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: 115
14
<< 112  113  114    116  117  118 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2019 @ 03:19 AM
link   
If a force within Earth pulls all objects to the Earth's surface, wouldn't it pull down/hold onto objects which are closer to the surface of Earth, if it can pull down/hold onto much further away from the surface of Earth?

For sure, it would do so. Without a doubt.


So what you claim here is a force within Earth that acts in reverse of actual forces. A force that doesn't hold down a rocket anywhere near the Earth's surface, yet holds a rocket far ABOVE the Earth's surface??!!


The amazing force that contradicts reality, doesn't exist in reality. Who is the fool here, we know too well.



posted on Jul, 6 2019 @ 03:26 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1


If a force within Earth pulls all objects to the Earth's surface, wouldn't it pull down/hold onto objects which are closer to the surface of Earth, if it can pull down/hold onto much further away from the surface of Earth?

For sure, it would do so. Without a doubt.


No... said force is a constant... Outside of our atmosphere the pull is different because and object can also be affected by other celestial bodies such as the moon... but the pull is constant from everywhere all around the earth


So what you claim here is a force within Earth that acts in reverse of actual forces. A force that doesn't hold down a rocket anywhere near the Earth's surface, yet holds a rocket far ABOVE the Earth's surface??!!


No... your reading comprehension is as good as your scientific knowledge as usual

The same force holds a rocket far ABOVE earth...lol


The amazing force that contradicts reality, doesn't exist in reality. Who is the fool here, we know too well.


The same person that has been proving himself a fool for what.... 100 some odd pages?

Obviously...



posted on Jul, 6 2019 @ 03:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
No... said force is a constant... Outside of our atmosphere the pull is different because and object can also be affected by other celestial bodies such as the moon... but the pull is constant from everywhere all around the earth



No.

If the 'pull' was constant, a rocket would be able to continue flying straight up, as it did when it launched from the surface. Any 'pull' would obviously have been overcome from it's launch, and a rocket would NEVER need to change its course, after the launch, as the force - according to you - is a CONSTANT.

As we know, a rocket veers off course soon after launch, which is why it's not flying into orbit whatsoever.


It is obviously an excuse for rockets going out of sight, then..



posted on Jul, 6 2019 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Von Braun knew the firmament existed, and he - if anyone - would have known that.



posted on Jul, 6 2019 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1



No.

If the 'pull' was constant, a rocket would be able to continue flying straight up, as it did when it launched from the surface. Any 'pull' would obviously have been overcome from it's launch, and a rocket would NEVER need to change its course, after the launch, as the force - according to you - is a CONSTANT.

As we know, a rocket veers off course soon after launch, which is why it's not flying into orbit whatsoever.


It is obviously an excuse for rockets going out of sight, then..


You see... the people launching the rocket were not.... Morons!!

They know that IF they pointed it straight up... it world return straight back down... LOL

In order to obtain orbit from their rocket, they would need to angle the rocket towards the direction of their orbit once it actually left the ground...


As we know, a rocket veers off course soon after launch, which is why it's not flying into orbit whatsoever.


It is obviously an excuse for rockets going out of sight, then..


Right... Just as I've stated numerous times.... The moron would launch his rocket straight up and believe it would just float once it gets into space.... unfortunately nothing just floats in space, as I've explained to you over and over, and you ignore...

You don't reach the outer atmosphere and suddenly you're floating ...LMAO!!!


Von Braun knew the firmament existed, and he - if anyone - would have known that.


I think he would have slapped you for being so thick...


edit on 6-7-2019 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2019 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Evidently rockets work. Place items in orbit like that International space station and Hubble telescope that are visible with unaided eye. New objects in the night sky not explained by the firmament.

Or satellite radio, satellite weather maps, satellite internet, satellite phones, satellite tv, GPS.

You know the 2000 plus objects activity broadcasting from orbit around earth.



posted on Jul, 6 2019 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Maybe you can help me with this.

I’ve been repeating this question for quite a while and no one‘s even taken a shot at it .

How does the flat earth stay perfectly level with uneven weight distribution across its surface ?

Remaining perfectly level is essential to your theory. If it was even a millimeter out of level over say 10,000 miles.

Water always seeks its own level which would mean the oceans of the world would move in that direction and tip the flat earth over .




edit on 6-7-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2019 @ 03:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1



No.

If the 'pull' was constant, a rocket would be able to continue flying straight up, as it did when it launched from the surface. Any 'pull' would obviously have been overcome from it's launch, and a rocket would NEVER need to change its course, after the launch, as the force - according to you - is a CONSTANT.

As we know, a rocket veers off course soon after launch, which is why it's not flying into orbit whatsoever.


It is obviously an excuse for rockets going out of sight, then..


You see... the people launching the rocket were not.... Morons!!

They know that IF they pointed it straight up... it world return straight back down... LOL

In order to obtain orbit from their rocket, they would need to angle the rocket towards the direction of their orbit once it actually left the ground...


As we know, a rocket veers off course soon after launch, which is why it's not flying into orbit whatsoever.


It is obviously an excuse for rockets going out of sight, then..


Right... Just as I've stated numerous times.... The moron would launch his rocket straight up and believe it would just float once it gets into space.... unfortunately nothing just floats in space, as I've explained to you over and over, and you ignore...

You don't reach the outer atmosphere and suddenly you're floating ...LMAO!!!


Von Braun knew the firmament existed, and he - if anyone - would have known that.


I think he would have slapped you for being so thick...



If they were flying off course to align with an orbital trajectory, as you claim, it still doesn't make sense. The rockets veer off far well below even planes fly, at cruising altitudes, which is nowhere near 'orbit' is supposed to be.

Rockets are never higher than airplanes at cruising altitudes when they go out of our sight. There's no proof of any kind that rockets reach airplane cruising altitudes, let alone go into any supposed 'orbit', which you claim is above a ball-shaped Earth. It makes no sense if a rocket was really trying to reach orbit, since they claim orbit begins at about 100 miles - 528,000 feet - altitude.

Once again - they claim orbit is at least 528,000 feet altitude, or more.

When rockets disappear over the ocean, they are less than cruising altitudes of planes, which is about 35-40,000 feet, or so.

So, when rockets fly out of sight, at even lower altitudes than planes at cruising altitudes, that's a huge problem.

Because your excuse doesn't hold up, just based on planes flying higher than rockets, every day, not even TRYING to fly into so-called Earth 'orbit'.

If a rocket was really going into 'orbit', and if 'orbit' was reached by veering off into a near-horizontal path, why would any rocket need to start going in a horizontal path, far below airplanes fly above Earth, every day?

Airplanes at cruising altitude don't 'gain speed' anytime at all, when higher than rockets are seen veering off course, to 'match with orbit'.

It's flying in a horizontal path lower than a plane flies, and is over 400,000 feet BELOW any supposed 'orbit', when it flies out of sight. Yet, somehow, we are supposed to believe that rockets are 'just matching to Earth orbit'??!!

What do you think rockets do after they go out of sight, below a plane's altitude? Do they start flying higher and higher when they go over the ocean? Why wouldn't they fly straight up, at least to the altitude of an airplane, before veering off course? They would still be over 400.000 feet below 'orbit', at that point.

They would not waste tons of fuel if they were really going into orbit, they would keep flying straight up after launch, at least as high as planes fly, and far higher than planes fly, for sure. If a rocket was trying to match an orbital trajectory, it is absurd to claim they are anywhere close to altitudes required for veering off course below a plane flies at!!

No matter how idiotic this claim is, which makes no sense in any way, not one shred of proof exists for your claim, and it never will have proof, either.



As for a rocket leaving Earth's 'gravity' by gaining speed in orbit, which 'breaks' it's massive 'grip' on a rocket, that's nonsense. When a rocket launches from Earth, does it overcome 'gravity', which previously 'held' it down, to the Earth?

When a rocket keeps flying higher above Earth, does it still have to overcome 'gravity', as it did at launching from the surface?

And when a rocket goes into orbit, as you claim, why does a rocket need to 'gain speed' before it can 'break free of gravity'? The rocket didn't need to gain speed to launch from Earth, it started from a complete stop, and flew straight up, without any problem. It was slower than molasses, and still flew up without a problem. By the time it was flying horizontal, it was faster than at launch-off.

What you claim is that a rocket veers off course to match orbital trajectory, which is required before reaching orbit, and that rockets need to orbit Earth in order to gain enough speed to 'break free of Earth's gravity'!!

A rocket didn't need to gain speed to launch from the Earth's surface, or afterwards while in air, so unless you're a complete moron, you should understand a rocket would not need to 'gain speed' to 'break free of gravity', either!

You speak of my believing in nonsense, when all the nonsense is right there, in front of you..



posted on Jul, 7 2019 @ 03:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Evidently rockets work. Place items in orbit like that International space station and Hubble telescope that are visible with unaided eye. New objects in the night sky not explained by the firmament.

Or satellite radio, satellite weather maps, satellite internet, satellite phones, satellite tv, GPS.

You know the 2000 plus objects activity broadcasting from orbit around earth.


If you ever prove anything you believe is in 'space', please show it, until then, you have nothing but a belief.

Why do you think they always claim 'satellites' are being launched into 'orbit'? Because it makes 'satellites' seem real to you. After all, nobody would lie about all these 'satellites' in orbit, since there are 'thousands' of them in space!!

Of course, you've never seen one actually go into orbit, and nobody else has, and there's no proof any 'satellite' was ever in orbit, but that's no problem for you, because you see 'lights' in the dark skies, which can only be 'satellites'. No. You believe these lights are 'satellites', without any proof at all to support your belief.

Same way 'lights' are obviously alien spacecraft, because they are silent, and move too quickly to be from the Earth! The utter lack of valid PROOF of aliens flying above Earth is not the least bit important, to those who believe in aliens, and alien spacecraft being lights in the black of night.


In reality, there is ZERO evidence for either aliens, or satellites, being 'lights in the skies above Earth'. Only the opposite, in fact. There is tremendous proof aliens and satellites are hoaxed, and they ARE hoaxes, in every way possible.



posted on Jul, 7 2019 @ 05:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1



No.

If the 'pull' was constant, a rocket would be able to continue flying straight up, as it did when it launched from the surface. Any 'pull' would obviously have been overcome from it's launch, and a rocket would NEVER need to change its course, after the launch, as the force - according to you - is a CONSTANT.

As we know, a rocket veers off course soon after launch, which is why it's not flying into orbit whatsoever.


It is obviously an excuse for rockets going out of sight, then..


You see... the people launching the rocket were not.... Morons!!

They know that IF they pointed it straight up... it world return straight back down... LOL

In order to obtain orbit from their rocket, they would need to angle the rocket towards the direction of their orbit once it actually left the ground...


As we know, a rocket veers off course soon after launch, which is why it's not flying into orbit whatsoever.


It is obviously an excuse for rockets going out of sight, then..


Right... Just as I've stated numerous times.... The moron would launch his rocket straight up and believe it would just float once it gets into space.... unfortunately nothing just floats in space, as I've explained to you over and over, and you ignore...

You don't reach the outer atmosphere and suddenly you're floating ...LMAO!!!


Von Braun knew the firmament existed, and he - if anyone - would have known that.


I think he would have slapped you for being so thick...



If they were flying off course to align with an orbital trajectory, as you claim, it still doesn't make sense. The rockets veer off far well below even planes fly, at cruising altitudes, which is nowhere near 'orbit' is supposed to be.

Rockets are never higher than airplanes at cruising altitudes when they go out of our sight. There's no proof of any kind that rockets reach airplane cruising altitudes, let alone go into any supposed 'orbit', which you claim is above a ball-shaped Earth. It makes no sense if a rocket was really trying to reach orbit, since they claim orbit begins at about 100 miles - 528,000 feet - altitude.

Once again - they claim orbit is at least 528,000 feet altitude, or more.

When rockets disappear over the ocean, they are less than cruising altitudes of planes, which is about 35-40,000 feet, or so.

So, when rockets fly out of sight, at even lower altitudes than planes at cruising altitudes, that's a huge problem.

Because your excuse doesn't hold up, just based on planes flying higher than rockets, every day, not even TRYING to fly into so-called Earth 'orbit'.

If a rocket was really going into 'orbit', and if 'orbit' was reached by veering off into a near-horizontal path, why would any rocket need to start going in a horizontal path, far below airplanes fly above Earth, every day?

Airplanes at cruising altitude don't 'gain speed' anytime at all, when higher than rockets are seen veering off course, to 'match with orbit'.

It's flying in a horizontal path lower than a plane flies, and is over 400,000 feet BELOW any supposed 'orbit', when it flies out of sight. Yet, somehow, we are supposed to believe that rockets are 'just matching to Earth orbit'??!!

What do you think rockets do after they go out of sight, below a plane's altitude? Do they start flying higher and higher when they go over the ocean? Why wouldn't they fly straight up, at least to the altitude of an airplane, before veering off course? They would still be over 400.000 feet below 'orbit', at that point.

They would not waste tons of fuel if they were really going into orbit, they would keep flying straight up after launch, at least as high as planes fly, and far higher than planes fly, for sure. If a rocket was trying to match an orbital trajectory, it is absurd to claim they are anywhere close to altitudes required for veering off course below a plane flies at!!

No matter how idiotic this claim is, which makes no sense in any way, not one shred of proof exists for your claim, and it never will have proof, either.



As for a rocket leaving Earth's 'gravity' by gaining speed in orbit, which 'breaks' it's massive 'grip' on a rocket, that's nonsense. When a rocket launches from Earth, does it overcome 'gravity', which previously 'held' it down, to the Earth?

When a rocket keeps flying higher above Earth, does it still have to overcome 'gravity', as it did at launching from the surface?

And when a rocket goes into orbit, as you claim, why does a rocket need to 'gain speed' before it can 'break free of gravity'? The rocket didn't need to gain speed to launch from Earth, it started from a complete stop, and flew straight up, without any problem. It was slower than molasses, and still flew up without a problem. By the time it was flying horizontal, it was faster than at launch-off.

What you claim is that a rocket veers off course to match orbital trajectory, which is required before reaching orbit, and that rockets need to orbit Earth in order to gain enough speed to 'break free of Earth's gravity'!!

A rocket didn't need to gain speed to launch from the Earth's surface, or afterwards while in air, so unless you're a complete moron, you should understand a rocket would not need to 'gain speed' to 'break free of gravity', either!

You speak of my believing in nonsense, when all the nonsense is right there, in front of you..


And Thus proving once again for all to see and read...

Flat earthers are morons...

Goodnight



posted on Jul, 7 2019 @ 05:30 AM
link   
Wonderful rebuttal, once again.

Well done!



posted on Jul, 7 2019 @ 05:41 AM
link   
'Oh yeah? Well, you're a moron!'


Any tips on improving my argument, above, from our resident expert? Or does that work for you?


It's my first effort, so let me know if I'm on the right track, if you could...





posted on Jul, 7 2019 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1


In reality, there is ZERO evidence for either aliens, or satellites, being 'lights in the skies above Earth'. Only the opposite, in fact. There is tremendous proof aliens and satellites are hoaxed, and they ARE hoaxes, in every way possible.


So how are these satellites being hoaxed? When you see an iridium flare in the night sky and it corresponds to a sat tracking app then how do you explain that visible light? How are these masters of deception pulling it off? Precisely every time and never being caught out. The same with ISS. How can that visible track be explained away? What is your theory on how these masters of deception accomplish it?

Explain how these masters of deception did it way back from the late 1950s? For example Operation Moonwatch and the early involvement of amateur astronomers.

Operation Moonwatch Wiki

Was is your theory. Holograms? Projections? Aircraft?

Think about the organisation and logistics that would have to be pulled off to get it right every time? Explain why no flat earther has ever taken up the challenge to catch them out?



posted on Jul, 7 2019 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1


because NOTHING that opposes this imaginary force, like birds or insects, face any RESISTANCE from this so-called force. Unlike any real force would offer resistance against any sort of opposing force.



Quick question for you Turbo: If a bird or insect stops flapping its wings, what happens? Would they fall to the ground as if some kind of force were pulling it down?

PS Polaris?



posted on Jul, 7 2019 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Von Braun knew the firmament existed, and he - if anyone - would have known that.


A guy who personally put objects in orbit knew there was a magical snowglobe preventing things from going into orbit? Do explain that one



posted on Jul, 7 2019 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Wonderful rebuttal, once again.

Well done!


your arguments are nonsense... and you don't even read peoples replies, or you just don't understand them so you go on a rant that makes little to no sense grammatically or logically...

You don't have the slightest clue about basic sciences... you blatantly lie to make the ridiculous points you attempt to make

Its like arguing with a 5 year old, though I assume you are not one...

simple conclusion man... anyone with a grade school education would come to the same

all flat earthers I've spoken to fall into the same category... you are a special one though lol




posted on Jul, 7 2019 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Blah blah blah blah

Again...
neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1



Since your video didn't show what I asked you for, why would I ever have addressed it?


You wouldn’t. Because you are blatantly intellectually dishonest.



I asked you for a video that actually shows a rocket going into orbit, a video that was shot from the ground....


Ok? Name a rocket that is in orbit around the earth.




No clouds appear in videos,


Blatant lie





Onboard camera view: launch and separation of Sentinel-1A

m.youtube.com...


Again
The right side and left side videos are synchronized as indicated by lift off and stage separations of the rocket. When you see the 2nd stage separate on the right side video taken from earth, the rocket is 176 km above earth and in space.



Onboard camera view: launch and separation of Sentinel-1A

m.youtube.com...











DO YOU GET THE POINT YET!!!!




posted on Jul, 7 2019 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

He doesn't...

Turbo believes things float in space




posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 05:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

He also believes that birds/insects float on earth . . . and here I am trying to figure out which way to look to see Polaris in Sydney.



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 06:40 AM
link   
still dont believe in gravity , then whats stopping you from jumping out the window to prove us wrong ?

or better yet , fly off the ground



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 112  113  114    116  117  118 >>

log in

join