Flat earth theory?

Literally the only reason I bother coming to this site anymore is to laugh at people like turbo and the creationists.

It’s about the only thing (outside of the mundane politics) to do on here.

Turbo? Please tell us again how bugs can fly with no resistance!

I mean, their wings are just for show, right?

The flapping obviously doesn't do anything, if they have no resistance, right?

Also, please jump off a very VERY tall building, while recording it, to prove there’s no gravity.

Can you also post a photo of someones hand? I mean glove. Nope, I meant hand!

LOL

While we’re at it, please tell us how you’re right and everyone else is wrong.

LOL

Explains A LOT!

NOW it makes sense!

Or maybe we’ve ALL been lied to?

Wait! I’ve found the real real REAL shape of the earth!



LOL

a reply to: turbonium1

Man, you live the lie.

One simple question. Then what is broadcasting my satellite TV service.

a reply to: turbonium1

Stars are about 6000 miles above Earth, or so

Where did you come up with that number by the way....

im curious...

Is it just the go to number for Christians?

Turbo, if satellites are not real then how does the signal get to the TV?

Think about it? You have to point the dish exactly at the right spot in the sky for it to work. Some flat earthers and no satellite believers say that the signal is coming from a ground based transmitter. If that was the case then why haven't radio enthusiasts discovered the source of these ground based transmitters?

I'm gonna be honest, this guy is either mentally challenged or a troll, there's no other option. I'm leaning towards the first one, as I haven't seen such a persistent troll.

Quick piece of proof:

I worked in TV as both a Duo Operator and a Camera Operator. I often needed to assemble equipment including, but not limited to, help out with the auxiliary machinery for Satellite transmission. This involved getting the coordinates for the Satellite and pointing our dish to said Satellite. Since our cameras were RF (used radio frequency, no cables) we didn't even need cables. If the dish was more than X % off it would not transmit. If the satellite was properly set, it would transmit. If it was heavy downpour, image or sound quality would need to be adjusted to account for available bandwith, else our broadcast would have tons of lag and glitches.

On the other hand, using the same machinery, we could also plug in a Fiber Optics cable to directly broadcast to remote servers. Since transmission is virtually instantaneous, we could transmit 4k content with no concerns towards weather events. The Satellite dish would be folded, as it wouldn't be in use.

Now, unless you call me a conspiracy agent from NASA (LOL) I'm gonna go with a theory I have been working on: Turbonium1, you're full of #.

shouldnt the fact that we had to discover longitude be proof the earth is a globe ?

Because if it was flat the sun would rise at the same time equally everywhere ?

originally posted by: sapien82
shouldnt the fact that we had to discover longitude be proof the earth is a globe ?

Because if it was flat the sun would rise at the same time equally everywhere ?

That would be true..... but most flat earth theory revolves around the notion the sun circles the earth from above. Most flat earth models have no explanation for the rising and setting of the sun except “perspective”.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Literally the only reason I bother coming to this site anymore is to laugh at people like turbo and the creationists.

It’s about the only thing (outside of the mundane politics) to do on here.

Yes, there's no need for you to address the actual issues, when you can "laugh at people" for using their own brains!!

But you seem very focused on this one, specific issue, for some reason. You don't go over to issues like alien abductions, or time-traveling space monsters, or anything else that you COULD laugh about.

Why would you ignore all those issues, which have NO proof, NO evidence, to the least degree, and come here, to 'laugh' at anyone who has shown you evidence, and proof, of the flat Earth?


It's not based on the evidence, because if it was, you'd be 'laughing' on those threads.


You actually admit that you come here for no other reason, but to make an ass of yourself, and 'laugh at people' for their opinions?!?

It's the first honest thing you've ever said.

Sad, but true.

a reply to: turbonium1

but to make an ass of yourself

Actually, that’s flat earthers who think insects float.

LOL

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Turbo? Please tell us again how bugs can fly with no resistance!

I mean, their wings are just for show, right?

The flapping obviously doesn't do anything, if they have no resistance, right?

Also, please jump off a very VERY tall building, while recording it, to prove there’s no gravity.

Can you also post a photo of someones hand? I mean glove. Nope, I meant hand!

LOL

They use a force which allows them to fly above the Earth, in air. They don't face any resistance from flying above Earth, which you claim exists within Earth, 'holding', and 'pulling down' all objects to the Earth's surface!!

If a force existed within Earth, called 'gravity', which 'held', and 'pulled down', all objects....it would 'hold' all birds, all insects, to the Earth's surface, and if birds, or insects, tried to OPPOSE that immense force, 'holding' all objects to the surface.....it would offer RESISTANCE to the opposing force of birds, or insects, which attempt to fly above the Earth's surface!!

But they fly freely, without any resistance, which proves there is NO force 'holding' or 'pulling down' objects to the Earth's surface.


It's simple to grasp this concept, is it not? A force resists opposing forces. This applies to all real physical forces, no exceptions. A magnet holds metal, and pulling the metal from the magnet offers resistance, by the magnet. A wind which is opposed by someone trying to walk against the wind, will face RESISTANCE from the wind, when trying to walk against it. But, when walking in calm air, there is no RESISTANCE from the wind, and we can walk much easier.

If we swim against a current, it is very hard, even impossible. The force used to swim, is opposed by another force - the current. The current is a force which opposes those swimming against it. The current RESISTS those swimming in the opposite direction of the current, or force, within the river.


You swim against a current, and face resistance. If you swim with the current, you face no resistance, and it's likely much easier to swim, as well. You GO with the force, which allows you to swim faster, easier, then otherwise.


If the current has no effect, or nearly so, swimming is easy. No resistance.



Why would you think a bird faces resistance from a force 'pulling down all objects', when it flies freely above the Earth?

Forces offer resistance to opposing forces, that's how all real forces work.

'Gravity', the greatest of all forces, which resists nothing!!

a reply to: turbonium1

They use a force which allows them to fly above the Earth,

define this alledged " force "

its not like no one has ever asked you

but you evade and deflect

now you have started - lets have the full explaination

a reply to: neutronflux

" perspective " is the demonstrably false [ as the " explaination " for sun // moon rise // set ]

observers on the tropics of capricorn , cancer and the equator - cand see the setting // rising sun at greater distances than a person at the north pole can

so much for the perspective " explaination "

and flat erath proponents wonder why they are laughed at

originally posted by: JameSimon
I'm gonna be honest, this guy is either mentally challenged or a troll, there's no other option. I'm leaning towards the first one, as I haven't seen such a persistent troll.

Quick piece of proof:

I worked in TV as both a Duo Operator and a Camera Operator. I often needed to assemble equipment including, but not limited to, help out with the auxiliary machinery for Satellite transmission. This involved getting the coordinates for the Satellite and pointing our dish to said Satellite. Since our cameras were RF (used radio frequency, no cables) we didn't even need cables. If the dish was more than X % off it would not transmit. If the satellite was properly set, it would transmit. If it was heavy downpour, image or sound quality would need to be adjusted to account for available bandwith, else our broadcast would have tons of lag and glitches.

On the other hand, using the same machinery, we could also plug in a Fiber Optics cable to directly broadcast to remote servers. Since transmission is virtually instantaneous, we could transmit 4k content with no concerns towards weather events. The Satellite dish would be folded, as it wouldn't be in use.

Now, unless you call me a conspiracy agent from NASA (LOL) I'm gonna go with a theory I have been working on: Turbonium1, you're full of #.

I guess you don't know about shortwave signals, then?

These signals go out thousands of km, and without any 'satellites' in 'orbit'!


Sheesh.

it takes a special kind of idiocy , and or dishonesty to propose " short wave " radio technology as the " explaination " for satelite communications

whats the frequency kenneth ?