OFFICIAL FLAT FUCKING EARTH THREAD
- Thread starter Smiley650Agony
- Start date
I'm riding for that how do you still believe something made in Photoshop is real. They have shown us multiple times that the recording is done on a set with a green screen and you still choose to believe they are hundreds of miles in space lol
How come in all the years of us having the I.S.S. they've never shown a complete 360 of what space looks like theyre just like that's earth. And its never in whole its just one half of it.
I never said gravity exists. I've posted several posts as evidence for my side. How can you prove an extra force is acting on something that is acting the way its supposed to?
How come in all the years of us having the I.S.S. they've never shown a complete 360 of what space looks like theyre just like that's earth. And its never in whole its just one half of it.
I never said gravity exists. I've posted several posts as evidence for my side. How can you prove an extra force is acting on something that is acting the way its supposed to?
how can helium defy something that doesn't exist?
and what would be the purpose for all the space-venturing countries in the world to perpetuate a lie upon the public?
and what would be the purpose for all the space-venturing countries in the world to perpetuate a lie upon the public?
Props:
kane916 and kane916
I capitalized defies to be an exaggeration. I have said before on here multiple times, gravity doesnt exist; since the begining of this thread I've said this.
I think you asked the next question 30 pages back. You tell me now, what would be the point of lying about us living under a dome? What is the significance of Hiding that SOMETHING placed us here?
Dont you think this world would be A LOT different if people actually KNEW there was a God?
More than half of this thread is you guys trying to tongue twist my words to mean something else. I bet when you read that you were like Haaa he slipped up and said gravity exists. No homie. Read my shit right
Edit: just noticed i didnt put defies in quotations on that post you quoted. I did quote it on the following poat tho. Helium "Defies" gravity. I should put quotations on gravity too so you guys don't assume I believe that shit next time either.
I think you asked the next question 30 pages back. You tell me now, what would be the point of lying about us living under a dome? What is the significance of Hiding that SOMETHING placed us here?
Dont you think this world would be A LOT different if people actually KNEW there was a God?
More than half of this thread is you guys trying to tongue twist my words to mean something else. I bet when you read that you were like Haaa he slipped up and said gravity exists. No homie. Read my shit right
Edit: just noticed i didnt put defies in quotations on that post you quoted. I did quote it on the following poat tho. Helium "Defies" gravity. I should put quotations on gravity too so you guys don't assume I believe that shit next time either.
Last edited:
Stillhustlin and ab. Don't dodge my question, I wanna know what your explanation is.
Gravitational collapse can break down stars and all that, but won't crush or collapse say an ant in the process?
Is gravity strong enough to collapse planets and stars but not an ant? Why hasn't earth collapsed from its own gravity?
Gravitational collapse can break down stars and all that, but won't crush or collapse say an ant in the process?
Is gravity strong enough to collapse planets and stars but not an ant? Why hasn't earth collapsed from its own gravity?
i'm on here for chuckles man, so that's why i quoted you. if you believe in flat earth, more power to you. if you mean "gravity" and say gravity, i can only go by what you're saying not what you mean (not a mind reader).
in regards to the ant, the amount of gravity (force) on any object is relative to its mass. i think that's newton's law of gravity. but i'm not smart and really have nothing except googles beyond that.
people fly around the world all day ever day and no one's seen an ice wall? people have been to antartica and haven't peeped the edge? the sun and moon are a matter of hundreds of miles away and are beneath the 'dome'?
not sure why you can't believe in god and still believe in planets and the moon and human space exploration, etc. s'all good tho
in regards to the ant, the amount of gravity (force) on any object is relative to its mass. i think that's newton's law of gravity. but i'm not smart and really have nothing except googles beyond that.
people fly around the world all day ever day and no one's seen an ice wall? people have been to antartica and haven't peeped the edge? the sun and moon are a matter of hundreds of miles away and are beneath the 'dome'?
not sure why you can't believe in god and still believe in planets and the moon and human space exploration, etc. s'all good tho
I dig your response.
If the amount of gravity on something is based on mass. Why arent any big buildings or mass objects collapsing onto themselves?
The ice wall: I posted and its actually in the us history about the ice wall. Look up operation high jump. Its a actual operation. Admiral Byrd flew THOUSANDS of miles of antarctica. Thousands. So that means the edge isn't anywhere close to where you could actually visit (Antarctic coast) IF there even is an edge.
If I can zoom into the moon with a cheap ass telescope it for sure isn't 230,000 miles away. Why is it we can zoom in on it easily and it be clear if it was that far away. Also, pictures "from the moon" make it seem like earth is super far. Yet we see everyday its not that far. Earth from the moon shouldn't look like how we see the moon. Since earth is "several times larger than the moon" not sure if I make my thesis clear on this one.
You can believe whatever you want. But if the bible says there is a firmament and you're saying no there isnt we can fly anywhere is contradicting the first couple sentences in genesis.
Last edited:
All we need is 1 picture of the flat earth to end this and the picture must show what the bottom of this flat earth consists of.... no YouTube video, no photoshop, no fan made bullshit.
Nasa has provided this many times and in real time live feeds from the iss. So it shouldnt be to hard for flat earthers to do, but since there is a dome over us im sure that will be the excuse as to why a pic or video cant be provided.
Wheres the guy who was going to launch his own rocket from an RV to prove the earth is flat? He was the best hope for flat earthers. im sure if b.o.b. hooked him up with enough money his rv rocket thing would show all the non believers.
Nasa has provided this many times and in real time live feeds from the iss. So it shouldnt be to hard for flat earthers to do, but since there is a dome over us im sure that will be the excuse as to why a pic or video cant be provided.
Wheres the guy who was going to launch his own rocket from an RV to prove the earth is flat? He was the best hope for flat earthers. im sure if b.o.b. hooked him up with enough money his rv rocket thing would show all the non believers.
Last edited:
I don't see why u still think there is no photo proof. Look at space x launches. They have a video where supposedly they are in space already and one camera clearly shows its flat while another has a curve on the SAME rocket at the SAME height.
The red bull jump shows a crazy curve but at soon as they first show him step up to jump. The horizon is flat.
Theyve been showing us at the same time. You havent been looking.
Again this isnt the first time you ask for a pixture and ive provided them here.
You guys literally say the same things over n over n hope I change my answer lol the proof is there. Go back n look
The red bull jump shows a crazy curve but at soon as they first show him step up to jump. The horizon is flat.
Theyve been showing us at the same time. You havent been looking.
Again this isnt the first time you ask for a pixture and ive provided them here.
You guys literally say the same things over n over n hope I change my answer lol the proof is there. Go back n look
Just noticed you said the BOTTOM of the earth. I don't see why you need proof of that to believe?
You don't even know question the edge of THIS universe you just roll with it like yea there's 1,000,000 other universes even tho I was never shown the edge of this one.
Even tho there are no REAL photos its all "data" and "composites" . there won't ever be a picture of whats UNDER earth because there is no "under"
Like I told versacero,
IF EVERY EARTH PICTURE IS REAL WHY ARE THEY ALL DIFFERENT AND ABSOLUTLEY NONE OF THEM ARE PEAR SHAPED LIKE HOW NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON SAID.
But yet IM wrong for pointing that out. Lmao
You don't even know question the edge of THIS universe you just roll with it like yea there's 1,000,000 other universes even tho I was never shown the edge of this one.
Even tho there are no REAL photos its all "data" and "composites" . there won't ever be a picture of whats UNDER earth because there is no "under"
Like I told versacero,
IF EVERY EARTH PICTURE IS REAL WHY ARE THEY ALL DIFFERENT AND ABSOLUTLEY NONE OF THEM ARE PEAR SHAPED LIKE HOW NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON SAID.
But yet IM wrong for pointing that out. Lmao
Do you believe the earth is spinning at 1,000 mph and orbiting the sun at 68,000 mph and 30 km per second around the sun?
If yes, why do we still see the same stars every single day for the last 2,000 + years? Shouldnt they in some way shape or form show that we are moving past them?
But no. They all are in the same spot as when the edgyptians built their tools to predict upcoming stellar events.
Theyre buildings are pointed exactly to orion STILL. 2,000 plus years later. Is just like to know your reasoning as to why it seems like we havent moved an INCH since then
If yes, why do we still see the same stars every single day for the last 2,000 + years? Shouldnt they in some way shape or form show that we are moving past them?
But no. They all are in the same spot as when the edgyptians built their tools to predict upcoming stellar events.
Theyre buildings are pointed exactly to orion STILL. 2,000 plus years later. Is just like to know your reasoning as to why it seems like we havent moved an INCH since then
File:Earth Rotation (Nepal, Himalayas).jpg - Wikipedia
I think photos like this alone dispel your anti-rotation beliefs, feel free to explain your way out of it.
I think photos like this alone dispel your anti-rotation beliefs, feel free to explain your way out of it.
Stellar aberration is an astronomical phenomenon "which produces an apparent motion of celestial objects". It can be proven mathematically that stellar aberration is due to the change of the astronomer's inertial frame of reference. The formula is derived with the use of Lorentz transformation of the star's coordinates.
As the astronomer John Herschel has already explained in 1844, the stellar aberration does not depend on the relative velocity of the star towards Earth.[1] Otherwise eclipsing binary stars would appear to be separated, in stark contrast to observation: both stars are rotating with high speed —and ever changing and different velocity vectors— around each other, but they appear as one spot all the time.
In the year 1926 the astrophysicist Robert Emden published the article Aberration und Relativitätstheorie in the journal Naturwissenschaften.[2] In this article he states that the direction of a light ray isn't influenced by the motion of the star or by the motion of Earth.[Notes 1] At that time, the opponents of the special theory of relativity reasoned that the theory must be flawed, because it would state that the stellar aberration would depend on the relative velocity of the star — which would be in contradiction to observation — and R. Emden's article explains that the special theory of relativity does not predict this. Today, the special theory of relativity isn't contested anymore but there are still articles that suggest that the aberration would depend on the relative velocity of the star.[3]
Although a (relativistic) velocity-addition formula can be used to explain stellar aberration, (see Aberration of light), another (relativistic) explanation using only the Lorentz transformation is also possible, as will be demonstrated. This derivation only uses the star's coordinates at the time of emission, and therefore has the formal advantage there is no place for the relative velocity of the star towards the astronomer and therefore it is evident that the observed position doesn't depend on the star's velocity — provided that the resultant change of position is much smaller than the distance between star and Earth.[Notes 2] The observed position of the star wouldn't depend on Earth's motion either, if the astronomer could use the same inertial frame of reference all the time. But of course that is technically impossible,[Notes 3] the astronomer uses his current rest frame and these current rest frames are different at different times as Earth orbits around the Sun. It is mathematically convenient to declare the position of star in a rest frame of the Sun (more exactly: the center of mass of the Solar System) as the "real" position and that the difference to this "real" position derives form the "aberration".[Notes 4]
For the mathematical proofs, read more: Stellar aberration (derivation from Lorentz transformation - Wikipedia)
As the astronomer John Herschel has already explained in 1844, the stellar aberration does not depend on the relative velocity of the star towards Earth.[1] Otherwise eclipsing binary stars would appear to be separated, in stark contrast to observation: both stars are rotating with high speed —and ever changing and different velocity vectors— around each other, but they appear as one spot all the time.
In the year 1926 the astrophysicist Robert Emden published the article Aberration und Relativitätstheorie in the journal Naturwissenschaften.[2] In this article he states that the direction of a light ray isn't influenced by the motion of the star or by the motion of Earth.[Notes 1] At that time, the opponents of the special theory of relativity reasoned that the theory must be flawed, because it would state that the stellar aberration would depend on the relative velocity of the star — which would be in contradiction to observation — and R. Emden's article explains that the special theory of relativity does not predict this. Today, the special theory of relativity isn't contested anymore but there are still articles that suggest that the aberration would depend on the relative velocity of the star.[3]
Although a (relativistic) velocity-addition formula can be used to explain stellar aberration, (see Aberration of light), another (relativistic) explanation using only the Lorentz transformation is also possible, as will be demonstrated. This derivation only uses the star's coordinates at the time of emission, and therefore has the formal advantage there is no place for the relative velocity of the star towards the astronomer and therefore it is evident that the observed position doesn't depend on the star's velocity — provided that the resultant change of position is much smaller than the distance between star and Earth.[Notes 2] The observed position of the star wouldn't depend on Earth's motion either, if the astronomer could use the same inertial frame of reference all the time. But of course that is technically impossible,[Notes 3] the astronomer uses his current rest frame and these current rest frames are different at different times as Earth orbits around the Sun. It is mathematically convenient to declare the position of star in a rest frame of the Sun (more exactly: the center of mass of the Solar System) as the "real" position and that the difference to this "real" position derives form the "aberration".[Notes 4]
For the mathematical proofs, read more: Stellar aberration (derivation from Lorentz transformation - Wikipedia)