Flat earth theory?

a reply to: Nothin

Sorry.

You don't know the shape of the world.

Is that accurate?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nothin

Sorry.

You don't know the shape of the world.

Is that correct?

Close, ish...
Mostly sorta kinda like that, but not attached to that description, necessarily.
But you're still guessing, and making assumptions.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: zatara

Do you know the percentage of oblateness?

Isaac Newton first proposed that Earth was not perfectly round. Instead, he suggested it was an oblate spheroid—a sphere that is squashed at its poles and swollen at the equator. He was correct and, because of this bulge, the distance from Earth's center to sea level is roughly 21 kilometers (13 miles) greater at the equator than at the poles.

www.scientificamerican.com...

The Earth's diameter is 7,900 miles. That "bulge" 0.16% of that. How good are your eyes?

How many pixels will that be in an image?

Thank you Phage...not very many.

originally posted by: turbonium1

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.

The Moon and its rotation has been understood for a very long time before NASA was born. Why your obsession with NASA?

It seems to me that you have gotten bored with arguing about Moon landing "Hoax" and are now just trolling FE. No one with half a brain can believe this nonsense about the Moon or that gravity is fake, etc.

And this thread continues to remain a waste of bandwidth. Can we please just admit that Turby & Co are trolling us all, based on their repetition of the same sterile FE myths, and get a kindly mod to close this thread? We are now back to the silliness of "OMG! NASA are lying to us... about stuff that we've always known to be true for thousands of years!"
Turby & Co know that they are spouting ridiculous notions, they are just trying to get reactions from us all. Please let's not rise to their bait?

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

surprised no one has hurled personal insults yet and had this closed down for that alone !

54 pages and no insults is testament to the sheer good will of ATS members , we should be thankful , doesnt matter if the earth is flat or round , we have a relatively peaceful ATS

turbo troll - has gone full circle - and sophist troll wont // cant even tell us what it thinks the shape of the earth is

yup - thread nuke time -

they have nothing to offer

a reply to: sapien82

NASA Shill. There you go!

a reply to: ignorant_ape

You can't argue with turbo - he will just shift the goalposts again and again. Futile even trying and i don't even think he believes any of it anyway.

I think it needs to be called a day when an offer to resolve the matter through experiment and provision of objective fact fails to remove the miasma of ignorance surrounding this thread!

its time to shut it down! an impasse has been reached but not through lack of trying
when you present fact , you are then asked to deal with the philosophy of truth and fact
its a never ending loop

a reply to: sapien82

Hi Sapien82. Hope this post finds you happy and healthy.
Am pleased to try and wrap-up this thread, and hope to see if we can be agreeable upon a couple of things?

The illusory nature of this supposed reality?

Perhaps we could agree that those whom post here, in favor of the Flat-Earth Theory, may be doing so for various reasons, that are not apparent?
Could it be: a personal belief; trolling; a lark; a psyop; or otherwise, but can we truly know?

Perhaps we could agree that those whom post here, in favor of the Spherical-Earth-Theory, may seemingly sometimes have a beef with those whom don't buy-in to their version of consensual reality, and have shown few openings toward alternative possibilities? (Yourself excluded.)


Perhaps we could agree that those whom post here, in favor of nothing, could have explained themselves better, but failed to do so? (Mea Culpa). (Bad ole Nothin', LoL)

Well, anyways, here goes nothing.

Have been examining beliefs of others, in the hope that it may shed light on any lingering beliefs, that may still be hiding here with me.
Was hoping to find others here, also willing to examine their own beliefs, but personally failed in properly presenting that idea, and so it seems some others here assumed bad intentions on my part.

So: am surely an old fool, maybe just not the same 'flavor' of fool that so many were assuming of me! (LoL)

Well, if anyone still gives a damn, am not the only 'idiot', nor 'moron', to question consensual-reality:

From the realm of science: we have PHD Theoretical Physicists, and Nobel laureates: Niels Bohr, and Werner Heisenberg, whom heartily questioned consensual-reality;

Now listen to Niels Bohr, the pioneer of 20th century physics:
An independent reality, in the ordinary physical sense, can neither be ascribed to the phenomena nor to the agencies of observation. [3]
Consider the words of Shankara, the famous Hindu philosopher: All things -- from Brahma the creator down to a single blade of grass -- are. . .simply appearances and not real. [4]
Compare with Werner Heisenberg, the inventor of quantum mechanics: If one wants to give an accurate description of the elementary particle. . .the only thing which can be written down as description is a probability function. But then one sees that not even the quality of being. . .belongs to what is described

Source: Quantum Mechanics, and reality


From the realm of Metaphysics: We have the ideas of Pardeep, (Thanks to ATS™ member JimNasium for the link)

RELATIVE TRUTH
Spiritual paradigm Being becoming Ocean (of energy) becoming waves Perspective as ego mind False

ABSOLUTE TRUTH Metaphysical paradigm Being dreaming becoming Movie 'appearing' on a screen Perspective as the Self
true Creation

Creation of a world within spirit or energy.
No creation The world of forms is imagined in indivisible consciousness. No world is ever created. No world truly exists as an objective reality independent of consciousness.

Transformation Modification of spirit or energy (one substance modifying and transforming into another) resulting in a world of constant change.

No transformation Any perceived transformations are only imagined as there is no material in indivisible consciousness for any substance to modify or transform into another. i.e. Steam to water to ice.

Space Physical space within which a world can exist

No space Since consciousness is a non-spatial spiritual reality, as in your dreams during sleep, space is imagined within your consciousness to perceive an objective world (life story).

(Sorry but that didn't transcribe well. Please view the table from the link provided, if so inclined.)
Link: Absolute vs. Relative Truth

From the realm of Philosophy, we have Descartes' 'Cogito Ergo Sum', ('Il Cogito', destroyer of Maya, or better known as the: "I think, therefore I am"), as described here by Jed McKenna:
Everything you need to know
(Sorry, but ain't nobody can get me to believe in nothin after that! LoL)
(Also: please only watch this at the end of the day, as you won't want to go to work after pondering it).

Und from the realm of pop-culture and other stuffs:

Albert Einstein Quotes. Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.

Everything you can imagine is real. – Pablo Picasso

“I believe in everything until it's disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it's in your mind. Who's to say that dreams and nightmares aren't as real as the here and now?” ― John Lennon

“Reality is frequently inaccurate.” ― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

“Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic.” ― Frank Herbert, Dune

Folks in this thread can call them all 'idiots', and 'morons', if they wish.

ETA: Am not referencing all of the info here as Truth, but merely as food for contemplation.


Well: there's a whole lot more that went into the questioning of consensual-reality.


(Don't 'know' these things. They are merely opinion/belief/temporary ideas/observations).

Have said this a few times in this thread already:
Some are more easily convinced than others.

a reply to: Nothin

All very interesting, but none of the folk you cite support FE theory. You might as well use all that to say that flying pink unicorns are real.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Nothin

All very interesting, but none of the folk you cite support FE theory.

Don't know how you can be so sure about that, but you might just be right.

You might as well use all that to say that flying pink unicorns are real.

The post didn't claim that anything is real.
Rather: it was hinting at nothing being real.

a reply to: Nothin

all very good points for another thread on the realness of reality
however that is not what we are discussing and you know it !

we already propose that reality is real and in this "illusion" the evidence points the earth being a spheroid object!

Also this

(Sorry, but ain't nobody can get me to believe in nothin after that! LoL)

or were you referring to belief in yourself since you are called "nothin"

So you dont believe in flat earth, and are therefore just here to derail the thread into discussion of illusory reality and philosophy ?

originally posted by: sapien82
Also this

(Sorry, but ain't nobody can get me to believe in nothin after that! LoL)

or were you referring to belief in yourself since you are called "nothin"

Yeah: it was at least a double-entendre.

So you dont believe in flat earth, and are therefore just here to derail the thread into discussion of illusory reality and philosophy ?

That was not my claim in the post.
Is it your conclusion?

a reply to: Nothin

Well, time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so.

a reply to: Nothin

At this point im really not sure you believe what you believe and are therefore confused and looking for answers the same as everyone else in this illusion

but the illusory aspect of reality is not the subject of discussion , in this situation we are quite happy to accept the reality is real because we experience it daily some differently than others depending on your state of consciousness but none the less more real than dream state per say and in this illusion we all share , we have unanimously agreed that the earth is spherical based on the illusory evidence presented to our conscious experience !

I really cant argue you with you on the illusion that is reality because I know its all an illusion
the realness , doesnt take away from the fact that the earth is spherical in this illusion !

Dont worry I wouldnt stress about it too much probably in one of the multiverse illusions there is indeed an earth where it is completely flat as suggested by FE theory!

Maybe something we hadnt considered, are the FE people really just interdimensional travellers who come from a universe where the earth is flat and they have accidentally crossed into our timeline ?

a reply to: sapien82

Maybe something we hadnt considered, are the FE people really just interdimensional travellers who come from a universe where the earth is flat and they have accidentally crossed into our timeline ?

You are not suggesting that.......FE is ME?

a reply to: oldcarpy

OH YEHHHHHH!

mind blown!