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.

 

Flat earth theory?

page: 100
14
<< 97  98  99    101  102  103 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2019 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1


You obviously must realize that stars, if they were light years away, could never show details like we see, right?

Which leaves you trying to make excuses for why we see details of stars. But not only details, but specific movements of stars, which vary in motion, and color, and pattern, as well...

The atmosphere is your excuse, and faulty camera settings, etc...

Nothing in the atmosphere could possibly cause each star, and all stars, to 'appear' as if they move in unique patterns of light. Not a chance. It's also claimed the atmosphere is what makes stars 'appear to twinkle in the sky', which is also bs. Planes don't 'twinkle' in the atmosphere, no matter how high above the Earth. Stars appear to twinkle, because they DO twinkle, in the sky. The twinkle is seen to be light movements of stars, through magnification.



Planets are not stars and no-one claims that, apart from you. They are light-minutes away by the way, which is why we can see them. If they were stars then they wouldn't be half in shadow at times.
(Sigh)
edit on 19-5-2019 by AngryCymraeg because: Misread something



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 01:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

look at all that wobble...



Yes, look at Saturn wobble, from about the 3:45 mark in your clip.

Thanks for proving my claim, in your very own post!



lol... right, so apparently mercury flickers... and stretches..




You obviously must realize that stars, if they were light years away, could never show details like we see, right?





Post a link to an example video of the details I need a good laugh and you can always provide one


Here's a few clips, among many others available....

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...


The only thing to laugh at is how NASA portrays them, as shown in the last clip below...


www.youtube.com...

edit on 20-5-2019 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-5-2019 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 01:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Planets are not stars and no-one claims that, apart from you. They are light-minutes away by the way, which is why we can see them. If they were stars then they wouldn't be half in shadow at times.
(Sigh)


Sigh, indeed...

star

1.
a fixed luminous point in the night sky which is a large, remote incandescent body like the sun.
synonyms: celestial body, heavenly body, sun; asteroid, planet, planetoid;


www.dictionary.com...

Definition of wandering star
: any of the seven planets of ancient astronomy


www.merriam-webster.com...


At least now you know better...



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 01:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
(Sigh)
I don't know how to break it to you mate, but you haven't been discussing real issues, you've been trolling us all. According to you the Earth is flat, gravity doesn't exist, evolution doesn't happen and now planets are stars. I don't know what you think about galaxies, probably something ridiculous.
You are a troll, trolling for reactions, because no-one can possibly be as stupid as to believe the above and still be able to type. I have reported you multiple times as a troll and I remain baffled as to why this wretched thread is still open.


I remain baffled as to why an issue you claim is nonsense, would interest you enough to post in it, just to spout about it being nonsense, and how I'm a 'troll' for discussing the issue, and go to the trouble of reporting me multiple times as a troll....

The only ones who are "trolling for reactions", and making personal attacks, are you, and those on your side. I'm presenting evidence that supports my argument, such as plane instruments, and video clips of actual stars.....


Why would you be so afraid of what I'm saying, and the evidence I'm presenting? Have you even looked at the clips I've posted? Or is it too terrifying to look at something that would shake your entire belief system?



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 03:26 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Again,

The only way the planets appear to travel backwards is because the earth orbits the sun.

If everything orbited the earth, there would be no appearance of backward travel of the planets.

More incoherent ranting by you where you continue to contradict yourself.




What is retrograde motion?
Posted by Christopher Crockett in ASTRONOMY ESSENTIALS |

earthsky.org...

Their westward motion is called retrograde motion by astronomers. Though it baffled ancient stargazers, we know now that retrograde motion is an illusion caused by the motion of Earth and these planets around the sun.

Astronomers like Nicolaus Copernicus and Johannes Kepler finally set us all straight when they realized Earth orbited the sun.



The Geocentric model of the solar system was abandoned because of its failures to explain what was observed, and its contradictions. It really is that simple.

Flat earth is now a blatant lie, and you are part of that lie.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 03:28 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Again,

If there is no gravity, what causes a brick thrown straight up into the air to change direction and fall back to earth?



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 05:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
(Sigh)
I don't know how to break it to you mate, but you haven't been discussing real issues, you've been trolling us all. According to you the Earth is flat, gravity doesn't exist, evolution doesn't happen and now planets are stars. I don't know what you think about galaxies, probably something ridiculous.
You are a troll, trolling for reactions, because no-one can possibly be as stupid as to believe the above and still be able to type. I have reported you multiple times as a troll and I remain baffled as to why this wretched thread is still open.


I remain baffled as to why an issue you claim is nonsense, would interest you enough to post in it, just to spout about it being nonsense, and how I'm a 'troll' for discussing the issue, and go to the trouble of reporting me multiple times as a troll....

The only ones who are "trolling for reactions", and making personal attacks, are you, and those on your side. I'm presenting evidence that supports my argument, such as plane instruments, and video clips of actual stars.....


Why would you be so afraid of what I'm saying, and the evidence I'm presenting? Have you even looked at the clips I've posted? Or is it too terrifying to look at something that would shake your entire belief system?



You are mistaking open laughter for fear. I am commenting because you seem to be under the delusion - whether real or feigned - that you are even close to challenging anyone's belief system. You're really not.
You have to be trolling for 'WTF!' reactions because frankly it's that or you are so stubborn that even in the face of evidence you have decided to believe in a series of utterly impossible positions.
A wide range of evidence has been displayed in this thread to show that the Flat Earth theory is laughably dead and has been for many centuries now. You have ignored it all and made up / lied about your own evidence. If you don't understand basic physics just say so, don't make random nonsense up to justify your silliness. The gravity nonsense is so ludicrous that it makes me laugh. I just tossed a pencil in the air. Guess what happened to it? It fell to the ground, pulled there by gravity. Case closed for its existence.
The nonsense about planets being stars... they're really not. Planets vary. Mars is a rocky body with a thin atmosphere. Venus is a rocky body with a thick atmosphere. Jupiter has a small core but a huge atmosphere with storms that are larger than the Earth. The Sun is a vast ball of hot hydrogen-rich plasma that is billions of years old (I await your next piece of nonsense about how the sun makes no sense and has probably only been burning for a few thousand years). There is a large difference between the two, Planets 'shine' by reflecting sunlight. The Sun creates the sunlight. See the difference?
I await your next screed of nonsense with bated breath.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 06:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

originally posted by: turbonium1
..
Look at Saturn, see it spin and wobble like a top, and it's obviously not a planet, as they claim. ..


Well, what is it then? It cannot be a star, as Saturn does not light up itself (we can see Saturn from its side sometimes, and there is a black half Saturn).


Saturn does indeed light itself, as all stars do.

What do you mean, Saturn is sometimes half black? Any source clip on that? I'll wait for it....



oooh, NOW you know about celestial movements and what is IMPOSSIBLE to them?

Okay, you are not a FE, as a not-shadowing on Saturn would be impossible on FE with a Sun and Saturn close by.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 10:46 AM
link   


Here's a quick picture of Jupiter, as taken by Voyager 1 absolute yonks ago. Is it shining? Well, it's certainly reflecting sunlight! Oh, wait, that means that it's not emitting light, like the Sun does. It's just reflecting light, as the Moon does.
This means that it has a dark side, as the left hand side hints at.
Stars do not have a dark side.
In addition rain falls down because of gravity and we are all descended from hominids that looked quite like monkeys.
Are there any further silly questions?



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

You forgot TurboLag’s claim the North Star doesn’t disappear below the horizon as one travels south across the equator, but dims to the point it’s not visible.

TurboLag will not acknowledge the stars in the northern Hemisphere appear to circle Polars in one direction, and the stars in the Southern Hemisphere appear to circle in a different direction where the Southern Pole should be in the sky.

And airplanes can only maintain level flight by using pressure readings.

Nothing like using blatantly false arguments and ignoring well documented natural phenomena to push flat earth. Or ignore sailors actually gave up on flat earth centuries ago to achieve accurate navigation.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

If there is no gravity, what keeps the sun, moon, and stars spinning around the earth in the geocentric fantasy?



posted on May, 23 2019 @ 11:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Again,

The only way the planets appear to travel backwards is because the earth orbits the sun.

If everything orbited the earth, there would be no appearance of backward travel of the planets.



Why do you assume everything must 'orbit' the Earth, and must 'orbit' Earth in the same direction, if the Earth is flat?

It's not required to have all of them move the same direction, in a flat Earth argument. Venus is an example of that. No excuses are needed, in the flat Earth argument. It's the round Earth argument that needs to make up excuses for it. None work, none will ever work.

This 'illusion' of yours, called 'retrograde', is when a 'planet' appears to move in the opposite direction of Earth, which you believe is all an 'illusion' of moving in the opposite direction....

Show one example in the real world, where that happens, and I'll admit it's true, so please prove me wrong, if you can....


You've given examples, like being in a car, when it is passing another car... it 'appears' to you that the other car is going ever more slow, as you near it, until the other car appears almost 'motionless', when your car speeds past it....

Now, does the other car ever seem to 'appear' to be moving in the opposite direction? No, it doesn't.

That's why your argument ignores it, of course. And it's a complete farce.



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1



Why do you assume everything must 'orbit' the Earth, and must 'orbit' Earth in the same direction, if the Earth is flat?


Then explained what the firmament is made of.

How the the sun and moon stay in orbit in the geocentric model. Why don’t the sink to the surface of the earth?

With all the planet’s in orbit around the sun, retrograde is easily explained.

In the geocentric model, retrograde can only occur if the inner planets actually switch direction to travel backwards. Is that false.

How does the firmament allow retrograde for the inner planets. How does the firmament allow the inner planets to switch direction of travel around the earth in the geocentric model, and then switch direction of travel back again.
edit on 24-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Added sink



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 12:50 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

He doesn't have a clue what you're talking about... might have to explain it in detail...

change.... direction...




posted on May, 24 2019 @ 02:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

I just tossed a pencil in the air. Guess what happened to it? It fell to the ground, pulled there by gravity. Case closed for its existence.


Gravity doesn't exist, in any way, in any form, there is no proof, of it's existence. It is absurd.

Why do you think a pencil you tossed up into air is 'pullled down by gravity'? It falls through air, and lands on the surface, that's how it came down.

If you think objects would all 'float' in air, without a 'force' to pull down objects in air, to 'hold' objects down to Earth's surface, you'd prove this force really exists, first of all. If it's really a force, we'd need to have proof, that it DOES exist, and that it exists, as an actual force.

All of our forces were first proven, to be a force, so how is 'gravity' any different?

It's an illusion of a force, which states objects are 'pulled' down to Earth, because objects are on Earth, and not in the air above Earth...so objects are held down to Earth by a force, in the Earth! Objects in air are 'pulled down' to Earth by a force!

Circular reasoning.

Assuming Earth is a round ball flying through space, everything must be held down to the Earth!!

To assume the Earth is a ball, flying through space, first of all, is one thing. To speak of it as a proven fact, is complete nonsense.

So in your assuming Earth is a ball, proven as a ball, in fact, you never consider Earth to NOT be a ball, flying through space.


What you believe is a proven fact, of Earth being a ball, flying through space, is NOT a fact, at all. It's not close to being a proven fact. No evidence of any kind, for that matter.

So if you take it as a fact, a force is required for that ball, flying through space..or we'd float in space!


A circle of nonsense.



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 02:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1



Why do you assume everything must 'orbit' the Earth, and must 'orbit' Earth in the same direction, if the Earth is flat?


Then explained what the firmament is made of.

How the the sun and moon stay in orbit in the geocentric model. Why don’t the sink to the surface of the earth?

With all the planet’s in orbit around the sun, retrograde is easily explained.

In the geocentric model, retrograde can only occur if the inner planets actually switch direction to travel backwards. Is that false.

How does the firmament allow retrograde for the inner planets. How does the firmament allow the inner planets to switch direction of travel around the earth in the geocentric model, and then switch direction of travel back again.


Once again, 'retrograde' doesn't exist, in reality. It's another of their invented 'phenomena', trying to excuse the reality.

This phenomenon called 'retrograde' is claimed to give slower objects the appearance of moving in the opposite direction when viewed from faster objects speeding past/by them...


That 'phenomenon', if true, would be easily shown in the real world, and it would be easily PROVABLE in the real world.

No?



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 02:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1



Why do you assume everything must 'orbit' the Earth, and must 'orbit' Earth in the same direction, if the Earth is flat?


Then explained what the firmament is made of.

How the the sun and moon stay in orbit in the geocentric model. Why don’t the sink to the surface of the earth?



Nobody knows how life was created, either. The firmament is carbon-based, apparently, but nobody knows everything about it, or how it was created...

It's known to exist, though, based on all the valid evidence.



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Oh look, more drivel as you troll for reactions yet again.
If the pencil falls to the ground why did it end up on the ground? It's called something, whatever could it be.... oh yes, G R A V I T Y. Gravity in other words.
I note with weary amusement that you've stopped claiming that planets are stars.
Can we get a Mod in to put this sad excuse for a thread out of its misery? All you are doing is embarrassing yourself, as no-one takes you in any way seriously.



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 03:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1



Why do you assume everything must 'orbit' the Earth, and must 'orbit' Earth in the same direction, if the Earth is flat?


Then explained what the firmament is made of.

How the the sun and moon stay in orbit in the geocentric model. Why don’t the sink to the surface of the earth?

With all the planet’s in orbit around the sun, retrograde is easily explained.

In the geocentric model, retrograde can only occur if the inner planets actually switch direction to travel backwards. Is that false.

How does the firmament allow retrograde for the inner planets. How does the firmament allow the inner planets to switch direction of travel around the earth in the geocentric model, and then switch direction of travel back again.


Once again, 'retrograde' doesn't exist, in reality. It's another of their invented 'phenomena', trying to excuse the reality.

This phenomenon called 'retrograde' is claimed to give slower objects the appearance of moving in the opposite direction when viewed from faster objects speeding past/by them...


That 'phenomenon', if true, would be easily shown in the real world, and it would be easily PROVABLE in the real world.

No?


It is observable and provable in the real world...

In fact you can use something we call a Camera... something that records video in real time, and prove it to yourself on the right day...

a few planets appear to change their trajectory in the sky... moving "back to where they came from" in the night sky

Now the question is, how do YOU explain why this happens in your flat earth?

Its actually quite easy to explain for those that live in... you know.... reality...

but how does one like yourself explain it?


edit on 24-5-2019 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 03:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: turbonium1

Oh look, more drivel as you troll for reactions yet again.
If the pencil falls to the ground why did it end up on the ground? It's called something, whatever could it be.... oh yes, G R A V I T Y. Gravity in other words.
I note with weary amusement that you've stopped claiming that planets are stars.
Can we get a Mod in to put this sad excuse for a thread out of its misery? All you are doing is embarrassing yourself, as no-one takes you in any way seriously.


Its already in the LOL section...

why trash it... its frickin hilarious, and sad at the same time knowing that there are people this stupid that walk the earth

prelude to idiocracy perhaps?





top topics



 
14
<< 97  98  99    101  102  103 >>

log in

join