A Flat Earth not Round ...?

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Daozen (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Daozen (here)

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]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Daozen (here)

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.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=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.

[Selkie]

Posted by loveoflife (here)
.......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.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=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.



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), 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-dis...couver,+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-dis...antiago,+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]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
Look at this flat earth map - this is the generally accepted flat earth model of FE'ers.



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), 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-dis...couver,+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-dis...antiago,+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]

Posted by Selkie (here)
...

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]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Posted by Selkie (here)
...

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]

Posted by Selkie (here)

Posted by loveoflife (here)
.......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.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=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]

Posted by Selkie (here)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Posted by Selkie (here)
...

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

[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]

Posted by Selkie (here)
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. 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]

Posted by loveoflife (here)

Posted by Selkie (here)
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. 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]

Posted by Selkie (here)

Posted by loveoflife (here)

Posted by Selkie (here)
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. 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]

Posted by loveoflife (here)

Posted by Selkie (here)

Posted by loveoflife (here)

Posted by Selkie (here)
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. 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]

Posted by Selkie (here)

Posted by loveoflife (here)

Posted by Selkie (here)

Posted by loveoflife (here)

Posted by Selkie (here)
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. 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. 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.