'Negative Space' as a Concept Explaining Flat Earth Truth & NASA Misdirection..

originally posted by: DaRAGE
I'm not a flat earther. So I can't answer for them. But I don't know why gravitational time dilation would be any different for a flat earther than an non-flat earther. Though I am interested in why it would matter.

Gravitational time dilation is part of Einstein's theory of general relativity.

Not all flat earthers have the same beliefs but in general I think most don't believe in gravity, and think the reason we seem to feel gravity is because the earth is accelerating to simulate gravity. Nevermind that this can be proven false with red shift measurements of the CMB.

Then some flat earthers come up with some really bizarre arguments, like one guy who tried to argue that the reason the tops of multiple poles placed a distance apart didn't all line up wasn't because the earth was curved (which was the right answer), but because the mass of the earth was bending the light! The problem with this of course is that flat earthers all apparently know approximately zero math and he had never tried doing any calculations to see how much the light would actually bend according to general relativity. The sun is far more massive than the earth and even the sun bends the light so slightly that the bend was difficult to measure when it was first measured in 1919.

So while the earth theoretically bends the light too, it's too small an amount to easily measure and the bend is many orders of magnitude less than apparent "bending" of the locations of pole tops due to the curvature of the earth.

a reply to: DaRAGE
Because they don't believe massive objects cause gravity or distort space time. They have some ridiculous idea about gravity.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Not all flat earthers have the same beliefs but in general I think most don't believe in gravity, and think the reason we seem to feel gravity is because the earth is accelerating to simulate gravity.

I’m not sure most believe that.

The more debated explanations of resent.

All things originate on earth, and want to return to their origin.

There’s this denpressure thing. Mass and density are some sort of force on themselves. And lead weights more than aluminum because aluminum has more pores that hold an atmosphere.

Or gravity is actually a form of momentum.

Here. Have a read and a head scratch…

Three different FE’s, three different butchered versions of gravity.
www.theflatearthsociety.org...

As far as accelerating. That doesn’t explain why the force of gravity is less as you gain altitude. Why gravity varies around earth as the density and composition of earth’s crust changes. And doesn’t explain the Cavendish experiment. And I think the groping by flat earther’s for the explanation for gravity reflects this.

Tried to quote Mark Sargent. But seems he likes to talk more than put things in writing. Unless you want to buy his book. Funny how that works. Not watching another interview of him.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Cheers. Thanks for the explanation. Flat earth theory is weird.

I was watching a video about the sun supposedly being closer to earth and it is just like something that produces an electric field which produces neon gas to glow in the atmosphere causing daylight, which is supposedly more luminous than the “sun” itself.


Though i do like this theory… its on rumble. Goes for about 4 minutes and is regarding flight times and flight paths.

rumble

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Then some flat earthers come up with some really bizarre arguments, like one guy who tried to argue that the reason the tops of multiple poles placed a distance apart didn't all line up wasn't because the earth was curved (which was the right answer), but because the mass of the earth was bending the light! The problem with this of course is that flat earthers all apparently know approximately zero math and he had never tried doing any calculations to see how much the light would actually bend according to general relativity. The sun is far more massive than the earth and even the sun bends the light so slightly that the bend was difficult to measure when it was first measured in 1919.

But this is assuming the contemporary theory is true. If earth has a flat spacetime topology, which is a viable mathematical possibility in Einstein's field equations, then it would totally change the distances of these objects. This would make the observations made by Eddington show that gravitational lensing is even more potent than we thought before.

I wouldn't be pursuing an explanation for flat spacetime topology if photographers weren't constantly defying a curved topology of the earth:

beyondrange.wordpress.com...

443km is the current record for distance in a photograph. That would be about 15km of curvature if the earth were curved in 3D. No part of that mountain should be visible, even if youre on a 3km high mountain. You can look through that site and see countless examples of defying the curve.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Then some flat earthers come up with some really bizarre arguments, like one guy who tried to argue that the reason the tops of multiple poles placed a distance apart didn't all line up wasn't because the earth was curved (which was the right answer), but because the mass of the earth was bending the light! The problem with this of course is that flat earthers all apparently know approximately zero math and he had never tried doing any calculations to see how much the light would actually bend according to general relativity. The sun is far more massive than the earth and even the sun bends the light so slightly that the bend was difficult to measure when it was first measured in 1919.

But this is assuming the contemporary theory is true. If earth has a flat spacetime topology, which is a viable mathematical possibility in Einstein's field equations, then it would totally change the distances of these objects. This would make the observations made by Eddington show that gravitational lensing is even more potent than we thought before.

I wouldn't be pursuing an explanation for flat spacetime topology if photographers weren't constantly defying a curved topology of the earth:

beyondrange.wordpress.com...

443km is the current record for distance in a photograph. That would be about 15km of curvature if the earth were curved in 3D. No part of that mountain should be visible, even if youre on a 3km high mountain. You can look through that site and see countless examples of defying the curve.

Jesus, another flat earther. Can sit here and debunk their “theories” over and over but they still won’t believe in real science or even simple observations and experiments that can be done with low cost that easily proves the earth is a globe. Check out ScimanDan YouTube channel if you want in depth debunking of the ridiculous flat earth conspiracy. Doesn’t matter though because if you believe in flat earth then you’ll just ignore every piece of evidence and real science anyway.


m.youtube.com...

a reply to: Parcus41

Flat Earther (fauci in disguise): “I am the science”

originally posted by: cooperton

443km is the current record for distance in a photograph. That would be about 15km of curvature if the earth were curved in 3D. No part of that mountain should be visible, even if youre on a 3km high mountain. You can look through that site and see countless examples of defying the curve.

This?



Where this is going on…

a reply to: DaRAGE

Pseudoscience...equals FE "science".

It's a belief. And it's a bit of a joke.

originally posted by: WhatItIs

This?

Where this is going on…

there should be 15km of curvature over that distance. The height of the observer is 2.8km, and the mountain they're photographing is 4.1km... it should be totally hidden by the curve.

a reply to: cooperton

I wouldn't be pursuing an explanation for flat spacetime topology if photographers weren't constantly defying a curved topology of the earth:

beyondrange.wordpress.com...

443km is the current record for distance in a photograph. That would be about 15km of curvature if the earth were curved in 3D. No part of that mountain should be visible, even if youre on a 3km high mountain. You can look through that site and see countless examples of defying the curve.

Thanks, I had wondered when someone would post regarding the photographic evidence, which is unassailable in my humble opinion.

a reply to: WhatItIs

Does your sketch approximate what you can see in the photograph? No, no it doesn't.

Lame attempt to debunk using a magic marker & deceptive intent.

Q: If you had a 2-dimensional cranium, what could you put in it?
A: Flat Earth

Look at the water bulge, look at the curvature!

Unfortunately there is a problem with the upload page otherwise I'd post this blatant Flat Earth-proving photo in its full glory.

I see no point debating with the abject deniers of the reality which is staring them in the face if they put aside their assumptions & simply look at the evidence, the absolute lack of any curvature whatsoever, whereas on a global Earth there would be literally miles of curvature hiding these distant mountains from view.

Just use your eyes.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
Look at the water bulge, look at the curvature!

7 curve-defying mountaintops in one photo. That's about as empirical as you can get. To clarify, there are many phenomenon that seem exclusive to a 3D globe, but any good empirical theory is able to accommodate the REAL observable facts of the old theory and create a new and more comprehensive theory on top of it.

Gravitational lensing with this new model is huge, and therefore more intimately connects to Einstein's relativity theory. Relativity theory has superseded Newtonian physics in a way that still incorporates the old equations, and upgrades them to a more complete model.

By fully employing relativity theory, a flat spacetime manifold that is employing intense gravitational lensing is a model that can incorporate the same exact grid as a sphere. This is possible because 4 flat circles equal exactly the surface area of a sphere. These are the "4 wings of the earth" referred to by Isaiah, commonly mistranslated as "4 corners of the earth".

I am still dumbfounded that there are people who believe the earth is flat. So I have a question. WHY is the earth flat while every other planet and star are spheres? Yes I know the earth isn't perfectly round.

I've seen enough videos from the... loudest, flat earthers and I actually get aggravated at the most basic concepts being butchered. But let me see if I have the general idea down.

The earth is flat because that's how God made it. The "world leaders" have worked together, for several THOUSAND YEARS, to trick us into believing we live on a sphere because they don't want us to believe in God. These "leaders" have prevented any sea fairing human being, throughout man's existence, from traveling to the "edge" of this supposed disc, which apparently is a giant ice wall. These people in charge have gone so far as to fake every single thing to do with outer space. They faked all the US space missions, all the Chinese, Russian and whatever other countries missions. Every single human alive who has flown in a plane, civilian or military, and witnessed the actual curvature of the earth is simply lying. Every person who's ever worked for NASA is lying. Every human who's been to space is lying. Every experiment that proves the earth is a globe is a lie, or is being faked. Every result from a flat earth experiment has been manipulated by "them" in order to cover up the "truth".

All to make us believe we live on a ball instead of a disc.

I mean... What more can I say? The level of insanity is off the charts.

a reply to: cooperton

discord.com...

ATS Discords link.

Can you post it there? Should be able to.
Then I should be able to grab it and upload it for you.

Actually these flat earthers appear to be correct in regards to the curvature.
www.omnicalculator.com...

Check it out. That photo shouldn't be possible. The horizon should curve before being able to see those mountains.


**edit: I did a post on page 6 that dissects it. It's called refraction. **

originally posted by: cooperton
443km is the current record for distance in a photograph. That would be about 15km of curvature if the earth were curved in 3D. No part of that mountain should be visible, even if youre on a 3km high mountain. You can look through that site and see countless examples of defying the curve.

You are demonstrating your lack of math skills here.

If you stood halfway between two mountain peaks that were 443 km apart, your distance to each peak would be 221.5 km.
The curvature drop at 221.5 km is not 15km, it's only 3.85 km and so the 4.1 km altitude of Barre des Écrins is clearly greater than 3.85 km. The detailed calculations get a little more complicated but this should be enough to demonstrate that your 15km is way off. That 15km would apply if you stood on the ground and tried to look at something 443 km away but that's not the geometry here, it's looking at one mountain from another mountain.