discredit the alternative community...see, look, these alternative nuts also think the Earth is flat.

[Selkie]

...It could also be a project to really discredit the alternative community...see, look, these alternative nuts also think the Earth is flat.

That was my first thought when I checked out the video on the OP. Btw, I'm not saying that I think it was the intent of the OP or its author, please note.

[Omni]

We've been debating this on the icke forum for a long time. This was the most relevant post:


there was a recent scientific study that came out which said false stories and theories flooded the internet over the past 6 months to research the gullibility of conspiracy theorists:

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/24/scientists_successfully_trolled_conspiracy_theorists/

The timeline for this study coincides with the momentum of the flat earth theory which came out nov 2014 by eric dubay. it also coincides with the emergence of nibiru speculation.

[M0JFK]

Just what is the truth at the end of the day? I have always said that the only truth is what you experiance yourself on the day. After that your information is second hand and then trust comes into play. You have to trust that the person handing off the info does not have a agenda and is in fact telling you porkies. I always view every subject with a view that this maybe the case. Fool me once...shame on you BUT fool me twice...shame on me. Not only that every subject can have a argument and a counter argument. Like I said above only YOUR experiance on the day itself is the real truth.

[Sunny-side-up]

I only continue to add to this post subject to draw attention to these points:

Do you hold any faith in the concept of a Holographic Universe?
Of matter only being atoms revolving around each other forming the Illusion of solids!
Solids giving the Illusion of movement!
Brain receiving, scrambling and then forming a concept of life to live in, a world it can comprehend and exist it!
Light and dark, shadows and perspective to give visual 3D shape!

There is no round, no square, no flat, the shape we are living in is every-thing, every-where, every-when, all only vibration? well 1 atom being every where at the same time! We make the shapes to suite our need!

Funny thing being we no need any of it to see the real shape of it all!

That is what I think of when I see the question 'A Flat Earth not Round ...?'
I like that question :)

[Harley]

These two right here:


It could also be a project to really discredit the alternative community...see, look, these alternative nuts also think the Earth is flat.




there was a recent scientific study that came out which said false stories and theories flooded the internet over the past 6 months to research the gullibility of conspiracy theorists:

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/24/scientists_successfully_trolled_conspiracy_theorists/

The timeline for this study coincides with the momentum of the flat earth theory which came out nov 2014 by eric dubay. it also coincides with the emergence of nibiru speculation.

YUP!

[Omni]

It could also be a project to really discredit the alternative community...see, look, these alternative nuts also think the Earth is flat.
I actually wrote an article highlighting this recently.

Snip from article:

...
The names of the operations are just made up by me. These are just educated guesses of psy ops after knowing these sources well.

Operation Copernicus
Operation Structure: Promote Flat Earth Ideology
Operation Objective: To Assassinate the Credibility of the Growing Truth Movement
Operation Objective: To Assassinate the Potency of Believers from Helping Wake People Up.
Operation Objective: To get people to turn off to conspiracy by the psychological mechanics of "Guilt by Association."
Operation Agents: Mind Control Assets Carry Out Majority of Operation

Source Link: http://omnisense.blogspot.com/2015/07/some-educated-conspiracy-theories-part-1.html

[aviators]

I posted this a while back. He makes some strong points.
I agree this seems silly talking about this. But so does talking about reptilian and 8 foot mantis beings.
Do we have any hard proof to show.

I would like to know if any of these points in this interview have been debunked.
For one example why are airlines not allowed to make flights across Antarctica?
Does NASA Show any "real" photos of earth from space?
5YQ0dMJEjsk

[Azt]

I would personally like this to be the last flat earth post ever made on Avalon.

Here's how to find the others:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Aprojecta...2flat+earth%22

So unintelligent. All those flat planets out there, and somehow, ever since the invention of the telescope hundreds of years ago (and space probes with cameras!) we always see each of them from the exact top down. Please get smarter!


Sorry to hear that Bill, it is your forum so you have all the rights but when this forum has restrict subjects that we can not discuss about it , in an old style repression, I think it is time for me to leave , thank you everyone for everything.

Peace

AZT

[Selkie]

That's not what Bill said. He made a personal request, nothing more. And since none of us would be on this forum if it weren't for him, I think his request should be honored.

[Carmody]

And according to Eric Dollard (and a fellow radio amateur) You can only see the sun within a planets envelope and that you can not see the sun or the stars in outer space. I would think that if and it is a big "IF" the FE movement is correct and that we are in some simulated enviroment then almost 90% of what is on Avalon is nearly all fake. Makes you think does it not? After all are not some well respected scientist these days not saying we live in a hologram? I am open on this subject and I think the FE put forward some credible evidence. It could also be a project to really discredit the alternative community...see, look, these alternative nuts also think the Earth is flat.

So far, it has been easy to see the stars while in a 'planetary envelope', ie the sun's sphere of influence.

In the case of the 'New horizons' spacecraft that just went past Pluto, we have an OPTICAL imaging system (with circa 2006 technology). It apparently has enough energy and/or velocity to escape the sun's gravity well.

[Bill Ryan]

I would personally like this to be the last flat earth post ever made on Avalon.

Here's how to find the others:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Aprojecta...2flat+earth%22

So unintelligent. All those flat planets out there, and somehow, ever since the invention of the telescope hundreds of years ago (and space probes with cameras!) we always see each of them from the exact top down. Please get smarter!


Sorry to hear that Bill, it is your forum so you have all the rights but when this forum has restrict subjects that we can not discuss about it , in an old style repression, I think it is time for me to leave , thank you everyone for everything.

Peace

AZT


It wasn't censorship. It was despair!

[Omni]

I posted this a while back. He makes some strong points.
I agree this seems silly talking about this. But so does talking about reptilian and 8 foot mantis beings.
Do we have any hard proof to show.
There is what I'd call logical proof of a spherical earth among other evidences. Things like pretty much every celestial body we see is spherical, time zones, the sun illuminating half of the earth while the other half is in shadows, and countless other things that will lead any reasonable person to conclude the earth is a sphere.

I would like to know if any of these points in this interview have been debunked.
Many of the flat earth points are not conveying the earth is flat, just anomalies and illusions that align with a flat earth theory.


For one example why are airlines not allowed to make flights across Antarctica?
Probably because there is a secret space program base (or several) there.


Does NASA Show any "real" photos of earth from space?
The reason(IMHO) they do not give much real content of earth from space is the sheer amount of extraterrestrial craft in space, as seen from this intercepted NASA feed:

7M-kutfHFYI

[Ted]

The Earth is flat if you can only think in two dimensions. We should not ridicule those who are dimensionally challenged.

[syrwong]

I have not studied seriously on this flat earth theory. A two hour video is too much for me, especially when the speaker is rambling too much in the beginning. I have a question for its proponents,

If the earth is flat and infinite, why have we not discovered more land and indigenous peoples for centuries? Why have we not got a bigger map?

The reason that ancient flat earth theory stood for so long was that mankind was making new land discoveries all the time, adding to the illusion of an infinite earth.

[Blue Mobius]

please dont tarnish the quality of this forum by discussing these primitive ideas. i like this place because it is respectable go else where with your non sense. this is directed to all flat earth believing apes

[loveoflife]

I have not studied seriously on this flat earth theory. A two hour video is too much for me, especially when the speaker is rambling too much in the beginning. I have a question for its proponents,

If the earth is flat and infinite, why have we not discovered more land and indigenous peoples for centuries? Why have we not got a bigger map?

The reason that ancient flat earth theory stood for so long was that mankind was making new land discoveries all the time, adding to the illusion of an infinite earth.

The infinite flat earth is just speculation, there is no proof for that.

It is interesting to note how much disinformation there is around this subject, there are many ridiculous speculative theories out there the purpose of which is to discredit the concept of a flat earth, and it works. Its a minefield with much controlled opposition.

Why so much disinformation and controlled opposition on something that many consider ludicrous and dismiss offhand?

There is also some good evidence based on scientific experiments, maths and just plain observation, also there are connections to Freemasonry, this I find interesting.

I do wonder what scientists would have come up with about the universe if they had based their calculations on a flat earth model.


Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
Nikola Tesla, Modern Mechanics and Inventions, July, 1934
US (Serbian-born) electrical inventor (1857 - 1943)

Then there is the concept of intelligent design to consider, that we are not just some accident, that this reality is a product of some greater beings beyond our comprehension as we are to an ant and that Earth does have some special purpose in the universe more than just a random event. Are we to assume that all the many alien races that many speak of, with no concrete proof i might add, are also the product of an accident. It is the science that gives us the theory of gravity (yes still just a theory, along with evolution), and the big bang that goes along with a ball earth model.

Are they those who have the power to and ability to engineer a false matrix reality and manipulate every area of our lives. Still we are able to wake up and see beyond the illusions conditioned into us from birth. I have many more questions than answers and answers when they do come just raise more questions.

I still remain a sceptic with an open mind.

If we just unthinkingly accept or deny without question what we are told about reality then that is a limitation that seals our fate and rules out infinite possibility.

ZLZW8Deq8vE

[loveoflife]

As an afterthought, we have had the spherical earth theory for 500 years, ( i call it a theory after having discovered that there are anomalies in this model) and now at an unprecedented epoch in history where the truth about much is being revealed and many lies uncovered we are being presented with a flat earth theory and being told that the ancients were again correct.

[Omni]

As an afterthought, we have had the spherical earth theory for 500 years, ( i call it a theory after having discovered that there are anomalies in this model) and now at an unprecedented epoch in history where the truth about much is being revealed and many lies uncovered we are being presented with a flat earth theory and being told that the ancients were again correct.
A spherical earth back in ancient times is kind of like how ET life is now. The most in the know people thought the earth was a sphere. So not all the 'ancients' thought the world was flat.

[loveoflife]

As an afterthought, we have had the spherical earth theory for 500 years, ( i call it a theory after having discovered that there are anomalies in this model) and now at an unprecedented epoch in history where the truth about much is being revealed and many lies uncovered we are being presented with a flat earth theory and being told that the ancients were again correct.
A spherical earth back in ancient times is kind of like how ET life is now. The most in the know people thought the earth was a sphere. So not all the 'ancients' thought the world was flat.

Do you have any sources for what you say about ancients?

Here is one regarding ancient beliefs. There are an overwhelming amount of references to ET's from many ancient texts and myths of many indigenous cultures, some of whom do appear to be more advanced than we are today.

XH86yBK-ZsY

This link also goes into ancient beliefs with references to Freemasons. Pythagoras has been considered the first Freemason.

R77j9rUuky4

[loveoflife]

This thread got me thinking again so i went looking for more on ancient flat earth beliefs, there is virtually nothing to be found, not surprising i suppose.

I found this interesting comment regarding quantum theory and the holographic universe here. http://www.zengardner.com/2nd-biggest-conspiracy/


As David Icke, the late Michael Talbot (who wrote The Holographic Universe), some Western scientists and many others have said, the world is a giant hologram, that looks, feels, smells, tastes and seems like something solid, but is actually mostly empty space made from energy vibrating at a slow rate. We live in a giant version of the Holodeck on Star Trek. Quantum physics has shown us that the atom can appear as a particle (matter) or a wave (energy) and displays characteristics of both simultaneously. The wave is all possibility until it “collapses” (due to our observation and intent) into a particle and solidifies.

Is it possible that flat earth people are looking at the “wave” aspect of the atom rather than the “particle” aspect? Could the Earth be flat on an unlimited plane, until it collapses into particle form and becomes a sphere?

Are there two versions of reality in a duality, where it seems improbable that both can exist at the same time? Yet they obviously do.

[Omni]

Do you have any sources for what you say about ancients?



The concept of a spherical Earth dates back to around the 6th century BC, when it was mentioned in ancient Greek philosophy,[1] but remained a matter of philosophical speculation until the 3rd century BC, when Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the earth as a physical given. The paradigm was gradually adopted throughout the Old World during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth

[loveoflife]

I am still not sure how you can clarify the following statement especially from wikipedia. Who are these "most in the know" that you mention.




A spherical earth back in ancient times is kind of like how ET life is now. The most in the know people thought the earth was a sphere. So not all the 'ancients' thought the world was flat.





Do you have any sources for what you say about ancients?



The concept of a spherical Earth dates back to around the 6th century BC, when it was mentioned in ancient Greek philosophy,[1] but remained a matter of philosophical speculation until the 3rd century BC, when Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the earth as a physical given. The paradigm was gradually adopted throughout the Old World during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth

Wikipedia, thats what i call lazy research, its predominantly mainstream and from a scholarly western perspective and interpretation of ancient texts.

The next paragraph from your quote with regard to ancients reads:


[quote=Wikipedia]........A practical demonstration of Earth's sphericity was achieved by Ferdinand Magellan and Juan Sebastián Elcano's expedition's circumnavigation (1519−1522).[6]


The concept of a spherical Earth displaced earlier beliefs in a flat Earth: In early Mesopotamian mythology, the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean and surrounded by a spherical sky,[7] and this forms the premise for early world maps like those of Anaximander and Hecataeus of Miletus. Other speculations on the shape of Earth include a seven-layered ziggurat or cosmic mountain, alluded to in the Avesta and ancient Persian writings (see seven climes).

So the concept of a spherical earth is a relatively new concept in historical terms.

The Fertile Crescent (Mesopotamia and Levant) is referred to as the cradle of civilisation, from where the cuneiform tablets that mention The Annunaki (‘those who from the heavens came.”) originate, and many have written on their influence on humanities development since then.

I would imagine those who arrived here in a spaceship who know what the earth looked like from space.

[Omni]

I am still not sure how you can clarify the following statement especially from wikipedia. Who are these "most in the know" that you mention.

Wikipedia, thats what i call lazy research, its predominantly mainstream and from a scholarly western perspective and interpretation of ancient texts.
I just quickly googled a link for you. Wikipedia wasn't the source of where i got that information, it was years of reading about these topics... Research it yourself if you'd like it more in depth. You expect me to spend a half hour digging up a bunch of stuff for you? Isn't it a bit lazy to ask me to do the research for you?

It is well known many philosophers and greater minds have theorized, even knew the world was a sphere a long time ago. Much longer than the 1500s.

Not everything in mainstream history is false. Here is another link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

Eratosthenes of Cyrene (/ɛrəˈtɒsθəniːz/; Greek: Ἐρατοσθένης, IPA: [eratostʰénɛːs]; c. 276 BC[1] – c. 195/194 BC[2]) was a Greek mathematician, geographer, poet, astronomer, and music theorist. He was a man of learning, becoming the chief librarian at the Library of Alexandria. He invented the discipline of geography, including the terminology used today.[3]

He is best known for being the first person to calculate the circumference of the Earth, which he did by applying a measuring system using stadia, a standard unit of measure during that time period. His calculation was remarkably accurate. He was also the first to calculate the tilt of the Earth's axis (again with remarkable accuracy). Additionally, he may have accurately calculated the distance from the Earth to the Sun and invented the leap day.[4] He created the first map of the world incorporating parallels and meridians, based on the available geographical knowledge of the era.

Or a plethora of other links since you seem to not be able to discern truth if its from wikipedia:
https://www.google.com/search?q=spherical+earth+stick+in+the+ground+shadow+Eratosthenes&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8



The next paragraph from your quote with regard to ancients reads:
So the concept of a spherical earth is a relatively new concept in historical terms.
No it isn't. Not every intellectual who looks at the moon and figured the earth could be a sphere had it documented in history. You are doing a case of mental gymnastics applying selective reasoning. Saying wikipedia is faulty yet citing wikipedia as a source for your own perspective...

When the mainstream grasps a subject, rest assured, intellectuals have known it for a long time. Just like right now in history the idea of extraterrestrials would be seen as an unknown, even a false idea on earth. However plenty are aware of them, some even have interaction with them...

[Selkie]

Not everything in mainstream history is false...

That is correct. Not everything in mainstream history is false, nor is everything in alternative history true. Both play upon gullibility, ignorance, and the natural desire of all humans to have their paradigm of reality reinforced. Both have the need to make a buck, and both can be used by unscrupulous people.

[loveoflife]

Wikipedia again. :ROFL: A great source of alternative information, i do not think.

I would still like to know who these "most in the know" are.

When i say ancients i am referring to to those who ancient civilisations that existed pre 5000 BC, of which there are many and some left monuments that predate Stonehenge.

Those Greeks who were mentioned are relatively recent.

Those who have reported alternative histories that i have read go into great detail and source their material, one example is Joseph P Farrell who uses mainstream sources to no be called a conspiracy theorist. Its not the knowledge that is taught in schools or Universities though, I have read that 90 of the Information in Universities is not taught.

One also wonders what is hidden in the Vatican Library. Anyone who thinks that they have some sort of complete truth must be deluded.

Anyway for the record i have made myself clear where i stand in my previous posts and i neither believe or disbelieve a flat earth theory, I am just open to the possibility.

[MalteseKnight]

Nothing is really solid .....the multiverse is just a superimposition of different frequencies...thus it is beside the point to argue whether the Earth or any other body is flat, round or is any other configuration for that matter ! :clapping:

MK

[Harley]

Is it round or flat?
Hmn, I can't tell! :)

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2015/earth_deep_space_climate_observatory_072015_945.jpg
First view of the entire sunlit side of Earth returned by the Deep Space Climate Observatory Satellite from one million miles away. (http://spaceref.com/onorbit/deep-space-climate-observatory-captures-epic-earth-image.html)

[WhiteLove]

Is it round or flat?
Hmn, I can't tell! :)

Heh, my mind just travelled hundreds/thousands of years back in time when people honestly thought the world was a flat 2D plane. It's hilarious when you look at the above picture and start to question what happens at the edges, is there some kind of invisible wall found there or do people fall out into outer space or what happens. Then my mind started travelling even further into this world of nonsense - it wanted to know if you can somehow walk from the flat plane even further so that you actually walk on top of the edge itself. The next question is then of course, how thick is that edge, can you fall off it and if so where do you fall then and how come not anyone have "crossed the edge". Heh, it becomes hilarious.

[aniN]

Where are all the stars and satelites?
http://enclosedworld.com/
Coast to Coast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acTGMrJIAV8




Is it round or flat?
Hmn, I can't tell! :)

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2015/earth_deep_space_climate_observatory_072015_945.jpg
First view of the entire sunlit side of Earth returned by the Deep Space Climate Observatory Satellite from one million miles away. (http://spaceref.com/onorbit/deep-space-climate-observatory-captures-epic-earth-image.html)

[Harley]

Or I s'pose that as you traveled beyond the boundary at any point you might simply find yourself at the exact opposite boundary at 180 degrees.

Sort of like a continuous loop.

But then how can the other continents that we know exist be justified?

Now if this image were to show all of the continents in one shot I'd be thinking Twilight zone! :)

[Mitm]

Nice Fake CGI From Nasa, now they are saying the Earth is more "pear shaped"...

[Mitm]

The reason for this conspiracy, and Eric Dubay does a good job of explaining it, so does Arthur Cristian, from loveforlife.com.au, is to get us to NOT believe our own senses, (which tell us the Earth isnt moving, the ground is flat, and that the Cosmos revolves around US), and to beleive in their science, Their Science is not just another religion, infact in the modern civilization its THE religion, Well where did their Science come from? All those links to Freemasonry. They have made MAN just another creature living on just another planet, orbiting just another sun, in an infinite universe... Whereas we are the pinnacle of creation, we are the children of the Creator/God. The round earth allows all the other so called science to hold our sway, Evolution, Dinosaurs, Aliens, the list goes on and on... This is the biggest lie ever, it tells us that whatever 'they' teach us is mostly lies. Even numbers, letters, anything from their "system" do not exist in nature... Arthur Cristian explains it better than I ever could, but it seems the whole thing is a sham, from the moment we are born in a hospital, we are taken away from the 'real' reality, and thrust into a freemasonic, satanic system, which at its essence is nothing but causing trauma and destruction to LIFE.

[Harley]

Where are all the stars and satelites?
http://enclosedworld.com/
Coast to Coast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acTGMrJIAV8




Is it round or flat?
Hmn, I can't tell! :)

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2015/earth_deep_space_climate_observatory_072015_945.jpg
First view of the entire sunlit side of Earth returned by the Deep Space Climate Observatory Satellite from one million miles away. (http://spaceref.com/onorbit/deep-space-climate-observatory-captures-epic-earth-image.html)

1. You have to remember that this is a NASA photo, all fixed up for public consumption (You see what they want you to see).

2. This image is displaying the entire 3,959 mile Radius in one shot. Since satellites range in size from less than one cubic foot to the size of a small school bus (https://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/kidszone/satellite/kidz/how_big_are_sats.html) you'd need to zoom way in to see them. So naturally in doing so you would not be able to see Earth in it's full Radius.

3. As far as no stars, go back to #1.

OK, I'll explain #1 and #3 a little further. :)

Because, with one of the Apollo Moon landing conspiracy theories (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories) being 'Why are there no stars in any of the photos/videos', and because of NASA's many different and conflicting answers to that question, I think NASA is confused as to what to say about it anymore. For them it's kind of like 'Damned if I do and damned if I don't', so they've elected to stick with their original no stars in photos in order to support their Apollo story.

Does this prove that you cannot see stars from space? No it does not. What it does show you is you see what they want you to see.

[aviators]

This is what got my attention. Flat earthers say this has been known and proven in the past.

Chicago time lapse photography from 60 miles away
Across Lake Superior. Note : Chicago sky line is well below the curvature of earth from 60 miles away.
And should not be seen at all.
Video 2 reports from a weather man calling it a mirage. Really.... Is that possible.?

mAWAHAEvAzc

Sekn2jbXSkY

[aviators]

NASA shows a video of the earth spinning from space.
No cloud movement over a few days. Really..... Just sharing...
Skip to 2 min mark
s7d6M023c-Q

[Sierra]

Yes, such mirages are possible, and NASA is full of crap lol.

I kind of think the point is moot, are we physical or are we hologram? Because, even if we are living in a Hologram universe, the hologram obeys all the known physical "laws" of physics, astronomy, geology etc. which say the earth is a sphere.

Poor Galileo, it is not as if he *wanted* to contradict the Catholic Church, he knew he'd be in deep doo doo if he described what he observed.

"Publish and be damned" had more ferocious connotations back then...

[loveoflife]

:silent:Heres the proof from The Independent it must be true. All of the pictures the agency released since 1972 that claimed to show the whole planet were actually stitched together

43 years, they have take their time, no rush then. Or is it the recent flat earth interest on the internet?

Its an interesting article especially from a sceptics perspective. More fuel for the flat earthers.




Nasa has released the first picture of the Earth that it has taken in 43 years.

The picture, which has come from a camera on board the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR), is the first picture of the whole Earth that has been seen since 1972. All of the pictures since then have been produced by stitching together different pictures into a full image of the globe.

The new picture is a composite, of three separate images, but each of those images showed the whole planet. The camera takes ten images through the colour spectrum — going all the way from ultraviolent to infrared — and to make the new picture Nasa combined the red, green and blue pictures.


Nasa releases first picture of the whole Earth taken in 43 years (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/nasa-releases-first-picture-of-the-whole-earth-taken-in-43-years-10403944.html)



http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article10403935.ece/alternates/w620/earthdscvr.jpg


I have just noticed this group on Facebook with over 4,000 members. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1661866320707757/?hc_location=ufi

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t31.0-8/11722291_847795808607587_4215703667721907338_o.jpg

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t31.0-8/11717516_10153184854022779_6323932358758097333_o.jpg

I would really like to see the above questions answered.

"The Earth Is Not Round" Neil deGrasse Tyson talks with 92Y


SoCKapivHGM

[loveoflife]

I would like to say that NASA giving us pictures of Earth that are composites and not providing better evidence are just fueling the debate and proving that they are not a reliable source of information.

As for my self i no longer know who to believe or know what reality is, where once i thought that i did. I have always been a science fiction fan, now i can see that Star Trek, Star Wars and the rest are just promoting a reality that i wanted to and was conditioned to believe in and be entertained by.

Nothing is as it appears to be.

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11703049_1086498938046949_2302290796173084521_n.jpg?oh=103895cca4319615a177a1c64c23be08&oe=564A1609

[loveoflife]

Another interesting question.

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/11753688_10152944762316472_8875115164783738102_n.jpg?oh=cd0d99f82750e7dc3bf909ce43ff9864&oe=565254F8

[Dennis Leahy]

It's a controversy, alright. Possibly the most important question of our time: is the Earth really flat? So, I propose a mission: a few brave souls who would dare to walk to the edge and take some photos and prove it once and for all. We'll need a team and some long rope - to suspend one of the team members over the edge to get the exclusive photos of the edge of the Earth. Oh, and a camera, mustn't forget the camera. And trail mix.

So, who's in for the adventure of a lifetime? Who will dare to go? Will you? We'll start a fund. Let's call it the "Over The Edge" fund. I'll donate the first $5.

I would go, but I'm kinda busy with another project right now. I seriously do want all Avalon flat earthers and flat earthers from all around (oops, goddamn NASA! I mean all over, not all around) the Earth to all trek to the Edge together. Please. Do it for humanity.

[Selkie]

Another interesting question.

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/11753688_10152944762316472_8875115164783738102_n.jpg?oh=cd0d99f82750e7dc3bf909ce43ff9864&oe=565254F8

I often wonder about that very thing. I mean, on a clear night, one can see the Andromeda galaxy unaided, which is astronomers say is


2,538,000 light years

Andromeda Galaxy, Distance to Earth

from earth. Now, I know that Andromeda is very large, being a galaxy, after all. But more than 2.5 million light years away? How could we see anything that is that far away? Maybe the sun, moon, planets and stars are exactly as far away as they appear to be?

p.s. I do not subscribe to the flat-earth paradigm, though.

addition I am being serious, btw. I really do wonder about it.

[loveoflife]

When did ridicule become an acceptable response? It only reveals the mindset of the poster.

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/11745718_894297670643809_5411026768146268874_n.jpg?oh=27df509e5831d28d0cbc4429603fbf1d&oe=564EEDD8

The folowing quote is the introduction to the facebook (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1661866320707757/) page, from where an interesting debate ensues. It answers many asked questions from flat earthers pov and answers the question regarding the edge. It is not surprising that cognitive dissonance is the reaction to many of these claims that turn everything we are taught on its head.

Why is this topic considered to controversial for this and other forums but not for facebook? I am considering this thread to be a waste of my time expecting an open minded response here.

I am a member of several good FB groups and i do find that when it comes to controversial or conspiracy information in fact most things i hear it first on FB.


Attention please read before posting! Trolls and shills, your shenanigans won't fly here. So go pull them at the Flat Earth society group. This is an intellectual debate group. If you have to insult someone to make your point you will be removed. Please keep your posts about real observable science and logic no religion. By observable science I mean science that anyone can observe, not relying on million-dollar machines we can't use and were just supposed to accept their results as truth?

Some FAQ.

1. Can you fall off the edge?
No, you can't fall off the edge, there is an ice wall possibly 2 miles high at the edge of our habitat. Or there is an infinite plane beyond this edge. Earth is not a planet. Earth is a plane. A plane of existence, a realm.

2. Do photos from space prove Earth is a sphere?
All photos of Earth from space are fake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QciLVJZNq4c

3. Why the lie?
http://ifers.boards.net/thread/18/why-lie-flat-earth

4. How does gravity work on the FE?
Gravity does not exist, gravity as you know it is an effect of the electro-magnetic force.
In this article CERN has omitted gravity.
http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/standard-model

Gravity on the flat Earth.
The Electromagnetic Spectrum. Electro = Electron exchange. Magnetic = Attraction between the negative and positive. Spectrum - The wavelengths of energy in different concentrations and densities. So we are in a sea of fluctuating energy. If you have an empty space that is a 'negative body' and if you have a density of energy such as an electron, 'positive body' that has a higher density of energy than the negative body, it is drawn towards other higher densities of energy as its actually searching for the path of least resistance. Two positive bodies are 'attracted' to each other as the higher energy density of both of them creates a larger negative entropy between them and falling into each other is the path of least resistance.. As the two higher energy densities approach and come closer that will increase momentum. As they reach maximum velocity and maximum energy potential with the minimum amount of space between them, they also reach maximum energy potential. Upon approach or energy maximum the energy looks to continue on its path of least resistance in an altered direction reactionary to the combined forces. This is the 'Dynamics' The 'Dynamo' of positive and negative bodies always attracting and approaching and colliding and moving. The combined Electrodynamic Electromagnetic Spectrum creates a Quantum flow of entanglement. So like if two electrons approach each other and their energy causes them to veer around each other than the path of least resistance is for them to spin or rotate around each other. The centripetal force of the rotation gives of a higher vibrational shell of energy from the combined forces. The two positive bodies rotating around each other in an orbital free fall have now formed a new negative entropy point in between them out of dynamic equilibrium, and the other shell of higher energy potential causes a torus effect on the central negative space where energy is drawn towards falling to the new center of negative space. This shelling of energy is what everyone refers to as 'gravity' So we as people are a giant massive wad of structured electrodynamic energy potential. We have a greater she'll of energy vibrating around our central mass. So we are attracted to the earth's surface through this 'pull' of electrodynamic potential of our Electromagnetic Spectrum of energy vibration searching to fill the gaps of least negative entropy. 'Gravity' is not a force all its own but a Quantum byproduct of electromagnetism.

This is coulumbs law.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/…/es…/Lesson-3/Coulomb-s-Law

5. How does the sun work on the FE?
The sun's diameter is 33 miles and altitude is approx. 3000 miles. The sun works like a spotlight shining on about half of the earth while the parts that don't get light is night. The sun orbits in circles around the flat earth. The moon is the same size and has a slower orbit when the moon gets in front of the sun is how the solar eclipse works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XugZ9wGnk9M&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GY0xhUOL3vM&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5knH393h1c

6. Do ships on the horizon dip below the horizon?
Ships on the horizon get smaller as they get further away they do not go over the horizon. You can zoom in with a camera or binoculars and still see them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFhhCYYkILw

7. Do toilets flush the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere?
Toilets flush the way they were designed to flush. Has nothing to do with where they are flushed.

8. How does the lunar eclipse work on FE?

"The several cases above advanced are logically destructive of the notion that an eclipse of the moon arises from a shadow of the earth. As before stated, the earth is proved to be a plane, without motion, and always several hundred miles below the sun and moon, and cannot, by any known possibility come between them. It cannot therefore intercept the light of the sun, and throw its own shadow upon the moon. If such a thing were a natural possibility, how could the moon continue to shine during the whole or any considerable part of the period of its passage through the dark shadow of the earth? Refraction, or what has been called "Earth-light," will not aid in the explanation; because the light of the moon is at such times "like the glowing heat of fire tinged with deep red." "Reddish is not the word to express it, it was red- red hot." "The reddish light made it, seem to be on fire." "It looked like a fire smouldering in its ashes." "Its tint was that of red-hot copper." The sunlight is on an entirely different colour to that of the eclipsed moon; and it is contrary to know optical principles to say that light when refracted or reflected, or both simultaneously, is thereby changed in colour. If a light of a given colour is seen through a great depth of a comparatively dense medium, as the sun is often seen in winter through the fog and vapour of the atmosphere, it appears of a different colour, and generally of such as that which the moon so often gives during a total eclipse; but a shadow cannot produce any such effect, as it is, in fact, not an entity at all, but simply the absence of light.

From the facts and phenomena already advanced, we cannot draw any other conclusion than that the moon is obscured by some kind of semi-transparent body passing before it; and through which the luminous surface is visible; the luminosity changed in colour by the density of the intervening object. This conclusion is forced upon us by the evidence but is not a reflector of the sun's light, but absolutely self-luminous. Although this admission is logically compulsory, it will be useful and strictly Zetetic to collect all the evidence possible which bears upon it.

If light of any given colour is placed in the same way, the same colour of light will be reflected."
~Samuel Rowbotham, Zetetic Astronomy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGGuxxOV964

9. What about the Coriolis effect?

Coriolis effect
The Coriolis effect Is of the electro-magnetic force, not from the rotation of the Earth.
If the world is flat and electromagnetism is the underlying force holding everything together, than a 'strait' line magnetically would follow the curve. North will always be North of an Eastern arch tangent. The electromagnetism effects everything molecule in the euclidean space locking everything in the same magnetic revolution. You can think of it as a needle on a record. Does the needle stay on the record continuing on the curve? Or does the needle slide off tangent?

It also reinforces the Coriolis effect, as it can be demonstrated by the flight of a bullet.
The electromagnetism is pulling ionically or giving charge to the atoms of the bullet when traveling in the Eastern Direction, and therefore gives rise to the bullet with electromagnetic additive energy giving advantage to the rotation. While creating drag to the west.

The current theory is wrong on a spherical Earth. If the bullet travels East, the rotation of the Earth to the East should decrease the distance traveled for the bullet as the earth travels forward in the same direction as the bullet. However we see a bullet traveling East bound to actually Rise higher over a greater distance.

The current Coriolis theory claims it is the curvature of the Earth that explains this plus rotation.

However the curvature would be consistent in the current theory, so a bullet traveling in the western direction should fly further faster, traveling counter to the rotation. But, it doesn't..it drops with the drag of the ionic flow when traveling west.

If you fire a bullet North or South you get the cross arch Coriolis tangent you are looking for with the strait road theory. A bullet traveling North bound goes strait and the disk rotates underneath it. The general relativity of the bullet traveling strait appears to arch counter to the FE Electromagnetic pull of the disc rotation underneath it..

10. What about the Foucault pendulum?

Foucault pendulum

The Foucault pendulum measures the electro-magnetic force double torus rotation.
The Foucault pendulum travels 11degrees per hour. The sun is traveling at 15 degrees per hour.
The Foucault pendulum is rotating electrodynamicly as its mass of atoms is pulled at a constant by the square root of the Sun's rotation plus Pi+Phi which gives you the drag variance.

You can verify this by calculating the variance in a full Foucault pendulum 'day' which takes ~32.7 hours multiply 24xPhi 1.617 will give you the reminder of ~8.8, the time variance between a solar day and the Foucault pendulum day (8.7)+ the Coriolis Effect for a total of 8.857 the atomic time calculation. Which is really just an addition of Phi to the 8.7 total. For ~8.8.

Keep in mind these calculations are supposed to be Cubic Euclidean Geometry equations and have been simplified for ease of comprehension.

[Harley]

Hi Silkie,




I often wonder about that very thing. I mean, on a clear night, one can see the Andromeda galaxy unaided, which is astronomers say is


2,538,000 light years

Andromeda Galaxy, Distance to Earth

from earth. Now, I know that Andromeda is very large, being a galaxy, after all. But more than 2.5 million light years away? How could we see anything that is that far away? Maybe the sun, moon, planets and stars are exactly as far away as they appear to be?

p.s. I do not subscribe to the flat-earth paradigm, though.

addition I am being serious, btw. I really do wonder about it.

We are not seeing objects that are 2.5 million light years away. What we are seeing is the light that has been generated by those objects and is just now arriving here.

When we look up at the stars we are actually seeing the past.

:)

[Selkie]

Hi Silkie,




I often wonder about that very thing. I mean, on a clear night, one can see the Andromeda galaxy unaided, which is astronomers say is


2,538,000 light years

Andromeda Galaxy, Distance to Earth

from earth. Now, I know that Andromeda is very large, being a galaxy, after all. But more than 2.5 million light years away? How could we see anything that is that far away? Maybe the sun, moon, planets and stars are exactly as far away as they appear to be?

p.s. I do not subscribe to the flat-earth paradigm, though.

addition I am being serious, btw. I really do wonder about it.

We are not seeing objects that are 2.5 million light years away. What we are seeing is the light that has been generated by those objects and is just now arriving here.

When we look up at the stars we are actually seeing the past.

:)

I know that's what they say. I just don't know if I believe it.

[DeDukshyn]

Another interesting question.

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/11753688_10152944762316472_8875115164783738102_n.jpg?oh=cd0d99f82750e7dc3bf909ce43ff9864&oe=565254F8

Shall I explain this?

It appears that the light is shining straight down and the spread of light beams appears to be coming from a source just a few miles above the clouds. This is a simple illusion.

Let's fist consider how wide the opening in the clouds is .. maybe half a mile wide or so? About that. Now consider that the sun is not shining down through the clouds but straight forward through the clouds toward the camera / viewer with an infinitesimally slight downward angle, maybe a couple degrees, but enough that the beams of light can shine through and appear at a downward angle. Only one or two degrees is needed for this appearance, considering that the camera / viewer is miles from the opening in the sky where the light is streaming from -- think back to angles and trigonometry in school. Back to the about mile wide opening in the sky; consider that the viewer camera is a single point, or in the case of a real life viewer, two "cameras (eyes) about 4 inches apart -- compare to the mile wide opening, this is for all intents and purposes also a point, like a camera sensor would be. As the beams come forward toward the viewer, from a mile wide opening, several miles away, when seen from a point, the beams have to appear to spread out, even if they are coming 100% straight from a source 93 million miles away -- this is the fundamental of perspective.

I am not sure if I explained that well enough, but trust me, anyone with good 3D spatial perception, and any knowledge of standard trigonometry would probably laugh at this claim. I did, sorry, but this is really funny. If my explanation isn't understandable enough, someone may further challenge me (I don't mind), and I will render some 3D images that shows clearly what I saying, it'll be a facepalm moment for anyone who really bought into this ... that's okay though, I've had to do a few facepalms myself for not understanding often really simple stuff -- I tend to get the hard stuff more easily :)

[Selkie]

What I don't understand is how visible light can travel so far...more than 2.5 million light years, in the case of Andromeda...and still be visible at all. Saying that the light we see from Andromeda left there 2.5 million light years ago does not explain anything...it just restates that Andromeda is 2.5 million light years away.

p.s. Please understand that I am not saying that I believe that the sun, moon, etc., are as close as they appear. I just wonder about it, is all.

addition Never mind. I just got it :)

addition I am so used to thinking in terms of seeing objects that it never occurred to me that one could see light from an object that might no longer be there.

p.s. I'm not saying that I think Andromeda is no longer there, btw!

[DarMar]

This is a simple

:D


If my explanation isn't understandable enough, someone may further challenge me (I don't mind), and I will render some 3D images that shows clearly what I saying, it'll be a facepalm moment for anyone who really bought into this ..

please if you would not mind i'd like that i could facepalm myself.
3D is my profession and i don't know about what you are talking about. seriously.

[DeDukshyn]

This is a simple

:D


If my explanation isn't understandable enough, someone may further challenge me (I don't mind), and I will render some 3D images that shows clearly what I saying, it'll be a facepalm moment for anyone who really bought into this ..

please if you would not mind i'd like that i could facepalm myself.
3D is my profession and i don't know about what you are talking about. seriously.

Will do, just give me a bit, I can show it in two rendered images ...

[DeDukshyn]

There are two images below -- one is a screen shot from my 3D program, the other is a render. In the screenshot there are four viewports -- all are just different views of the exact same scene. In the top left quadrant you have a view from the top down. The yellow is the sunlight, blue the water, and there are hills - just like in the image. Note in this viewport the light is 100% straight. It is a simple rectangle, and represents light from 93 million miles away -- it would be traveling for all intents and purposes perfectly straight to he earth - so I made it perfectly straight. The other 3 viewports are the exact same scene, from different perspectives, and the bottom right viewport represents the view from the image. So here we have perfectly straight light, as one would see from an extremely distant object, appearing to converge directly above the clouds - clearly indicating the illusion.

The other image is a render of the bottom right viewport, looks pretty close to the image.

I would also like to point out the power simple words can have over ones perception. The reason why the poster seems convincing is because the poster gives 'A' suggestion as to why the appearance of the beams is the way it is. That simple suggestion becomes solidified in the mind as the answer, and it becomes difficult to see any other perspective after that. But just because the suggestion makes it "acceptable" in our mind does not mean there are not other perspectives that relay more information and give a fuller view of what is going on. Never stop at the first explanation that seems logical - try to render that explanation untrue with your best efforts, and if you cannot, then you might be on to something; but if you can, explore all options, then go from there. Works for everything.


30664
30665

[aviators]

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/11745718_894297670643809_5411026768146268874_n.jpg?oh=27df509e5831d28d0cbc4429603fbf1d&oe=564EEDD8[/IMG]

The folowing quote is the introduction to the facebook (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1661866320707757/) page, from where an interesting debate ensues. It answers many asked questions from flat earthers pov and answers the question regarding the edge. It is not surprising that cognitive dissonance is the reaction to many of these claims that turn everything we are taught on its head.

Why is this topic considered to controversial for this and other forums but not for facebook? I am considering this thread to be a waste of my time expecting an open minded response here.

I am a member of several good FB groups and i do find that when it comes to controversial or conspiracy information in fact most things i hear it first on FB.

[/QUOTE]

I appreciate all serious discussion on this. Thankfully we are still allowed to discuss topics like this here on Avalon. Not sure why this got moved to the members only section? A topic that is way out side the box for most.
Honestly I thought this was a joke a few weeks ago. Now I'm looking for more answers.

After watching some of Mark Sargents material you have to think to yourself
this should be easy to debunk right? WRONG
He has raised a few questions indeed.

I asked Mark Sargent a question about the sun in an email the other day.. In the flat earth model the sun is way closer to earth than the experts says.
So why does it take between 19 Hrs and 138 Hrs for a solar flare to arrive and
hit earth. I mean if the sun is so close??
I haven't heard back yet.
http://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/help/how-do-we-know-if-a-cme-is-earth-directed-and-when-its-going-to-arrive

Here's one of Marks videos.
T8-YdgU-CF4

[DarMar]

First i want to thank you DeDukshyn for your effort to explain. You did it simple and very efficient for explanation, which will draw us efficiently to some better understanding.
So i did understand what you thought first time, but still there are some issues within all of this. And i want mention that your sample misses curvature and distance, also from your sample we could tell sun would be spotlight or directional light rather than omni. But i strongly agree on illusion and perspective point.

here are some pictures to better explain my point

http://tonycorrea.com/blog/wp-content/gallery/posts_misc/11-0311-035rc_wp.jpg

in this given image we have quite big angle between rays, which suggests that light source is not that far away, because even by your given explanation this could not be achieved if light source is far away.
this one also:
http://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a81a3f438f661432d78f0a7a8aec89e9?convert_to_webp=true

you notice how angles from god-ray are different, those more far and closer ones. which also suggests that light source is: a) spotlight, b) not that far away

lets examine some more real life photos of godrays taken.
http://chinese-poems.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/godrays.jpg

do you have any idea how to make this kind of effect when sun is omni light, really big and really far away?
honestly with all 3D knowledge i have, i must admit i would need to use spot light and be pretty close to clouds for such effect to happen.

this one is fav imho, proves what im talking about here.
http://parkerlab.bio.uci.edu/pictures/photography%20pictures/2012_09_17_AFRICA_SELECT/5D3_7847_tweak.jpg

you notice cone shape tracking directly to sun in spotlight manner. yes perspective and stuff is here also, but that sun is aparently faaar away and where is that curvature thing?
in other words, if we would go to top view of this picture we would get exactly the same as you presented on your images.. a very flat directional line that goes from sun towards us.

One more thing. Did you notice hole through which light goes on your pictures is planar and very thin? clouds have volume, they are thicker than that. I know your is simplified version of this but what would be fun to take thickness into consideration while observing photos, along with perspective, spotlight and curvature.

[DeDukshyn]

First i want to thank you DeDukshyn for your effort to explain. You did it simple and very efficient for explanation, which will draw us efficiently to some better understanding.
So i did understand what you thought first time, but still there are some issues within all of this. And i want mention that your sample misses curvature and distance, also from your sample we could tell sun would be spotlight or directional light rather than omni. But i strongly agree on illusion and perspective point.

here are some pictures to better explain my point

http://tonycorrea.com/blog/wp-content/gallery/posts_misc/11-0311-035rc_wp.jpg

in this given image we have quite big angle between rays, which suggests that light source is not that far away, because even by your given explanation this could not be achieved if light source is far away.
this one also:
http://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a81a3f438f661432d78f0a7a8aec89e9?convert_to_webp=true

you notice how angles from god-ray are different, those more far and closer ones. which also suggests that light source is: a) spotlight, b) not that far away

lets examine some more real life photos of godrays taken.
http://chinese-poems.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/godrays.jpg

do you have any idea how to make this kind of effect when sun is omni light, really big and really far away?
honestly with all 3D knowledge i have, i must admit i would need to use spot light and be pretty close to clouds for such effect to happen.

this one is fav imho, proves what im talking about here.
http://parkerlab.bio.uci.edu/pictures/photography%20pictures/2012_09_17_AFRICA_SELECT/5D3_7847_tweak.jpg

you notice cone shape tracking directly to sun in spotlight manner. yes perspective and stuff is here also, but that sun is aparently faaar away and where is that curvature thing?
in other words, if we would go to top view of this picture we would get exactly the same as you presented on your images.. a very flat directional line that goes from sun towards us.

One more thing. Did you notice hole through which light goes on your pictures is planar and very thin? clouds have volume, they are thicker than that. I know your is simplified version of this but what would be fun to take thickness into consideration while observing photos, along with perspective, spotlight and curvature.

It's all the same Darmar. As with the first example, you are aren't recognizing the size and perspective of everything. I can recreate each of the images you presented and show you the same as easily as I did with the first. (I don't have time today as I am leaving for vacation in a few minutes). Also consider all those shots are taken with a very wide angle camera - you know how that shifts the perspective of the image don't you?

Again, nothing in those images I couldn't easily reproduce exactly like I did the original. The last image you posted -- your fave -- is exactly the same as the one I did, except the sun is even lower and the beams are seen above. it is the same effect exactly.

[Jake]

Light coming from a star, or the sun is invisible to human sight. It is not until that light hits a solid object do we see a refraction. Satelites and other spacecraft must be outfitted with refracting material,, otherwise they only see planets and moons! We only see stars because the light has hit our atmosphere, reflecting/refracting the light into a spectrum that is visible..

That is, of course,, assuming that the universe is not flat, and the moon is not made of cheese!

Jake

[13th Warrior]

Another interesting question.

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/11753688_10152944762316472_8875115164783738102_n.jpg?oh=cd0d99f82750e7dc3bf909ce43ff9864&oe=565254F8

Shall I explain this?

It appears that the light is shining straight down and the spread of light beams appears to be coming from a source just a few miles above the clouds. This is a simple illusion.

Let's fist consider how wide the opening in the clouds is .. maybe half a mile wide or so? About that. Now consider that the sun is not shining down through the clouds but straight forward through the clouds toward the camera / viewer with an infinitesimally slight downward angle, maybe a couple degrees, but enough that the beams of light can shine through and appear at a downward angle. Only one or two degrees is needed for this appearance, considering that the camera / viewer is miles from the opening in the sky where the light is streaming from -- think back to angles and trigonometry in school. Back to the about mile wide opening in the sky; consider that the viewer camera is a single point, or in the case of a real life viewer, two "cameras (eyes) about 4 inches apart -- compare to the mile wide opening, this is for all intents and purposes also a point, like a camera sensor would be. As the beams come forward toward the viewer, from a mile wide opening, several miles away, when seen from a point, the beams have to appear to spread out, even if they are coming 100% straight from a source 93 million miles away -- this is the fundamental of perspective.

I am not sure if I explained that well enough, but trust me, anyone with good 3D spatial perception, and any knowledge of standard trigonometry would probably laugh at this claim. I did, sorry, but this is really funny. If my explanation isn't understandable enough, someone may further challenge me (I don't mind), and I will render some 3D images that shows clearly what I saying, it'll be a facepalm moment for anyone who really bought into this ... that's okay though, I've had to do a few facepalms myself for not understanding often really simple stuff -- I tend to get the hard stuff more easily :)

Only one word is need to explain this..."refraction"


Notice that the only photos that show this phenomenon, there are clouds(water vapor) present...

[DeDukshyn]

Another interesting question.

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/11753688_10152944762316472_8875115164783738102_n.jpg?oh=cd0d99f82750e7dc3bf909ce43ff9864&oe=565254F8

Shall I explain this?

It appears that the light is shining straight down and the spread of light beams appears to be coming from a source just a few miles above the clouds. This is a simple illusion.

Let's fist consider how wide the opening in the clouds is .. maybe half a mile wide or so? About that. Now consider that the sun is not shining down through the clouds but straight forward through the clouds toward the camera / viewer with an infinitesimally slight downward angle, maybe a couple degrees, but enough that the beams of light can shine through and appear at a downward angle. Only one or two degrees is needed for this appearance, considering that the camera / viewer is miles from the opening in the sky where the light is streaming from -- think back to angles and trigonometry in school. Back to the about mile wide opening in the sky; consider that the viewer camera is a single point, or in the case of a real life viewer, two "cameras (eyes) about 4 inches apart -- compare to the mile wide opening, this is for all intents and purposes also a point, like a camera sensor would be. As the beams come forward toward the viewer, from a mile wide opening, several miles away, when seen from a point, the beams have to appear to spread out, even if they are coming 100% straight from a source 93 million miles away -- this is the fundamental of perspective.

I am not sure if I explained that well enough, but trust me, anyone with good 3D spatial perception, and any knowledge of standard trigonometry would probably laugh at this claim. I did, sorry, but this is really funny. If my explanation isn't understandable enough, someone may further challenge me (I don't mind), and I will render some 3D images that shows clearly what I saying, it'll be a facepalm moment for anyone who really bought into this ... that's okay though, I've had to do a few facepalms myself for not understanding often really simple stuff -- I tend to get the hard stuff more easily :)

Only one word is need to explain this..."refraction"

Well in a sense, yes, the refraction really lends to the illusion that the light is beaming straight down, it's not really refraction though in the purest sense. Light is invisible - it cannot be seen by the eye. They eye can only see light as it interacts with objects, it cannot see light itself. Therefore the beams are not the light in reality, but the "refraction" of the light through the particles in the air. It is the particles in the are that we are seeing -- not the light itself. The intensity of the "beam" is strongest where the light travelled through the most atmosphere, and lightest where it travelled through the least; this lends to the illusion of the beams shooting down as opposed to forward, as they really are and as shown in my 3D example.

[13th Warrior]

Refraction: the unseen becomes seen is the essence of the word

30668

[Selkie]

... Light is invisible - it cannot be seen by the eye. They eye can only see light as it interacts with objects, it cannot see light itself...

Then light must be bouncing off the Andromeda galaxy in order for me to see it.

That sounds, stupid, I know, but if light is invisible, then the only way to see Andromeda, which is 2.5 million light years away, must be by the light of other stars bouncing off of it, not? Because it certainly cannot be the light from our sun, and it certainly cannot be the light of Andromeda, itself, since by definition, I could not see Andromeda if it weren't for some other light source.

addition Then space must be awash with light that we cannot see.

As an aside, I said to John Lash one time that that to us, the Originator is blackest black, but to itself, it is full of light.

[13th Warrior]

... Light is invisible - it cannot be seen by the eye. They eye can only see light as it interacts with objects, it cannot see light itself...

Then light must be bouncing off the Andromeda galaxy in order for me to see it.

That sounds, stupid, I know, but if light is invisible, then the only way to see Andromeda, which is 2.5 million light years away, must be by the light of other stars bouncing off of it, not? Because it certainly cannot be the light from our sun, and it certainly cannot be the light of Andromeda, itself, since by definition, I could not see Andromeda if it weren't for some other light source.


Please correct your quoted material which is not attributed to myself.

[Selkie]

... Light is invisible - it cannot be seen by the eye. They eye can only see light as it interacts with objects, it cannot see light itself...

Then light must be bouncing off the Andromeda galaxy in order for me to see it.

That sounds, stupid, I know, but if light is invisible, then the only way to see Andromeda, which is 2.5 million light years away, must be by the light of other stars bouncing off of it, not? Because it certainly cannot be the light from our sun, and it certainly cannot be the light of Andromeda, itself, since by definition, I could not see Andromeda if it weren't for some other light source.


Please correct your quoted material which is not attributed to myself.

Oh, I'm sorry! Yes, of course I will. My mistake.

addition Done.

[Jake]

Then light must be bouncing off the Andromeda galaxy in order for me to see it. 

The light from Andromeda can be seen clearly from any planet with an atmosphere.. The light refracts off of our atmosphere. If you are on, say,, the moon,,, you dont see stars or suns or galaxies. (Assuming the moon has no atmosphere. )

but if im on the moon, looking in the direction of Andromeda, and a large dust/gas/ice particle cloud comes in between us, I may see light refractions, and the light from Andromeda will come into view,,, if only briefly... Space is Bizarre!

From the moon, I can see Earth clearly, even though it does not have its own light... But I can't see the sun, even though it Does have it's own light source.. If im not mistaken, Heat from the sun works the same.. there is no radiant temperature, per se,,, not until the radiation hits an object is there heat! Effin bizarre! Earth does not roatate around the sun! :) The sun is flying through space too... The solar system trails the sun behind it! What if the universe is static, and it is SPACE that is moving? Has anyone calculated the rate of expansion? Is it possible that motion through space is an illusion caused by expansion? The amount of space between galaxies is increasing, and every galaxy is speeding away from each other.. That does not mean that they are moving,,, only that the amount of Space is increasing!!! Effin bizarre!

Jake

[DeDukshyn]

... Light is invisible - it cannot be seen by the eye. They eye can only see light as it interacts with objects, it cannot see light itself...

Then light must be bouncing off the Andromeda galaxy in order for me to see it.

... trim

addition Then space must be awash with light that we cannot see.

As an aside, I said to John Lash one time that that to us, the Originator is blackest black, but to itself, it is full of light.

The light you see is the interaction with the matter contained within the star - this interaction is extremely intense, nuclear in fact ;) Somewhat related, I love the Ken Carey text that states: "When spirit brushes matter lightly, life is born; when spirit brushes matter with intensity, stars are born."

And yes space is full of light we cannot see :)

[Selkie]

Then light must be bouncing off the Andromeda galaxy in order for me to see it. 

The light from Andromeda can be seen clearly from any planet with an atmosphere.. The light refracts off of our atmosphere. If you are on, say,, the moon,,, you dont see stars or suns or galaxies. (Assuming the moon has no atmosphere. )

but if im on the moon, looking in the direction of Andromeda, and a large dust/gas/ice particle cloud comes in between us, I may see light refractions, and the light from Andromeda will come into view,,, if only briefly... Space is Bizarre!

From the moon, I can see Earth clearly, even though it does not have its own light... But I can't see the sun, even though it Does have it's own light source.. If im not mistaken, Heat from the sun works the same.. there is no radiant temperature, per se,,, not until the radiation hits an object is there heat! Effin bizarre! Earth does not roatate around the sun! :) The sun is flying through space too... The solar system trails the sun behind it! What if the universe is static, and it is SPACE that is moving? Has anyone calculated the rate of expansion? Is it possible that motion through space is an illusion caused by expansion? The amount of space between galaxies is increasing, and every galaxy is speeding away from each other.. That does not mean that they are moving,,, only that the amount of Space is increasing!!! Effin bizarre!

Jake

Yes, like this

http://i1.wp.com/www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Screen-Shot-2013-12-18-at-1.10.07-PM.jpg

except that I would bet that the sun follows a spiral path, too, and not a straight line path like the illustration shows.

[Jake]

Here is a good chap explaining invisible light...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-m4pPGIPZg

Quite bizarre!
Jake

[Selkie]

Here is a good chap explaining invisible light...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-m4pPGIPZg

Quite bizarre!
Jake

Fantastic!

And you're right...it is bizarre!, and the atmosphere is a kind of "miracle". In a way, it actually makes things appear.

[13th Warrior]

Here is a good chap explaining invisible light...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-m4pPGIPZg

Quite bizarre!
Jake


What the gentleman is talking about is the reflection of light being visible.

Do you see the connection between refraction/reflection???

[13th Warrior]

So what can we say about light...

We can say that the only time we can "see" light is after it has been "bent" or "refracted"...

What does it mean to bend/refract light and to what are we to reference this movement to; space time/time space???

[loveoflife]

And yes space is full of light we cannot see :)

I find it amazing how scientists are so full of themselves explaining concepts that defy common sense. I also do not like it when they call people stupid for not understanding these crazy ideas.

I was 5 years old when they told me that the earth was round so................

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11011094_1466170910344654_7443040424793249886_n.jpg?oh=e079e7c9ea93534cdad7df994072d900&oe=56550990

[13th Warrior]

Y'all will have to excuse my musing on this and other subjects this morning as i've had fried potatoes with fresh garlic and according to Dr. Bob Beck; i've been clinically brain dead all morning...

[Hervé]

[...]
except that I would bet that the sun follows a spiral path, too, and not a straight line path like the illustration shows.

See over there:


This guy's got a good grip on the subject except he is missing why our sun is traveling in an elliptical spiral in a similar fashion as planets do around it... i.e. that the sun is "orbiting" around a twin in a binary system:

C4V-ooITrws

[DarMar]

best explanation so far ive seen on youtube:
it talks about whole paradigm in great way, and how new age religion is tied to globe concept..
really calm and intelligent man, if someone is really interested in this thematic, it should not miss this thoughts.
RgPA35K3p7M

and..
did you knew that russians went to moon first? :D
gWlktLumdt8

[Hervé]

[...]
And yes space is full of light we cannot see :)

... unless one is old enough to have experienced going to the vue and see a movie in a theatre where smoking was allowed... did anyone ever saw that beam of light landing on the big screen?

... yet that theatre's space was full of these buggers called "photons."


:jester:

[Selkie]

[...]
And yes space is full of light we cannot see :)

... unless one is old enough to have experienced going to the vue and see a movie in a theatre where smoking was allowed... did anyone ever saw that beam of light landing on the big screen?

... yet that theatre's space was full of these buggers called "photons."


:jester:


It just blows my mind that light, itself, is invisible, and that if it weren't for our atmosphere, we would not be able to see the stars. Call it a sense of wonder, but it just blows my mind :bigsmile:

[Hervé]

[...]

It just blows my mind that light, itself, is invisible, and that if it weren't for our atmosphere, we would not be able to see the stars. Call it a sense of wonder, but it just blows my mind :bigsmile:

That's not totally accurate, about not seeing the stars without an atmosphere, to the contrary, one can see the stars better in rarefied or no atmosphere (Hubble telescope): why do you think that astronomical observatories are built on top of high mountains and peaks? First to avoid "light pollution" (the smoke in movie theatres of old) and second to minimize atmospheric interferences and distortions. Stars are visible all by their all lone selves in a similar manner that red-hot, melting iron is visible in the dark.

[Selkie]

[...]

It just blows my mind that light, itself, is invisible, and that if it weren't for our atmosphere, we would not be able to see the stars. Call it a sense of wonder, but it just blows my mind :bigsmile:

That's not totally accurate, about not seeing the stars without an atmosphere, to the contrary, one can see the stars better in rarefied or no atmosphere (Hubble telescope): why do you think that astronomical observatories are built on top of high mountains and peaks? First to avoid "light pollution" (the smoke in movie theatres of old) and second to minimize atmospheric interferences and distortions. Stars are visible all by their all lone selves in a similar manner that red-hot, melting iron is visible in the dark.

Then I must have misread or misunderstood something, because I thought someone in this thread said that the stars are not visible in outer space, like from the moon.

[Selkie]

[...]

It just blows my mind that light, itself, is invisible, and that if it weren't for our atmosphere, we would not be able to see the stars. Call it a sense of wonder, but it just blows my mind :bigsmile:

That's not totally accurate, about not seeing the stars without an atmosphere, to the contrary, one can see the stars better in rarefied or no atmosphere (Hubble telescope): why do you think that astronomical observatories are built on top of high mountains and peaks? First to avoid "light pollution" (the smoke in movie theatres of old) and second to minimize atmospheric interferences and distortions. Stars are visible all by their all lone selves in a similar manner that red-hot, melting iron is visible in the dark.

Then I must have misread or misunderstood something, because I thought someone in this thread said that the stars are not visible in outer space, like from the moon.

Here it is. Jake said it,


[QUOTE]

The light from Andromeda can be seen clearly from any planet with an atmosphere.. The light refracts off of our atmosphere. If you are on, say,, the moon,,, you dont see stars or suns or galaxies. (Assuming the moon has no atmosphere. )

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?83765-A-Flat-Earth-not-Round-...&p=982518&viewfull=1#post982518

So I didn't misread him, after all.

[Jake]

No you are both right... Defracting lenses are used to defract the light instead of the particles in the atmosphere. Hubble would be quite blind without defracting lenses, etc... so would many of the high powered telescopes, placed on the highest peaks..

Shine a pointer lazer at the wall,, you only see the red dot,,, not a beam of light. Same basic concept.. Our eyes cannot see the light, only the refraction...

jake

[ThePythonicCow]

Shine a pointer lazer at the wall,, you only see the red dot,,, not a beam of light. Same basic concept.. Our eyes cannot see the light, only the refraction...
Shine that same laser into your face (hopefully a low power one that won't damage your eyes) and you can sure see it :).

One cannot see photons that are going off in some other direction, unless some of them are scattered back at one's own eyes or other sensing equipment.

One can see photons that impinge on one's eyes, and one can build various kinds of sensors that will detect photons that impinge directly on them.

[Hervé]

[...]
Then I must have misread or misunderstood something, because I thought someone in this thread said that the stars are not visible in outer space, like from the moon.

You probably read and understood correctly what is written... however, as far as the veracity of such statement is concerned, there may be some serious misconceptions at the basis of such considerations, fueled by some NASA high-contrast pictures.

However, the light they emit in the form of photon is itself not visible until said photons hit something. The very same way one can see a movie on a theatre's screen as well as the arching between white hot graphite electrodes inside the film projector but nothing in between projector and screen :)

[loveoflife]

As the thread is veering of topic onto the properties of light. I thought the following would muddy the waters a bit more. To me it has more relevance to whether Earth is flat or spherical.


“If we attempt to attribute an objective meaning to the quantum state of a single system, curious paradoxes appear: quantum effects mimic not only instantaneous action-at-a-distance, but also, as seen here, influence of future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded.” – Asher Peres, pioneer in quantum information theory


......imagine a star emitting a photon billions of years ago, heading in the direction of planet Earth. In between, there is a galaxy. As a result of what’s known as “gravitational lensing,” the light will have to bend around the galaxy in order to reach Earth, so it has to take one of two paths, go left or go right. Billions of years later, if one decides to set up an apparatus to “catch” the photon, the resulting pattern would be (as explained above in the double slit experiment) an interference pattern. This demonstrates that the photon took one way, and it took the other way.

One could also choose to “peek” at the incoming photon, setting up a telescope on each side of the galaxy to determine which side the photon took to reach Earth. The very act of measuring or “watching” which way the photon comes in means it can only come in from one side. The pattern will no longer be an interference pattern representing multiple possiblities, but a single clump pattern showing “one” way.

What does this mean? It means how we choose to measure “now” affects what direction the photon took billions of years ago. Our choice in the present moment affected what had already happened in the past….

This makes absolutely no sense, which is a common phenomenon when it comes to quantum physics. Regardless of our ability make sense of it, it’s real.

This experiment also suggests that quantum entanglement (which has also been verified, read more about that here) exists regardless of time. Meaning two bits of matter can actually be entangled, again, in time.

Time as we measure it and know it, doesn’t really exist.

source: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/07/20/quantum-experiment-shows-how-time-doesnt-exist-as-we-think-it-does-mind-altering/

[loveoflife]

This post is being updated as i investigate this phenomenon further.


We are taught that gravity bends light.


Gravity is rejected by flat earthers in their model.

Here are some links that i saw posted that highlight some of the anomalies in the theory of gravity. For anyone interested.

This is worthy of a thread of its own, i would imagine there is one already.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/05/whats-the-matter-with-gravity/

PBS NOVA,,. rejects gravity...

http://www.quora.com/What-does-the-standard-model-have-to-say-about-gravity
QUORA..,rejects gravity...

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/unigrav.html
GSU,,, rejects gravity...

http://www.livescience.com/1770-greatest-mysteries-gravity.html
LIVE SCIENCE,,. rejects gravity...

http://www.science20.com/the_standup_physicist/blog/classical_gravity_part_1_the_problems-152844
SCIENCE 2.0 rejects gravity...

http://www.astronomytoday.com/cosmology/gravity.html
ASTRONOMY TODAY,,. rejects gravity...

http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/standard-model
CERN,,, rejects gravity...

http://www.nature.com/news/gravity-rivals-join-forces-to-nail-down-big-g-1.16090#/trouble

NATURE.com rejects gravity...



From Universe Today:

"Gravity still remains one of the biggest mysteries of physics and the biggest obstacle to a universal theory that describes the functions of every interaction in the universe accurately. If we could fully understand the mechanics behind it, new opportunities in aeronautics and other fields would appear."



This from a flat earther. Flat Earth: Gravity is a Hoax (http://www.waykiwayki.com/2015/07/flat-earth-gravity-is-hoax.html)


As for the electric universe.

8jODyhZVbTM


I like this, an amusing perspective.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hnkQb0ggccw/VbXLDw9_cDI/AAAAAAAAEVE/iq-DfoVqRKM/s400/m5.jpg



"Gravity is simply density and buoyancy.
People argue that things with different densities fall at the same rate through air. However, that is because both items have reached critical density in relation to its medium: air.
If you were to change the medium from air to say, water or liquid mercury, the critical density to achieve the same rate of falling would increase significantly.
Critical density is directly proportional to the medium density. Thus the denser the medium... The denser the objects would have to be in order to achieve the same rate of falling.
A basketball and a rock might fall at the same speed in air. However... Drop them in a thicker medium like water... And they will not fall at the same rate. That is because critical density has not been achieved by both the rock and the basketball, in water as its medium.
In a vacuum... Critical density is zero and is the reason why objects of any density fall at exactly the same rate. Any medium denser than a vacuum has a greater critical density than zero... Thus the reason why objects that haven't attained critical density fall slower in certain mediums.
Critical density variation is "gravity."
Darrell Dragoo


Flat earth knowledge ends the matrix, that is quite a claim and could be true, although i am not a believer this flat earth information has had a profound effect on how i know see reality. A reality that has now several variations. lol

flat earth knowledge ends the matrix gravity is no force as force was already spent to make gravity appear. its just density and that simple gravity is density on flat earth


D_j_SUAwafU

[loveoflife]

This stuff just get weirder by the day.

Watch the first few minutes of this video. There is no time delay in space because there is no light, so there are no light years of distance for the light from stars has to travel.

0VvRjwNlWwM

This video shows an image of Earth to be faked using photoshop.


GEn98NAC6ak

[Mutchie]

You know YOU SHOULD OF POSTED Markksergents flat earth clues ....I watched them and his well laid out argument gets you thinking

The truth is I DONT KNOW FOR SURE ... I KNOW WHAT THEY TELL US ... I KNOW WE SEE PLANETS UP ABOVE ...

So WHY SHOULD EARTH BE DIFFERENT ??? Unless we ARE in some kind of controlled environment

The South pole ...WHY the treaty till 2041

[loveoflife]

You know YOU SHOULD OF POSTED Markksergents flat earth clues ....I watched them and his well laid out argument gets you thinking

The truth is I DONT KNOW FOR SURE ... I KNOW WHAT THEY TELL US ... I KNOW WE SEE PLANETS UP ABOVE ...

So WHY SHOULD EARTH BE DIFFERENT ??? Unless we ARE in some kind of controlled environment

The South pole ...WHY the treaty till 2041

Yes the Antarctic treaty is strange indeed when investigated.

[Mike]

You know YOU SHOULD OF POSTED Markksergents flat earth clues ....I watched them and his well laid out argument gets you thinking

The truth is I DONT KNOW FOR SURE ... I KNOW WHAT THEY TELL US ... I KNOW WE SEE PLANETS UP ABOVE ...

So WHY SHOULD EARTH BE DIFFERENT ??? Unless we ARE in some kind of controlled environment

The South pole ...WHY the treaty till 2041




_uHBFiAnpZs

[loveoflife]

Here is something else that i came across. This was used to prove that its impossible for a camera on Earth to pick up the the eruptions like that from 93 millions away with a 83x zoom ...

Does anyone have a better explanation?

These people are just showing off their cameras and as far as i know have no FE agenda.

Mnm-PgC9B78

Another interesting one. Where is the horizon?
YnlRxtjTWWQ

[loveoflife]

Looking at the broader conspiracy.

There is so much information being posted on this topic, my head is spinning. I have taken in all of the basic science and anomalies regarding a flat earth versus a spherical earth, and yet more information keeps on coming. There are most definitely those on a mission to promote the flat earth model. I am not one of those, though what i am posting is in relation to a flat earth. Like everybody else i grew up on a spinning ball in space that orbits the sun etc.... , so i take that for granted. My aim is to understand both sides of this debate. I would consider my interest a hobby. I find it fascinating that there is an alternative model of earth can exist alongside the planet or plane i grew up on.

I found the following article (though biased) very interesting, as a major interest of mine is alternative history or histories that are suppressed and not so mainstream.

Here is one that pertains to the vatican who were advocates of a geocentric model and considered anything else heresy, then they switched to the heliocentric. They have also been building observatories since the 16th century, all very confusing as they remain in the sidelines regarding astronomy.


The Vatican set up one of the first observatories back in the 16th century and has continued to this day with the recent buildout of its newest observatory called LUCIFER, or LUCI, depending on what you read.

So it would seem that though the Vatican has held most of the knowledge of space for over three centuries now with all their observatories, they are only in the modern era beginning to exam the teachings of those scientists who changed the course of history and refuted the Roman Catholic Church.



Why Is the Vatican the Largest and Longest Owners of Telescope Observatories, Including the Newest Named L.U.C.I.F.E.R.? (http://aplanetruth.info/2015/03/31/20-why-is-the-vatican-the-largest-and-longest-owners-of-telescope-observatories-including-the-newest-named-l-u-c-i-f-e-r/)



Why would they then be the first to build telescopes to look into space and continue to this day? Why, when it took until 1992 for the Vatican to pardon Galileo?

The 500 year Great Lie can easily be understood in that the Vatican, the Royal Society of London and Nazi German run NASA have controlled all information from space about our place in the Universe and all stories related up until this very day.

All pictures, and stories of space come from NASA, yet little is heard from Vatican observatories as to their conclusions as to what their most sophisticated telescopes are finding. Why? The only answer being that central casting and planning want it that way.



Then a deeper conspiracy: a perusal of FE information does bring up the usual secret societies and conspiracies.


Early Masonic magicians like Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton, along with their modern Masonic astro-not counter-parts like Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins, hand-in-hand with NASA and world Freemasonry using everything from books, magazines, and television to computer-generated imaging, have succeeded, in the minds of the masses, to pick up the fixed Earth, shape it into a ball, spin it in circles, and throw it around the Sun! In schools where every professor’s desk is adorned with a spinning Earth-globe, we are lectured on the “heliocentric” theory of the universe, shown images of ball-planets and videos of men suspended in space. The illusion created, connivingly convincing, has entranced the world’s population into blindly believing a maleficent myth.

[loveoflife]

I suppose this is related to the pictures of earth from space.

Even when we look at pictures of galaxies etc, how do we know what is real?

Visualization Scientist Robert Hurt Takes NASA’s Space Images And Makes Them Beautiful (http://www.popphoto.com/visualization-scientist-robert-hurt-takes-nasas-space-images-and-makes-them-beautiful?src=SOC&dom=fb)

He strikes a crucial mix between aesthetics and hard science

[Jake]

Shine a pointer lazer at the wall,, you only see the red dot,,, not a beam of light. Same basic concept.. Our eyes cannot see the light, only the refraction...
Shine that same laser into your face (hopefully a low power one that won't damage your eyes) and you can sure see it :).

One cannot see photons that are going off in some other direction, unless some of them are scattered back at one's own eyes or other sensing equipment.

One can see photons that impinge on one's eyes, and one can build various kinds of sensors that will detect photons that impinge directly on them.


Confusiius [probably would have] said, "He who shines laser in eye, does Not see the light!" ;);)

Jake

[loveoflife]

Its the basic maths that does not hold up in a ball model that get me wondering. Where is the curve?

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/11816845_1477585859218667_7006020345505259132_n.jpg?oh=d46f3ec1fcff7c9d1277c7046253bbd6&oe=564B62A4

[loveoflife]

I like this video "TIME-LAPSE OF THE SUN PROVES FLAT EARTH". What intrigues me about this information is that science tells me one thing while observation and experimentation tells me another.



Time-lapse photography of the sun reveals that the sun is small, close, and illuminating locally as it traverses over a flat earth. *ALSO... PAY ATTENTION TO HOW THE RISING SUN COMES CLOSER TO THE CAMERA AND RISES FROM THE HORIZON IN A STRAIGHT LINE -- IT DOES NOT RISE IN THE SKY IN A BIG CURVED ARCH, KEEPING ITS DISTANCE FROM THE CAMERA. AND, AS THE SUN SETS, THE SUN LIGHT SHRINKS AS IT FOLLOWS THE SUN OVER THE HORIZON*. ...........


CjehvTBrsNA

[loveoflife]

It does seem that this thread is being mainly ignored and i have almost given up myself, if it was not not for new information coming daily. This information seems to be growing exponentially, with many staunch believers.

Eric Dubay has released a free pdf for anyone interested, which does not seem to the case on alternative forums, i find this this interesting as this subject is about as alternative as you can get. Though on social media and facebook it is becoming more popular. With this pdf and alot of information freely available in one place, i assume the popularity of this movement will continue. They do have compelling arguments. The time seems ripe for information like this to flourish, i wonder if critical mass will be reached when enough of the curious review this information.

200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html) I dont care what you say that is alot of proofs. I still remain an open minded sceptic, not only about this but much information in the alternative movement that many accept as truth simply because of a consensus of believers, and a desire to believe.

If the flat earth theory is a lie, i would like to see these 200 proofs taken sequentially and debunked. Surely someone is up to the job on a topic like this that could change everything. If anyone comes upon something like this i would be grateful for posting here. So far all i have seen is people taking on one topic in order to dubunk the whole concept. There are also many who have not investigated the subject and who are too lazy to do so, who keep demanding that the flat earthers prove it for them. It just shows have heavily we have been conditioned and indoctrinated into living on a spinning ball traveling through space with our star the sun at fantastic speeds.


26) Quoting “Heaven and Earth” by Gabrielle Henriet, “If flying had been invented at the time of Copernicus, there is no doubt that he would have soon realized that his contention regarding the rotation of the earth was wrong, on account of the relation existing between the speed of an aircraft and that of the earth’s rotation. If the earth rotates, as it is said, at 1,000 miles an hour, and a plane flies in the same direction at only 500 miles, it is obvious that its place of destination will be farther removed every minute. On the other hand, if flying took place in the direction opposite to that of the rotation, a distance of 1,500 miles would be covered in one hour, instead of 500, since the speed of the rotation is to be added to that of the plane. It could also be pointed out that such a flying speed of 1,000 miles an hour, which is supposed to be that of the earth’s rotation, has recently been achieved, so that an aircraft flying at this rate in the same direction as that of the rotation could not cover any ground at all. It would remain suspended in mid-air over the spot from which it took off, since both speeds are equal.”

[DarMar]

This thread as same as similar ones mostly ridiculed and highly evaded. Because most people are pretty sure we are on spinning ball in space.
And idea of anything else is funny.
Discussion goes wrong in fighting between two sides as i stated before on some similar threads. Flat vs sphere, black vs white, good vs evil and so on..
By banging on those two ideas and firmly choosing one it is hard to see whole picture. And it is hard to discuss those because both of sides ridicule each other to death. Dubay is ridiculing spherical earthers, some ridiculing him and endless pit is created. But it is always good to question both.
I like your dedication to discuss it, but this topic pull members in anger and ridicule because they simply cannot confirm any of those. Not knowing creates anger.

what makes spherical earther knowing one?
a) he saw with his OWN eyes ball earth from space (not RV or dreaming)
b) first thing he learned in school is globe model (any other answer to teacher is fail).. and constantly repeating it over and over through all schooling years (indoctrination)
c) nazi space agency shows us pictures and composites on daily basis, and there must be some other life on similar balls (hypnosis)
d) moon is round, so must be earth too! it all logical, and rocket science confirms it.

what makes flat earther right?
a) same as above.. he saw whole earth in all of it's flatness from above (not RV or dream)
b) he realised all schooling indoctrination is false and rejects globe model as another form of manipulation
c) he realises naza is full of **** sasme as all other TV programming manipulation scheme
d) moon is actually a disc, same as sun .. no sphere there so earth must be same.. rotation patterns, eclipses and perspective give it all out.. it's all logic ofc

And there are so much more to all of those. Same as sun is 400 times bigger than moon and "accidentally" or on purpose 400 times distant?
By science we are all accident and whole case is simply created in one bang, which goes along with couples banging each other to create new life and whole saturnian sexual cult which rules indoctrination feeding system nowadays.

Facts are hidden, questioning is ridiculed. Tells me more than i want to know :)
I wonder if Dubay would still be HC flat earth fan if he didn't had HC opposition he fights.

I still think this is most important question above all on this forum, and am ready to discuss it more openly than this i wrote, and things i wrote in past here.
But just from observing I see that not many are ready for openly discussing it.

I think i even started something about it, but could be long time ago.
Just will leave this here as a simple thought food.

Mother-Matter-Matrix
World-Womb-Whole

[loveoflife]

As i pursue this topic more anomalies in traditional mainstream science become evident. Apparently this experiment is omitted from academic curriculum's.

SWmlimH7laY


An animated explanation of how Sagnac's experiment proved the existence of the aether, thus demolishing Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Complaints by two experienced physicists that when they were at university, they were never informed about this important experiment. When other experiments - Airy's Failure, Michelson-Gale's experiment (also not taught at universities!) and of course the famous Michelson-Morley experiment- a completely different picture of the cosmos emerges - with the Earth at the centre of the universe.

[loveoflife]

Here is something that relates to previous posts about light on this thread.

Flat earth or globe earth one think is certain Nasa and its inconsistency, lies and CGI graphics; after saying you cannot capture stars on film in space NASA produce pictures of stars in space.

wgdbZhnFD5g

[t2016]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87cWHh7t904

[Jake]

Scientists have NOT voted that the Earth is flat. Higs/boson determined No such thing... This is all mental gymnastics. :) To say that 'reality is created by conscious observation' is very true... to conlude, with all of the implications,,,,, that The Earth is Flat,,,,,,, is lazy.... (to be nice)

Jake

[Limor Wolf]

Scientists vote- the earth is Flat - 'And Why'

My own reply is in response to the why part- (Why this topic and others with absurdity comes up for discussion at this time and will continue in the near future)

Because.. these topics are deliberately meant to create confusion, they are meant to try and program the human mind in a double bind type of way (Double bind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind)- a known method in programming), for anyone with good eyesight, it's possible to see such methods of contradicting messages implanted in the main stream media for public consumption (quite a few to are relating to research results) in order to keep the individual and collective in a place that they can not trust themselves and their knowledge. Twists and spins. Not if we listen to the knowledge within.

Better drop it ~

[DarMar]

Stars are not out there, they are right inside of one-self.
Light is not traveling from far far away to our vision, it is reflected from inside-out, it is reflected from inside onto black mirror firmament.
Through all programming functions is rather to say it is drawn outside and stolen from it's source. Bound in saturnian rings, residing inside cube.

Is first chicken or egg is not understandable even today and if you connect our naval cord, where does it lead as a source is understandable even less. As such is even ignored.
Mother and son, moon and sun is quite taken for floating spheres in vacuum of nothing, as it is reflected in peoples everyday lives.

Sci-entities describe universe by bound and is their best weapon, quite successful as i can observe. Planets are bound by invisible rings and rotate each other by "simple" provable mathematical equation.
Gravity is magic which keeps us down to ground and clouds up in air, and satellites and moons up there.

Nothing in this world works in the way you think it does.
This thread and similar flat-earth is made for confusion Limor? Please do tell me is anyone here and in world not confused at this moment already?
Why are you on this planet?
Where do you go?
Is there god and devil? go(o)d and (D)evil at all or it is all set division by purpose. if so why most choose one of those? for example most of them here has chosen good..
Division is already here and even before consciousness of our has been born, or not?

space bugs is not predictive programming? including space marines.
jump rooms are not confusing?
chan-EL-IN-G is not distracting?

complete etymology and phonetics is quite misunderstood and used as master programming tool.
so deep that makes anyone impossible to describe anything, and every single one will describe topic in it's own way. But not own way but rather learned way.
Most of people today are living inside cubical world bound by laws. (f-laws)

Threads like this re not here to make you believe that you live on flat plane, but rather to question spherical vacuum uni-verse.
Even most of people live in flat (apartment) living on plane(t). They do not quite ready to understand i'd guess.
I see threads like this to perpetuate questioning rather than imprinting them.

most flat earthers have found out flaws of spherical universe, and to good ear it is not automatically proof of flat earth.
Rather to question them both.

Why i stated this is most important thread here?
because of understanding. It is quite essential to understand from where light comes, at which points it bends and who for what purpose is sucking it.
is reality (real-ET) on this plan-ET inside or outside of us? are we all really divided?
is it really ExTernal source?

to fight for belief is it flat or round is simply just a fight. that it's purpose is.
Taking one of those beliefs for granted, is it really win-win situation?

None of us here saw earth from space, that's why it is belief and nothing more.
Same as seeing your body from outside. It is possible only in dream or astral projection... soul separation from body.

So.. do you still living on floating sphere in vacuum or a limited plane.. is a real question.
And most important in its essence.

[loveoflife]

The controversy continues. One thing is certain this topic is not going away anytime soon its popularity continues to grow.

The following could be on the spirituality thread though i am sure it would not be allowed. It is from a site that specialises in mixing spirituality and science. Its is also a good synopsis of the main points.

10 Arguments For The Flat Earth And What It Has To Do With Spirituality (http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/10-arguments-for-the-flat-earth-and-what-it-has-to-do-with-spirituality/)


I can see the reasoning and logic in this when i consider the agenda of a NWO.


“Our eyes and experience tell us that the earth is flat and motionless. Everything in the sky revolves around us. But when we cease to believe our own eyes and experience we have to prostrate ourselves at the feet of these psuedoscientists who are blinding us; treat them as experts. astronomical priests who have special imaging, only they can access, such as the hubble telescope. So by brainwashing us with something so gigantic and fundamental it actually makes every lesser kind of indoctrination a piece of cake.

Earth being a flat, fixed center of the universe which everything revolves gives it a special significance. Not only to earth but to us humans, the most intelligent of the designers designs.

By turning earth into a spinning ball around the sun, shot through space by a godless big bang, they turn humanity into a meaningless, purposeless accident of blind dumb universe.

So it’s like trauma based mind control, beating the divinity of us with their mental manipulation. This modern atheist big bang heliocentric globe earth chance paradigm spiritually control humanity by removing god or any sort of intelligent design and replaces purposeful divine creation with haphazard random cosmic coincidence.

And so by removing earth from the motionless center of the universe these masons have moved us physically and metaphysically from a place of supreme importance to one of complete nilistic indifference. If the earth is the center of the universe then the idea of god creation and purpose for human existence are resplendent.

But if the earth is just one of billions of planets revolving around billions of stars and billions of galaxies, then the idea of god creation and a specific purpose for earth and human existence become highly implausible.

So by serticiously indoctrinating us into their scientific materialist sun worship, not only do we lose faith in anything beyond the material, we gain absolute faith in materiality, superficiality, status, selfishness, hedonism and consumerism. If there is no god and everyone is just and accident then all that really matters is ‘me me me’.

So they’ve turned Madonna the mother of god into the material girl living in a material world. Their rich powerful corporations and their slick sun cult logos sell us idols to worship. slowly taking over the world as we tacitly believe their science sold to politicians buy their products, listen to their music, watch their movies all sacrificing our souls at the alter of materialism.

It’s a big deception. I’d say it’s the biggest cover-up and conspiracy in history.”

Eric Dubay

[loveoflife]

Scientists vote- the earth is Flat - 'And Why'

My own reply is in response to the why part- (Why this topic and others with absurdity comes up for discussion at this time and will continue in the near future)

Because.. these topics are deliberately meant to create confusion, they are meant to try and program the human mind in a double bind type of way (Double bind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind)- a known method in programming), for anyone with good eyesight, it's possible to see such methods of contradicting messages implanted in the main stream media for public consumption (quite a few to are relating to research results) in order to keep the individual and collective in a place that they can not trust themselves and their knowledge. Twists and spins. Not if we listen to the knowledge within.

Better drop it ~

Question everything.

I would rather be confused than have a certainty that the indoctrination that i have received is accurate and cannot be manipulated. Confusion is par for the course and something that is necessary to experience when challenging traditional belief systems in the light of a new paradigm.

My experience is that nothing is what it seems, this is confusing and disconcerting to live in a world without certainty and not knowing. It is also worth it as it leaves me open discovering what is behind all the deception.

Like it or not there are two models of the shape of the Earth and they are both backed up with scientific evidence.

The demarcation lines are being drawn are you a flathead or a globalist? This is the way of things in a dualistic reality, there are no absolutes.

There are always two sides to a coin. Two brain hemispheres. There is one energy with two complimentary or opposing polarities depending upon you point of view.

[animovado]

One thing's for sure: it doesn't need two poles for polarizing!

A koan from Zen-Buddhism tries to make an attempt at conciliation:

Two monks were arguing about the temple flag waving in the wind.
One said, "The flag moves." The other said, "The wind moves."
They argued back and forth but could not agree.
The Sixth Ancestor said, "Gentlemen! It is not the wind that moves; it is not the flag that moves; it is your mind that moves." The two monks were struck with awe.

[loveoflife]

I am amazed at the new information that is coming out as people research a FE.

Ellp5AY2Tw0

Did you know that in Antarctica the temperatures arrive to +25ºC during the summer there?. Look at this timelapse video of the Taylor Valley: https://youtu.be/w-ef2KLXKFI

[Selkie]

I am amazed at the new information that is coming out as people research a FE.

Ellp5AY2Tw0

Did you know that in Antarctica the temperatures arrive to +25ºC during the summer there?. Look at this timelapse video of the Taylor Valley: https://youtu.be/w-ef2KLXKFI

This is interesting, in light the above video,

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/daily-tpod/

I'm not saying I believe the flat-earth paradigm, btw.

[loveoflife]

I am amazed at the new information that is coming out as people research a FE.

Ellp5AY2Tw0

Did you know that in Antarctica the temperatures arrive to +25ºC during the summer there?. Look at this timelapse video of the Taylor Valley: https://youtu.be/w-ef2KLXKFI

This is interesting, in light the above video,

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/daily-tpod/

I'm not saying I believe the flat-earth paradigm, btw.

Thanks for the link.


Belief in anything can dangerous, it can cause an inflexible rigid attitude that inhibits growth and resists change by clinging to tradition. The only reason to believe is because there is no proof.

[araucaria]

Its the basic maths that does not hold up in a ball model that get me wondering. Where is the curve?

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/11816845_1477585859218667_7006020345505259132_n.jpg?oh=d46f3ec1fcff7c9d1277c7046253bbd6&oe=564B62A4
Where is the curve? In the part of Brisbane that you can't see below the horizon. You can't actually 'see Brisbane'. All you can actually see is the top of the city's highest buildings, just like a ship slipping under the horizon reduces to its funnel and top deck. The ship and Brisbane both behave exactly in the same way as a piece of chewing-gum stuck on a beachball if you rotate it in front of your eyes. Why is this so difficult to understand?

[DarMar]

when you put chewing-gum on end of long hall you get exactly same result. Why is this so difficult to understand?

[animovado]

Its the basic maths that does not hold up in a ball model that get me wondering. Where is the curve?

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/11816845_1477585859218667_7006020345505259132_n.jpg?oh=d46f3ec1fcff7c9d1277c7046253bbd6&oe=564B62A4

This picture is made on a hill. Brisbanes ground level is around 24 meters. If you're looking towards Brisbane from a hill that's 500 meters high (from a distance of 52 miles), you can see almost everything of the city.

[araucaria]

It does seem that this thread is being mainly ignored

26) Quoting “Heaven and Earth” by Gabrielle Henriet, “If flying had been invented at the time of Copernicus, there is no doubt that he would have soon realized that his contention regarding the rotation of the earth was wrong, on account of the relation existing between the speed of an aircraft and that of the earth’s rotation. If the earth rotates, as it is said, at 1,000 miles an hour, and a plane flies in the same direction at only 500 miles, it is obvious that its place of destination will be farther removed every minute. On the other hand, if flying took place in the direction opposite to that of the rotation, a distance of 1,500 miles would be covered in one hour, instead of 500, since the speed of the rotation is to be added to that of the plane. It could also be pointed out that such a flying speed of 1,000 miles an hour, which is supposed to be that of the earth’s rotation, has recently been achieved, so that an aircraft flying at this rate in the same direction as that of the rotation could not cover any ground at all. It would remain suspended in mid-air over the spot from which it took off, since both speeds are equal.”

If this is an example of your ‘proofs’, then no wonder this thread is being mainly ignored. An aircraft remains gravitationally bound to the earth just as much as a train or for that matter a fly on a window pane. It does not stop rotating at the same speed as the planet simply by taking off the ground.

Imagine you are sitting in a train. You ‘take off’ to the restaurant car for a coffee, walking at say 3 mph in the direction of travel. If the train is doing 100 mph, then you are doing 103 mph altogether. You return safely to your seat at 100 – 3 = 97 mph relative to the earth. Don’t tell me this impossible, I have done it myself. And I have done it on the return train too. I have even been to the toilet on a plane, go figure. :)

[Bill Ryan]

It does seem that this thread is being mainly ignored

26) Quoting “Heaven and Earth” by Gabrielle Henriet, “If flying had been invented at the time of Copernicus, there is no doubt that he would have soon realized that his contention regarding the rotation of the earth was wrong, on account of the relation existing between the speed of an aircraft and that of the earth’s rotation. If the earth rotates, as it is said, at 1,000 miles an hour, and a plane flies in the same direction at only 500 miles, it is obvious that its place of destination will be farther removed every minute. On the other hand, if flying took place in the direction opposite to that of the rotation, a distance of 1,500 miles would be covered in one hour, instead of 500, since the speed of the rotation is to be added to that of the plane. It could also be pointed out that such a flying speed of 1,000 miles an hour, which is supposed to be that of the earth’s rotation, has recently been achieved, so that an aircraft flying at this rate in the same direction as that of the rotation could not cover any ground at all. It would remain suspended in mid-air over the spot from which it took off, since both speeds are equal.”

If this is an example of your ‘proofs’, then no wonder this thread is being mainly ignored. An aircraft remains gravitationally bound to the earth just as much as a train or for that matter a fly on a window pane. It does not stop rotating at the same speed as the planet simply by taking off the ground.

Imagine you are sitting in a train. You ‘take off’ to the restaurant car for a coffee, walking at say 3 mph in the direction of travel. If the train is doing 100 mph, then you are doing 103 mph altogether. You return safely to your seat at 100 – 3 = 97 mph relative to the earth. Don’t tell me this impossible, I have done it myself. And I have done it on the return train too. I have even been to the toilet on a plane, go figure. :)



Yes. If someone who's trying to prove the Earth is flat doesn't understand about inertial frames of reference, they should go no further, and instead take a basic course in physics.

This isn't intended to be dismissive or rude! :bearhug: But I actually mean what I say — in literal terms, that might seem harsh — about one needing to know some basic physics before engaging in this kind of discussion.

There was a Flat Earth debate on Art Bell's new radio show on 5 August. It was highly entertaining, but rather hard to listen to... the two guests were (a) a Flat Earther with little knowledge of science, and (b) a world class astrophysicist who had, astonishingly gamely, volunteered to come on the show.

It was like the two were talking different languages (or, maybe, came from different planets :) ). The astrophysicist did his best to explain the basics in the simplest terms, but the other guest could not understand him.

The Flat Earther was (for instance) stating that gravity was a fraudulent fiction, invented to justify the spinning, spherical earth model in that that the theory of gravity was necessary to explain why everyone didn't go flying off into outer space due to the centrifugal force. (Do please listen to the video below for details.)

If anyone reading this doesn't understand what I've just written, please don't post on this thread! :bigsmile:
(<— NOT censorship! But please be intelligent when doing ANYTHING on the forum, unless you're telling a joke.)
I should say: ...unless you really do want to understand this better. There are many good teachers here who are happy to explain math and science fundamentals. But that only works if one's mind isn't already made up.

By the way, that 5 August Art Bell show is highly recommended. Some might find this really worth listening to: (28 min extract)


http://www.vimeo.com/135819958
Source: http://www.vimeo.com/135819958 (http://www.vimeo.com/135819958)

[loveoflife]

Yes its like Bill Ryan said, they were speaking two different languages, i find this interesting one person accusing the other of being wrong by being uneducated. I heard the scientist also refuse to discuss other points raised by the flat earther. I can understand how a FE theory can cause cognitive dissonance.

There is a dichotomy between what my senses tell me about reality and what scientists tell me, these are also two different languages and it seems that i have to deny one to accept the other.


It was like the two were talking different languages (or, maybe, came from different planets ). The astrophysicist did his best to explain the basics in the simplest terms, but the other guest could not understand him.

The Flat Earther was (for instance) stating that gravity was a fraudulent fiction, invented to justify the spinning, spherical earth model in that that the theory of gravity was necessary to explain why everyone didn't go flying off into outer space due to the centrifugal force.

As for gravity as far as i have read and i am no physicist, it is only a theory that was modified by Einstein and according to some still requires further modification. Also the big bang theory and the formation of the universe relies upon gravity as its basis, if that goes so does the rest.

Though astrophysics and gravity apart, its the basic maths concerning the curvature of the earth that gets to me, it appears to be flawed.

Here is another video where this guy makes a good point. Look for What should be there, but isn't. With all the technology available to NASA and with a trillions of dollar budget, why don't they just put an end to the debate and confront all of the flat earthers points provide irrefutable proof of a globe earth and silence the debate once and for all?

O48uC3leOFU

I am still sitting on the fence though with one foot on the FE side, until all the arguments raised by the flat earthers are demolished. The FE theory is not perfect, though neither is the globe earth.

[araucaria]

You don't need centrifugal force to go flying off into space. If there were no gravity, you could kick off the surface of a non-rotating planet like off the side of a swimming pool and head off where you like. If there were no gravity, you would probably not be here in the first place, wherever you think you are.

If gravity is 'only a theory', then it is a damn good one that explains the consistent behaviour of falling objects.

[loveoflife]

You don't need centrifugal force to go flying off into space. If there were no gravity, you could kick off the surface of a non-rotating planet like off the side of a swimming pool and head off where you like. If there were no gravity, you would probably not be here in the first place, wherever you think you are.

If gravity is 'only a theory', then it is a damn good one that explains the consistent behaviour of falling objects.

The flat earthers go with electromagnetic energy and density.

I understand density and falling objects, but the following is to technical for me.



How does gravity work on the FE?
Gravity does not exist, gravity as you know it is an effect of the electro-magnetic force.
In this article CERN has omitted gravity.
http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/standard-model

Gravity on the flat Earth.
The Electromagnetic Spectrum. Electro = Electron exchange. Magnetic = Attraction between the negative and positive. Spectrum - The wavelengths of energy in different concentrations and densities. So we are in a sea of fluctuating energy. If you have an empty space that is a 'negative body' and if you have a density of energy such as an electron, 'positive body' that has a higher density of energy than the negative body, it is drawn towards other higher densities of energy as its actually searching for the path of least resistance. Two positive bodies are 'attracted' to each other as the higher energy density of both of them creates a larger negative entropy between them and falling into each other is the path of least resistance.. As the two higher energy densities approach and come closer that will increase momentum. As they reach maximum velocity and maximum energy potential with the minimum amount of space between them, they also reach maximum energy potential. Upon approach or energy maximum the energy looks to continue on its path of least resistance in an altered direction reactionary to the combined forces. This is the 'Dynamics' The 'Dynamo' of positive and negative bodies always attracting and approaching and colliding and moving. The combined Electrodynamic Electromagnetic Spectrum creates a Quantum flow of entanglement. So like if two electrons approach each other and their energy causes them to veer around each other than the path of least resistance is for them to spin or rotate around each other. The centripetal force of the rotation gives of a higher vibrational shell of energy from the combined forces. The two positive bodies rotating around each other in an orbital free fall have now formed a new negative entropy point in between them out of dynamic equilibrium, and the other shell of higher energy potential causes a torus effect on the central negative space where energy is drawn towards falling to the new center of negative space. This shelling of energy is what everyone refers to as 'gravity' So we as people are a giant massive wad of structured electrodynamic energy potential. We have a greater she'll of energy vibrating around our central mass. So we are attracted to the earth's surface through this 'pull' of electrodynamic potential of our Electromagnetic Spectrum of energy vibration searching to fill the gaps of least negative entropy. 'Gravity' is not a force all its own but a Quantum byproduct of electromagnetism.

This is coulumbs law.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/estatics/Lesson-3/Coulomb-s-Law

[araucaria]

I understand density and falling objects, but the following is to technical for me.
Then what’s the point of quoting it if you don’t understand it? Over and out.

[Sierra]

Its the basic maths that does not hold up in a ball model that get me wondering. Where is the curve?

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/11816845_1477585859218667_7006020345505259132_n.jpg?oh=d46f3ec1fcff7c9d1277c7046253bbd6&oe=564B62A4
Where is the curve? In the part of Brisbane that you can't see below the horizon. You can't actually 'see Brisbane'. All you can actually see is the top of the city's highest buildings, just like a ship slipping under the horizon reduces to its funnel and top deck. The ship and Brisbane both behave exactly in the same way as a piece of chewing-gum stuck on a beachball if you rotate it in front of your eyes. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Why bother dear. The next thing the hirelings researching the gullibility level of the alternative community will say is, the earth is shaped like a turtle's back, and that is why we can't see over the horizon.

Ya heard it here first... :blackwidow:

[Bill Ryan]

http://projectavalon.net/Earth_curves_at_8_inches_per_mile_sm.jpg

Not 'per mile squared', but per mile. And this is approximate (see the calculation below).

But, the answer to the question is simple. Any small schoolkid with a calculator (or even without one!) can figure this one out:

Even accepting the approximation (because it's actually not quite linear), 8 inches per mile = 34 feet in 52 miles. No problem seeing a bunch of high-rise city buildings, even if 34 feet of them is below the horizon.

(And if your eyes are 5 or 6 feet above the ground, you'll be able to see even more.)

Of course, that's also how come we can see ships' masts at 50 miles (but not at 150). (Not taking account of refraction caused by differential temperature layers, which can create mirage effects like one sees in the desert or on hot highways.)

Here's the math about seeing things on or near the horizon:

http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.09.02/shirley3.html

if you can't understand this, here's a personal entreaty... please don't post on this thread. You (seriously!) run the risk of showcasing your lack of understanding.

That's not a hanging offense — not to understand something! — but as araucaria suggests, please don't post things as 'evidence' that you admittedly don't understand — unless you are open-mindedly and genuinely asking someone else to give you a hand.

With that honest approach, all members will find plenty of patient teachers here.

~~~~~~

http://projectavalon.net/Pythagoras_and_the_curvature_of_the_earth.gif

[aviators]

Google top search on curvature could be misleading .
you tuber explains here.

6a9wxl6FQbY

Mark Night has spent thousands of hours looking at this subject.
He explains the curvature of the earth formula here. (at the 3 min mark.)
5YQ0dMJEjsk

Most of the researchers on this topic found the rabbit hole to go deep and wide.

Warning if you think this is a joke you might as well move on. One thing for sure this movement isn't going away anytime soon.
One documented exploration across Antarctica would be the proof. Just make sure NASA not involved.:facepalm:

[loveoflife]

Forget proving the flat earth, what i want is irrefutable tangible proof that the earth is a globe, we have the technology to send people to the moon, so lets have it.

I dont have to understand everything to post on this thread, i am no expert just an interested bystander looking for answers apart from the gobbledegook often used by the scientific community. There are many things i am expected to take on face value without any tangible proof, especially on this and other similar forums. What i do not understand now i am sure that i can learn with the help of someone who can simplify and explanation for the layman, the likes of Nassim Haramein and Rupert Sheldrake and others have no problem with this.. I do not claim to be a expert, I honestly admit a shortcoming and find myself lambasted.

So it would seem that there are 2 calculations for the curvature of the earth. One group say its 8"/ mile, and another say its 8"/mile squared. We have had a summary of it being 8"/ mile so lets look at the 8"/mile squared version. Let me just say that i understand the maths of both of these versions.

The Horizon curves by: sqrt(radius^2 + distance^2)-radius, equivalent to distance^2/R*2. At 100 km, it descends 784m. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon)


Earth's curvature (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment)


Below is the method that Samuel Birley Rowbotham used for calculating the rate at which the spherical earth, 25,000 English statute miles in circumference curves.

"If the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in the following diagram:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Fig01.jpg/330px-Fig01.jpg


"Let the distance from T to figure 1 represent 1 mile, and the fall from 1 to A, 8 inches; then the fall from 2 to B will be 32 inches, and from 3 to C, 72 inches. In every mile after the first, the curvature downwards from the point T increases as the square of the distance multiplied by 8 inches. The rule, however, requires to be modified after the first thousand miles.

"The following table will show at a glance the amount of curvature, in round numbers, in different distances up to 100 miles. To find the curvature in any number of miles not given in the table, simply square the number, multiply that by 8, and divide by 12. The quotient is the curvation required.

Statute Miles Away.....Math..............= Drop
1...............................1 x 1 x 8 = 8 Inches
2...............................2 x 2 x 8 = 32 Inches
3...............................3 x 3 x 8 / 12 = 6 Feet
4...............................4 x 4 x 8 / 12 = 10 Feet
5...............................5 x 5 x 8 / 12 = 16 Feet
6...............................6 x 6 x 8 / 12 = 24 Feet
7...............................7 x 7 x 8 / 12 = 32 Feet
8 ..............................8 x 8 x 8 / 12 = 42 Feet
9...............................9 x 9 x 8 / 12 = 54 Feet
10..........................10 x 10 x 8 / 12 = 66 Feet

"To find the curvature in any number of miles not given in the table, simply square the number, multiply that by 8, and divide by 12. The quotient is the curvation required."[5]

The diagram on the right shows the rhetorical use he often made of these numbers to demonstrate in this case that Great Orme Head would be 872' below the horizon as seen from the Isle of Man. Note that the sloping lines are drawn from sea level not from the hills or the observer.[6]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/Rowbotham_Earth_not_a_globe_1867_fig_4.jpg/330px-Rowbotham_Earth_not_a_globe_1867_fig_4.jpg

QyJNvlMzt4o

So as i see it, it just gets weirder. Besides there being two versions of the shape of the Earth, there are also two versions of how the curvature is calculated.

[loveoflife]

Double post, please delete.

[loveoflife]

I agree with aviators that the FE movement is not going away anytime soon, in fact its gaining momentum. I would have left this topic alone a while ago but it just keeps getting more interesting, as more people get involved to question the accepted model of a spinning globe. Also this is a grass roots movement of independent researchers working on a tiny budget. Yet all NASA (with a budget of trillions) shows us is composite CGI of perfect sphere of a globe earth from space.

This guy has my attention he is a structural engineer working out the physics of a spinning earth which according to him does not add up. Well worth a watch.


A problem for discussion involving a plane flying relative to a rotating Earth. The problem is that the plane ends up with a greater velocity to the east than that of the north-south orientated runway that it is trying to land on. There must be some unknown force that can balance out these differences in velocities for ALL planes that fly east or west during their flights. How do we calculate this force? Where does it come from? The only way to get rid of the need for the force is to stop the Earth from spinning. If we can't calculate this, the Earth does not spin. We are able to calculate forces and velocities for all situations throughout Physics. There cannot be an exception for this. The problem also looks at the curvature the plane would have to fly over to get from one airport to the other. Please review, comment, and discuss!

DGE2-USFbwo

[Harley]

Okay, lets look a little further away than 52 miles.

Can you see the North Star from the South Pole? (https://www.google.com/search?q=can+you+see+the+north+star+from+the+south+pole&oq=can+you+see+the+north+star+from+the+south+pole&aqs=chrome..69i57.26336j0j8&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8)


If you go as far north as the North Pole, you'll see Polaris directly overhead. As you travel south, Polaris drops closer to the northern horizon. If you get as far as the equator, Polaris sinks to the horizon. South of the equator, Polaris drops out of the sky.

Get your slide rules (https://www.google.com/search?q=slide+rule&oq=slide+rule&aqs=chrome..69i57.3950j0j8&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8) out and debunk this.

And I wanna see a complete White Paper (https://www.google.com/search?q=can+you+see+the+north+star+from+the+south+pole&oq=can+you+see+the+north+star+from+the+south+pole&aqs=chrome..69i57.26336j0j8&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=white+paper) on it! :laugh:

[aviators]

Apparently the North Star Polaris can be seen far below the equator.
I can't speak first hand on this,but perhaps some southerners can confirm this.
This is healthy discussion.

Here is some more on Polaris.

In many old flat Earth books the fact that Polaris can be seen as far South as 23.5 degrees (Tropic of Capricorn) is spoken of as a generally-accepted fact:
“If the Earth is a sphere and the pole star hangs over the northern axis, it would be impossible to see it for a single degree beyond the equator, or 90 degrees from the pole. The line-of-sight would become a tangent to the sphere, and consequently several thousand miles out of and divergent from the direction of the pole star. Many cases, however, are on record of the north polar star being visible far beyond the equator, as far even as the tropic of Capricorn.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (41)



http://ifers.boards.net/thread/334/polaris-southern-hemisphere

[aviators]

Another researcher who's spent countless hours on this subject.
Mark originally wanted to dissprove the flat earth model.
Lisa Harrison does a great job with Mark Sargent.
The last few minutes bring up profound sentiments which could cause a huge shift in conscious.

zach6IqWGqw

[Bill Ryan]

Apparently the North Star Polaris can be seen far below the equator.


Please do your research! :)

This took me two minutes to find.

http://education.com/science-fair/article/north-star-determine-live-earth (http://education.com/science-fair/article/north-star-determine-live-earth/)




Use the Altitude of Polaris to Find Latitude

By Erin Bjornsson
Updated on Jan 30, 2014

Sailors and travelers have used Polaris, also known as the North Star, for centuries to locate their position on the surface of the Earth. Polaris is the brightest star in the constellation Ursa Minor, whose seven brightest stars form the Little Dipper. Polaris is the brightest star at the end of the tail of the Little Dipper and is useful because it is the only start hat does not appear to move in relation to a specific location on Earth. Polaris cannot be seen from south of the equator.
(the article continues)

[Daozen]

Yeah, and I found this in 30 seconds:

http://www.crystalinks.com/agarthamap.jpg

[Daozen]

Those crazy flat Earthers give us Hollow Earthers a bad name.

Azt, The flat Earth resurgence on the fake intel circuit is about distracting people from Inner Earth mysteries. They are desperate to keep a lid on this and are pulling every trick out of the bag to stop us making etheric links. Whether strict H.E. theory is true is beyond the scope of this thread, but there are many intermediate theories such as Honeycomb Earth. And then you have cities in topside mountains which have nothing to do with H.E. theory, as they are only a mile or so down. This is the true meaning of the Mcarthyist phrase "The enemy within."

It is good to question everything we've been told, and have a platform and atmosphere where things like this can be discussed without fear of ridicule.

[Chumley]

The flatness of the flapjack directly corrosponds to the angle of the mango.

[loveoflife]

Those crazy flat Earthers give us Hollow Earthers a bad name.

Azt, The flat Earth resurgence on the fake intel circuit is about distracting people from Inner Earth mysteries. They are desperate to keep a lid on this and are pulling every trick out of the bag to stop us making etheric links. Whether strict H.E. theory is true is beyond the scope of this thread, but there are many intermediate theories such as Honeycomb Earth. And then you have cities in topside mountains which have nothing to do with H.E. theory, as they are only a mile or so down. This is the true meaning of the Mcarthyist phrase "The enemy within."

It is good to question everything we've been told, and have a platform and atmosphere where things like this can be discussed without fear of ridicule.

Why cant the hollow earth and the flat earth co exist as it does with a globe earth. Antarctica is a mystery and off limits to all but those who are granted a permit and under supervision, science only speculates as to what is below the crust as the deepest hole ever drilled is only eight miles deep.

Flat earthers also have no idea what the earth rests on or what is beneath.

There are ancient eastern texts that talk of Mount Meru and earth being part of Jambudvipa, they also describe highly advanced civilisations. Maybe its just two ways of looking at the same thing.

[loveoflife]

The formula is Pythagorean Ball Math

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11892242_10206358791040189_3839723461120047110_n.jpg?oh=46cf0c391e094ba598d57ff4f82ca98e&oe=56783C4B

Here is how you enter the formula in Windows Calculator.
The example is for 2000 miles.

Use 'advanced mode' and set to radians'.

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/11880614_10206358793440249_3804167913872616648_n.jpg?oh=8e5ddde74be2de929f6fe5e80c0b9eb6&oe=566790E1

[aviators]

Thanks loveolife for that curvature example. 50 miles = 1667 feet
If this is true Chicago skyline should not be able to be seen from across lake Michigan.
This is what caught my attention and started my research on this topic.
BTW I'm not trying to prove the flat earth model. I realize this is a controversial subject.
For some the more you look at the FE material the more questions it raises.

[aviators]

[QUOTE=aviators;992852]Apparently the North Star Polaris can be seen far below the equator.
I can't speak first hand on this,but perhaps some southerners can confirm this.
This is healthy discussion.


In many old flat Earth books the fact that Polaris can be seen as far South as 23.5 degrees (Tropic of Capricorn) is spoken of as a generally-accepted fact: QUOTE]

We can't believe every thing we read. Anyone south of the equator could confirm this?
Perhaps a nice clear (time exposer) picture of the stars. This would be solid research.

[Jake]

Is this ship halfway under water? Or is the Earth round?

https://mathscinotes.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/1171149515_501c7dc22c_o.jpg?w=397&h=242

The phases of the moon, throughout the year show the shadow of a round earth, not disc shaped or flat...

https://i2.wp.com/scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2010/01/moon_phases.jpg



The Earth is beatiful! Ever sat and watched a sunset? It is awe inspiring.. And would not occur on a flat planet, With a tiny spotlight circling overhead!



Folks who do real science are laughing at the Truther Community!!! As if WE put this crap out there! Real damage to real research is done when the world is busy slapping their foreheads... This is being attributed to the alt media, overall! Thanks everyone!

Jake

[Selkie]

Is this ship halfway under water? Or is the Earth round?

https://mathscinotes.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/1171149515_501c7dc22c_o.jpg?w=397&h=242

The phases of the moon, throughout the year show the shadow of a round earth, not disc shaped or flat...

https://i2.wp.com/scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2010/01/moon_phases.jpg



The Earth is beatiful! Ever sat and watched a sunset? It is awe inspiring.. And would not occur on a flat planet, With a tiny spotlight circling overhead!



Folks who do real science are laughing at the Truther Community!!! As if WE put this crap out there! Real damage to real research is done when the world is busy slapping their foreheads... This is being attributed to the alt media, overall! Thanks everyone!

Jake

The ship below the horizon is a simple, beautiful illustration that the flat earth "theory" cannot possibly be true.

[Bill Ryan]

.
This might be more accurate. (Remember: when looking at the horizon, our eyes aren't on the ground)

http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm

[aviators]

awCx5ob04ZY
One Gals research on ships disappearing. " line of convergence "
If you fast forward to the end . Can you explain why the upper part of the ship is disappearing ?

[Harley]

What! No Moon!


http://www.crystalinks.com/agarthamap.jpg

Not very romantic.

Growing up just wouldn't have been the same!

:)

[loveoflife]

awCx5ob04ZY
One Gals research on ships disappearing. " line of convergence "
If you fast forward to the end . Can you explain why the upper part of the ship is disappearing ?

I posted these earlier in the thread from people with no agenda besides showing of their zoom lenses. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?83765-A-Flat-Earth-not-Round-...&p=983445&viewfull=1#post983445

One proves that a ship that dispersal over the horizon becomes visible when zoomed in on.

[loveoflife]

One of the main arguments about the flat earth is that it makes the truther community look ridiculous, as if it does not look ridiculous already to those who gain their reality from mainstream sources. I disagree i think that there will always be those who will not entertain the concept of conspiracies and will dismiss a conspiracy theory on hearing those two words. In my experience they usually have an academic degree and worked hard to obtain it.

I think that the FE is a big eye opener for many, attracted out of curiosity or for a good laugh many have been changed by the information promoted by the flatheads. Then they become involved in an alternative community and belief system that leads to other topics like freemasonry and so on.

I was talking to a green friend of mine who is definitely a STO type about global warming and chemtrails, as soon as i mentioned David Icke she said " what!!!, he believes the queen is a reptile" end of conversation, i was discredited. That was all she knew about DI and that was enough. Mentioning the many books he had written over the last 20 years was of no use.

Cognitive dissonance is powerful and keeps people blinkered, and promotes uniformed opinions, i cant blame them nobody likes their cherished belief systems challenged, especially if the have been decades in the making and their social circle also relies on the maintenance of those beliefs or be ostracised, like many truthers are.

[Jake]

The FE theory definately raises my eyebrow! Not for any pure reasoning, though! Mental gymnastics! Nothing more, other than embarrassing.

I rather enjoy watching the sun set! FE followers have folks convinced that not only is the earth flat, but the sun is a tiny spotlight the size of Maine, that circles overhead! Basically telling anyone who has seen the sun set, or rise,, that we are all dumb!

Can you not look with your own eyes? When you want to know the weather, do you frantically look for bits of info on youtube,, or do you look out your window?

I can see for myself.. it is a core skill that is missing in the FE crowd!

Jake

[Wind]

You know what amazes me the most? That this thread still is open, but it just proves that people here are willing to respectfully debate many (crazy) topics. I sincerely applaud that! :)

[Selkie]

You know what amazes me the most? That this thread still is open, but it just proves that people here are willing to respectfully debate many (crazy) topics. I sincerely applaud that! :)

..... :bowing: ..... :bigsmile:

for me, very often, it is the interaction that is important, not the topic :)

[Wide-Eyed]

FE ? Hmmm ... Why aren't there any pictures of "globe" earth with stars etc. is one point "FE's" make- Why? Why has there been no country claiming continent of Antarctica? FE? Why did Byrd - US and ALL other nations that were exploring Antarctica stop exploration altogether from 56'?FE ? Why? Why did Rudolph Hess go there (Antarctica) for uncle Adolf?FE? Why don't we explore there further?FE? IDK,please something is not adding up. Bill? Why the flight patterns between N&S seem to support FE hypothesis? Linda Mouton Howe talks of dark pyramid in Alaska and the Lake Vostok area is like the whole rest of continent Antarctica off limits? Why all the areal nuclear US /Soviet explosions over area in 50's? Then all space race BS? I think Weidner explained Kubrick's mea culpa in film well. I have started and own several businesses from scratch, can speak conversationally in 5 languages lived all over the world graduated from "world class university" in three years but something about this thread and the reactions, reasoning,& dialog of this FE theory smell and feel a bit off. Like this forum is a big limited hangout for elite alphabet agency agenda. Why the questioning of one's intelligence and not answering or going over the points mentioned regarding the reasons for questioning FE? Maybe, me tried time to take break from Avalon and drink some more fluoridated water. Real or Fake? Over and out...:(

[Wide-Eyed]

Eric Dollard a genius inventor and free energy pioneer would agree and says the sun is not far away. Don't have post but there is a lot of you tube stuff on him. Go to second page of searches and there is a documentary where he discusses this. Sorry can't find.

[Wide-Eyed]

Garbage vassili, simple questions get bs answers and belittled and censored. Show me some satellite photos of this sphere:handshake: or we have a problem Houston...

[loveoflife]

FE ? Hmmm ... Why aren't there any pictures of "globe" earth with stars etc. is one point "FE's" make- Why? Why has there been no country claiming continent of Antarctica? FE? Why did Byrd - US and ALL other nations that were exploring Antarctica stop exploration altogether from 56'?FE ? Why? Why did Rudolph Hess go there (Antarctica) for uncle Adolf?FE? Why don't we explore there further?FE? IDK,please something is not adding up. Bill? Why the flight patterns between N&S seem to support FE hypothesis? Linda Mouton Howe talks of dark pyramid in Alaska and the Lake Vostok area is like the whole rest of continent Antarctica off limits? Why all the areal nuclear US /Soviet explosions over area in 50's? Then all space race BS? I think Weidner explained Kubrick's mea culpa in film well. I have started and own several businesses from scratch, can speak conversationally in 5 languages lived all over the world graduated from "world class university" in three years but something about this thread and the reactions, reasoning,& dialog of this FE theory smell and feel a bit off. Like this forum is a big limited hangout for elite alphabet agency agenda. Why the questioning of one's intelligence and not answering or going over the points mentioned regarding the reasons for questioning FE? Maybe, me tried time to take break from Avalon and drink some more fluoridated water. Real or Fake? Over and out...:(

Thanks for those excellent questions.

I have noticed in many debates on this topic that those who do not accept a FE even as a possibility generally do no investigation of their own and just ask flat earth believers for proof. I will not debate the issue simply because arguing with those who have uniformed opinions is a waste of time, they ask questions like where is the edge, showing that they have not done their own enquiry and more than likely have no intention to. There are to many willing to argue about the title of a thread rather than examine the evidence presented.

As for NASA not showing the earth with stars well they have never shown one until now this is one of their latest breathtaking cgi videos with stars. I suppose they are keeping an eye on the recent FE explosion. Maybe they will make a video from the ISS showing satellites. There is also no 360 degree panoramic videos from ISS.

wgdbZhnFD5g

All that was needed in the past was a globe in a classroom. I can see the progression to videos like this.

[Daozen]

What! No Moon!

Yes Harvey they left the moon out lol.

[Daozen]

There are ancient eastern texts that talk of Mount Meru and earth being part of Jambudvipa, they also describe highly advanced civilisations. Maybe its just two ways of looking at the same thing.

Mt Meru is interesting. I suspect there are many lies told about the Earth, but I don't believe Flat Earth theory. On the other hand, holographic sky theory is interesting. The Truman Show is supposed to be about Holographic Sky theory.

[Jake]

The moon is made of cheese! Prove me wrong... No citing NASA, and no thinking for yourself! Lmao...

jake

[Omni]

The moon is made of cheese! Prove me wrong... No citing NASA, and no thinking for yourself! Lmao...

jake
mmmmmm lunar mac n cheese

[Chip]

I never thought I would even entertain in this discussion (it's embarrassing to any IQ over 100). My apologies to FE's but the entire debate having been brought up now everywhere is disruptive to many of the more important issues we should be concerned with. I don't think I need to point them out, as most of us just know.
Perhaps this is the reason that the idiotic belief that the Earth is flat is being raised. To make us look like fools.
Just entertaining in this discussion makes me feel already like I got "suckered".
Leave it be!
Can't fix stupid
My apologies

[Bill Ryan]

I never thought I would even entertain in this discussion (it's embarrassing to any IQ over 100). My apologies to FE's but the entire debate having been brought up now everywhere is disruptive to many of the more important issues we should be concerned with. I don't think I need to point them out, as most of us just know.
Perhaps this is the reason that the idiotic belief that the Earth is flat is being raised. To make us look like fools.
Just entertaining in this discussion makes me feel already like I got "suckered".
Leave it be!
Can't fix stupid
My apologies

Yep. For anyone who may not know, Chip is a professional pilot (and a very experienced and highly qualified one, too). That doesn't mean that skeptics should bombard him with questions about the horizon, or optimum flight paths to travel directly between two points on a globe! He would probably not thank me for that. :bigsmile:

Seriously, it's an important point that this is a 'noisy' distraction. If, for anyone reading this, this topic is the problem in your worldview that's most bothering you, then there really may be something not quite right.

If anyone is in so much confusion that they're not certain about ANYTHING out there, then (and please excuse me if I say it rather bluntly) you may not be in very good intellectual shape.

We have to have certainties in our world in order to function. If we have none.... then we flounder and founder, and blow with the wind. That's not healthy. Questioning whether the Earth is a globe — and with it, every other heavenly body (anyone see any disk-shaped stars or planets up there?) — is NOT NOT NOT the same quality of investigation as asking highly intelligent, well-informed questions about ancient history, extraterrestrial contact, the benefit of vaccinations, man's true origins, whether we already have bases on Mars, or what happened on 9/11.

Not all questions are the same; some are far more intelligent (and well-informed) than others. To apply intelligence, and to help us all become more well-informed (and with that, to enable us all to figure out the really difficult problems we're all faced with), is one of the prime purposes of this forum.

It's an online Master's course we're conducting here together... and to be a contributing part of that, one has to be at least able to understand all the basic premises on which sound intellectual inquiry is based. One could ask Socrates, Pythagoras, Plato, or Aristotle. They had it nailed over 2,000 years ago.

(And they knew the Earth was round, too.)

[ThePythonicCow]

Unfortunately, the only resolution that any of us can reliably obtain to a question such as "what shape is earth" involves competent use of whatever science, physics, astronomy, geometry, geology, astrophysics, mathematics, logic and other such tools and disciplines as might actually provide reliable answers to that question.

An inability to use such tools, or a preference to not use them, perhaps justified on the grounds that sometimes such science gets things horribly wrong, so we should not let such close our minds, and then further encouraged by various paradoxes, confusions and befuddlements as might be alluring to the mind weak in the use of those tools, fails ultimately to use the means necessary to reliably answer such a question, and typically reduces the failure to a metaphysical debate, along the lines of "Science is good and reliable vs Science closes one's mind to real truths."

Such a metaphysical debate, as with my very own post here, cannot reliably answer such a question. Either learn to use the necessary tools yourself, so that you might obtain sufficient mastery to trust your own conclusions, perhaps as guided by the work of others to facilitate your learning, or else realize that you can do little better than argue over which "expert" to place your trust in, or which metaphysical rules of thumb to use in selecting an answer.

If you have obtained such a mastery of the necessary tools, then you have an expertise worth offering to others, to facilitate their own learning.

If you have not, you're wasting our time ... which may well be the intention of some in this matter.

[terragunn]

Those crazy flat Earthers give us Hollow Earthers a bad name.

Azt, The flat Earth resurgence on the fake intel circuit is about distracting people from Inner Earth mysteries. They are desperate to keep a lid on this and are pulling every trick out of the bag to stop us making etheric links. Whether strict H.E. theory is true is beyond the scope of this thread, but there are many intermediate theories such as Honeycomb Earth. And then you have cities in topside mountains which have nothing to do with H.E. theory, as they are only a mile or so down. This is the true meaning of the Mcarthyist phrase "The enemy within."

It is good to question everything we've been told, and have a platform and atmosphere where things like this can be discussed without fear of ridicule.

Why cant the hollow earth and the flat earth co exist as it does with a globe earth. Antarctica is a mystery and off limits to all but those who are granted a permit and under supervision, science only speculates as to what is below the crust as the deepest hole ever drilled is only eight miles deep.

Flat earthers also have no idea what the earth rests on or what is beneath.

There are ancient eastern texts that talk of Mount Meru and earth being part of Jambudvipa, they also describe highly advanced civilisations. Maybe its just two ways of looking at the same thing.

I'm with you on this and appreciate your posts and understanding in this thread. I wrote a reply to what is mentioned above but removed it because I didn't think the wording through well enough to articulate what I wanted to articulate. When I have refined what I wrote I will post it.

[Daozen]

I never thought I would even entertain in this discussion (it's embarrassing to any IQ over 100).

I weigh in at 87 so I am well within thread limits.

Flat Earth is being pushed to distract us from the rising consciousness about the Agartha Network. It's a "dragnet meme", so to speak.

[risveglio]

The moon is made of cheese! Prove me wrong... No citing NASA, and no thinking for yourself! Lmao...

jake

I really like cheese

[Harley]

The moon is made of cheese! Prove me wrong... No citing NASA, and no thinking for yourself! Lmao...

jake

I really like cheese

You Bet! But now·a·days most cheese is processed.

Think about it! :)

[ulli]

I only check in here because sometimes I get a weird craving for the absurd.

Maybe we should start a contest between the hollow earthers and the flat earthers.

However, seriously now, in dimensions other than 3 D all things are possible.
The worlds I visit in my dreams are even weirder.

[Daozen]

hollow earthers and the flat earthers.

Lol I would love to see George Noory host that debate live. That would be a hoot.

[Bill Ryan]

hollow earthers and the flat earthers. Lol I would love to see George Noory host that debate live. That would be a hoot.

The best idea I heard came from Art Bell a few weeks ago. He suggested that a wealthy benefactor could sponsor and host an in-air Flat Earth conference on a 747 that would fly in a straight flightpath right round the globe. When everyone realized, after all the discussions: "Hey! We're back where we started!", then maybe it would be all over at at last.

:)

[avid]

I'm surprised this thread has gone on this long, it's almost like the interminable weed in my garden, I think it's been annihilated, then some spooky critter sets it off again! My Mum's favourite surmisings included biblical statements which ring true: "my Father's house has many mansions". In other words, we are in a multi-verse, an inter-dimensional society, and sometimes their timelines cross to enable us to learn more.
Apologies to any 'spooky critters'!

[Daozen]

hollow earthers and the flat earthers. Lol I would love to see George Noory host that debate live. That would be a hoot.

The best idea I heard came from Art Bell a few weeks ago. He suggested that a wealthy benefactor could sponsor and host an in-air Flat Earth conference on a 747 that would fly in a straight flightpath right round the globe. When everyone realized, after all the discussions: "Hey! We're back where we started!", then maybe it would be all over at at last.

:)

I think you have underestimated the ingenuity of those people. They would have accounted for that trivial anomaly before the plane had even landed.

Onward.

[Bill Ryan]

hollow earthers and the flat earthers. Lol I would love to see George Noory host that debate live. That would be a hoot.

The best idea I heard came from Art Bell a few weeks ago. He suggested that a wealthy benefactor could sponsor and host an in-air Flat Earth conference on a 747 that would fly in a straight flightpath right round the globe. When everyone realized, after all the discussions: "Hey! We're back where we started!", then maybe it would be all over at at last.

:)

I think you have underestimated the ingenuity of those people. They would have accounted for that trivial anomaly before the plane had even landed.


There's a serious point there. I've NEVER seen or heard of a Flat Earther saying: "Hey, thanks a bunch for taking the trouble to answer my question. I really understand it a lot better now. I see where I had it all wrong."

That just NEVER happens. It's a rigid, fixed-idea, fundamentalist, accept no counter-argument, belief system... and that's not meant to be a cheap insult: it really is that way.

[loveoflife]

hollow earthers and the flat earthers. Lol I would love to see George Noory host that debate live. That would be a hoot.

The best idea I heard came from Art Bell a few weeks ago. He suggested that a wealthy benefactor could sponsor and host an in-air Flat Earth conference on a 747 that would fly in a straight flightpath right round the globe. When everyone realized, after all the discussions: "Hey! We're back where we started!", then maybe it would be all over at at last.

:)

Well i hope the plane flies north to south over the poles instead of east west. That would be interesting and disprove the FE.

[loveoflife]

.......and now for something completely different. This is full of religious iconography and symbolism.

A Vedic ancient model of the earth Bhumi mandala, (mandala is a plane) and the universal planets or loka.

The Temple of the Vedic Planetarium is named as such because within its main dome it will house a 3-dimensional, moving model of the universe according to the Vedic scriptures. This explanation describes the planetary systems and all the universal contents to be in the shape of an incredible chandelier.

zdX5lffC2IQ

[Daozen]

Well i hope the plane flies north to south over the poles instead of east west. That would be interesting and disprove the FE.

Art Bell's theory wouldn't work, because there is no jumbo jet that can fly longer than 12-15 hours. As soon as they refuelled in Dubai the conspiracy theories would start.


There's a serious point there. I've NEVER seen or heard of a Flat Earther saying: "Hey, thanks a bunch for taking the trouble to answer my question. I really understand it a lot better now. I see where I had it all wrong."

That just NEVER happens. It's a rigid, fixed-idea, fundamentalist, accept no counter-argument, belief system... and that's not meant to be a cheap insult: it really is that way.

Getting aggressive when you are backed into a corner is a sure sign of cult-think.

[Wide-Eyed]

BR, both the replies of your pilot friend and even you are lacking and there is little "need to thank you" for your explaining - because that's not happened really quite the opposite. :bearhug:

[Selkie]

.......and now for something completely different. This is full of religious iconography and symbolism.

A Vedic ancient model of the earth Bhumi mandala, (mandala is a plane) and the universal planets or loka.

The Temple of the Vedic Planetarium is named as such because within its main dome it will house a 3-dimensional, moving model of the universe according to the Vedic scriptures. This explanation describes the planetary systems and all the universal contents to be in the shape of an incredible chandelier.

zdX5lffC2IQ

This would be a religious explanation. Religious explanation is not scientific proof.

[DeDukshyn]

Look at this flat earth map - this is the generally accepted flat earth model of FE'ers.

http://payload57.cargocollective.com/1/3/115120/3452083/flat%20earth%20poster_905.jpg

Clearly one can see that the distance from Sydney (Australia) to Santiago (Chile) is about twice the distance from Sydney (Australia) to Vancouver (Canada) on the "flat earth map", very close to 2X the distance. The distance from Australia to Vancouver Canada is about 13,000 km. Therefore if the flat earth map is correct then the distance from Australia to Chile is about double that or about 26,000 km? Yes? Let me help, 2X 13,000 = 26,000 km if it flew a straight line. So therefore if I get on a plane to fly from Australia to Chile, my plane must go about 26,000 km? This is correct math, right? Look at the flat earth map again. This all looks right to me according to that map, and all you flat earthers have to agree.



The problem is that it is a fact that even a Boeing 747 jumbo jet (one of the largest and farthest flying passenger jets) cannot fly non-stop for much more than 13,000 kms. (fact link here) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747), just enough to be able to make a non-stop flight from Sydney Australia to Vancouver Canada. I just checked Air Canada schedule and they indeed have a non-stop from Vancouver to Sydney.

So this would make it absolutely impossible for any plane to go from Australia to Santiago if it followed the path required as indicated by the flat earth map ... look at the map AGAIN. Twice as far, right? Yet the flight distance in "real life" from Santiago to Sydney is LESS than it is to fly from Vancouver to Sydney, at about only 11,300 kms. And if you think that everyone is keeping a huge secret from the FE'rs by lying about that distance, then all you have to do is note that no plane could make a non-stop flight from Santiago to Sydney without refueling.

Yet, even today if you wanted, you can book a non-stop flight on a 747 from one to other. MAGIC! Or maybe they put knockout gas in the cabin during the flight, and then land and refuel on some sort of floating platform, and quickly take off again before everyone wakes up. I mean after all, no expense is obviously spared in keeping this flat earth secret from us. "They", (I guess the "secret keepers" and everyone who has anything to do with airplane engineering, mathematics, physics, aviation, avionics, piloting, steward(ess)ing, anyone who frequently flies for their business, anyone in aeronautics, space, military, satellite building, surveillance, (this list will never end so I am stopping here) etc. - like half the world) will go to "the ends of the earth" (pun intended :)) to keep this secret from you. Right? They are all doing a fantastic job, aren't they? That sounds plausible ...


Now, let's add some resources to back up my facts and math - something you will never see in a post supporting FE, so enjoy.

Here's the distance and flight path for non-stop from Vancouver to Australia: http://www.travelmath.com/flying-distance/from/Australia/to/Vancouver,+Canada (feel free to find factual resources that dispute this distance or this flight path)

Here's the distance and flight path for non-stop from Sydney to Santiago: http://www.travelmath.com/flying-distance/from/Sydney,+Australia/to/Santiago,+Chile (feel free to find factual resources that dispute this distance or this flight path)


So let's work out distances, jet speeds, and flight times to get to / from these places and let me know when anything in this area jives with flat earth beliefs. Consider the speeds the jet flies at, the refuelling, and the total time of the flights. Then let's ask real people who have actually made these flights and ask them to confirm or deny these calculations and the logic I presented.

Find me one and let me know what they say, or explain it away with some nonsense about how the airlines gas the cabins, or make people sign waivers of secrecy ... think! Stop watching idiotic Youtube videos!

[Selkie]

Look at this flat earth map - this is the generally accepted flat earth model of FE'ers.

http://payload57.cargocollective.com/1/3/115120/3452083/flat%20earth%20poster_905.jpg

Clearly one can see that the distance from Sydney (Australia) to Santiago (Chile) is about twice the distance from Sydney (Australia) to Vancouver (Canada) on the "flat earth map", very close to 2X the distance. The distance from Australia to Vancouver Canada is about 13,000 km. Therefore if the flat earth map is correct then the distance from Australia to Chile is about double that or about 26,000 km? Yes? Let me help, 2X 13,000 = 26,000 km if it flew a straight line. So therefore if I get on a plane to fly from Australia to Chile, my plane must go about 26,000 km? This is correct math, right? Look at the flat earth map again. This all looks right to me according to that map, and all you flat earthers have to agree.



The problem is that it is a fact that even a Boeing 747 jumbo jet (one of the largest and farthest flying passenger jets) cannot fly non-stop for much more than 13,000 kms. (fact link here) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747), just enough to be able to make a non-stop flight from Sydney Australia to Vancouver Canada. I just checked Air Canada schedule and they indeed have a non-stop from Vancouver to Sydney.

So this would make it absolutely impossible for any plane to go from Australia to Santiago if it followed the path required as indicated by the flat earth map ... look at the map AGAIN. Twice as far, right? Yet the flight distance in "real life" from Santiago to Sydney is LESS than it is to fly from Vancouver to Sydney, at about only 11,300 kms. And if you think that everyone is keeping a huge secret from the FE'rs by lying about that distance, then all you have to do is note that no plane could make a non-stop flight from Santiago to Sydney without refueling.

Yet, even today if you wanted, you can book a non-stop flight on a 747 from one to other. MAGIC! Or maybe they put knockout gas in the cabin during the flight, and then land and refuel, and quickly take off again before everyone wakes up. I mean after all, no expense is obviously spared in keeping this flat earth secret from us. "They", (I guess the "secret keepers" and everyone who has anything to do with airplane engineering, mathematics, physics, aviation, avionics, piloting, steward(ess)ing, anyone who frequently flies for their business, anyone in aeronautics, space, military, satellite building, surveillance, (this list will never end so I am stopping here) etc. - like half the world) will go to "the ends of the earth" (pun intended :)) to keep this secret from you. Right? They are all doing a fantastic job, aren't they? That sounds plausible ...


Now, let's add some resources to back up my facts and math - something you will never see in a post supporting FE, so enjoy.

Here's the distance and flight path for non-stop from Vancouver to Australia: http://www.travelmath.com/flying-distance/from/Australia/to/Vancouver,+Canada (feel free to find factual resources that dispute this distance or this flight path)

Here's the distance and flight path for non-stop from Sydney to Santiago: http://www.travelmath.com/flying-distance/from/Sydney,+Australia/to/Santiago,+Chile (feel free to find factual resources that dispute this distance or this flight path)


So let's work out distances, jet speeds, and flight times to get to / from these places and let me know when anything in this area jives with flat earth beliefs. Consider the speeds the jet flies at, the refuelling, and the total time of the flights. Then let's ask real people who have actually made these flights and ask them to confirm or deny these calculations and the logic I presented.

Find me one and let me know what they say, or explain it away with some nonsense about how the airlines gas the cabins, or make people sign waivers of secrecy ... think! Stop watching idiotic Youtube videos!

Looks to me like the Flat Earth Society left Antarctica off their map of the world.

[DeDukshyn]

...

Looks to me like the Flat Earth Society left Antarctica off their map of the world.

The argument is that Antarctica is the outer border - one would never reach the center of Antarctica, because there is no center - it is the barrier that prevents us from reaching the edge, in the flat earth model.

[AndyWept]

Here's the flaw Bill. On a ball earth, if you fly either east or west (you cant fly north/south because you are prohibited from flying over the south pole - they say it's too cold lol), using your GPS (ground based positioning system), you will certainly return from where you started from; there's no denying that. However, on a flat earth, just like a flat "merry-go-round," you'll just fly round in a big circle. So the argument (if thats what it is) is flawed. Furthermore, given there's no east, west or south magnetism, you can't set your compass to follow these; only by using magnetic north and flying at an angle to it, can this be achieved. And why is there no magnetic south? We are supposed to be living on a planet with two magnetic poles aren't we? A compass always points north, no matter how close you are to the south pole. Without using NASA (or other fake space agencies), governments or maths, there is no evidence to support a ball earth. However, using your god given senses, you can see and feel that the earth is flat. And I say this to all that think the idea of a FE is stupid... how much research have you done, against how much brainwashing you've received ;-) It's flat I tell you, FALT, FLAT, FALT

[AndyWept]

I'd be interested in your comments re these undeniable facts contained within these vids...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lchtwf5Fvhc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdoGTeM0koQ

[Selkie]

...

Looks to me like the Flat Earth Society left Antarctica off their map of the world.

The argument is that Antarctica is the outer border - one would never reach the center of Antarctica, because there is no center - it is the barrier that prevents us from reaching the edge, in the flat earth model.

Oh. Well, that is absurd.

addition Antarctica was mapped centuries ago. The Piri Reis map proves that.

I would also add that in Northern summer, the extreme north gets its midnight sun, and in Northern winter, the same thing happens in the extreme south (Antarctica). That would not happen if the earth was not a sphere.

Not to mention that the southern hemisphere has its own stars and constellations, which cannot be seen from the northern hemisphere. Nor can the southern hemisphere stars and constellations be seen from the northern hemisphere.

[loveoflife]

.......and now for something completely different. This is full of religious iconography and symbolism.

A Vedic ancient model of the earth Bhumi mandala, (mandala is a plane) and the universal planets or loka.

The Temple of the Vedic Planetarium is named as such because within its main dome it will house a 3-dimensional, moving model of the universe according to the Vedic scriptures. This explanation describes the planetary systems and all the universal contents to be in the shape of an incredible chandelier.

zdX5lffC2IQ

This would be a religious explanation. Religious explanation is not scientific proof.

No its Vedic. Yes this example is interpreted through a religious filter thats understandable, scientists would not touch it.

Having said that the Vedas are scientific and there are many measurements included in these ancient texts that have be collaborated by modern science.

The vedas are vast the largest work of books on earth, they contain information on everything. The soul, spirituality, cosmology, astrology, a version of feng shui called vastu, agriculture, husbandry, architecture, geometry, mathematics, astronomy, Et's, atomic warfare, the list goes on and on to include everything.

Veda is translated as knowledge, up until about a hundred or so years ago this knowledge was hidden in the ancient Sanskrit language, and still today it is still unknown to many outside of India and also many in India. Though America and especially Russia has done extensive research on these texts.

[loveoflife]

...

Looks to me like the Flat Earth Society left Antarctica off their map of the world.

The argument is that Antarctica is the outer border - one would never reach the center of Antarctica, because there is no center - it is the barrier that prevents us from reaching the edge, in the flat earth model.

Oh. Well, that is absurd.

addition Antarctica was mapped centuries ago. The Piri Reis map proves that.

I would also add that in Northern summer, the extreme north gets its midnight sun, and in Northern winter, the same thing happens in the extreme south (Antarctica). That would not happen if the earth was not a sphere.

Not to mention that the southern hemisphere has its own stars and constellations, which cannot be seen from the northern hemisphere. Nor can the southern hemisphere stars and constellations be seen from the northern hemisphere.

Yes its absurd but one worthy of further investigation. The are many strange facts and secrecy concerning Antarctica.

I am no astronomer so i cannot confidently comment on the constellations. Though i have seen explanations from a FE POV out there.

I would suggest looking at evidence that is closer to earth.

To go deeper in the absurd rabbit hole here is a quote form Project Camelot’s Kerry Cassidy on the flat earth subject. Wrap your brain cells around this one.


“In my view the “flat earth” people are simply seeing things in a hyper dimensional (collapsing the wave) mode.

“They are seeing a Planet “plane-net” from the point of view that reduces everything out of the hologram view into a sort of continuum of unlimited horizons viewed condensed, as in, down to the “thought” of source vs. the multi-dimensional aspects which allow you and I to navigate and go deeper into the quantum moment for the purpose of ‘experiencing the whole’.

“It is similar to the way we view time. We see time as linear when it is actually simultaneous. In reality, time is an illusion. All things happen simultaneously. Well, if space is viewed the same way you could in essence say there is no space… space is an illusion or hologram. Everything it is at the same time infinite and infinitesimal and can be reduced to a single point … zero point or simultaneity.”

Then there is the holographic universe theory to consider.


...some Western scientists and many others have said, the world is a giant hologram, that looks, feels, smells, tastes and seems like something solid, but is actually mostly empty space made from energy vibrating at a slow rate.

We live in a giant version of the Holodeck on Star Trek. Quantum physics has shown us that the atom can appear as a particle (matter) or a wave (energy) and displays characteristics of both simultaneously. The wave is all possibility until it “collapses” (due to our observation and intent) into a particle and solidifies.

Is it possible that flat earth people are looking at the “wave” aspect of the atom rather than the “particle” aspect? Could the Earth be flat on an unlimited plane, until it collapses into particle form and becomes a sphere?

It is an open question that remains to be solved, but meanwhile, it is greatly encouraging to see people taking such an active part in questioning everything around them, because it is only by asking the right questions that we can gain freedom from ignorance and enslavement. source (http://humansarefree.com/2015/07/the-mother-of-all-conspiracies-flat.html)

[Selkie]

If the earth is flat, then is it a spinning disc of some kind? How thick would such a disc be?

Because clearly there are mountains, and we can drill into the earth quite a way, even under the sea floor, and magma comes from somewhere. So it must be pretty thick.

addtion Or even if the disc is not spinning, it would still have to be pretty thick, because, like I said, magma has to come from somewhere.

[loveoflife]

If the earth is flat, then is it a spinning disc of some kind? How thick would such a disc be?

Because clearly there are mountains, and we can drill into the earth quite a way, even under the sea floor, and magma comes from somewhere. So it must be pretty thick.

I can answer those.

In the flat earth model , Earth does not spin it is stationary and geocentric (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2011/11/earth-is-not-moving.html). As to its limits or depth no one knows. The mystery is Antarctica a barrier of ice that makes exploration difficult to say the least. Also according to the Antarctic Treaty independent exploration is no longer allowed, only supervised scientific expeditions along specific routes.

The deepest hole drilled was in Russia and that was 8 miles deep, so it did not even get through the crust. What is below that and regarding the Earths core is simply a matter of speculation and theory as is much of science upon closer examination.

[Selkie]

If the earth is flat, then is it a spinning disc of some kind? How thick would such a disc be?

Because clearly there are mountains, and we can drill into the earth quite a way, even under the sea floor, and magma comes from somewhere. So it must be pretty thick.

I can answer those.

In the flat earth model , Earth does not spin it is stationary and geocentric (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2011/11/earth-is-not-moving.html). As to its limits or depth no one knows. The mystery is Antarctica a barrier of ice that makes exploration difficult to say the least. Also according to the Antarctic Treaty independent exploration is no longer allowed, only supervised scientific expeditions along specific routes.

The deepest hole drilled was in Russia and that was 8 miles deep, so it did not even get through the crust. What is below that and regarding the Earths core is simply a matter of speculation and theory as is much of science upon closer examination.

But where does magma come from in the FE paradigm?

[loveoflife]

If the earth is flat, then is it a spinning disc of some kind? How thick would such a disc be?

Because clearly there are mountains, and we can drill into the earth quite a way, even under the sea floor, and magma comes from somewhere. So it must be pretty thick.

I can answer those.

In the flat earth model , Earth does not spin it is stationary and geocentric (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2011/11/earth-is-not-moving.html). As to its limits or depth no one knows. The mystery is Antarctica a barrier of ice that makes exploration difficult to say the least. Also according to the Antarctic Treaty independent exploration is no longer allowed, only supervised scientific expeditions along specific routes.

The deepest hole drilled was in Russia and that was 8 miles deep, so it did not even get through the crust. What is below that and regarding the Earths core is simply a matter of speculation and theory as is much of science upon closer examination.

But where does magma come from in the FE paradigm?

As far as i know no one knows. As no one has drilled deep enough to know i would also say that in the ball earth it is also a mystery as i like to call it, or a theory among scientists.

It is interesting how theories turn into accepted facts with time.

This quote comes to mind.

I
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.


Joseph Goebbels

[Selkie]

If the earth is flat, then is it a spinning disc of some kind? How thick would such a disc be?

Because clearly there are mountains, and we can drill into the earth quite a way, even under the sea floor, and magma comes from somewhere. So it must be pretty thick.

I can answer those.

In the flat earth model , Earth does not spin it is stationary and geocentric (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2011/11/earth-is-not-moving.html). As to its limits or depth no one knows. The mystery is Antarctica a barrier of ice that makes exploration difficult to say the least. Also according to the Antarctic Treaty independent exploration is no longer allowed, only supervised scientific expeditions along specific routes.

The deepest hole drilled was in Russia and that was 8 miles deep, so it did not even get through the crust. What is below that and regarding the Earths core is simply a matter of speculation and theory as is much of science upon closer examination.

But where does magma come from in the FE paradigm?

As far as i know no one knows. As no one has drilled deep enough to know i would also say that in the ball earth it is also a mystery as i like to call it, or a theory among scientists.

It is interesting how theories turn into accepted facts with time.

This quote comes to mind.

I
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.


Joseph Goebbels

Well, magma is a physical fact, and the spherical earth explains where it comes from. If the FE paradigm can't explain where magma comes from, then they have a really big problem on their hands.

[loveoflife]

If the earth is flat, then is it a spinning disc of some kind? How thick would such a disc be?

Because clearly there are mountains, and we can drill into the earth quite a way, even under the sea floor, and magma comes from somewhere. So it must be pretty thick.

I can answer those.

In the flat earth model , Earth does not spin it is stationary and geocentric (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2011/11/earth-is-not-moving.html). As to its limits or depth no one knows. The mystery is Antarctica a barrier of ice that makes exploration difficult to say the least. Also according to the Antarctic Treaty independent exploration is no longer allowed, only supervised scientific expeditions along specific routes.

The deepest hole drilled was in Russia and that was 8 miles deep, so it did not even get through the crust. What is below that and regarding the Earths core is simply a matter of speculation and theory as is much of science upon closer examination.

But where does magma come from in the FE paradigm?

As far as i know no one knows. As no one has drilled deep enough to know i would also say that in the ball earth it is also a mystery as i like to call it, or a theory among scientists.

It is interesting how theories turn into accepted facts with time.

This quote comes to mind.

I
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.


Joseph Goebbels

Well, magma is a physical fact, and the spherical earth explains where it comes from. If the FE paradigm can't explain where magma comes from, then they have a really big problem on their hands.

There are anomalies in both models from my investigations. It even seems that there are more anomalies in the ball earth theory.

That is my point. Of course ball earth scientists explain EVERTHING. They have to be all knowing in their modern day religion of scientism.

Flat Earthers are not mainstrem, neither do the have funding of trillions of $ like NASA and mainstream science, what do you expect.

I said this before Eric Dubay has published for free pdf d/l 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball. (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html) He claims that everything in there is scientific fact. What i want to see is someone take on that document and debunk it point by point. It seems that nobody on this forum can do that. Even science with its budget of millions is not taking it on. Maybe someone knows someone who can do it, without referring to scientific equations that the lay person does not understand. I like this quote.


If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

The answer to many of those points is 'gravity' another theory, that has more magical properties than scientific. A force strong enough to keep the oceans fixed to the Earth on a ball spinning at 1000mph, and weak enough for fish to swim in them unhindered. Strong enough to hold the atmosphere and Moon in place and at the same time weak enough for insects to fly against the spin.

Why do those who do not accept a flat earth model do their own investigation instead of leaving it flat earthers to prove it for them? Thats just plain laziness, though it does not stop the many uninformed opinions.

[Selkie]

If the earth is flat, then is it a spinning disc of some kind? How thick would such a disc be?

Because clearly there are mountains, and we can drill into the earth quite a way, even under the sea floor, and magma comes from somewhere. So it must be pretty thick.

I can answer those.

In the flat earth model , Earth does not spin it is stationary and geocentric (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2011/11/earth-is-not-moving.html). As to its limits or depth no one knows. The mystery is Antarctica a barrier of ice that makes exploration difficult to say the least. Also according to the Antarctic Treaty independent exploration is no longer allowed, only supervised scientific expeditions along specific routes.

The deepest hole drilled was in Russia and that was 8 miles deep, so it did not even get through the crust. What is below that and regarding the Earths core is simply a matter of speculation and theory as is much of science upon closer examination.

But where does magma come from in the FE paradigm?

As far as i know no one knows. As no one has drilled deep enough to know i would also say that in the ball earth it is also a mystery as i like to call it, or a theory among scientists.

It is interesting how theories turn into accepted facts with time.

This quote comes to mind.

I
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.


Joseph Goebbels

Well, magma is a physical fact, and the spherical earth explains where it comes from. If the FE paradigm can't explain where magma comes from, then they have a really big problem on their hands.

There are anomalies in both models from my investigations. It even seems that there are more anomalies in the ball earth theory.

That is my point. Of course ball earth scientists explain EVERTHING. They have to be all knowing in their modern day religion of scientism.

Flat Earthers are not mainstrem, neither do the have funding of trillions of $ like NASA and mainstream science, what do you expect.

I said this before Eric Dubay has published for free pdf d/l 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball. (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html) He claims that everything in there is scientific fact. What i want to see is someone take on that document and debunk it point by point. It seems that nobody on this forum can do that. Even science with its budget of millions is not taking it on. Maybe someone knows someone who can do it, without referring to scientific equations that the lay person does not understand. I like this quote.


If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

The answer to many of those points is 'gravity' another theory, that has more magical properties than scientific. A force strong enough to keep the oceans fixed to the Earth on a ball spinning at 1000mph, and weak enough for fish to swim in them unhindered. Strong enough to hold the atmosphere and Moon in place and at the same time weak enough for insects to fly against the spin.

Why do those who do not accept a flat earth model do their own investigation instead of leaving it flat earthers to prove it for them? Thats just plain laziness, though it does not stop the many uninformed opinions.

Or maybe the spherical earth scientists can explain everything because the earth is actually spherical?

[loveoflife]

I had to post this one very intriguing.

This video is well worth watching if you dont watch it to the end you are definitely missing something.

K9RF9lLBIMs

How could these sundials work correctly on a spinning ball that’s also spinning around the sun, and still correctly measure time? Not to mention be used as late as the 19th century to correct mechanical clocks… link
(http://www.flatearthconspiracy.com/sundials-and-the-flat-earth/)
http://res.cloudinary.com/dxr7zaefl/image/upload/c_scale,w_650/v1436754568/Sundial_r4blri.jpg

[DeDukshyn]

How do flights get from Sydney to Santiago non-stop in less time than it takes to get from Sydney to Vancouver? If the earth is flat this needs to be explained rationally ... If it cannot be explained with the flat earth model then it isn't likely a reality, unlike the reality that a flight can and does get from Sydney to Santiago, non-stop on a plane that cannot fly more than 13,600 kms without refueling, in less time than the same plane flying from Sydney to Vancouver? How is this possible if the flat earth model is true?

Back in my previous example, the flight would be about 26,000 kms from Santiago to Sydney if the flat earth model were true -- this is incorrect, because the flight doesn't fly over north America does it? It doesn't. In fact it flies close to Antarctica. The flight from Buenos Aries, Argentina to Sydney does fly over Antarctica. In the flat earth model, this flight would be have to be represented by the plane flying along the very edge of the flat earth, so that it may cross the land of Antarctica. Perilously close to hitting the edge of the invisible dome that encompasses the flat earth even. ;) With some simple extrapolation, we can then conclude that this flight must be closer to 40,000 kms - not 26,000.

Here is the polar flight path from Sydney to Buenos Aries (right-most map), and my "pathing" that out on the flat earth map, so we can see the distance that is covered with the flat earth model:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/PolarRoute.png

30993

Here is a written account of a person who took this flight and took photos along the way as he flew over Antarctica: http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/4310/what-if-any-regularly-scheduled-airline-flights-pass-over-antarctica

So (assuming the flat earth model is true for a moment) it is about a 40,000 km flight from Buenos Aries to Sydney, and about 13,000 km flight from Vancouver to Sydney. The map confirms that this MUST be true, doesn't it? That flight MUST be 40,000 kms, else the flat earth map is wrong. Yes or no?

The cruising speed of a 747 passenger jumbo jet is about 900 km/h (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747) give or take a little depending on the variant. Let's set aside the obviously glaring fact that a 747 can only go ~13,500 kms without refueling for a moment and work out this 40,000 km flight time. 40,000 kms @ 900km/h = a 44.5 hour long flight. Yes 44.5 hours.

Now let's consider the fuel the 747 can hold; it would be required to stop TWO times during that flight.

So if the flat earth model is true, that flight would take 44.5 hours, require two stops for fuel, when it could simply avoid the dangerous "Antarctic" regions, avoid giving people a potential glimpse of the "edge of the earth", stay the danger of almost clipping the edge of the "dome", etc. simply by flying straight from one destination to the other and shaving off about 13,000 kms.

- So why does this flight take this route?
- Why does the plane not stop twice for refuelling?
- How does a 40,000 km flight only take 15 hours and 12 minutes (http://www.travelmath.com/flying-time/from/Sydney,+Australia/to/Buenos+Aires,+Argentina), in a plane that can only fly 900km/h?
- Why would the flight path take the longest possible, most dangerous route possible, when there are proven safe and far shorter alternatives?
-Why does this person (http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/4310/what-if-any-regularly-scheduled-airline-flights-pass-over-antarctica) who took the flight, and has photos to prove he was over Antarctica, suggest it as a great route? Did he not notice the 44.5 hour long flight? Was he sleeping for both stops of fuel in the middle of the ocean on floating refueling platforms?

If those answers can't be produced with reason and logic that amounts to proof, flat earth cannot be true. This type of reasoning is called deduction or deductive reasoning. This type of reasoning appears absent from flat earthers and various other "believers" such as religious fanatics. It can be the discerning person's best friend. If you really want to know how to whittle into the truth of things (any thing) one must employ this method of reasoning. Read about it here, and learn it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

--------------------------------------

Airlines take their safety seriously. The reason why commercial airlines don't fly directly over Antarctica is 1) no flights are needed to go directly over while connecting any 2 destinations, and a lesser but still extremely valid reason 2) Due to safety. There are very strong turbulent winds there, and if a pilot has a choice, they avoid those conditions. If the conditions are persistent, the flight path avoids those areas. If a plane were to crash in the Antarctic, no chance of rescue, so the paths don't go there. In the arctic, people live there, military has bases there, and between Canada and Russia, there are plenty of people close enough to make rescue missions easy.

--------------------------------------

I agree that Antarctica is mysterious and is generally desired to be kept off limits by the militaries of the world. I believe that Antarctica was once not all that long ago, not covered in ice and not frozen, and possibly not where it is today. I believe there are remnants of an ancient advanced civilization there, and the great cataclysm left it in it's current place / state. I believe the remnants contain very advanced technology.

I believe the secrecy is to deny humanity's true history, the same as the secrecy regarding the moon, the pyramids, a plethora of ancient artifacts, and passed down indigenous knowledge (a la Credo Mutwa, Inca / Aztech / Maya), that all point to an advanced ancient civilization, all which have had suppressant effects applied to them. Religions also supress this knowledge - it is partly what they were designed for.

The controlling powers of this world are fully within the religions, and the governments, and a lot of the archeology / paleontology circles. They control all three points and thus have a firm hand on supressing the knowledge on this ancient civilization.

None of this indicates the earth is flat.

The flat earth model is simply a map, a different type of projection so that you can get all continents into a round shape, except Antarctica, but no one cares about Antarctica because no humans live there and is uninhabitable for the most part. The UN uses that map, because it fits neatly into a logo, covers all the continents and countries where humans live, and indicates the UN's desired power over humanity.

[Selkie]

I had to post this one very intriguing.

This video is well worth watching if you dont watch it to the end you are definitely missing something.

K9RF9lLBIMs

How could these sundials work correctly on a spinning ball that’s also spinning around the sun, and still correctly measure time? Not to mention be used as late as the 19th century to correct mechanical clocks… link
(http://www.flatearthconspiracy.com/sundials-and-the-flat-earth/)
http://res.cloudinary.com/dxr7zaefl/image/upload/c_scale,w_650/v1436754568/Sundial_r4blri.jpg

Sundials are latitude-specific; they have to be adjusted to one's latitude.

http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/07/64907-004-870197D7.jpg

[DeDukshyn]

I had to post this one very intriguing.

This video is well worth watching if you dont watch it to the end you are definitely missing something.

K9RF9lLBIMs

How could these sundials work correctly on a spinning ball that’s also spinning around the sun, and still correctly measure time? Not to mention be used as late as the 19th century to correct mechanical clocks… link
(http://www.flatearthconspiracy.com/sundials-and-the-flat-earth/)
http://res.cloudinary.com/dxr7zaefl/image/upload/c_scale,w_650/v1436754568/Sundial_r4blri.jpg

I watched the video to the end. It doesn't indicate a flat earth at all, just an ancient and relatively accurate sundial in India. in the 14th century, how did mechanical clocks keep their time? Do you know how? With a pendulum of some sort, and a resistant force of some sort - either a spring, or a weight. The interval of a second was the smallest unit a clock was ever tuned to - one pendulum swing per second. Now imagine trying to tune this swing to exactly a second. It cannot be 1 millisecond off, or the time will drift. If you are even one millisecond off (which such accuracy was likely unheard of in those times, I am being generous), your clock is off by 1 whole second every 16.666 minutes, or off by 83 seconds each day; after one week, your clock is off by over nine and a half minutes, after one month, it is off by about 40 minutes, and again I am being REALLY generous on the accuracy of old clocks. So what can we possibly use to re-calibrate a mechanical clock before crystal timing? What is the only option? A sundial. So "no s**t Sherlock", they used to use sundials to correct drift, or to reset when one forgot to rewind the spring or reset the weights. It has NOTHING to do with a flat earth.

You ask, "How could these sundials work correctly on a spinning ball that’s also spinning around the sun" ... this is NOT the question. The question is, explain to me how a sundial would NOT work if the earth rotated around the sun. Show me how it wouldn't work. Find evidence that this shouldn't work, and ensure to only use resources that consider the accurate scales of the real life models (ie proper scale, distances, and sizes of the spheres, because this is important).

[DeDukshyn]

Again, all we are seeing is evidence of an advanced ancient civilization that has passed some of it's knowings of the "spherical" earth, and enabled the building of accurate sundials at specific latitudes. Thanks for pointing that out Selkie :). In fact sundials are lending evidence the earth is NOT flat, when you really think about it ;)

[Harley]

Well I'll say one thing

This thread sure turned into an exercise of critical thinking didn't it! :)

[Selkie]

Well I'll say one thing

This thread sure turned into an exercise of critical thinking didn't it! :)

Not for everyone...

[DeDukshyn]

Well I'll say one thing

This thread sure turned into an exercise of critical thinking didn't it! :)

Not for everyone...

Well for me it was an exercise in practice of turning critical thinking into a verbal explanation (my mind doesn't think verbally) -- no guarantees on reception though unfortunately :)

[Bill Ryan]

In fact sundials are lending evidence the earth is NOT flat, when you really think about it ;)

Yes, they are.

http://resources.yesican-science.ca/lpdd/g06/lp/eratosthenes.gif

This is what Eratosthenes (who was a pretty smart dude) figured out over 2,250 years ago. He was aware that at noon on the summer solstice or the first day of summer, the Sun in the city of Syene passed directly overhead. Yet, on the same day in the city of Alexandria — some 5,000 stadia (c.570 miles) to the north — vertical objects cast a shadow of 7 degrees. If the Earth were flat, this observation can't be explained. Yet if the Earth were round, Eratosthenes reasoned, one could use this information to compute the Earth's circumference. (Which he did, remarkably accurately, even by modern standards.)

The relevance is that the sundial principle was used here, as well. :thumbsup:

[Bill Ryan]

Yet, on the same day in the city of Alexandria — some 5,000 stadia (c.570 miles) to the north

PS: What I love about this story is the legend that Eratosthenes actually paid a man (a messenger runner) to pace the distance to measure it as accurately as possible.

(I guess whether this was easy money or not depends on how much he was paid! :) )

[aviators]

The FE topic is intriguing for some and amusing for others. Thanks to all members who have collaborated respectfully.
The "direct" southern airline flights say from Australia to South America according to the FE researchers don't exist.
See picture.30999

Most flights have connecting stops. This doubles the time of the trip. Hmm...
I'm sure someone could document one of these non stop flights. Maybe :silent:

Mark Sargent did a short video here on southern flight routes.
A0FuO8lQV18

[Bill Ryan]

The "direct" southern airline flights say from Australia to South America according to the FE researchers don't exist.


Well, 'the FE researchers' aren't very good!

Leaving tomorrow — is that okay? (Book your ticket, on Orbitz, here (http://www.orbitz.com/shop/home?type=air&ar.type=roundTrip&strm=true&ar.rt.leaveSlice.orig.key=Auckland%2C+New+Zealand+-+Auckland+Airport+%28AKL%29&_ar.rt.leaveSlice.originRadius=0&ar.rt.leaveSlice.dest.key=Santiago%2C+Chile+-+Arturo+Merino+Benitez+%28SCL%29&_ar.rt.leaveSlice.destinationRadius=0&ar.rt.leaveSlice.date=8%2F31%2F15&ar.rt.leaveSlice.time=Anytime&ar.rt.returnSlice.date=9%2F21%2F15&ar.rt.returnSlice.time=Anytime&_ar.rt.flexAirSearch=0&ar.rt.nonStop=true&_ar.rt.nonStop=0&ar.rt.numAdult=1&ar.rt.numSenior=0&ar.rt.numChild=0&ar.rt.child[0]=&ar.rt.child[1]=&ar.rt.child[2]=&ar.rt.child[3]=&ar.rt.child[4]=&ar.rt.child[5]=&ar.rt.child[6]=&ar.rt.child[7]=&search=Search+Flights&_ar.rt.narrowSel=0&ar.rt.narrow=airlines&ar.rt.carriers[0]=&ar.rt.carriers[1]=&ar.rt.carriers[2]=&ar.rt.cabin=C))

http://projectavalon.net/Auckland_to_Santiago_nonstop.gif

(Sydney to Santiago wasn't available. I assume flying from New Zealand will do, to make the point.)

[aviators]

sorry but I couldent book this flight. I'm not saying they don't list a direct flight.
If you research the flat earthers they say you can't book these direct flights.
In a sense a decoy of sorts. After all this is the biggest conspericy ever.

Contact airline to book
You must book this flight directly with the airline because we are unable to process the reservation request for one or more of the following reasons:

Flight departs in less than 6 hours.
Flight requires paper tickets and there's insufficient time to process and deliver the tickets before departure.
The airlines do not have ticketing agreements with each other.
The airline requires that reservations be made directly with its agents.
We are prohibited from selling flights to that destination country.

[Bill Ryan]

sorry but I couldent book this flight. I'm not saying they don't list a direct flight.
If you research the flat earthers they say you can't book these direct flights.
In a sense a decoy of sorts. After all this is the biggest conspericy ever.

Contact airline to book
You must book this flight directly with the airline because we are unable to process the reservation request for one or more of the following reasons:

Flight departs in less than 6 hours.
Flight requires paper tickets and there's insufficient time to process and deliver the tickets before departure.
The airlines do not have ticketing agreements with each other.

The airline requires that reservations be made directly with its agents.
We are prohibited from selling flights to that destination country.


Did you try doing your own research — rather than believe what you've read elsewhere — and change the dates? (Book this different one here (http://www.orbitz.com/shop/airsearch?type=air&ar.type=roundTrip&strm=true&ar.rt.leaveSlice.orig.key=AKL&_ar.rt.leaveSlice.originRadius=0&ar.rt.leaveSlice.dest.key=SCL&_ar.rt.leaveSlice.destinationRadius=0&ar.rt.leaveSlice.date=09%2F16%2F15&ar.rt.leaveSlice.time=Anytime&ar.rt.returnSlice.date=10%2F31%2F15&ar.rt.returnSlice.time=Anytime&_ar.rt.flexAirSearch=0&ar.rt.numAdult=1&ar.rt.numSenior=0&ar.rt.numChild=0&ar.rt.child[0]=&ar.rt.child[1]=&ar.rt.child[2]=&ar.rt.child[3]=&ar.rt.child[4]=&ar.rt.child[5]=&ar.rt.child[6]=&ar.rt.child[7]=&ar.rt.nonStop=true&_ar.rt.nonStop=0&search=Search+Flights&_ar.rt.narrowSel=0&ar.rt.narrow=airlines&ar.rt.carriers[0]=&ar.rt.carriers[1]=&ar.rt.carriers[2]=&ar.rt.cabin=C): see below. Any dates will work as long as there's enough time to make the booking.)

Your problem was because the flight departs from New Zealand and the Earth is round and spinning, hence the time zone difference (work it out) — and the flight was just about to leave.

http://projectavalon.net/Auckland_to_Santiago_nonstop_2.gif

[loveoflife]

You ask, "How could these sundials work correctly on a spinning ball that’s also spinning around the sun" ... this is NOT the question. The question is, explain to me how a sundial would NOT work if the earth rotated around the sun. Show me how it wouldn't work. Find evidence that this shouldn't work, and ensure to only use resources that consider the accurate scales of the real life models (ie proper scale, distances, and sizes of the spheres, because this is important).

Nice cop out, answer a question with a question.

[loveoflife]

You ask, "How could these sundials work correctly on a spinning ball that’s also spinning around the sun" ... this is NOT the question. The question is, explain to me how a sundial would NOT work if the earth rotated around the sun. Show me how it wouldn't work. Find evidence that this shouldn't work, and ensure to only use resources that consider the accurate scales of the real life models (ie proper scale, distances, and sizes of the spheres, because this is important).

Nice cop out, answer a question with a question.

I am not convinced.

I want scientific experimental evidence that the earth is moving, not theoretical mathematics, geometry or physics.

[aviators]

Thanks Bill for pointing these direct flights out.
I have noticed these before. With some more reseach we should
be able to prove these flights exist or NOT. Not just listings.
I'm sure someone could document one of these non stop flights. Maybe

Limited research has raised more questions for me.
The southern airline routes is key for debunking this whole FE argument. IMHO

Some tools are flight trackers.
Here's one. http://www.flightradar24.com/-29.76,-155.15/3

We should be able to track those direct flights that you listed. Right?
Significant research has been done by others already. But I'm NOT convinced yet.
This is just discovery.
Here's a short video on southern flight routes that disappear. Hmm..
VmmjUhukRhU

[araucaria]

I want to make a couple of comments. The first is to do with proof: many people have a problem, not with a lack, but with a surfeit of proof; see this.


You are right Agape, much of science is consensus politics, which is the downside to peer reviewing, and has two consequences: 1) funding is funneled to agenda-based or pointless research (the sex life of the fruit fly in the context of climate change would win on both counts) and 2) if you research anything else, you are automatically out of the mainstream, and therefore a discredited maverick. Mainstream scientists are often in business with probability rates against chance of one in twenty or less, but discredited mavericks will regularly do as well as that if not considerably better, but owing to their subject matter, nothing is ever deemed proven, although on a level playing field any one such would be considered conclusive or at the very least a valid basis justifying further inquiry.
Here is one example taken from Maurice Chatelain. It involves mathematical evidence drawn from forensic evidence – imprints in the soil of 76 UFO landings – collected by the French police all over France over a 25-day period late in 1954. Many of these sites were along parallel lines exactly 63 km apart, a multiple of 21 cm, the wavelength of hydrogen that is a universal yardstick. One scientist calculated the number of triangles formed between these points (70,300), measured them all and found 1864 isosceles triangles. This is an interesting number because 70,300 divided by 1864 comes to 264/7 or twelve times 22/7, the vulgar fraction value of Pi used by ancient pyramid builders. All the coordinates and figures were checked and validated on a computer by another – skeptical – scientist. In addition, four different samples of 76 random points were checked for the average number of isosceles triangles they produced: each time in the low 1600s: around 250 less.

What happens with examples like this is that they take one so far beyond coincidence that the mind boggles. It is not just one event that is being validated, but a whole concerted array of 76, and the proof of that concertation involves a much larger number of triangles that must have been calculated with considerable skill and precisely positioned with even more skill. This is typical of this type of phenomena. People’s eyes glaze over at the intricacy of all the numbers fitting together, the same as they do when the Great Pyramid is analyzed. For most people demanding proof, they are obviously getting turned off or dazzled out by too much of a good thing.

The only way to bring people round is positive individual experiences comparable to the NDE. It have to be one person at a time since there is probably too much fear of negative technology being used to perform a mass disclosure. And understandably so: we are talking about a population that has been seriously traumatized by unwelcome intrusion.

Herein lies the real problem, doesn't it?
But once a person decides to pursue this path just a little, and becomes enamoured with this incredible order
which seems to underlie everything at the macrocosm as well as the microcosm,
then to return to the old fascination with randomness and chaos becomes a challenge.

The second point is also taken from p.130 of Maurice Chatelain’s book. If we are not living on a sphere, it is impossible to make any sense of the following passage collating evidence from all parts of the globe; this gives it the status of a meta-analysis, thereby lending huge weight to the conclusions to be drawn from it, because they are derived from a vast body of data. Since that data relies on longitude and latitude, and hence the position of various cities on a sphere, as both measured in the past and confirmed in the present, we have conclusive evidence that not only is the Earth not flat, but this has been known for at least 6,000 years. :)

All units of measure in the distant past of our civilization had the same basic system in their foundations – all were determined from the exact dimensions of our planet Earth. Incredible as this may sound to the uninitiated, our ancestors derived their feet and inches from the length of one degree of latitude or longitude. Quite naturally they used the longitude and latitude at which they lived and that explains why there were so many different feet and other units of measurement derived from the local degrees.
The length of 1° of latitude varies from 110,567 m at the equator to 111,700 m at the pole, while one degree of longitude varies from zero at the pole to 111,321 m at the equator. These two basic units of longitude or latitude were divided by an appropriate round number to obtain a measurement of length that approximated the average natural dimension of a human foot, finger, hand, or forearm. The Semites expressed their units in their usual system of counting by 10, while the Sumerians registered theirs by counting by 12 or 60, and the Olmecs and the Mayas by counting to 20. But the basis for all those different calculations was the same – the true dimensions of Earth.

So the proof is pretty overwhelming – which brings us back to my first post. Overwhelming proof has never been a problem. However, if you are throwing out bathwater, watch out for flying babies. You cannot for example contend that the Earth is flat and at the same time defend things like forbidden archaeology, lost knowledge of ancient civilizations, and probably a great deal of other such things that are staples of sites like Avalon. In other words, anyone who is a member of the forum yet cannot agree on a number of its basic received ideas is probably trolling.

[DeDukshyn]

You ask, "How could these sundials work correctly on a spinning ball that’s also spinning around the sun" ... this is NOT the question. The question is, explain to me how a sundial would NOT work if the earth rotated around the sun. Show me how it wouldn't work. Find evidence that this shouldn't work, and ensure to only use resources that consider the accurate scales of the real life models (ie proper scale, distances, and sizes of the spheres, because this is important).

Nice cop out, answer a question with a question.

Sundials do work on a globe earth, you have been indicating and linking resources that say they shouldn't. I want to examine that argument so I need to know why it shouldn't work before I can examine it, obviously. So, for the sake of truth finding and not turning a blind eye to potential evidence, I want to examine why it is said that a sundial shouldn't work on a sphere model earth.

How is that cop out? It is what is required if we are to examine this other piece of potential flat earth evidence. Or ... would you rather that not be examined in detail, and if so, why?

[DeDukshyn]

The FE topic is intriguing for some and amusing for others. Thanks to all members who have collaborated respectfully.
The "direct" southern airline flights say from Australia to South America according to the FE researchers don't exist.
See picture.30999

Most flights have connecting stops. This doubles the time of the trip. Hmm...
I'm sure someone could document one of these non stop flights. Maybe :silent:

,,,

RE: the "long haul flight" -- just because an airline has connections between those destinations in that order does not constitute evidence for a flat earth. It's a bit like saying, "since hwy 33 goes to <place x> I guess that means hwy 42 <alternoute route to place x> doesn't exist!" -- flawed logic.

Did you not read through my post #203 (edit - corrected post#)? I linked to an account of someone who took a flight from south America to Australia, where he even took pictures and posted them. Let us not discount the actual flights that you can pay for right now as indicated by Bill.

[DeDukshyn]

You ask, "How could these sundials work correctly on a spinning ball that’s also spinning around the sun" ... this is NOT the question. The question is, explain to me how a sundial would NOT work if the earth rotated around the sun. Show me how it wouldn't work. Find evidence that this shouldn't work, and ensure to only use resources that consider the accurate scales of the real life models (ie proper scale, distances, and sizes of the spheres, because this is important).

Nice cop out, answer a question with a question.

I am not convinced.

I want scientific experimental evidence that the earth is moving, not theoretical mathematics, geometry or physics.

What does this type of evidence look like? This "scientific" evidence that uses no math, geometry or physics? Describe it to me. Basically you are saying, "I want scientific evidence that isn't determined by using science." Do you realize how absurdly silly that sounds?

It's stances like this that make it so easy to dismiss flat earthers ... yet here we are providing evidence that is discounting the "flat earth" evidence piece by piece, using science and any other resource necessary, and now, because of that, we are requested to present scientific evidence without science to satisfy the methodology a flat earther requires us to employ before considering the evidence?

[aviators]

The FE topic is intriguing for some and amusing for others. Thanks to all members who have collaborated respectfully.
The "direct" southern airline flights say from Australia to South America according to the FE researchers don't exist.
See picture.30999

Most flights have connecting stops. This doubles the time of the trip. Hmm...
I'm sure someone could document one of these non stop flights. Maybe :silent:

,,,



Did you not read through my post #26? I linked to an account of someone who took a flight from south America to Australia, where he even took pictures and posted them.

I would be interested in this. Please post the link here if you don't mind?

[araucaria]

The FE topic is intriguing for some and amusing for others. Thanks to all members who have collaborated respectfully.
The "direct" southern airline flights say from Australia to South America according to the FE researchers don't exist.
See picture.30999

Most flights have connecting stops. This doubles the time of the trip. Hmm...
I'm sure someone could document one of these non stop flights. Maybe :silent:

,,,



Did you not read through my post #26? I linked to an account of someone who took a flight from south America to Australia, where he even took pictures and posted them.

I would be interested in this. Please post the link here if you don't mind?
I think he should mind - why don't you just go and look at post #26 for yourself?

[loveoflife]

You ask, "How could these sundials work correctly on a spinning ball that’s also spinning around the sun" ... this is NOT the question. The question is, explain to me how a sundial would NOT work if the earth rotated around the sun. Show me how it wouldn't work. Find evidence that this shouldn't work, and ensure to only use resources that consider the accurate scales of the real life models (ie proper scale, distances, and sizes of the spheres, because this is important).

Nice cop out, answer a question with a question.

I am not convinced.

I want scientific experimental evidence that the earth is moving, not theoretical mathematics, geometry or physics.

What does this type of evidence look like? This "scientific" evidence that uses no math, geometry or physics? Describe it to me. Basically you are saying, "I want scientific evidence that isn't determined by using science." Do you realize how absurdly silly that sounds?

It's stances like this that make it so easy to dismiss flat earthers ... yet here we are providing evidence that is discounting the "flat earth" evidence piece by piece, using science and any other resource necessary, and now, because of that, we are requested to present scientific evidence without science to satisfy the methodology a flat earther requires us to employ before considering the evidence?

Something like the -Michleson-Morley Experiment’s. Equations are not experiments. What you say also what makes it easy to dismiss indoctrinated scientists who view science as some sort of religion.

Tesla changed the world with his many experiments, he criticised Einstein and never dismissed aether.


Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
Nikola Tesla, Modern Mechanics and Inventions, July, 1934

[DeDukshyn]

The FE topic is intriguing for some and amusing for others. Thanks to all members who have collaborated respectfully.
The "direct" southern airline flights say from Australia to South America according to the FE researchers don't exist.
See picture.30999

Most flights have connecting stops. This doubles the time of the trip. Hmm...
I'm sure someone could document one of these non stop flights. Maybe :silent:

,,,



Did you not read through my post #26? I linked to an account of someone who took a flight from south America to Australia, where he even took pictures and posted them.

I would be interested in this. Please post the link here if you don't mind?
I think he should mind - why don't you just go and look at post #26 for yourself?

Actually I got the post# wrong by a longshot -- it is #203 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?83765-A-Flat-Earth-not-Round-...&p=994341&viewfull=1#post994341)

Aviator, I prefer that my entire post be read within it's context. I posted a link to it. in this post.

[DeDukshyn]

You ask, "How could these sundials work correctly on a spinning ball that’s also spinning around the sun" ... this is NOT the question. The question is, explain to me how a sundial would NOT work if the earth rotated around the sun. Show me how it wouldn't work. Find evidence that this shouldn't work, and ensure to only use resources that consider the accurate scales of the real life models (ie proper scale, distances, and sizes of the spheres, because this is important).

Nice cop out, answer a question with a question.

I am not convinced.

I want scientific experimental evidence that the earth is moving, not theoretical mathematics, geometry or physics.

What does this type of evidence look like? This "scientific" evidence that uses no math, geometry or physics? Describe it to me. Basically you are saying, "I want scientific evidence that isn't determined by using science." Do you realize how absurdly silly that sounds?

It's stances like this that make it so easy to dismiss flat earthers ... yet here we are providing evidence that is discounting the "flat earth" evidence piece by piece, using science and any other resource necessary, and now, because of that, we are requested to present scientific evidence without science to satisfy the methodology a flat earther requires us to employ before considering the evidence?

Something like the -Michleson-Morley Experiment’s. Equations are not experiments. What you say also what makes it easy to dismiss indoctrinated scientists who view science as some sort of religion.

Tesla changed the world with his many experiments, he criticised Einstein and never dismissed aether.


Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
Nikola Tesla, Modern Mechanics and Inventions, July, 1934


So you mean a bit like, get an actual account from someone who made the flight from south America to to Australia, who took photos over Antarctica along the way? You mean like present airline ticket sales options for the flight, stuff like that? If only someone would do this ... ;)

I understand that perhaps you can't work with or choose to dismiss all deductive reasoning, some people can, some people just can't grasp it or choose to dismiss it, which is why I presented the breadth of resources I have, all which support the "theoretical science". Still not good enough? Still worthy of dismissal? In fact that is all the Michleson-Morley experiments do, create a theoretical expectation from scientific theory and math, then test against that. This is exactly what has happened on this thread. I presented the impossibility of any flight from south America to Australia if the earth is flat, then checked into flights and they did exist. Then I found a first hand account of someone who made this trip, spoke about it, photographed it, and presented the photos. Bill also looked into these flights and posted images. Do you assume that we are all in cahoots, and really know the earth is flat, but just make up or fake evidence to try to trick you? The only reason someone would post their photos of their trip from SA to Aus on a travel site if it didn't happen would be if he knew the earth was really flat and was just trying to trick people into maintaining the that it is a sphere. Does that sound plausible?

The only reason an airline would sell tickets to an impossible destination would be if they were hiding the secret of a flat earth -- meaning they all know well that the earth is flat and they are trying to trick us. How many people would be required to keep this secret in the world? As I mentioned in an earlier post, are all these people who work in these industries forced to sign a waiver of "flat earth secrecy?". I don't buy that for a second, and neither should you. None of that logic is math or theory, and all mentioned in my previous posts, but it still won't be considered - if even read in the first place, I know. Evidence appears to be mounting in support of Bill's comment a few of his posts back ...

[Hervé]

Some people put themselves in good company:



http://www.sott.net/image/s13/264274/large/flatearth6.jpg
"The Earth is flat. Those who claim that it is spherical are atheists and should be punished"
Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah bin Baz, The highest religious authority of Saudi Arabia, 1993


... reminds me of those other guys, way back when:


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-S1DWPgEFD50/U5cRvlLyHTI/AAAAAAAAGDg/8nr02g8OuMw/s1600/galileo-church-pope-cartoon.bmp

[Marren]

Flat earth? Seriously? We have serious issues in this world and you are debating flat earth theory. There are so many ways you can dissprove this ridiculous idea. For one snipers have to take the curvature of the earth in consideration when setting up a shot. I could keep going, but it would be so silly.

[Bill Ryan]

snipers have to take the curvature of the earth in consideration when setting up a shot.

Thank you for that. I learned something there. (You see, we all can. :) )

Do read this fascinating article:
http://washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/39322/do-snipers-compensate-for-the-earthrsquos-rotation-what-the-coriolis

It's a tiny effect, but the longest authenticated sniper kill (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MK4SEoBFXk) was at a distance of 2.5 km (1.5 miles). That's quite something. EVERYTHING counts if you want that accuracy. There are quite a few discussions on the net about what's needed. Here's one:


Do Snipers Compensate for the Earth’s Rotation?





I recently read an article about a Navy SEAL sniper. The author lists possible variables that go into determining a shot, one of which is the rotation of the earth. How exactly does this affect a bullet in flight? Also, for my nonsniper purposes, does it affect my gas mileage? —Jason, Sacramento

The article I’m guessing you saw, entitled “The Way of the Sniper,” appeared in Men’s Journal, November 30, 2009. Written by Rick Telander, it tells the story of Navy sniper Scott Tyler. Telander writes:

“Each rifle a sniper uses has unique characteristics that are compounded by the ammunition and many, many exterior factors. There is wind. There is humidity. There is the spin of the Earth. There is even the fact that as a rifle is fired, its barrel heats up, the metal contracts, and the bullets are propelled faster.”

Reading this, your columnist didn’t doubt the rotation of the earth affects a bullet in flight. That’s because of the Coriolis effect: Any object moving horizontally on or near the earth’s surface is deflected slightly off course due to the spinning of the planet. The Coriolis effect has a big effect on phenomena like hurricanes and other weather systems, a small effect on small objects. But if the small object is a precisely aimed rifle bullet, and that bullet travels far enough, it’s not something you can completely ignore.

The question in my mind was: Wow, if at all, did a shooter account for the Coriolis effect when aiming? Your wind, your humidity, and for that matter your temperature and barometric pressure—these are all dynamic conditions that, to varying degrees, a marksman will factor into each shot. However, it’s hard to imagine a sniper on the field of battle thinking, “Damn, I better get the latest data on the rotation of the earth.”

Una agreed this was unlikely and began inquiring about what shooters actually do. She couldn’t reach Telander or a military sniper but did talk things over with a couple of hard-core target shooters at her local rifle range and online. Based on that plus her own calculations, she determined as follows:

1. Range is critical. At 100 yards, typical of what a police sharpshooter might encounter, most environmental factors, including the Coriolis effect, are negligible. But military snipers generally are much farther away, typically 400 yards and up—the current world record for a confirmed kill in combat is 2,430 meters, or roughly 1.5 miles.

2. At 1,000 yards the Coriolis deflection is small but not necessarily trivial. Una computed that at the latitude of Sacramento, a bullet traveling 1,000 yards would be deflected about three inches to the right. In addition, because gravity pulls the bullet down as it flies, you’d have to aim higher or lower depending on the degree to which you were facing east or west. If you were firing due east, you’d have to aim six inches lower, since the earth is rotating toward you, meaning your target would be slightly closer by the time the bullet arrived. If you were firing due west, you’d have to aim six inches higher.

3. Amateur long-range shooters can improve their aim using laser range finders and scopes with bullet-drop compensators; they’ll also consult cheat sheets of bullet and rifle performance and their own log of prior results, called a DOPE (“Data on Personal Equipment”) book. Military snipers may not always have access to such stuff in combat. But let’s take it as given that, one way or another, you can adjust for obvious environmental factors in the field—no doubt the best shooters do it instinctively.

4. Horizontal deflection caused by the Coriolis effect is more esoteric but in theory easy to adjust for, since it’s a function of your distance from the equator. When possible, any shooter, whether professional or amateur, makes a few test shots on arriving at a new location and tweaks his or her sights accordingly. Mostly this is to correct for maladjustments due to jostling in transit and such, but it also compensates for the Coriolis effect.

5. As we’ve seen, vertical deflection depends on, and can vary considerably according to, what direction you’re shooting. Nonetheless, none of the amateur shooters we heard from worried much about it, and my guess is military snipers don’t, either. More important things can go wrong, and besides, assuming your target is standing, what’s a couple inches up or down?

Turning now to your wimpy civilian concerns: Don’t sweat the Coriolis effect on your gas mileage. In Sacramento, the rotation of the earth causes your car to drift about 16 feet to the right per mile. That may be an issue if you’re barreling down a narrow two-lane, but correcting for it costs you less than a hundredth of a mile per gallon.

[DeDukshyn]

Flat earth? Seriously? We have serious issues in this world and you are debating flat earth theory. There are so many ways you can dissprove this ridiculous idea. For one snipers have to take the curvature of the earth in consideration when setting up a shot. I could keep going, but it would be so silly.

Flat earther's would have a different explanation for that, something like, "scientists lie about what direction gravity pulls from to keep us from finding out about the flat earth. They purposefully gave us the wrong numbers in case a sniper ever noticed that his bullet didn't actually curve as he would have expected if the earth was a rotating sphere, exposing the flat earth secret." - that would be about par for the course. We aren't allowed to use math apparently. :)


So you see the challenge at hand :) Some of us like challenges and are otherwise bored :)

[araucaria]

Actually I got the post# wrong by a longshot
Looks like you need to compensate for the Earth's rotation :)
The mistake doesn't invalidate my comment; if anything it makes matters worse. If you are arguing something, the least you can do is to have read the previous page. It's not even lazy; if one is prepared to make a post to request a reference, it has to be something else.

[KiwiElf]

And if you're talking flight times, you also need to take into account the west vs east jetstream; ie go one way, you're flying into a HEADwind; on the return you have a TAILwind. (Sure, some airlines crank the cruising speed right back to minimal and pump it up to go into the headwind and average out the fuel usage), ie the trip from NZ to Sydney takes longer than the reverse, although it's the same distance.

[loveoflife]

You ask, "How could these sundials work correctly on a spinning ball that’s also spinning around the sun" ... this is NOT the question. The question is, explain to me how a sundial would NOT work if the earth rotated around the sun. Show me how it wouldn't work. Find evidence that this shouldn't work, and ensure to only use resources that consider the accurate scales of the real life models (ie proper scale, distances, and sizes of the spheres, because this is important).

Nice cop out, answer a question with a question.

I am not convinced.

I want scientific experimental evidence that the earth is moving, not theoretical mathematics, geometry or physics.

What does this type of evidence look like? This "scientific" evidence that uses no math, geometry or physics? Describe it to me. Basically you are saying, "I want scientific evidence that isn't determined by using science." Do you realize how absurdly silly that sounds?

It's stances like this that make it so easy to dismiss flat earthers ... yet here we are providing evidence that is discounting the "flat earth" evidence piece by piece, using science and any other resource necessary, and now, because of that, we are requested to present scientific evidence without science to satisfy the methodology a flat earther requires us to employ before considering the evidence?

Something like the -Michleson-Morley Experiment’s. Equations are not experiments. What you say also what makes it easy to dismiss indoctrinated scientists who view science as some sort of religion.

Tesla changed the world with his many experiments, he criticised Einstein and never dismissed aether.


Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
Nikola Tesla, Modern Mechanics and Inventions, July, 1934


So you mean a bit like, get an actual account from someone who made the flight from south America to to Australia, who took photos over Antarctica along the way? You mean like present airline ticket sales options for the flight, stuff like that? If only someone would do this ... ;)

I understand that perhaps you can't work with or choose to dismiss all deductive reasoning, some people can, some people just can't grasp it or choose to dismiss it, which is why I presented the breadth of resources I have, all which support the "theoretical science". Still not good enough? Still worthy of dismissal? In fact that is all the Michleson-Morley experiments do, create a theoretical expectation from scientific theory and math, then test against that. This is exactly what has happened on this thread. I presented the impossibility of any flight from south America to Australia if the earth is flat, then checked into flights and they did exist. Then I found a first hand account of someone who made this trip, spoke about it, photographed it, and presented the photos. Bill also looked into these flights and posted images. Do you assume that we are all in cahoots, and really know the earth is flat, but just make up or fake evidence to try to trick you? The only reason someone would post their photos of their trip from SA to Aus on a travel site if it didn't happen would be if he knew the earth was really flat and was just trying to trick people into maintaining the that it is a sphere. Does that sound plausible?

The only reason an airline would sell tickets to an impossible destination would be if they were hiding the secret of a flat earth -- meaning they all know well that the earth is flat and they are trying to trick us. How many people would be required to keep this secret in the world? As I mentioned in an earlier post, are all these people who work in these industries forced to sign a waiver of "flat earth secrecy?". I don't buy that for a second, and neither should you. None of that logic is math or theory, and all mentioned in my previous posts, but it still won't be considered - if even read in the first place, I know. Evidence appears to be mounting in support of Bill's comment a few of his posts back ...

Im am sorry but all i hear is evasion, and no proof that the earth is not moving.

It is obvious from your stance that you will deny anything offered concerning a flat earth and one flaw is enough to bring the house of cards tumbling down. Flat earthers are in a similar frame of mind especially with gravity the magic answer for everything, i sit on the fence.

I wont comment on that flight i do not have enough information. I have heard that there are direct flights on certain routes, that they are not a common occurrence and that one exception is not the rule. You cannot deny that there are a proliferation of indirect flights, going great distances away from the direct route.

Your suggestion that everyone needs to be in on the conspiracy is ridiculous, you should know by now thats not how conspiracies work.


As for the Michleson-Morley Experiment’s i found this video very interesting.

d7hkC47Tpb4

[Jake]

Im am sorry but all i hear is evasion, 

Now that IS priceless. One can listen for the sound of light refracting,, but it works better if one opens their eyes. It is better if one uses their own eyes! Indeed!

Jake

[loveoflife]

Flat earth? Seriously? We have serious issues in this world and you are debating flat earth theory. There are so many ways you can dissprove this ridiculous idea. For one snipers have to take the curvature of the earth in consideration when setting up a shot. I could keep going, but it would be so silly.

Flat earther's would have a different explanation for that, something like, "scientists lie about what direction gravity pulls from to keep us from finding out about the flat earth. They purposefully gave us the wrong numbers in case a sniper ever noticed that his bullet didn't actually curve as he would have expected if the earth was a rotating sphere, exposing the flat earth secret." - that would be about par for the course. We aren't allowed to use math apparently. :)


So you see the challenge at hand :) Some of us like challenges and are otherwise bored :)

Use maths by all means, though back it up with experiments in real time.

Surely this can be done with a sniper, who has to allow for air currents also.

There are many example of railways and canals that cover great distances also bridges that made no allowance for curvature.

Architects & Engineers for Flat Earth Truth (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/05/architects-engineers-for-flat-earth.html)

What raises the biggest doubt for me is what i am standing on Earth and its supposed curvature.

[loveoflife]

Flat earth? Seriously? We have serious issues in this world and you are debating flat earth theory. There are so many ways you can dissprove this ridiculous idea. For one snipers have to take the curvature of the earth in consideration when setting up a shot. I could keep going, but it would be so silly.

Please do continue. There are those on both sides who do not consider this at all silly. They are very serious.

[Jake]

Im dead serious too... if the Earth is flat, and the moon is made of cheese, lets make a big Pizza!

Im not sorry.. The FE garbage only exists so that we can all be made fun of!

Maybe the universe is flat! Maybe consciousness is flat! Yesterday, my tire was flat! Thats proof enough for me...

Hey, look over there!

What?

Nothin! ABSOLUTELY FRIGGIN NOTHING...

jake

[Ron Mauer Sr]

snipers have to take the curvature of the earth in consideration when setting up a shot.

Thank you for that. I learned something there. (You see, we all can. :) )

Do read this fascinating article:
http://washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/39322/do-snipers-compensate-for-the-earthrsquos-rotation-what-the-coriolis

It's a tiny effect, but the longest authenticated sniper kill (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MK4SEoBFXk) was at a distance of 2.5 km (1.5 miles). That's quite something. EVERYTHING counts if you want that accuracy. There are quite a few discussions on the net about what's needed. Here's one:


Do Snipers Compensate for the Earth’s Rotation?





I recently read an article about a Navy SEAL sniper. The author lists possible variables that go into determining a shot, one of which is the rotation of the earth. How exactly does this affect a bullet in flight? Also, for my nonsniper purposes, does it affect my gas mileage? —Jason, Sacramento

The article I’m guessing you saw, entitled “The Way of the Sniper,” appeared in Men’s Journal, November 30, 2009. Written by Rick Telander, it tells the story of Navy sniper Scott Tyler. Telander writes:

“Each rifle a sniper uses has unique characteristics that are compounded by the ammunition and many, many exterior factors. There is wind. There is humidity. There is the spin of the Earth. There is even the fact that as a rifle is fired, its barrel heats up, the metal contracts, and the bullets are propelled faster.”

Reading this, your columnist didn’t doubt the rotation of the earth affects a bullet in flight. That’s because of the Coriolis effect: Any object moving horizontally on or near the earth’s surface is deflected slightly off course due to the spinning of the planet. The Coriolis effect has a big effect on phenomena like hurricanes and other weather systems, a small effect on small objects. But if the small object is a precisely aimed rifle bullet, and that bullet travels far enough, it’s not something you can completely ignore.

The question in my mind was: Wow, if at all, did a shooter account for the Coriolis effect when aiming? Your wind, your humidity, and for that matter your temperature and barometric pressure—these are all dynamic conditions that, to varying degrees, a marksman will factor into each shot. However, it’s hard to imagine a sniper on the field of battle thinking, “Damn, I better get the latest data on the rotation of the earth.”

Una agreed this was unlikely and began inquiring about what shooters actually do. She couldn’t reach Telander or a military sniper but did talk things over with a couple of hard-core target shooters at her local rifle range and online. Based on that plus her own calculations, she determined as follows:

1. Range is critical. At 100 yards, typical of what a police sharpshooter might encounter, most environmental factors, including the Coriolis effect, are negligible. But military snipers generally are much farther away, typically 400 yards and up—the current world record for a confirmed kill in combat is 2,430 meters, or roughly 1.5 miles.

2. At 1,000 yards the Coriolis deflection is small but not necessarily trivial. Una computed that at the latitude of Sacramento, a bullet traveling 1,000 yards would be deflected about three inches to the right. In addition, because gravity pulls the bullet down as it flies, you’d have to aim higher or lower depending on the degree to which you were facing east or west. If you were firing due east, you’d have to aim six inches lower, since the earth is rotating toward you, meaning your target would be slightly closer by the time the bullet arrived. If you were firing due west, you’d have to aim six inches higher.

3. Amateur long-range shooters can improve their aim using laser range finders and scopes with bullet-drop compensators; they’ll also consult cheat sheets of bullet and rifle performance and their own log of prior results, called a DOPE (“Data on Personal Equipment”) book. Military snipers may not always have access to such stuff in combat. But let’s take it as given that, one way or another, you can adjust for obvious environmental factors in the field—no doubt the best shooters do it instinctively.

4. Horizontal deflection caused by the Coriolis effect is more esoteric but in theory easy to adjust for, since it’s a function of your distance from the equator. When possible, any shooter, whether professional or amateur, makes a few test shots on arriving at a new location and tweaks his or her sights accordingly. Mostly this is to correct for maladjustments due to jostling in transit and such, but it also compensates for the Coriolis effect.

5. As we’ve seen, vertical deflection depends on, and can vary considerably according to, what direction you’re shooting. Nonetheless, none of the amateur shooters we heard from worried much about it, and my guess is military snipers don’t, either. More important things can go wrong, and besides, assuming your target is standing, what’s a couple inches up or down?

Turning now to your wimpy civilian concerns: Don’t sweat the Coriolis effect on your gas mileage. In Sacramento, the rotation of the earth causes your car to drift about 16 feet to the right per mile. That may be an issue if you’re barreling down a narrow two-lane, but correcting for it costs you less than a hundredth of a mile per gallon.

The influence of the Coriolis effect on windage adjustment (left/right compensation) seems incorrect as described here.

The rotational speed of the earth is the same rotational speed (not projectile spin caused by barrel twist) of the projectile launched from a firearm.

I am thinking no compensation for Coriolis effect is required.

I'm looking for further understanding.

[DarMar]

Interesting development pattern unfolding.

Planes are joker cards for proof nowadays it seems. GPS, math and projections are become constant.
But why stuff like this need to enter in our subconscious in this days? Why flat earth had begun spreading like plague in this times? would be good question.

Before humans believed earth is flat and it was important for them. Were they stupid? Considering monuments and some leftovers which are mostly covered, would not say that they were half brained.
But then came time that people start believe in globe model, discovered by simple conclusions by a mason dude. Before they have any means of flight and satellites to prove all of that. Than happens the same as in all of science model, they are adjusting all to fit their model.
And all ball earth believers were banished by evil christian flat earth cult.. where did I heard that before? Poor people crucified for their good deeds simply because of evil .. is a well known history pattern.

How belief system and religion is connected to all of that?
Is it coincidence that most of people searching knowledge today on inter-net?
That Switzerland gave us internet, or maybe read even better phoneticaly = sweet-cern-land. From Cern INTER-net came.. read with care, it is not outernet ;)
How accidental is rebuilding all that Cernunnos stuff on exact spot? And how accidental is that sweet-cern-land royal guard is pope and vatican guards? How that spider-wide-web affects humans, and what it does to human associative learning and beliefs? How come world financial system is connected to Swiss? the stuff all people need to survive :D
Why is important to bring FE question to contradict RE now and collide red and blue pill to make purple one? we re on a blue marble as some people beLIEve.
Where do we seek our answers is important.. in A.I. web? because it is inter? hmmm... webs are made for fun or purpose?
Will we question other people that are programmed well into belief to kill another human is only way to survive (sniper to be more exact) to explain to us his belief system?
I can bet that he can be programmed to adjust his sniper to concave and convex optics adjustment, it is his brain which needs adjustment on end.
Recently i had been working on shooting simulation game with world's champion in air guns, and we had fun moment in making fine-tuning for optics on gun. I thought we should make some numerical values for optics so one knows for how much is fine-tuning. His answer was opposite.
As he explained to me, that targeting device is always on center and some people's brain works different.. some find easier that it is more left, some to the right, and almost none uses it to be 100% centered.. it is on end how brain and belief works.
And if one bullet needs to be adjusted for rotation of earth with projectile powered trajectory, how come floating easy movable clouds don't? they know to move in different directions around same area.. How come that rotation force does not affect above air currents?

Also projections and math are easily adjusted. With enough understanding one could make GPS projected on icosahedron if he wanted. Is than GPS enough to prove? it is just to find relative position in relation to other position of something. It can be projected on ANY shape.
It goes same for sundials, they sadly work on both models, spherical and flat.
But planes are interesting also, even though people flying it needs their jobs to survive (their own belief), and they are programmed to lie to keep it. should we believe them? are they better personas than snipers?
What is the problem of tracking planes with that 4 hours delay? And how that ties to 9-11 and MH370 and all of that plane crashes that happened? Is there really satellites out there, cause if they are, they surely don't work. What tie is there to privatisation and militarisation of GPS towers?
Radars have problem with curvature apparently, so new kinda of practice is investigated nowadays to make every pilot yell it's location every 15 minutes :)
MH370.. hmm 3+7=9 .. on March 8 .... 3+8= 11... hmmm 9-11 again?

Interesting link Bill for booking flight with almost no anomalies.. almost
Why Qantas is managed by LAN in some cases? and speaking of anomalies this comes handy too.. non-stop flight had to be redirected to.. one stop
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/qantas-frequent-flyer/1431924-qf321-survival-guide.html
was that joker card? for proving roundness of something?
On end planes can fly where ever they want above clouds .. so direct knowing is excluded. specially tracking software which can be projected on any shape. Needs more sceptacles than spectacles IMHO.

Ball model has even some more problems in math and gaming (computer projections) read here (http://en.shop.aerosoft.com/eshop.php?action=article_detail&s_supplier_aid=12123&s_design=DEFAULT&shopfilter_category=Flight+Simulation&s_language=english)

A major problem for this project was getting access to the data as there are so many countries involved and many feel the geographical data has strategic importance. Only after the developer got into contact with pilots and scientists who were actually in Antarctica things started to move forwards. Dozens of databases had to be combined and often these only existed in the paper format and had to be manually digitized. Often databases conflicted and details had to be found elsewhere.


Getting the aviation related information was easier but even here it was hard to find out what the real pilots are using. The respective organizations and pilots usually prefer to keep that information to themselves because (fuel/food/emergency-) supplies are very limited and therefore they don’t like anyone who’s not part of their select company to fly there.

Are they just on fear to loose their jobs? Hey, they have to FEED their family, right? it is what they believe..
People that daily perpetuate this system for their own benefit is not to be trusted for any word. Of course not their own benefit but their own family .. and that is different.. somehow i guess..

What stays in question is still.. why this stuff needs to enter our consciousness at this times?
One thing is for sure.. FE people definitely know something (like illuminati card suggests) but they know earth is not a ball, their flat model is wrong tho.
You can find many errors in their flat model map because you found it on INTERweb, so no surprises there. It is meant to be flawed. Same as ball earth model. All there to confuse.

But you will not find that we live in lens. You will not find that we project light rather than receive it from outer source, and hardly you will find that stars we see are projections on mirror from our inner self. Rather than being distant destination, they are already here in us.
Fear is only barricade in opening to that fact. Fear of being alone in the darkness.

I would post this on any other ball earth topic here, but hey there is none :D only ridiculed FE topic..But rather than laughable, to open mind will be very important confrontation and collision between two worlds.
Acceptance or fighting with it.
Fighting with swords and guns.. are you the one who made sword and gun, or you received them from someone to do his task?

I was already aware of mine understanding of relativity of time, also about relativity of space (position), and made it tons of times into practice.. What are time and space other than our own projections?
And what is shape of your reality is what you make of it based on anegdotes and beliefs. No more, no less..

[Hervé]

It seems we are int the middle of a full swing psy-op / social engineering experiment in cognitive dissonance:



Cognitive dissonance:
In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.[1][2]

Leon Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. When inconsistency (dissonance) is experienced, individuals tend to become psychologically uncomfortable and are motivated to attempt to reduce this dissonance, as well as actively avoiding situations and information which are likely to increase it.[1]

More there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Festinguer also co-authored a book titled “When prophecy fails (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails)”:

Festinger and his collaborators, Henry Riecken and Stanley Schachter, examined conditions under which disconfirmation of beliefs leads to increased conviction in such beliefs in the 1956 book When Prophecy Fails. The group studied a small apocalyptic cult led by Dorothy Martin (under the pseudonym Marian Keech in the book), a suburban housewife.[49][50] Martin claimed to have received messages from “the Guardians,” a group of superior beings from another planet. The messages puportedly said that a flood would destroy the world on December 21. The three psychologists and several more assistants joined the group. The team observed the group firsthand for months before and after the predicted apocalypse. Many of the group members quit their jobs and disposed of their possessions in preparation for the apocalypse. When doomsday came and went, Martin claimed that the world had been spared because of the “force of Good and light”[51] that the group members had spread throughout the world. Rather than abandoning their discredited beliefs, group members adhered to them even more strongly and began proselytizing with fervor.

Festinger and his co-authors concluded that the following conditions lead to increased conviction in beliefs following disconfirmation:
1. The belief must be held with deep conviction and be relevant to the believer’s actions or behavior.

2. The belief must have produced actions that are difficult to undo.

3. The belief must be sufficiently specific and concerned with the real world such that it can be clearly disconfirmed.

4. The disconfirmatory evidence must be recognized by the believer.

5. The believer must have social support from other believers.[52]
Festinger also later described the increased conviction and proselytizing by cult members after disconfirmation as a specific instantiation of cognitive dissonance (i.e., increased proselyting reduced dissonance by producing the knowledge that others also accepted their beliefs) and its application to understanding complex mass phenomena.[53]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Festinger]

Any resemblance to any contemporary group is absolutely non-fortuitous…

PS: My earlier attempt at trying to make it work: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?51485-The-earth-is-flat-not-round.-We-are-being-mind-set-by-Annunaki-Illuminati-TPTB&p=845650&viewfull=1#post845650

[Bill Ryan]

The influence of the Coriolis effect on windage adjustment (left/right compensation) seems incorrect as described here.

The rotational speed of the earth is the same rotational speed (not projectile spin caused by barrel twist) of the projectile launched from a firearm.

I am thinking no compensation for Coriolis effect is required.

I'm looking for further understanding.

I think it simply means (in lay terms) that by the time the bullet has flown a mile and a half, even at great speed, the earth has rotated a tiny bit. Essentially, at that distance, you're aiming at a moving target.






Why Qantas is managed by LAN in some cases?

It's extremely common nowadays for allied airlines to share routes (and planes!). Passengers booking on either Qantas or LAN would be on exactly the same plane (and sitting next to each other, one might have paid twice as much for the seat... go figure.)




It seems we are in the middle of a full swing psy-op / social engineering experiment in cognitive dissonance:


Yes, I agree. There is some circumstantial evidence that the entire Flat Earth debate has been planted as a diversion (and confusion). For that reason, although some of the science is interesting (and I was enjoying reading about the life of Eratosthenes, discovering several things I didn't know about him) I've felt several times that this thread should be closed... not because of 'censorship of free speech or free thinking', but because this thread creates just the kind of distracting morass that may be INTENDED to be created.

Marren summed it up pretty well here, in his post #229 yesterday:
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?83765-A-Flat-Earth-not-Round-...&p=994716&viewfull=1#post994716
Flat earth? Seriously? We have serious issues in this world and you are debating flat earth theory.

Exactly. :facepalm:

[Ron Mauer Sr]

The influence of the Coriolis effect on windage adjustment (left/right compensation) seems incorrect as described here.

The rotational speed of the earth is the same rotational speed (not projectile spin caused by barrel twist) of the projectile launched from a firearm.

I am thinking no compensation for Coriolis effect is required.

I'm looking for further understanding.

I think it simply means (in lay terms) that by the time the bullet has flown a mile and a half, even at great speed, the earth has rotated a tiny bit. Essentially, at that distance, you're aiming at a moving target.



I agree the target is moving, but the velocity and direction vectors due to earth's rotation are the same for the target and the projectile.

Still puzzled.

[Selkie]

I suppose that over-the-horizon radar is part of the conspiracy to cover up the flat-earth, too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-horizon_radar

addition I used to live out near Beale Air Force Base, and I could see one of these PAVE PAWS things from my house,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAVE_PAWS

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18h6weh414go0jpg/original.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/PAVE_PAWS%26BMEWS.svg/737px-PAVE_PAWS%26BMEWS.svg.png

[Ted]

I agree the target is moving, but the velocity and direction vectors due to earth's rotation are the same for the target and the projectile.

Still puzzled.That's what I was thinking too. Maybe they are talking about the force which makes whirlpools rotate in different directions on each side of the equator. It would be sort of like putting a little "English" on the bullet.
It is interesting that a spinning bullet will travel farther than a non spinning bullet, all other factors being equal, but that's for another discussion.

[Ted]

I've felt several times that this thread should be closed... not because of 'censorship of free speech or free thinking', but because this thread creates just the kind of distracting morass that may be INTENDED to be created.Oh, I don't know, it does bring up some interesting physics topics. It's also fascinating to observe the level of denial some people have. Not that I blame them in a sense. We are bombarded with so many lies that to question even the basic knowledge we have is not a bad thing. Besides, if governmental agencies insist the world is round, that alone immediately makes it suspicious! :blink:

[Selkie]

I've felt several times that this thread should be closed... not because of 'censorship of free speech or free thinking', but because this thread creates just the kind of distracting morass that may be INTENDED to be created.Oh, I don't know, it does bring up some interesting physics topics. It's also fascinating to observe the level of denial some people have. Not that I blame them in a sense. We are bombarded with so many lies that to question even the basic knowledge we have is not a bad thing. Besides, if governmental agencies insist the world is round, that alone immediately makes it suspicious! :blink:

(my emphasis)

Lol...that's true. No doubt the info I provided from Wikipedia will be rejected for the same reason.

[loveoflife]

It seems we are int the middle of a full swing psy-op / social engineering experiment in cognitive dissonance:



Cognitive dissonance:
In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.[1][2]

Leon Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. When inconsistency (dissonance) is experienced, individuals tend to become psychologically uncomfortable and are motivated to attempt to reduce this dissonance, as well as actively avoiding situations and information which are likely to increase it.[1]

More there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Festinguer also co-authored a book titled “When prophecy fails (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails)”:

Festinger and his collaborators, Henry Riecken and Stanley Schachter, examined conditions under which disconfirmation of beliefs leads to increased conviction in such beliefs in the 1956 book When Prophecy Fails. The group studied a small apocalyptic cult led by Dorothy Martin (under the pseudonym Marian Keech in the book), a suburban housewife.[49][50] Martin claimed to have received messages from “the Guardians,” a group of superior beings from another planet. The messages puportedly said that a flood would destroy the world on December 21. The three psychologists and several more assistants joined the group. The team observed the group firsthand for months before and after the predicted apocalypse. Many of the group members quit their jobs and disposed of their possessions in preparation for the apocalypse. When doomsday came and went, Martin claimed that the world had been spared because of the “force of Good and light”[51] that the group members had spread throughout the world. Rather than abandoning their discredited beliefs, group members adhered to them even more strongly and began proselytizing with fervor.

Festinger and his co-authors concluded that the following conditions lead to increased conviction in beliefs following disconfirmation:
1. The belief must be held with deep conviction and be relevant to the believer’s actions or behavior.

2. The belief must have produced actions that are difficult to undo.

3. The belief must be sufficiently specific and concerned with the real world such that it can be clearly disconfirmed.

4. The disconfirmatory evidence must be recognized by the believer.

5. The believer must have social support from other believers.[52]
Festinger also later described the increased conviction and proselytizing by cult members after disconfirmation as a specific instantiation of cognitive dissonance (i.e., increased proselyting reduced dissonance by producing the knowledge that others also accepted their beliefs) and its application to understanding complex mass phenomena.[53]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Festinger]

Any resemblance to any contemporary group is absolutely non-fortuitous…

PS: My earlier attempt at trying to make it work: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?51485-The-earth-is-flat-not-round.-We-are-being-mind-set-by-Annunaki-Illuminati-TPTB&p=845650&viewfull=1#post845650



Not to forget the other two. Confirmation Bias, and Motivated Reasoning. Which there are plenty of on both sides here. It is always necessary to take our own and others Confirmation Bias, Cognitive Dissonance, and Motivated Reasoning when taking in any information.

Psychology’s Treacherous Trio: Confirmation Bias, Cognitive Dissonance, and Motivated Reasoning (http://whywereason.com/2011/09/07/psychologys-treacherous-trio-confirmation-bias-cognitive-dissonance-and-motivated-reasoning/)

[Dennis Leahy]

... Why flat earth had begun spreading like plague in this times? would be good question.

...
My opinion is because we've been lied to so frequently, some of us start to believe that whatever we have been told, the opposite must be true. It is reactionary. Many lies have come to the surface for examination, and it leaves some of us with an overwhelming feeling that everything we've ever been told must be a lie.

I support everyone questioning everything, using our own senses and our own intellect to discern truth from fiction. When we have examined many things we thought were true, we'll find that, on some things, we have changed our mind - with good reason (facts exposed.) We'll also find many things we had accepted as true do turn out to be true, even under close examination. (And, the "grey zone" category: some of what we examine will leave us scratching our heads, as we are unable to determine whether something is true or false.)

It has been said that quantum physics invalidates all classical physics, and that is both true and false - but from the standpoint of physical beings interacting in the 3D world, quantum physics is mostly irrelevant. The fact that (according to quantum physics), there are no solids, liquids, and gasses - only vibrations - doesn't really do us much good if two of us are walking down the sidewalk toward each other. If one of us does not move, our physical bodies will bump (despite the fact that we really are just vibrations.) I'd be willing to bet that if two mystics converge on the same spot walking down the sidewalk, and both refuse to yield, they also will bump into one another. So, understanding metaphysics and being mystical does not disintegrate or negate 3D reality - at least at the gross level.

In my opinion, the flat earth theory is completely understandable up until about the 12th or 13th century. Once sailing ships probed out in every direction, and none fell over the edge, the issue was settled. Now, anyone with doubts could send a camera up using helium balloons, and photograph the curvature of the Earth - from anywhere on Earth.

I'd like to ask if there are any that believe in a flat Earth, if you can provide a map of the planet that you think is accurate, and propose an experiment that would prove to you whether this is correct or not. I'd like to know which continents you believe are near the "edge" of earth, and which direction an aerial camera would have to be flown to see over the edge.

[Hervé]

There is another experience in my life which cannot be accommodated with any flat earth geometry and which goes along this epiphany:

... wait a minute... if earth is flat then the entire disk is under daylight all at once...

Chucks, there goes that theory!... because, one day, I experienced a very funny thing and that's going from an alternation of days and nights to a 24/7 sunlight time... all in one "day"... another one of those flat earth's geometry impossibilities.

That was the the year I also experienced 4 (four) different and distinct Spring times... figure that one out with a flat earth geometry.