Flat earth theory?

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: ignorant_ape

I'm off to see how Rudd and O'Brady are getting on crossing Antarctica.

www.instagram.com...

It's impossible, which they'll find out, soon enough.

If every constellation is found above one half of the Earth, wouldn't we know if there were other constellations, seen on the other side of Earth, too?


If the Earth was round, we would. But it's not round, so that's the reason.

cpt rudd is attempting the journey :

1 - on foot

2 - solo

3 - unasisted

PS - 3 does NOT contradict 2 - as several previous solo expeditions have relied on supply caches being pre placed along the route

now - as for the " impossibility " - of his attempt

multiple expeds hae done an almost identical route - either :

A as a team

B supported by pre placed supplies

C using powered vehicles or sail [ wind ]

some have used various combo of A , B & C

so - dont say its impossible

armenson and bancroft [ working as a team ] - are the first people to spring to mind [ used " ski kites " ]

originally posted by: turbonium1
If every constellation is found above one half of the Earth, wouldn't we know if there were other constellations, seen on the other side of Earth, too?


If the Earth was round, we would. But it's not round, so that's the reason.

Actually... Constellations and visible stars are dependent on the hemisphere. Good job proving the spherical earth Mr troll.

www.astro4dev.org...

a reply to: turbonium1

Why, yes, yes, you would.

Which is most definitively, the case. Well done, you've disproved your own hypothesis. Only took 63 pages...

Just to clarify here...

Flat earth videos are legit apparently... but NASA's videos are all fake

I have read the following in the effect of;

Our solar system rotates around Nibiru, which in itself, is in fact, undoubtedly...positively.... flat!

Also, we live in a flat multiverse in which every single universe is a cloud of particles creating a hemisphere(looks flat but isn't) around a giant round planet.


WTH?!

a reply to: Nothin

What questions have you asked me. Like I said the Moon alone proves the Earth is not flat because of how it appears in both hemispheres it's not done using photoshop.

The Earth's a globe and you are acting like a bellend.

originally posted by: JameSimon

originally posted by: turbonium1
If every constellation is found above one half of the Earth, wouldn't we know if there were other constellations, seen on the other side of Earth, too?


If the Earth was round, we would. But it's not round, so that's the reason.

Actually... Constellations and visible stars are dependent on the hemisphere. Good job proving the spherical earth Mr troll.

www.astro4dev.org...

Don't be afraid, little man, and then we can discuss the issues maturely, without any more ad hominem attacks.

It's getting more and more ridiculous. Are you utterly oblivious to the fact that, in your endless obsession to make these unwarranted personal attacks, you're only looking more and more like idiots?

Throwing out personal insults will not help your argument. It does the opposite, in fact. Your confidence is only because others on the thread will do the same thing, as you, because they can't address the issue, either, without a pack of cowards behind them.

Everyone can see exactly what you are up to here, btw. They see you as the schoolyard bullies, who never grew up. They have better things to do then come here, to tell you that, because it's a waste of their time. Only the other cowards will ever come in, and back you up.



As for the constellations, what I meant is that we should have seen both sides at the same time - when viewed from above the Earth, we should have many images of it. We have none.

I simply pointed out another problem with the official story, off the cuff. It's already been covered, by the 'NASA's standard excuses booklet', so don't bother replying.... unless it's on other points, of course.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Nothin

What questions have you asked me. Like I said the Moon alone proves the Earth is not flat because of how it appears in both hemispheres it's not done using photoshop.

NASA only uses photoshop, or airbrushed paintings, or stage sets, for things we cannot confirm, ourselves.

NASA claims that the moon, for example, rotates above the Earth. But we all know that the moon's face has never changed, even slightly, over thousands of years. NASA would love to show the moon rotates above Earth, with photoshop, or paintings, but they cannot. We have never seen the moon's face changing over thousands of years, which is a pretty good indication that the moon is a stationary object, which never even moves. Let alone that it would be rotating, constantly, for thousands of years, while we only see the exact same face, all the time!!


Actually, NASA claims the moon rotates, but when they show a model of the moon 'rotating', what they show is the moon ORBITING around the Earth. The moon itself does not rotate. Why do they call it a rotation, if it is actually an orbit? Because it excuses the moon's face never changing. The moon 'sticks' to an exact, unchanging position, thanks to Earth's magical non-existent force, called 'gravity'.


As for the moon appearing differently, depending on where you are? That's easily explained by looking at the flat Earth model. It also explains why the stars are seen differently, from different areas, of the flat Earth.

We first consider the factors involved in viewing the moon, or stars, on the flat Earth....

The Earth itself is an extremely large area. Because of it's size, and perspective, we can only see a portion of the entire star-filled sky above Earth, at one position. That's why we can only see some of the stars above Earth, at any given point.

The moon is larger than the stars, when seen from Earth, and is also positioned along paths that are seen from anywhere on Earth, at different times. The moon circles above Earth along smaller, inner pathways. So in the center, which is the north pole to you, the moon is seen from center point, outward to the circle of the moon, at one angle. In Australia, the moon is circling inward from that viewpoint, at a different angle than the center point.

The moon would not look the same, from any position on the flat Earth, because of having a circular path, which it follows along, above the Earth.

FFS - despite the bablings of idiots

humanity knew that the moon had a 28 day rotational period AND orbital period - before anyone in NASA was even born

why do idiots drag NASA into arguments where the science was settled before NASA was even formed

or where lay-people can actually observe that a claim is true with thier own eyes

a reply to: ignorant_ape

I blame the Smithsonian and Zahi Hawass.

a reply to: Kandinsky



Who else?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: JameSimon

originally posted by: turbonium1
If every constellation is found above one half of the Earth, wouldn't we know if there were other constellations, seen on the other side of Earth, too?


If the Earth was round, we would. But it's not round, so that's the reason.

Actually... Constellations and visible stars are dependent on the hemisphere. Good job proving the spherical earth Mr troll.

www.astro4dev.org...

Don't be afraid, little man, and then we can discuss the issues maturely, without any more ad hominem attacks.

It's getting more and more ridiculous. Are you utterly oblivious to the fact that, in your endless obsession to make these unwarranted personal attacks, you're only looking more and more like idiots?

Throwing out personal insults will not help your argument. It does the opposite, in fact. Your confidence is only because others on the thread will do the same thing, as you, because they can't address the issue, either, without a pack of cowards behind them.

Everyone can see exactly what you are up to here, btw. They see you as the schoolyard bullies, who never grew up. They have better things to do then come here, to tell you that, because it's a waste of their time. Only the other cowards will ever come in, and back you up.



As for the constellations, what I meant is that we should have seen both sides at the same time - when viewed from above the Earth, we should have many images of it. We have none.

I simply pointed out another problem with the official story, off the cuff. It's already been covered, by the 'NASA's standard excuses booklet', so don't bother replying.... unless it's on other points, of course.

You're desperate. You spent most of your reply victimising yourself because I called you a troll. My apologies, Mr Turbonium. Now, star and constellations visibility depends on the hemisphere. That alone disproves flat earthen logic, your logic. You said it yourself. Case closed.

Edit: I loved how you preached about ad hominem and called me a little man. Funny enough, I'm 5ft5, so you got me there.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nothin

Can you explain how the elevation of Polaris above the horizon can correspond to the latitude of the observer?

Please? I really want to know how that works on a flat Earth.

Sorry. Can't explain none of that.
Why ask me?

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
an interesting observation :

in almost 3 months - and 8 pages of thread posts :

archive

sophist troll - has NEVER questioned the " belief system " or the validity of any claim made by a flat earth proponent

says it all really doesnt it

What does it say?

Did you learn anything?

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nothin

Can you explain how the elevation of Polaris above the horizon can correspond to the latitude of the observer?

Please? I really want to know how that works on a flat Earth.

Sorry. Can't explain none of that.
Why ask me?

You seem to be part of the club.

And it's a pretty basic question. The answer to which has something to do with people knowing that the world is round for a very long time. It can only work on a round world.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nothin

Can you explain how the elevation of Polaris above the horizon can correspond to the latitude of the observer?

Please? I really want to know how that works on a flat Earth.

Sorry. Can't explain none of that.
Why ask me?

You seem to be part of the club.

And it's a pretty basic question. The answer to which has something to do with people knowing that the world is round for a very long time. It can only work on a round world.

Well: you probably wouldn't want to go and assume that about me.
That might drop you down into the ranks of the others here, whom falsely believe that.

You know: the holders of that false belief, whom are here to mock the false belief of the FE-Theory?

Ignorance abounds here, and you are better than that.
No need to go for the perceived low-hanging fruit.

a reply to: Nothin

So, you agree that the world is round. Thanks for clarifying.

I think that willfull ignorance is worthy of mockery. Especially when the claim is that gravity doesn't exist.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nothin

So, you agree that the world is round. Thanks for clarifying.

I think that willfull ignorance is worthy of mockery. Especially when the claim is that gravity doesn't exist.

Why do you persist in making assumptions, about my agreement?
There was no such thing.