Flat Earth is Going "Mainstream"!

A spherical earth wouldn't be complex. Gravity would operate differently one a flat earth.

 

No, evidence is not proof. And is the main reason I started leaning towards flat earth. Because to prove flat earth wrong, all I could come up with was, "evidence". But both arguments hold credible, "evidence". And only one model adhere's to our senses and everyday experiences with the earth. So for now, the earth is flat and motionless.

From there I dove into the "origins" of the heliocentric model, and indeed it comes from Rome and the Vatican, though Greeks first thought of the idea, they needed Rome and the Vatican to push it on the people. Or to hold it as, "truth". And they did. Copernicus wasn't born in Rome, but he was educated there, and also became a bishop of the Vatican. Copernicus lifelong works were all dedicated to the Vatican.

 

In the FE/Jrr's view, there is no gravity. Things are held in place by the "ether" or "firmament" or some biblical force.

 

Lack of evidence is not proof either.

and to support the concept of flat earth you could come up with nothing. That's poor logic.

Incorrect one has credible evidence the other had lies, stupidity and gross misunderstandings of physics as well as a global cooperative clandestine organization tip subvert the truth. Occam's razor suggests that flat earth is along the same lines as the Easter bunny.

yes the spherical earth.

so you're entire position is based on the fruit of a poisoned tree concept?

See, i don't care how much you revile Catholicism. It doesn't mean everything they say is wrong.

Religion as a whole is profoundly stupid I the subject of science and to further discredit itself it is also profoundly arrogant on the subject as well.

 

You could say that in a way. I think the world in which we live, we will never be able to set the dominion of the heavenly bodies in the earth.

31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?

32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?

33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?

KJV Job 38;31 If you want a better understanding of how and why God is talking to Job over such matters, and the tone in which He is speaking to him. I know you don't. But I gave it anyways.

 

technically there isn't, not in the Newtonian construct anyway. It is a property of mass to attract other mass or be attracted to more dense mass. Gravity as we know it today is a property of matter and directly linked to mass.

Isaac Newton was trying to understand why apples fell to the earth. He believed his theory of the pull of gravity was insufficient. It wasn't until Einstein that we knew why.

 

No, it's Catholicism and all the other propagated stories and theories, and the contradiction to our senses and everyday experiences with the earth. The Vatican is responsible for the inquisition. Their credibility in my opinion is null and void. And all those associated, are nothing less of deceived.

It's all the fake earth images, and planets as well. Have you ever watched "Through the Wormhole", with Morgan Freeman, The universe, Secrets of the Cosmos, How the Universe Works, or any "science channel" or even some "history channel" shows on space? I have watched every episode of all of them, because I was a space junky. Or a space monkey, after-all they claim we came from both.

Take a good look, because as they tell you about everything that's out there, they use computer graphics for visuals. Because there is no real images or videos of anything out there. Otherwise they would use them, I mean why use fake when you have the real?

Go ahead, take a good look. From quasars to black holes, wormholes, pulsars, neutron stars, magnetars, etc.

What you need to watch is "The Principal".

 

Things fall in a downward trajectory because of "pressure".

And thanks for having the ability to criticize constructively. Instead of childlike.

 

This is all theoretical. There is no demonstrable experiment (science) that can be done, let alone repeated. Most certainly an excuse for the theory. "Well earth's gravity prevents us from being able to demonstrate mass attracting mass." Yeah ok, nice excuse.

 

What are you talking about? Parallel lines do not, nor ever have proved the shape of the earth. At some point, give me a break.

 

So what if I told you that pressure, buoyancy, density, electromagnetism/magnetism and the medium in which the variables are being measured, is all you need. "Gravity" is not needed at all. If it is more dense, it falls due to pressure until it hits something more dense. If it is less dense it rises, completely defying "gravity", in which holds trillions of tons of water to the ground. If it is as dense, upon release it will remain where it was released, such as a helium balloon that has lost almost all the helium. If the same variable used in these experiments was done in water, the change of medium will change the results. An inflated beach-ball will fall to the ground, yet in water it will rise.

 

Sure they do, and I'm using your own argument. If the Earth was flat, the horizon would not block a ship at sea or building on the horizon, because parallel lines do not intersect, as you've admitted.

Use your common sense, like you constantly tell others to do.

 

Another O.....M......G.

Two in the same day.

Q: Why do you believe nutjob CGI video when you constantly tell others not to believe photographs and videos because they are ... CGI?

It's easier to believe in fantasy when you apply hypocritical double standards.

 

He's using cgi from out of the text books. So if you have a problem with it, enough said.

 

Still waiting for your proof that the 1972 Apollo photograph is fake.

You've tried to deceive people by pointing out irregularities in a later developed image that NASA states in its website is a composite. But you've dodged the image which is a photograph.

Did you read this part of the Bible too?

Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

 

So, CGI is believable if it is "out of the text books"? Is that your new standard?

Tell us, which "text book" did your CGI video come out of as you've claimed.

Don't bear false witness now. It is a sin.

 

OK, let's pretend that made up gibberish is true. That is your answer to why water doesn't fly off a spherical earth, as you've claimed it should do multiple times.

 

It seems to me that it is you having a "OMG" moment! No disrespect. On a flat plane, things disappear due to distances, not curvature. This is demonstrable and experimental on small scales. And only on small scales because globeheads will say it's the curve on large scale experiments. So with tiny objects on perfectly flat surfaces, and positioning them in straight lines (technically does not need straight lines), with a camera closest to the surface as possible, to represent your size in comparison to the earth, the object at the end of the line disappears at the bottom first. No curve involved whatsoever. You can ignore that, but do so at your own discretion.

 

The ships and buildings in the pictures and videos are not "disappearing." They are being obstructed by the water.

Try again. Use your common sense for a change. No disrespect.

 

Yes, water on a ball will spin off at the equator. And when describing the earth's spin using "mph", it is said that it's not "mph", rather rpm's (revolutions per minute). Which in turn mathematically (today's science), can be turned into "mph". If you was to measure the length of your fan belt in your car, by using the rpm's and length, you can determine the "mph". Thus at the equator the earth spins at approx. 1,048 mph. Which is approx. 300 mph faster than this:


So somebody outside of earth looking in would see the jet moving at the speed of sound plus earth's rotation.

 

Yes I have run in to the same thing.

he has repeatedly said that composite photographs ARE by definition CGI which of course they are not.

 

Yes, they disappear at the bottoms. This is all due to perspective.

http://www.treeshark.com/BlogPosts/Tutorial/Persp/Polkasph.jpg

The lower you put the camera, the less dots you will see. This is software of a flat plane.

 

They are not CGI they do not require a computer even if one is used.

Your idiotic claim they merely proves you are lying

 

It's your story, tell it how you want.

 

No it is not a story it is FACT.

You can offer no evidence to support your claim as usual and itr has been proven false in your face