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: 104
14
<< 101  102  103    105  106  107 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2019 @ 10:29 PM
link   
I'm still waiting for you to describe what you see in those video clips, too...



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Would you like to actually quote what is false from the cited article. No. I guess not. Because then you would be held to facts. Better to make things up to create a false argument.

What did you not get about


flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com...

Planes don't fly out 1 mile, jump down 8 inches, and fly some more - that's silly. Planes constantly FLY THE CURVATURE because that is the ONLY line of equipotential gravity!


And



flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com...

To maintain level flight the pilot must find BOTH the elevator trim and power setting which maintains a constant altitude - they mostly use the Vertical Speed indicator to make fine adjustments to elevator trim to find the constant pitch rate that keeps Vertical Speed near zero and then makes POWER SETTING adjustments as needed to hold that Vertical Speed with a fairly constant airspeed. If you want a higher airspeed you need to both increase power AND adjust the elevator trim so the pitch rate matches OR ELSE YOU WILL START CLIMBING.

This is a fact, I have personally flown small planes and they teach you about power control pretty much from Day #1. You climb & descent mostly by changing the power setting (which changes when you make other configuration changes such as increasing flaps).


What do you not get that if a airplane wants to climb away from earth to a higher altitude it must exert more energy.

You surely would agree it takes more energy to lift 50 lbs of weight to 20 ft vs 5 ft off the ground. Hence, “You climb & descent mostly by changing the power setting (which changes when you make other configuration changes such as increasing flaps).“

Your problem is you ignore the very real force of gravity


Planes don't fly out 1 mile, jump down 8 inches, and fly some more - that's silly. Planes constantly FLY THE CURVATURE because that is the ONLY line of equipotential gravity!
flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com...


If there is no gravity, what keeps the very real international space station in orbit around the very real spherical earth in the very real vacuum of space.

Again. When in Australia, where do you look in the night sky to see Polaris.

Again. If the earth was really flat, the sun would not set.

If the earth was flat, there would be no
Satellites orbiting around the earth. Very real satellites that a person can spot from earth, track, and you can tune into their broadcast frequencies.

There is no doubt the earth is spherical.

The only why you can construct the false argument the earth is flat is by ignoring very real principles like, “Planes constantly FLY THE CURVATURE because that is the ONLY line of equipotential gravity!”

Flat earth creates more questions and problems, and doesn’t answer simple truths. Like during the summer, how does the northern Hemisphere have more daylight hours than the Southern Hemisphere.

Why are very specific stars only visible from the northern Hemisphere and not the Southern Hemisphere.

And you have not answered to the below.

Then explained what the firmament is made of.

How the the sun and moon stay in orbit in the geocentric model. Why don’t they 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.


Flat earth is a blatant lie.



edit on 31-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 31-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Fixed more



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 11:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
I'm still waiting for you to describe what you see in those video clips, too...


And here is your list


How can Polaris being at the apex of the celestial filament drop below the horizon when traveling south across the equator.

A blatant falsehood by turbo



Polaris is far too distant from Australia to be seen from there. It has nothing to do with the Earth being a ball. A plane can't be seen when it's too far away, either, but the plane is obviously seen when it is near enough, as we all know.


Where do you look in the Australian night sky to see Polaris with the naked eye or with a telescope?

You cannot say what would cause a brick thrown straight up into the air in the flat earth no gravity model reverse its direction to fall back to the earth. Specially in the context of Newton’s first law and your assertions of:



If gravity offers resistance to a rocket, why would a bird, or insect, not face any resistance, when flying above Earth, as the rocket supposedly does, when flying up from the Earth?


And



That is what gravity is supposed to do, is it not?

How do all the scientists prove such a force exists? They don't.

If this force existed, it would offer RESISTANCE to opposing forces, no?

But no resistance is offered at all. This proves there is no force at all.


With your own words, “But no resistance is offered at all. This proves there is no force at all.” Why would a brick thrown straight up into the air “care” if it is falling up away from earth in a less dense atmosphere? With “But no resistance is offered at all”. How is that different than a brick falling to earth because the atmosphere is less dense. What makes a brick thrown straight up into the air reverse direction and fall back to earth in the flat earth model?

What is the flat earth model answer to the retrograde of the visible plants path across the night sky the ancients called wanders?

If the moon is only 6000 miles away in the earth’s atmosphere, why doesn’t the flat earth society fly a blimp to the moon to make their case? They have time to take cruises full of alcohol, gambling, and debauchery? I bet the amount of money spent on one flat earth society booze cruise on alcohol and condoms would pay for a blimp mission.

The summer solstice for the northern Hemisphere is the northern Hemisphere’s longest period of daylight hours. For the flat earth model, how is the same day the Southern Hemisphere’s shortest period of daylight hours?

You ignore the biological effect of gravity.

Please answer how a equatorial mount for a telescope would work on a flat earth model.

This ties in with the equatorial mount.
You do realize on a flat earth model, the sun would never set.

Foucault's pendulum

Coriolis Force



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

So. When I use a satellite tracking app to track satellites visible to the unaided eye, and I spot them as predicted, and they repeat their flights paths as predicted, and those objects never existed in the night sky until the reported launch date of that satellite, what’s is going on if they are not man made satellites.



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Magic wandering stars?




posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 02:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
Planes don't fly out 1 mile, jump down 8 inches, and fly some more - that's silly. Planes constantly FLY THE CURVATURE because that is the ONLY line of equipotential gravity!


Invent a magical force called gravity, the universal 'problem solvent' !


I never had realized, until now, there was another type of phenomenon, called 'equipotential gravity', that existed within the Earth!

This phenomenon makes airplanes follow Earth's curvature, while somehow, it measures as a level flight on their actual instruments!

What a complete joke!


Assume gravity even exists, assume it holds all objects down to Earth's surface, assume it makes planes follow 'curvature', assume the planes measure it as 'level flight', too...


Instruments measure for a level flight. This measurement uses atmospheric pressure, around the plane, itself, to measure for level flight.

These instruments are reading level, as level. Same way as a spirit level measures for level. Level cannot mean NOT level. They are two opposite things....not synonyms. Not interchangeable terms.

Level means level, level flight means flying level, in air. The instruments measure level flight.

While it's blatantly obvious that your side wishes that measuring for a level flight denotes something NOT level, which means level to 'curvature', by a great force within Earth making it follow 'curvature', measuring it as 'level', which is not level, thanks to a great force within Earth, it reads level, to curvature!



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 02:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
You cannot say what would cause a brick thrown straight up into the air in the flat earth no gravity model reverse its direction to fall back to the earth. Specially in the context of Newton’s first law and your assertions of:


With your own words, “But no resistance is offered at all. This proves there is no force at all.” Why would a brick thrown straight up into the air “care” if it is falling up away from earth in a less dense atmosphere? With “But no resistance is offered at all”. How is that different than a brick falling to earth because the atmosphere is less dense. What makes a brick thrown straight up into the air reverse direction and fall back to earth in the flat earth model?



Why would the brick keep going higher and higher, without stopping, when the force which raised it into air is limited, to begin with? Why would a limited force have an infinite power to raise bricks forever upward into air ? No chance.



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 02:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
You cannot say what would cause a brick thrown straight up into the air in the flat earth no gravity model reverse its direction to fall back to the earth. Specially in the context of Newton’s first law and your assertions of:


With your own words, “But no resistance is offered at all. This proves there is no force at all.” Why would a brick thrown straight up into the air “care” if it is falling up away from earth in a less dense atmosphere? With “But no resistance is offered at all”. How is that different than a brick falling to earth because the atmosphere is less dense. What makes a brick thrown straight up into the air reverse direction and fall back to earth in the flat earth model?



Why would the brick keep going higher and higher, without stopping, when the force which raised it into air is limited, to begin with? Why would a limited force have an infinite power to raise bricks forever upward into air ? No chance.


I am asking why a brick thrown straight up into the air would change direction and fall back to earth in a no gravity model. With no gravity, wouldn’t a brick thrown straight down slow down like a brick thrown straight up?

What force causes a brick thrown straight up to slow down, change direction, and accelerate back to earth?

Newton’s first law


First law: In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.[2][3]

en.m.wikipedia.org...


What force keeps the international space station in orbit around the earth in the vacuum of space.

For the flat earth model, what keeps the sun orbiting the earth. Why does the sun not “sink” to the earth? Or why does the sun not “float” away.

Again. Why do you ignore truths to justify the blatant lie the earth is flat.

The flat earth mode creates more questions and problems, and doesn’t solve simple truths.

Then explained what the firmament is made of.

How the the sun and moon stay in orbit in the geocentric model. Why don’t they 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 1-6-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Newton claimed gravity existed, so why would I believe his 'laws' are any better?

The brick was lifted into air by force, a limited force. After the force dies way, the brick slows down in air, and falls back down, because NO force is acting on it anymore. The mass and dense brick falls through less dense medium it is in, and falls through it, as a result. No force is 'pulling it down'. The mass of the brick is greater than the mass of air it's within, that's why it falls back down. Simple as that.



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Why no comment on the video clips I've presented?

Are you afraid to speak about them?



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 03:26 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Again.....

I am asking why a brick thrown straight up into the air would change direction and fall back to earth in a no gravity model. With no gravity, wouldn’t a brick thrown straight down slow down like a brick thrown straight up?

What force causes a brick thrown straight up to slow down, change direction, and accelerate back to earth?

What force keeps the international space station in orbit around the earth in the vacuum of space.

For the flat earth model, what keeps the sun orbiting the earth. Why does the sun not “sink” to the earth? Or why does the sun not “float” away.

Again. Why do you ignore truths to justify the blatant lie the earth is flat.

The flat earth mode creates more questions and problems, and doesn’t solve simple truths.

Then explained what the firmament is made of.

How the the sun and moon stay in orbit in the geocentric model. Why don’t they 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 1-6-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 03:27 AM
link   
when our resident troll publically claims newtonian physics is fake - there is no intulectual argument left [ that is productive ] - as the T&C would prohibit any suggestion of doxxng the cnut and beating some sense into it - ignore is the only sane option



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 03:31 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Who you referring to.

Your the one being intellectually dishonest.

What keeps the international space station in orbit around the earth in the vacuum of space?



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 03:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
when our resident troll publically claims newtonian physics is fake - there is no intulectual argument left [ that is productive ] - as the T&C would prohibit any suggestion of doxxng the cnut and beating some sense into it - ignore is the only sane option


But it is fun to rattle their cage to make them spout the BS that proves beyond a doubt they are trolls. To watch them embrace ignorance and delusion with pride, seeing what happens when you throw stones of reality at their glass houses of delusion. All the while how they use delusion to maintain their pride.
edit on 1-6-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Again - it is a LIMITED force that threw the brick into air. Do you understand that? It is not an infinite force that made the brick go up into air, right?

That is the only force involved here. Nothing else. When the force died away, the brick slowed down, because the force was gone, and the brick simply fell through air, as a result.

NO force has to make the brick slow down, and fall back through air, the original force died away, and the mass of the brick made it fall through the less dense medium it was within, so it fell through the medium, and stopped at the dense surface below the air.


Why you insist on a force acting on the fall through air, doesn't make sense. No force has to exist, the objects simply fall through air. You still don't understand this point, for some reason.



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 07:16 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1



Again - it is a LIMITED force that threw the brick into air. Do you understand that? It is not an infinite force that made the brick go up into air, right?


A brick thrown straight up slows down faster that what can be attributed to by friction by air.

You


That is the only force involved here. Nothing else. When the force died away, the brick slowed down, because the force was gone, and the brick simply fell through air, as a result.


Then what causes the brick thrown straight up to change direction to fall back to earth?



NO force has to make the brick slow down, and fall back through air, the original force died away,


Then why does a brick thrown straight down from a twenty story building not slow down like a brick thrown straight up if there is no gravity. Why does a brick simply dropped accelerate towards earth if there is no gravity.



and the mass of the brick made it fall


Mass is not a force. Weight is the downward force given to items of mass because of earth’s gravity. On earth, one pound mass weighs one pound. On the moon, one pound mass weighs .17 pounds because there is less gravity. Still one pound of mass, but it has less downward force on the moon. On the international space station, one pound mass essentially is weightless because of essentially no gravity.



made it fall through the less dense medium it was within, so it fell through the medium, and stopped at the dense surface below the air.


Conceptual error by you.
From, “Flat Earth Follies: Planes would have to constantly pitch down to fly!”



flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com...

And we also KNOW that it has nothing to do with buoyancy, because buoyancy is powered by gravity in exactly the same way our rock is, without the force of gravity there is no density gradient. We know this because we can observe the behavior of density in the absence of this downward force we call Gravity. Here is what density does when you remove the force of gravity, things no longer 'sort' by density:

———- YouTube video ———

What does a Density Tower do in Zero G?
m.youtube.com...


Back to you


Why you insist on a force acting on the fall through air, doesn't make sense.


Because mass gets weight from gravity. One pound mass weighs different on the moon and international space station than on earth.

Items don’t sort themselves due to density in a weightless environment like on the international space station.



No force has to exist, the objects simply fall through air. You still don't understand this point, for some reason.


Concept error by you.

How does a brick thrown straight up into the air reverse direction to fall back to the earth. Why does a brick thrown straight down from a twenty story building not slow down like a brick thrown straight up in a no gravity flat earth. They both have what you stated for your flat earth model, “it is a LIMITED force that threw the brick into air.“ Why would a brick simply dropped in your flat earth model accelerate towards the earth?

AGAIN, WHAT KEEPS THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION IN ORBIT AROUND THE EARTH?

In a flat earth model, why does the sun not float down to earth. Or drift off?

You stated for items “fall through the less dense medium it was within, so it fell through the medium, and stopped at the dense surface below the air.” So? What keeps the sun in place for your flat earth model.



Inigo Montoya quote from Princess Bride
He's right on top of us! I wonder if he is using the same wind we are using?

edit on 1-6-2019 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording

edit on 1-6-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 1-6-2019 by neutronflux because: Fixed quotes



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 12:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
A brick thrown straight up slows down faster that what can be attributed to by friction by air.


The brick slows down because the force which caused it to go into air has died away. Air friction plays a small part, as well, but the primary cause of the brick slowing down is the original force diminishing. After all, the original force is what made the brick go up into air to begin with. Why would you expect the DIMINISHING of that same force not to play a part in the brick slowing down, then? You seem unable to grasp the concept of the original force being responsible for the brick going into air, and the loss of that force being responsible for the brick slowing down, and finally stopping in air.


originally posted by: neutronflux
Then what causes the brick thrown straight up to change direction to fall back to earth?


Again, the original force caused the brick to go into air. The loss of that same force caused the brick to slow down, and stop going upward in air.

At that point, there is NO force in play. The mass of the brick causes it to fall through the less dense medium of air.



originally posted by: neutronflux
Then why does a brick thrown straight down from a twenty story building not slow down like a brick thrown straight up if there is no gravity. Why does a brick simply dropped accelerate towards earth if there is no gravity.


A force causes the brick to go into air. The loss of that force causes the brick to slow down, and stop going any higher into air.

At that point, the brick is the same as the brick thrown from a 20 story building. They both simply fall through the air, because of their mass.


originally posted by: neutronflux
Mass is not a force. Weight is the downward force given to items of mass because of earth’s gravity. On earth, one pound mass weighs one pound. On the moon, one pound mass weighs .17 pounds because there is less gravity. Still one pound of mass, but it has less downward force on the moon. On the international space station, one pound mass essentially is weightless because of essentially no gravity.


Sorry, but making claims about the moon and the ISS mean nothing. They are completely unproven, and trying to refer to them as if they were fact is not going to wash.

They are illusions, which make you believe 'gravity' exists.

How does 'gravity' hold a moon supposedly 1/4 million miles away in place, when we 'float' between the Earth and moon? I suppose 'gravity' casts out its invisible fishing rod, past the 'astronauts' who are 'floating' around in the ISS, and it latches its massive hook onto the moon, where it stays forever and ever after??

If 'gravity' holds/pulls down all objects to Earth, it would certainly resist opposing forces, like any actual force does. How can a force hold/pull down any objects to Earth, while it doesn't resist OPPOSING forces? Birds fly freely, which proves no force exists below the Earth.

In essence, you claim 'gravity' acts like a huge magnet, which pulls objects down to it, and holds them down....

Then, you come up with ridiculous excuses for why 'gravity' DOESN'T work like a magnet. It offers no resistance to opposing forces, like a bird. It stops pulling objects down to Earth, which all float without 'gravity. But magically, it grasps onto a moon 250,000 miles away, and DOESN'T pull it towards Earth, like every other object!!


'Gravity' doesn't exist, it was invented to 'explain' all the problems away, like magic pixie dust.

Now, if you want to believe a force pulls objects down to Earth, while it can't resist a bird opposing that 'pull', go right ahead. I prefer reality, not made up 'forces' which don't even make sense.



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 02:25 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1



The brick slows down because the force which caused it to go into air has died away


For the brick thrown straight up, the brick slows faster than what can be attributed to friction with the air. What force causes that.

For a brick thrown straight down off a twenty story building building, why doesn’t the brick slow down at the same rate as a brick thrown straight up? What force is drawing to the earth.

You


Sorry, but making claims about the moon and the ISS mean nothing. They are completely unproven, and trying to refer to them as if they were fact is not going to wash.


You don’t get to discard reality just so you can keep the lie of flat earth alive.

The international space station is real. I have spotted the ISS going over head. It is an object brighter than Venus as it passes overhead in the night sky. It’s a item in the sky that is new compared to the stars and planets. The International space station doesn’t move through the night sky like the stars and planets. The ISS moves faster through the night sky than the stars and planets. The ISS is tracked and can be seen overhead as scheduled. First hand accounts from people going to, living on, and returning from the ISS. You can track broadcasts from the ISS. Rockets are launched and tracked to the ISS. The return capsules are tracked from the ISS to earth. Launch teams and recovery teams testify to the efforts to send people to and from the ISS. You can track, and photograph the international space station.



originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

Have a photo of the ISS, taken from my back yard:



www.abovetopsecret.com...





Capturing the ISS (International Space Station) through my Telescope

m.youtube.com...






So yes. It is fact the international space station exists and orbits the earth.


Sorry but it is scientific fact that Mass is not a force. Weight is the downward force given to items of mass because of earth’s gravity. On earth, one pound mass weighs one pound. On the moon, one pound mass weighs .17 pounds because there is less gravity. Still one pound of mass, but it has less downward force on the moon. On the international space station, one pound mass essentially is weightless because of essentially no gravity.

You


How does 'gravity' hold a moon supposedly 1/4 million miles away in place, when we 'float' between the Earth and moon? I suppose 'gravity' casts out its invisible fishing rod, past the 'astronauts' who are 'floating' around in the ISS, and it latches its massive hook onto the moon, where it stays forever and ever after??


What are you ranting about.

What you are ignoring is the velocities the bodies are circling the earth.



What causes an orbit to happen?

www.qrg.northwestern.edu...

Orbits are the result of a perfect balance between the forward motion of a body in space, such as a planet or moon, and the pull of gravity on it from another body in space, such as a large planet or star. An object with a lot of mass goes forward and wants to keep going forward; however, the gravity of another body in space pulls it in. There is a continuous tug-of-war between the one object wanting to go forward and away and the other wanting to pull it in.


The astronauts in the International space station seem weightless because they are “falling” around the earth at the same rate as the international space station.

Long explanation linked to below if you want to try and find falsehoods.



WHY DO ASTRONAUTS FLOAT AROUND IN SPACE?
www.wired.com...


So yes. Gravity and the International space station are verified as real.
edit on 2-6-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 02:36 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You


How does 'gravity' hold a moon supposedly 1/4 million miles away in place,


Because the speed at which the moon is traveling forward counter acts the gravitation pull of the earth .

Now you explain....

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

Then explained what the firmament is made of.

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.



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 02:41 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

By the way...

How does the ability to locate, track, spot photograph, listen, tune into passings satellites not prove they exist. I would guess you could even use the transmissions from a satellite to triangulate its position.

What proof do you have Satellites and the international space station you can spot from earth doesn’t exist?

And.....

Besides we know man made objects orbit a spherical earth, orbit the moon, and travel to the moon is possible because of:
Satellite TV
Satellite internet
GPS Satellites
Satellite phones
Satellite weather tracking and surveys
Satellite mapping of earth by radar, thermal imaging, UV light.....
Mirrors left on moon used to measure distance
Hubble space telescopes
Various countries space missions to map the moon
The international space station
Skylab space station
The Mir space station
You can actually see satellites and the international space station from earth
Missions to map and explore Mars
Missions to Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Neptune, Uranus, Pluto, asteroids, comets...........



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 101  102  103    105  106  107 >>

log in

join