Flat Earth Believers, I would like to hear your ideas.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: 13ssA

yes you have condemed it as a fantasy - as you agree that it does not accuratly depict the distance from perth to sydney

npw i shall repaeat myself - the flat earth cult dogma - states that this is an accurate depiction

but - lets cut to the chase - what yo you think the alleged " flat earth " looks like ?

How thick are you? We have answered that question so many times i am starting to get the impression you have an error message playing somewhere deep within your conscience, so your stack at this point where you have your answer but you are deliberately ignoring. ERROR ERROR ERROR

a reply to: MasterAtArms

Well, round earthers have this arrogant, "above it all", "lol peasant flat earthers" attitude from the start of every conversation that it's hard to not perceive it as an insult.

Yes, gravity works as predicted so far but the technical part of it is different from newtons, as I already mentioned it before... which was quite recently. As I have already mentioned (2), it would not work the way you were told it does, meaning that the gravitational pull would not be towards the center of mass on a flat plane (diagonal). In my opinion it would be a perpendicular pull in relation to the flat plane. Applying this to the round earth, it would be a pull towards the sides of the earth or the shell and not the center of it.

And what do you mean gravity hasn't been tested on a flat plane as large as the moon? are you claiming that the moon is larger than the earth?

I mean exactly that - it was never tested on a flat object large enough to generate a measurable gravitational pull (I don't mean large enough in mass). And no, I don't claim that the moon is larger than earth nor that it is flat, looks round'ish to me. The gravitation could be smaller on the Moon, it works perfectly with my gravitational theory, but I can't really confirm that as I haven't been on the moon and dare I say I don't think any human was there at all (although I'm not entirely sure about that).

Anyway, that was a lot of assumptions for barely mentioning the Moon. Doesn't look healthy to me, you should check that out.

a reply to: NNN87

You know, once you start the name calling, you lose all credibility and potential respect from other posters.

Just like all the other FE supporters who come here, eventually you will fade away never to return, and these threads will get lost to time.

a reply to: NNN87

:

ERROR ERROR ERROR

Nice one, made my day

a reply to: 13ssA

But the you claim the earth is flat, and that obviously has a gravitational pull, but gravity is untested on the moon as a large flat plain?

how do you figure round earth gravity would pull so the outer shell? the outer shell is not where the largest mass is in relation to you, that's straight down. Look at a ball. Think about how "we" say gravity works. on any part of that ball, where is the most mass relative to any surface position


AND you still haven't answered my question about how your sunset sun-moving theory works considering all the different timezones the experience dawn / dusk / day overlapping each other

a reply to: MasterAtArms

You still owe me 3 answers.....

a reply to: MasterAtArms

Flat Earth is here to stay.

Take your ball and go home.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Please stop pushing your weird thoughts down my throat. Never said it's a fantasy and I'm quite sure I said that it doesn't change any distances between those cities.

Again, I do not represent the whole flat earth cult and I said it clearly - it's a concept to me. I also presented it as a concept so I don't know WTF is your point.

For clarification, the alleged flat earth could potentially look like Orlando Fergusons model or it could look different - don't have an answer you are looking for.

a reply to: FlatBastard


Why, would you like me to stop asking you impossible FE questions? sorry, its too much fun.


Answer mine, and ill answer yours.

a reply to: MasterAtArms

Let's follow chronological order, bro.

a reply to: MasterAtArms

I think you have misunderstood me. My bad and I'm sorry, english is the fourth language that I have learned so sometimes I make contextual mistakes.

I did not mean that the Moon is flat but rather that there was no object in space that is as large as the Moon but flat in design, specifically to find out if it has a center of mass pull or a perpendicular to the body pull.

how do you figure round earth gravity would pull so the outer shell? the outer shell is not where the largest mass is in relation to you, that's straight down.

How do I figure? Well, what does it change? You are still being pulled towards the earth and it works on both models. Just drop the "mass" thing and it all fits. Also, it kind'a opens up a way for a hollow earth theory.

P.S. I haven't answered your question because I thought you were asking it someone else (you did actually) but anyway, the Sun movement. It's somewhat simple: the Sun is much closer, smaller and it moves around the earth in a circles which creates time zones; it also moves from center outward and back again which creates seasons; so some say it's a disk shaped flashlight, others say that it's round but it's too small, too low and travels too far to be seen from every point on earth and that's how we get dusk and dawn (for example get a light bulb and put it on the ground in the middle of your room and you will see how much less light you get at the edges of your room). Honestly, I haven't figured it out yet, just repeating what others said.

originally posted by: 13ssA
How do I figure? Well, what does it change? You are still being pulled towards the earth and it works on both models. Just drop the "mass" thing and it all fits. Also, it kind'a opens up a way for a hollow earth theory.

Drop the 'mass' thing and you lose the gravity.

If you need proof that the current 'gravity' and 'mass' things are at least close to correct, review footage of the US planting their flag on another celestial body.

If you need confirmation of said landing, feel free to check the Japanese hi-res shots of the area.

It is not up to 'spherical-Earthers' to prove the Earth is round, it is up to 'flat-Earthers' to develop an experiment that proves it is not. All current experiments have held the accepted model to be accurate, and if not bang on, damn close.

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: 13ssA
How do I figure? Well, what does it change? You are still being pulled towards the earth and it works on both models. Just drop the "mass" thing and it all fits. Also, it kind'a opens up a way for a hollow earth theory.

Drop the 'mass' thing and you lose the gravity.

If you need proof that the current 'gravity' and 'mass' things are at least close to correct, review footage of the US planting their flag on another celestial body.

If you need confirmation of said landing, feel free to check the Japanese hi-res shots of the area.

It is not up to 'spherical-Earthers' to prove the Earth is round, it is up to 'flat-Earthers' to develop an experiment that proves it is not. All current experiments have held the accepted model to be accurate, and if not bang on, damn close.

Videos and pictures how true can they be, we have mentioned an observation anyone can make. With their own eyes.

originally posted by: NNN87
Videos and pictures how true can they be, we have mentioned an observation anyone can make. With their own eyes.

You are correct, there is excellent documentation of what has been observed.

There is a huge amount of flat earth stuff on the internet, some of it really makes me think they are on to something.
There are two really good arguments. First, there are pictures that show a flat horizon. They say that most pictures from planes or balloons are taken with fish-eye lenses that make the picture look curved, but you can find some that don't have curvature.

Secondly, the whole thing about flight paths in the southern hemisphere being bizarre.

Also, they say that long-distance pictures of land over water disprove curvature of the earth, such as seeing chicago over the great lakes. This should be easy to prove or disprove.

I don't even get why these threads are allowed on ATS...

Satellites disprove flat earth... Step outside on a clear night, you can see them fly overhead with the naked eye

such a retarded theory

originally posted by: Akragon
I don't even get why these threads are allowed on ATS...

Satellites disprove flat earth... Step outside on a clear night, you can see them fly overhead with the naked eye

such a retarded theory

Why cannot satellites work on a flat earth? I have only seen lights in the sky, all kinds, moving in all matter of ways.

Big ones, transparent ones, really close to the ground ones, high up where i cannot possibly physically reach, have you seen an actuall satellite with your owns eyes in the sky?

I mean all the detail, the solar panels, antenna and dish what not? You seen a guy floating fixing it in the vacuum with your own eyes?

All the other planets (and moons) are round -- anyone with a decent telescope can view this for themselves. Why would OURS be ANY different?

Even the rings that circle around Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune are proof that they are ALL round. Again, how is OUR planet ANY different in shape? These people also talk about Earth being enclosed in some dome? How do you explain asteroids, meteors, shooting stars, etc. that constantly rain down?

a reply to: NNN87

There are hundreds of people that have filmed the ISS, from all parts of the GLOBE, even members on ATS have filmed the ISS in very fine detail.

Asking to see an astronaut in space is absurd...

Here's a shot from google image search..

originally posted by: NNN87
have you seen an actuall satellite with your owns eyes in the sky?

Yes I have, unaided.

originally posted by: NNN87
I mean all the detail, the solar panels, antenna and dish what not? You seen a guy floating fixing it in the vacuum with your own eyes?

Yes I have; aided by a pair of binoculars and enhanced with a $25 Kiddie telescope with my Point & Shoot camera glued to the lens, I even took a decent photo of Orion's Belt with it and got pretty clear detail.

What's your point?

originally posted by: 13ssA
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Again, I do not represent the whole flat earth cult

And that's all it is, a cult, and what kind of histories do cults have....

I'm glad at times people can say the truth about themselves, it makes me smile. - Just don't do what the cult who believed Halley's Comet was their salvation did to themselves...