It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I am in utter disbelief that this 'Flat-Earth' nonsense has gained some attention

page: 14
50
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 07:15 AM
link   
You absolutely wonderful and intelligent, loving, considerate, kind, clever, CURIOUS person!!!!!


Amazing.


I deeply and earnestly believe that The Time Is Now.

And You are the person the World has been waiting for to take your place, and get ready. For truly I reckon its all about to happen.

IS, HAPPENING.


right now. Your post is evident of that.


LOVE.




posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 07:19 AM
link   
I'm beginning to believe the Earth is actually a TRAPezoid. I'd like to get the hell off it, so if you have the KEY or any knowledge pertaining to such, please let us know.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 07:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: rukia
a reply to: M4nWithNoN4me

haven't you ever read The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman? Globalization, mang.



other than that, I have no idea how people could possibly think that the world is flat in any other way. Ignorance, I suppose.


Good book???? thanks hey.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Skid Mark

I have seen that movie, and while watching I had the realization of OH MY GOD, THIS IS THE FATE OF THE WORLD. The dumbing down of society is mind numbing for me. My twins are in second grade, half of the kids in their classes have cell phones. One little girl tries to write in text speak.

As for FE's, I sincerely hope that they are just part of a fad, or believing "ironically" as so many wannabe hipsters do. No rationally thinking person honestly believes the Earth is flat. The whole DON'T TRUST ANYONE mindset of so many affects clear, scientific reasoning.

Unfortunately, people like that are here to stay, and the terrifying part is, they are reproducing.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Tempter




Doesn't this just end the thread? I mean, #, you can SEE it.


One would think.

But unfortunately it won't.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: M4nWithNoN4me

You've gotta love the kook culture.

I got into an argument with a friend who said that drones are faster then Lamborghinis and when I told him about power to weight ratio, acceleration vs torque his response was "but drones can fly."

If people want to entertained by flat earth theories then why no include the moon? it doesn't spin so I guess their theories are justified. But what's this...Tidal Lock? I guess a waffle orbiting a waffle makes perfect sense after fifteen minutes of perusing the internet.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

The moon and the sun just jump back to where they are at the end of the day.
Problem solved

Timezones are a lie, too.
edit on 30-1-2016 by verschickter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DenyObfuscation
That would be the elevation of Polaris from 45ºN. That's fine.
The problem is, at the equator, he is showing an elevation of 27º. That would be fine too, if the equator was at 27ºN. But it isn't, is it?




The 27 degrees is the elevation of Polaris compared to 1 degree north if it was at 111km in the air, which on a flat model would explain why we can't see polaris from most of the southern hemisphere. I'm not saying it's the truth or not, it's just an explanation that doesn't exclude Polaris from flat earth theories.
edit on 30-1-2016 by theMediator because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-1-2016 by theMediator because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: theMediator


On a fully flat earth, Polaris would need to be 111~ km from the ground at the north pole.

Why?

What is the line labeled 45 degrees in your diagram?

Not sure why I pointed also the 45 degrees calculation. I made that graph quite a while ago, I guess the 45 degrees what usefull back when I did it. Anyway, if you can read english, that line is not where I wrote Ecuador.

Edit : The 27 degrees it the elevation of Polaris compared to 1 degree north if it was at 111km in the air, which on a flat model would explain why we can't see polaris from most of the southern hemisphere. I'm not saying it's the truth or not, it's just an explanation that doesn't exclude Polaris from flat earth theories. (Copied from my response to Phage.)
edit on 30-1-2016 by theMediator because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: theMediator



The 27 degrees it the elevation of Polaris compared to 1 degree north if it was at 111km in the air


So Polaris is in low earth orbit and even the GPS satellites are 20 times further away than it, got it


what exactly is Polaris then, must be a pretty small something


Wait Polaris is inside the thermosphere? pretty shifty alien tech not even in orbit it just hang there
edit on 30-1-2016 by Indigent because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Original: רקיע

Transliteration: râqı̂ya‛

Phonetic: raw-kee'-ah

BDB Definition:

extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
expanse (flat as base, support)
firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above
Origin: from H7554

TWOT entry: 2217a

Part(s) of speech: Noun Masculine



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: theMediator
If Ecuador is 10000 km from the pole in your diagram, a 1° angle would put Polaris 174 km and change above the pole, in a FE fantasy scenario.

The line you have called 45° is effing impossible given the values of 111 km and 5000 km. If it's a 45 then they would be the same.

The altitude of Polaris corresponding to one's latitude is incompatible with a flat Earth. What do you not get about that?



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

i gave up when his own graphic to illustrate his claim - actually falsified his own claim

you cannot rationally deal with that level of anti - science



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape
You know that, I know that, almost everyone knows that, except the Mediator. By the end, if he doesn't run away, he too will know that.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: theMediator
If Ecuador is 10000 km from the pole in your diagram, a 1° angle would put Polaris 174 km and change above the pole, in a FE fantasy scenario.

The line you have called 45° is effing impossible given the values of 111 km and 5000 km. If it's a 45 then they would be the same.

The altitude of Polaris corresponding to one's latitude is incompatible with a flat Earth. What do you not get about that?

Nah there's nothing I don't get. I won't deny that maybe I was wrong with the numbers for Polaris to be not visible from the southern hemisphere...

Hm...well, that 1" wasn't an angle of view, it was 1" north from the Ecuador that I used when I calculated. The 45 degree is also not the angle, as a equilateral triangle has 2x 45" and one 90", that 45" is the latitude.

I'm not saying it's the truth or anything but I thiiink I got the calculations right.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Everyone thought that movie idiocracy was stupid but really it was the realest movie ever made.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: theMediator
Where does the 111 km value come from?



Hm...well, that 1" wasn't an angle of view, it was 1" north from the Ecuador that I used when I calculated.

In the real world, from 1° N of the equator the viewing angle to Polaris IS 1°.



The 45 degree is also not the angle, as a equilateral triangle has 2x 45" and one 90", that 45" is the latitude.

No, it doesn't. 3 equal sides, 3 60° angles.

From 45° N latitude the viewing angle to Polaris is 45°. Your figures are in blatant opposition to observation.



I'm not saying it's the truth or anything but I thiiink I got the calculations right.

But you didn't.
edit on 30-1-2016 by DenyObfuscation because: does*



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

i gave up when his own graphic to illustrate his claim - actually falsified his own claim

you cannot rationally deal with that level of anti - science


The only thing that falsifies my own claim is that my Polaris model isn't clear enough for you to understand and I don't blame you. I think it's clear enough but hey, I made it, so it's quite subjective.

Although, I don't really like that fact that you've been bashing on a straw man due from your misunderstanding of the graph.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation


The 45 degree is also not the angle, as a equilateral triangle has 2x 45" and one 90", that 45" is the latitude.

No, it doesn't. 3 equal sides, 3 60° angles.

Ah indeed! I wanted to say "Right Isosceles Triangle", sorry, my fault. Anyway, you could of deducted that I named the triangle with the wrong definition especially considering that the graph shows 2 Right Triangles.



I'm not saying it's the truth or anything but I thiiink I got the calculations right.


originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
But you didn't.

Calculating with a flat model, I'm pretty sure I did.


originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: theMediator
Where does the 111 km value come from?
The 111 Km is the vertical distance of the north pole to Polaris, in what would be flat graph.
edit on 30-1-2016 by theMediator because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigent
a reply to: theMediator

Hey you, do you agree with this flat earth model?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oh, I'm sorry to respond this late just noticed your post!

Agree? Well I'm open to the idea more than agreeing with it hehe

originally posted by: Indigent
Have you contemplated making the trip I suggest?
and I calculated how long are those lines by pixels in that flat earth map...

Are you sure it was the right way to do it? :p

I'm totally not saying you could be wrong, I just don't really understand your logic in the post...

I'm trying to find one way flights from Sydned to Santiago... although I'm not a travel agent!

I can't find a single non-stop flight. I'm sure there are some...
Then we could calculate the time needed and see if it makes sense or not.




top topics



 
50
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join