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

a reply to: peck420

No you weren't. You are just trying to figure out how to ignore anything that is counter to your predetermined outcome.

You responded to a post about high altitude footage showing no curvature line, talking about seeing ships drop below the horizon, which is not the same kind of observation. This is what I pointed out to you. Is it very confusing?

So, straight up, prove the accepted model is wrong

You were just shown that there is no curvature to be seen at altitude, and if there is it is filmed with a fish eye lense. This is what we were discussing.

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: NNN87
But we don't need that, or theories, there are observable facts.

Than you should have very little difficulty showing the math that works for both a flat Earth and the observed path of the Sun and Moon. And make sure it works to physically place things on the Moon. The 'theory' that you are disputing has already done these things.

But there are like so many projections of our world, star ones, cone, flat, equidistant, globe, zig zag and so on, and sun paths and moon, not to mention stars weather and all are mapped out on every single one.

What about it?

originally posted by: NNN87
I want to know right meow, what in the world do celestial bodies have to do with the shape of our world?

If the math that allows me to track celestial bodies is correct, than our current understanding of gravity is pretty good. If our understanding of gravity is good, than there will be no difference in how gravity effects said celestial bodies versus the Earth. Ergo, if gravity makes celestial bodies of masses equal to Earth a sphere, Earth will be a sphere.

You only know them by what you were told of them by people who have never ever met anyone or them selfs have been to another planet.

You have never watched the moon? Mars? Venus? The Sun?

You are using assumptions as a means to an end, just as does the globe model, so it makes sense, we are what we eat type of momentum.

If by assumptions you mean tested science...

a reply to: peck420

Our understanding of gravity is not good at all. We don't know how it works and what causes it and it leaves us with the need to simply make up stuff like "dark matter" to explain a 96% discrepancy.

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: NNN87
I want to know right meow, what in the world do celestial bodies have to do with the shape of our world?

If the math that allows me to track celestial bodies is correct, than our current understanding of gravity is pretty good. If our understanding of gravity is good, than there will be no difference in how gravity effects said celestial bodies versus the Earth. Ergo, if gravity makes celestial bodies of masses equal to Earth a sphere, Earth will be a sphere.

You only know them by what you were told of them by people who have never ever met anyone or them selfs have been to another planet.

You have never watched the moon? Mars? Venus? The Sun?

You are using assumptions as a means to an end, just as does the globe model, so it makes sense, we are what we eat type of momentum.

If by assumptions you mean tested science...

You are using topics and assumptions of nature that do not adhere to the senses and observable calculations made on the ground, the very surface you live on, did you forget about it?

originally posted by: TheFaceOfTheEarth
a reply to: peck420

Our understanding of gravity is not good at all. We don't know how it works and what causes it and it leaves us with the need to simply make up stuff like "dark matter" to explain a 96% discrepancy.

It was good enough to put a plate on the moon, that any person can bounce a laser off of.

It has also been good enough to put up the satellites I use for communication daily...and especially for GPS, which has saved my arse more times that I care to admit.

Our understanding of the effects of gravity is quite good. We lack the ability to control and manipulate it, which will come in time, I imagine.

originally posted by: NNN87
You are using topics and assumptions of nature that do not adhere to the senses and observable calculations made on the ground, the very surface you live on, did you forget about it?

Yawn...

Nope, I am using theories that have been tested by thousands of different people, at thousands of different times, and all come to conclusions so similar, that there is no reason to not call them equal. Versus your personal beliefs.

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: NNN87
You are using topics and assumptions of nature that do not adhere to the senses and observable calculations made on the ground, the very surface you live on, did you forget about it?

Yawn...

Nope, I am using theories that have been tested by thousands of different people, at thousands of different times, and all come to conclusions so similar, that there is no reason to not call them equal. Versus your personal beliefs.

It is observable fact, that curvature does not exists, using the very basic tools such as your eyes, if the curvature cannot be observed than all assumptions and calculations you base your facts on, are due to.... dare i say it.... blind faith.

a reply to: M4nWithNoN4me

Every time another Flat Earth video/post is made the worlds average IQ is lowered

I just saw one by a claimed structural engineer on youtube that was talking about aircraft not being able to land on a runway on a rotating globe if the runway runs north to south

He just seemed to IGNORE gravity altogether, everyone of these videos make assumptions, use their own reasoning on how things work they are all a bunch of FUMB DUCKS plain & simple.


One one youtuber that posts this BS makes claims like you cannot get info on how the gyro compass on an aircraft works, a quick search on Google gets you documents VIDEOS anything you want, they talk BS all the time.

a reply to: wmd_2008

He just seemed to IGNORE gravity altogether, everyone of these videos make assumptions, use their own reasoning on how things work they are all a bunch of FUMB DUCKS plain & simple.

Can you explain what it is that you think gravity does in this case?

a reply to: TheFaceOfTheEarth

Gravity has never been proven. The occult sciences are still trying to to this day..

a reply to: Corruptedstructure


They have to keep the truth about gravity secret.
Even the ancients knew how to construct a bomb.
We are all familiar with radiant energy but when energy resonates in different dimensions it acquires that spooky property we call mass. How can you explain that while maintaining non proliferation of WMD?

a reply to: TheFaceOfTheEarth

Simple anything above the Earth or on it is pulled by gravity. This guy on youtube was trying to claim that if the Earth rotates then a plane trying to land on a notth/south facing runway could not as the runway would be rotating away like I say IGNORING gravity pulling on the aircraft.

Another flat Earth IDIOT said how is it possible to photograph say a race car if its on a rotating globe spinning at just over 1000 mph at the Equator and again they seem to forget the photographer is ALSO on that spinning globe.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Simple anything above the Earth or on it is pulled by gravity. This guy on youtube was trying to claim that if the Earth rotates then a plane trying to land on a notth/south facing runway could not as the runway would be rotating away like I say IGNORING gravity pulling on the aircraft.

You actually went for it.......

So, the reason the plane has no trouble landing on a north/south facing runway is because gravity is pulling it sideways in sync with the rotation of the Earth. This is what you are saying. Wow.

I'll let that marinate for a bit before I will go on to discuss stupidity with you.

a reply to: TheFaceOfTheEarth


oh joy - another ` one trick pony `

hey - lets start at basics - please tell us what YOU think " relative velocity " is

a reply to: ignorant_ape

please tell us what YOU think " relative velocity " is

Who is us?

If you have a point to make regarding relative velocity, make it.

a reply to: TheFaceOfTheEarth

evasion noted - now please tell us what YOU think " relative velocity " is

a reply to: ignorant_ape

If you have a specific point to make, make it. If not, I am not interested.

a reply to: TheFaceOfTheEarth

oh dear - i asked a simple question :

what do you think " relative velocity " is

the fact that you are so reluctant to answer is amazing

why are you so scared of science ?

this is a discussion forum - if you will not answer questions - there is little point in continuting

so " relative velocity " ?