Your model is a saucer-shaped world with a 200 foot wall of ice around the edge? If someone were to bring up satellites, or personal airplanes that an adventurous person might use to glimpse the edge, how would you account for no one giving away the secret?
You'd have to check for specifics on the route, but seems like the flat earth people would not be bored. And yes, I haven't seen anything that remotely causes me to take a flat earth theory seriously. At minimum, it would have to start by presenting evidence that things like satellites are fake, that photos and video from "the south pole" are fake, and that a host of other "known facts" about our environment are fake. Just the "no satellites" alone thing is pretty huge. At that point, might as well go full simulation.
I'm no scientist, but water being a non-viscous liquid allows it to level itself in the presence of gravity. So it appears relatively flat in large quantities due to the size of the earth relative to us. It's not "flat". If the earth were closer to our size, it would be easier to see. Anyway, misunderstanding gravity so badly on the first example is a terrible way to begin. A flat earth skeptic might take that as representative of his reasoning abilities.
i mean the words are nice, but we don't seen water curve on a lake in the reflection of the moon. we all know what a convex shaped mirror looks like. lakes don't look like that , no matter how big. ships don't disppear and as far as the eye can see we have a flat horizon.
the moon landings are fake. nasa fires rockets into the sea.
there is a 200 foot wall of ice in a ring around us. there appears to be land there, and many bases, yet nobody admits to anyone being there aside from a few scientist. there appears to be tons of stuff there.
ericdubay.com -> 200 proofs. heard it often cited, rarely is it actually attacked... it is often straw-maned.. drawing arguments against which none were claimed.
search for 'balls out physics' --- dude was awesome, answered questions, went into details... he just disappeared... why?
a.e. project map removed from null school. search for it, you can find a video with example of what is no longer possible.
I was trying to watch this timestamped video, but the stuff around 14-16 minutes was so dumb I had to stop. Some of the flat earth claims can sound plausible if you don't have a strong scientific background, but the details are pretty weak, and some is just silly. (helicopters hovering to let the earth pass by under them...)
It would be better if the 'proofs' were limited to the 'best of'.
how is the atmosphere 'dragged along' by the earth spinning?
I don't have a physics background, but by some type of friction? There's nothing in space to induce a drag effect, so there's no reason for the atmosphere to to not be dragged along. I mean, what could you be thinking where that wouldn't happen? What would prevent it from being dragged along?
how does a plane land given the insane earth velocity?
If you've ever ridden in an airplane, how were you able to retain control over your limbs at that insane velocity? If you attempted to leave your seat, how were you not immediately slammed against the back of the passenger cabin at 500 mph?
If those are genuine questions, have you ever considered taking a course in physics? The danger, of course, is that the standard model might end up making more sense than a flat earth.
that is just it, it is not explained, nor do we have an example of such a system that we can reproduce the effect, but it is just said to be so, with no proof aside from apparently it is because for their system to be true it must be. but it does not make sense.
There's nothing in space to induce a drag effect
another huge problem, what exactly separates the earth's atmosphere from space? ever seen what a vacuum does to a soda can? pretty fun stuff. but we are led to believe our planet atmosphere is somehow not 'popping' or leaking or whatever into a perfect vacuum that is space. lol.
What would prevent it from being dragged along?
it would be spun off like a tennis ball with water on it.
If you've ever ridden in an airplane, how were you able to retain control over your limbs at that insane velocity?
you assuming the entire atmosphere rotates. if you don't, then you have the problems with landing as described.
If you attempted to leave your seat, how were you not immediately slammed against the back of the passenger cabin at 500 mph?
you feel the acceleration, but once you get going at the speed you only feel changes relative to your current motion. because you have momentum.
the problem is you aren't flying in a straight line. we would be rotating, at 1000 mph ... and the angular momentum would be similiar to that of a merry-go-round. it would want to throw you off. gravity is said to hold us down, yet you can over come gravity by jumping, or a hot air balloon. (if that is gravity and not bouancy... another debate)
If those are genuine questions, have you ever considered taking a course in physics?
i have taken and passed college level physics 1 & 2. watch balls out physics. search for it ... it was on youtube was removed, but people have put it up and it can be found.
The danger, of course, is that the standard model might end up making more sense than a flat earth.
you have no physics background, but your sure the standard model makes sense.. what a hoot.
No, that's a different video from the same ericdubay.com site you cited. Making credibility-killing claims doesn't exactly encourage further investigation. I'm going to try to watch some more of it to see if there's any evidence that's "more obvious."
For a relevant current example, do you follow or 'believe in' the Q phenomenon? And what I really mean is do you believe "Q" is here to save us all and "take down the deep state who represent the real owners of this planet or flat self-contained something"?
view the rest of the comments →
Hand_of_Node ago
Ask them about pics of the edge. If it's not a sphere, and not infinite, an actual edge is necessary. Where are the pics?
iDontShift ago
antarctica. go behold the 200 foot wall of ice. it took explorers in the 1800's almost two years to 'go around' antarctica.
they took away nullschools flat earth model because it made too much sense. It disappeared without a word.
Hand_of_Node ago
Your model is a saucer-shaped world with a 200 foot wall of ice around the edge? If someone were to bring up satellites, or personal airplanes that an adventurous person might use to glimpse the edge, how would you account for no one giving away the secret?
iDontShift ago
seems to be an infinite plane. you'd die lack of resources / heat. or not. may e there is something out there.
I have heard there is a wall.
the wall of ice is product of sun. or lack thereof.
but you'd rather ask hypotheticals than look at things we have.
Hand_of_Node ago
https://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/
You'd have to check for specifics on the route, but seems like the flat earth people would not be bored. And yes, I haven't seen anything that remotely causes me to take a flat earth theory seriously. At minimum, it would have to start by presenting evidence that things like satellites are fake, that photos and video from "the south pole" are fake, and that a host of other "known facts" about our environment are fake. Just the "no satellites" alone thing is pretty huge. At that point, might as well go full simulation.
iDontShift ago
if you only knew how badly i was censored.
or maybe you are reaponsible for it.
ericdubay.com
Hand_of_Node ago
https://youtu.be/wXGwniKKUS4?t=57
I'm no scientist, but water being a non-viscous liquid allows it to level itself in the presence of gravity. So it appears relatively flat in large quantities due to the size of the earth relative to us. It's not "flat". If the earth were closer to our size, it would be easier to see. Anyway, misunderstanding gravity so badly on the first example is a terrible way to begin. A flat earth skeptic might take that as representative of his reasoning abilities.
iDontShift ago
i mean the words are nice, but we don't seen water curve on a lake in the reflection of the moon. we all know what a convex shaped mirror looks like. lakes don't look like that , no matter how big. ships don't disppear and as far as the eye can see we have a flat horizon.
the moon landings are fake. nasa fires rockets into the sea.
there is a 200 foot wall of ice in a ring around us. there appears to be land there, and many bases, yet nobody admits to anyone being there aside from a few scientist. there appears to be tons of stuff there.
ericdubay.com -> 200 proofs. heard it often cited, rarely is it actually attacked... it is often straw-maned.. drawing arguments against which none were claimed.
search for 'balls out physics' --- dude was awesome, answered questions, went into details... he just disappeared... why?
a.e. project map removed from null school. search for it, you can find a video with example of what is no longer possible.
Hand_of_Node ago
https://voat.co/v/whatever/2911139/15575394
I was trying to watch this timestamped video, but the stuff around 14-16 minutes was so dumb I had to stop. Some of the flat earth claims can sound plausible if you don't have a strong scientific background, but the details are pretty weak, and some is just silly. (helicopters hovering to let the earth pass by under them...)
It would be better if the 'proofs' were limited to the 'best of'.
iDontShift ago
lol, i just watched it. had some time. at least the part you are calling dumb.
are you saying the plane stuff is dumb? because it isn't .
how does a plane land given the insane earth velocity? how is the atmosphere 'dragged along' by the earth spinning?
ever spun a ball of liquid?
Hand_of_Node ago
I don't have a physics background, but by some type of friction? There's nothing in space to induce a drag effect, so there's no reason for the atmosphere to to not be dragged along. I mean, what could you be thinking where that wouldn't happen? What would prevent it from being dragged along?
If you've ever ridden in an airplane, how were you able to retain control over your limbs at that insane velocity? If you attempted to leave your seat, how were you not immediately slammed against the back of the passenger cabin at 500 mph?
If those are genuine questions, have you ever considered taking a course in physics? The danger, of course, is that the standard model might end up making more sense than a flat earth.
Lol, this just popped up while I was typing the above sentence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7YAZPct3hk&feature=push-u-sub&attr_tag=AqnWBznRU9fIQDyP%3A6
iDontShift ago
that is just it, it is not explained, nor do we have an example of such a system that we can reproduce the effect, but it is just said to be so, with no proof aside from apparently it is because for their system to be true it must be. but it does not make sense.
another huge problem, what exactly separates the earth's atmosphere from space? ever seen what a vacuum does to a soda can? pretty fun stuff. but we are led to believe our planet atmosphere is somehow not 'popping' or leaking or whatever into a perfect vacuum that is space. lol.
it would be spun off like a tennis ball with water on it.
you assuming the entire atmosphere rotates. if you don't, then you have the problems with landing as described.
you feel the acceleration, but once you get going at the speed you only feel changes relative to your current motion. because you have momentum.
the problem is you aren't flying in a straight line. we would be rotating, at 1000 mph ... and the angular momentum would be similiar to that of a merry-go-round. it would want to throw you off. gravity is said to hold us down, yet you can over come gravity by jumping, or a hot air balloon. (if that is gravity and not bouancy... another debate)
i have taken and passed college level physics 1 & 2. watch balls out physics. search for it ... it was on youtube was removed, but people have put it up and it can be found.
you have no physics background, but your sure the standard model makes sense.. what a hoot.
iDontShift ago
i think what your seeing is just how hard to opposition is working to destroy flat earth.
there is evidence that it is flat.
there is no evidence that it is round.
so they make shit up that appears to be 'flat earth proof' to make it appear ridiculous.. they take it too far, they refuse to stop in the middle...
there is more than 70% made-by-the=opposition-videos about flat earth... ALL FOR A STUPID FALSE BELIEF? yeah.. right.
wanna know where your 50 million a day goes?
Hand_of_Node ago
No, that's a different video from the same ericdubay.com site you cited. Making credibility-killing claims doesn't exactly encourage further investigation. I'm going to try to watch some more of it to see if there's any evidence that's "more obvious."
iDontShift ago
if you don't get it from there you don't get it.
can't help you.
Hand_of_Node ago
Do you believe in other types of unconventional explanations for 'how things work'?
iDontShift ago
eh? i know how things were. i don't believe. i get hands on and do it.
Hand_of_Node ago
For a relevant current example, do you follow or 'believe in' the Q phenomenon? And what I really mean is do you believe "Q" is here to save us all and "take down the deep state who represent the real owners of this planet or flat self-contained something"?
iDontShift ago
don't know. seems possible a military takeover might have already happened.
be fucked up when q is predicting outcomes of elections. that denotes a fix is in.
seems to me more could be done, and seems much of the deep state bullshit just makes people accept the survelience state.