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: 40
14
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Nothin

let me find it and read it again!

You doubt I could find scientists to say their work provides truth?

Once again I dont believe it because I know it to be truth all of the things I hold as truth because I have learned them for myself and found that low and behold these were also found to be truth to others , so given that the result I find is the same as someone else it must be truth otherwise as I said we are all deluded !


as objective fact , whether there is belief in it or not is irrelevant !


You had replied to me because I said science deals in truth !
and that we can find truth through scientific enquiry , you then said that it was scientism

you mentioned the variation in temperature on a thermometer that the variation was somehow a challenge to the truth
of the fact that temperature can be measured and can also fluctuate, and that thermal dynamics are objective fact !
Yet still a truth , that temperature varies / fluctuates and can be measured , albeit with varying degrees of precision
depending on the quality of the device used to measure it.

This still brings us truth based on objective fact then backed up by multiple independent observation.
Anyone who has learned how a thermometer works or how temperature can fluctuate across the "globe"
knows these facts and so that the temperature reading they get will likely be different from someone else 10 meters across the street outside the shop
where they measured the temperature.
Even in a controlled environment within the same room the temperature can fluctuate from point A to point B , how do you think we discovered thermo dynamics because of the objective facts given to us by measurement of other variables and their relations , temperature , pressure , volume ?


Once again you go off into the realm of "budgets" and "ego"

Yes , peoples ego can get in the way and yes money can also be a factor, but still doesnt change objective facts which bring truth!

No real scientist worth their salt will fudge data for cash , theirs is the pursuit of knowledge and truth ! not fame and money

I think you have to stop tarring people with the general brush , not all scientists are money grabbing fame hungry egotists who want nothing more than to have their name remembered!

You make out as though all of the scientific community are in some huge gang and they continually hoax us just for personal gain!
when its simply not true.

To claim that scientific enquiry doesnt bring truth is a fallacy!

as I've said , everything you do involving anything man made until the day you die is because of scientific truth!












edit on 14-9-2018 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-9-2018 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-9-2018 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-9-2018 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Ok.

So, as a FE'er, something you have "come to know as the truth", then you must probably have some concept of how everything observable works right, or if you do not personally know all the facets, you can point me to a coherent explanation that doesn't clash with other FE explanations from other people. right?

So other than indulging your ego in poo-poohing anything anyone tries to explain or counter to you, help us out.

Show us coherent explanations for, amongst others:

- Timezones

- Eclipses

- Seasons

- Equinox precession

- Horizon



Now, if you cant point out those explanations, all you are doing is riding your ego on a superiority trip based on someone elses beliefs that you cannot prove to even yourself.

You may think science and scientists have no concept of "truth", but you even being able to post on this forum is a testament to the accuracy of decades of scientific idea and testing.

edit on 14-9-2018 by MasterAtArms because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 03:38 PM
link   
I got into Flat Earth after watching YouTube videos. People may be right when they say that it might be a disinformation campaign, perhaps intended to give people a pretext for dismissing other conspiracy-related arguments by association. However I think the theory has much to be recommended, in spite of the derision to which the media perennially subjects it. I was reading an article by Steven Poole recently (a writer I have admired since he started contributing to EDGE-magazine) and I was surprised to see him discussing the Flat Earth debate. Throughout the article he makes various arguments as to why the Earth is spherical, but then finishes in a way that almost nullifies everything he had previously said, when he wrote: “While the return of flat-Earth theories is silly and rather alarming, meanwhile, it also illustrates some real and deep issues about human knowledge. How, after all, do you or I know that the Earth really is round? Essentially, we take it on trust. We may have experienced some common indications of it ourselves, but we accept the explanations of others. The experts all say the Earth is round; we believe them, and get on with our lives”. Poole is intellectually-honest enough to admit that he takes it on trust. The spherical Earth model, as Poole acknowledges, essentially rests on the presumed authority of defined expert scientists who purport to believe in the heliocentric model and whose assertions people assume are sacrosanct.
edit on 14-9-2018 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nathan-D
...he wrote: “While the return of flat-Earth theories is silly and rather alarming, meanwhile, it also illustrates some real and deep issues about human knowledge. How, after all, do you or I know that the Earth really is round? Essentially, we take it on trust. We may have experienced some common indications of it ourselves, but we accept the explanations of others.


No. We don't need to take it on trust. We don't need to accept the explanations of others.

We have in our power to make the observations ourselves, and then deduce for themselves what shape Earth needs to be to fit all of those observations. The answer we come up with -- just like the answer the ancient Greeks come up with more than 2000 years ago when they made the same observations - is that it is spherical.

I underlined "all" because there are a few ad hoc flat Earth explanations that do in fact hold up to critical thought scrutiny -- but just for isolated observations; not all of them. Hence the reason I called them "ad hoc explanations".

The Flat Earth model is not at all internally consistent with itself. There are explanations that fit one observation, but fall apart when we (anyone) try to apply it to another observation. The spherical Earth explanations are all consistent with all of the observations that almost anyone has the ability to make -- just like the ancient Greeks had the ability.

There is no need to trust anyone else's explanations or observations.


edit on 14/9/2018 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

It is false that there are images which show North America of different sizes.


You think North America appears the same size in all of the 'images'?

North America appears much larger in one image, compared to the other images.

It's claimed to be the same size, in all images, and only appears to look larger, due to various factors...such as varying distances, camera settings, etc.

So let's assess your claim that North America appears much larger because of these factors -

Look at the desktop-sized Earth globe, to compare it against...it shows the same effect......not.

This is all a trick - using extremely close distances, WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL DISTANCES!


A few inches away from the small globe have nothing to do with taking images from such distances claimed by NASA.


That is because ALL of those images of Earth would be taken at long distances. Some may be taken from a closer distance, compared to others, but the images are ALL from considerable distances.


Your 'trick' doesn't work at the correctly scaled distances.


It's like ships that vanished over curvature, were proof of a round Earth. Nice try.

Or it's like planes that fly 6 hours over 1800 feet of curvature....instruments measure level flight, which doesn't even measure level, apparently, while pilots have no clue that level is not actually level.

They don't teach that level is not actually meant as level, in flight schools, either....


No instruments measure it, no pilots learn it.


Curvature is either proven, or not proven, with simple, verifiable, physical measurements.

A plane's instruments measure it, as a level flight.

When a plane is 35,000 feet above the Earth's surface. Instruments measure the atmospheric pressure, to achieve level flight.

Level means level.



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Oh flying hells

Eratosthenes

This can only have come from the the country with the least passports in the world.

Why not travel it broadens the mind?

Europeans do - we did that in erm 1492



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 06:10 PM
link   
double
edit on 14-9-2018 by Silk because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
This is funny you just admitted that you can't explain how a flat earth would be possible.

If flat earth was true everything we know in science would have to be false. Physics,biology,chemistry and for that matter even mathematics would be entirely wrong.

But yet we have used these things to create things we use such as smart phones so the technology proves the science.

Ill ask 1 simple question if the earth is flat how does it have gravity? It couldnt be mass because that would mean the entire planet would be pulled towards the arctic. And of course gravity would be lower in australia vs say North America.

Other problem what would prevent the atmosphere from just going over the edge?


Any science will hold up by having the same evidence, the same proof, the same repeatable examples, as it had before.

Science that doesn't hold up will not have evidence, or proof, or repeatable methods.


Gravity, for example, has no proof to show it even exists.


Mass is not 'pulled' by anything. The arctic is the magnetic center of Earth.


Earth is a fully enclosed, protected environment.

Objects have mass, and density. An object flies, or not, based on it's mass, and it's density.


A bird flies in air, having little mass, and little density. Simple as that.


If a 'pulling' force existed, like 'gravity', then birds would struggle to overcome that force, before flight is even possible.

A real force is found by opposing the force.

And if not opposing a force, the force doesn't exist. Not as claimed to exist, at least.


We don't feel 'pulled' to Earth when we fall downward, either.



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 06:59 PM
link   
We often can observe the Sun and moon above Earth, in daylight.

If the Sun is 93 million miles away, and the moon is only 250,000 miles away, what is illuminating the moon?


If the Sun is behind the moon, sunlight cannot hit the opposite face. Same as it does not hit the opposite side of Earth.


Thus, the moon must be illuminated by some other means.



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Everyone should have access to our best, most powerful telescopes....even if it's for brief viewings.


It is all kept very secret, for some reason...



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Silk

Whoa, there pardner...

Don't even attempt to color the vast majority of us in the same shade as these idiots. Willfully, and proudly, ignorant idiots.

You meany.



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Annnnnd back to gravity doesn't exist... and the level flight thing

Lord Tunderin Gesus!!





posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 11:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Nathan-D
...he wrote: “While the return of flat-Earth theories is silly and rather alarming, meanwhile, it also illustrates some real and deep issues about human knowledge. How, after all, do you or I know that the Earth really is round? Essentially, we take it on trust. We may have experienced some common indications of it ourselves, but we accept the explanations of others.


No. We don't need to take it on trust. We don't need to accept the explanations of others.

We have in our power to make the observations ourselves, and then deduce for themselves what shape Earth needs to be to fit all of those observations. The answer we come up with -- just like the answer the ancient Greeks come up with more than 2000 years ago when they made the same observations - is that it is spherical.

I underlined "all" because there are a few ad hoc flat Earth explanations that do in fact hold up to critical thought scrutiny -- but just for isolated observations; not all of them. Hence the reason I called them "ad hoc explanations".

The Flat Earth model is not at all internally consistent with itself. There are explanations that fit one observation, but fall apart when we (anyone) try to apply it to another observation. The spherical Earth explanations are all consistent with all of the observations that almost anyone has the ability to make -- just like the ancient Greeks had the ability.

There is no need to trust anyone else's explanations or observations.



What observation(s) don't fit into the flat Earth model.....specifically?


Not like the round Earth model, which is a type of 'science' that exists without any proof, or evidence, or ever repeatable in any way, or any past or present example found anywhere, or stated as any other real, proven, valid, scientific facts - this is how 'science' was meant to be, and why it had gained worldwide respect, and trust in their words as truthful... in the first place!!


I saw science that way, for many years. I didn't care if apes were actually ancestors of humans, or not, since it would have happened several millions of years ago....they believe....

Life was probably created by random, millions of years ago, too....I didn't know, or care, how life began....


Why care about where the Sun is, or if stars may be distant suns, which have planets like Earth.


Who cares if the Earth is round, and why it was once believed that Earth was flat?


Science is essentially being split into two....completely opposite directions.

One is the truth-seeking science, of knowledge, and honesty.

The other 'science' always claims they are seeking only the truth. Since real science is about truth, they will talk of truth, over and over again.... while doing the very opposite.


As long as science doesn't have any proof, or evidence, to support a claim, or a THEORY, it's never a good thing. It is actually a very dangerous thing.


If you do not look for yourself, with your own eyes, and use your own brain, to understand what is going on, and where it will eventually lead to....


The Earth is not only round. Since Earth is only a big ball zipping blindly through 'outer space', we might be destroyed, or humanity will perish, because all of space contains hazards. And we all know Earth is fragile, unprotected, zipping through unknown, unpredictable space!!

After you believe all this, then exploiting your ignorance, and fears, is simple.

The first idea was to convince people of Earth being round, fragile, blind....like a baby, left all alone, who crawls across 10-lane freeways... !


Nobody knows what great dangers might soon be approaching our fragile baby, Earth.....except for....NASA!!

Yes! NASA warns us of all dangers in outer space, right?

Nothing to fear, NASA is here!

But NASA says there are unpredictable dangers, too! And not even NASA can predict, or make plans, on saving the Earth from total destruction!

I think they'll eventually 'be forced to admit', that there are aliens living on Earth, who look like humans. And these aliens are trying to take over the Earth, and destroy humanity!


These aliens came to Earth years ago, only they kept it secret, to not cause worldwide panic. But now, the aliens are multiplying around the planet, in the millions. And we must stop them before it's too late!


And we must all work to weed out all these aliens, who look human.

It is a chip, implanted into all humans, that aliens cannot accept within their alien bodies, which will save humanity!

And those who refuse the chip are obviously aliens, who cannot accept the chips, specifically designed for human DNA!




Why wouldn't you believe it, since you already believe in whatever they claim so far?



posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 12:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
We often can observe the Sun and moon above Earth, in daylight.

If the Sun is 93 million miles away, and the moon is only 250,000 miles away, what is illuminating the moon?


If the Sun is behind the moon, sunlight cannot hit the opposite face. Same as it does not hit the opposite side of Earth.


Thus, the moon must be illuminated by some other means.



An 8 yr old asked the same question so this show explained it.


One more thing if you have any other questions feel free to ask an adult.
edit on 9/15/18 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 12:29 AM
link   
observvations incompatible with the flat earth claim :

polaris and sigma octantis

moon and sun rise and set - as viewed from the north pole

latitude and longitude north and south of equator

this is not a complete list - but i both wish to avvoid a " gish gallop " and limit my arguments to observations that can be preformed by a rational adult with modest rescources and are independant of any 3rd party data

ETA : any flat earth claim - must also [ obviously ] address all 3 arguments at once .

ie - degrees of latitude and be measured - to be equidistant
edit on 15-9-2018 by ignorant_ape because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 12:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: Nothin

let me find it and read it again!

You doubt I could find scientists to say their work provides truth?

Once again I dont believe it because I know it to be truth all of the things I hold as truth because I have learned them for myself and found that low and behold these were also found to be truth to others , so given that the result I find is the same as someone else it must be truth otherwise as I said we are all deluded !


as objective fact , whether there is belief in it or not is irrelevant !


You had replied to me because I said science deals in truth !
and that we can find truth through scientific enquiry , you then said that it was scientism

you mentioned the variation in temperature on a thermometer that the variation was somehow a challenge to the truth
of the fact that temperature can be measured and can also fluctuate, and that thermal dynamics are objective fact !
Yet still a truth , that temperature varies / fluctuates and can be measured , albeit with varying degrees of precision
depending on the quality of the device used to measure it.

This still brings us truth based on objective fact then backed up by multiple independent observation.
Anyone who has learned how a thermometer works or how temperature can fluctuate across the "globe"
knows these facts and so that the temperature reading they get will likely be different from someone else 10 meters across the street outside the shop
where they measured the temperature.
Even in a controlled environment within the same room the temperature can fluctuate from point A to point B , how do you think we discovered thermo dynamics because of the objective facts given to us by measurement of other variables and their relations , temperature , pressure , volume ?


Once again you go off into the realm of "budgets" and "ego"

Yes , peoples ego can get in the way and yes money can also be a factor, but still doesnt change objective facts which bring truth!

No real scientist worth their salt will fudge data for cash , theirs is the pursuit of knowledge and truth ! not fame and money

I think you have to stop tarring people with the general brush , not all scientists are money grabbing fame hungry egotists who want nothing more than to have their name remembered!

You make out as though all of the scientific community are in some huge gang and they continually hoax us just for personal gain!
when its simply not true.

To claim that scientific enquiry doesnt bring truth is a fallacy!

as I've said , everything you do involving anything man made until the day you die is because of scientific truth!


Why do you figure FE threads are not in the Science and Technology forums?
How about you go there, in the Science and Technology sub-forum, and make a post in the "Ask any question you want about physics" thread.
Ask those nice folks if their work provides/brings/is truth.

Post a link to your questioning post here, so we can follow the questions and answers.

You completely, totally, and bewilderingly misunderstood the point about thermometers.
Your wild accusations that those things were said about all scientists, is total fabrication.

Your dishonesty is showing, and my interest in dealing with you is rapidly waning, once again.
edit on 15-9-2018 by Nothin because: sp



posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 01:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Nathan-D
...he wrote: “While the return of flat-Earth theories is silly and rather alarming, meanwhile, it also illustrates some real and deep issues about human knowledge. How, after all, do you or I know that the Earth really is round? Essentially, we take it on trust. We may have experienced some common indications of it ourselves, but we accept the explanations of others.


No. We don't need to take it on trust. We don't need to accept the explanations of others.

We have in our power to make the observations ourselves, and then deduce for themselves what shape Earth needs to be to fit all of those observations. The answer we come up with -- just like the answer the ancient Greeks come up with more than 2000 years ago when they made the same observations - is that it is spherical.

I underlined "all" because there are a few ad hoc flat Earth explanations that do in fact hold up to critical thought scrutiny -- but just for isolated observations; not all of them. Hence the reason I called them "ad hoc explanations".

The Flat Earth model is not at all internally consistent with itself. There are explanations that fit one observation, but fall apart when we (anyone) try to apply it to another observation. The spherical Earth explanations are all consistent with all of the observations that almost anyone has the ability to make -- just like the ancient Greeks had the ability.

There is no need to trust anyone else's explanations or observations.


Perhaps you missed when this question was asked of you:
Have you done all of these observations yourself?

If not: then are you not trusting someone else's explanations or observations, and engaging not in knowledge, but in beliefs?



posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 01:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
Annnnnd back to gravity doesn't exist... and the level flight thing

Lord Tunderin Gesus!!




Santa doesn't exist, either.

The reason it's called 'level flight' is....

1. Because it sounds better to call it a level flight, when it's not level.

2. So they'll assume it IS a level flight, while only they'll know that it's NOT a level flight! (heehee)

3. Since everyone knows that 'level flight' really means 'flying as level as possible, along the curvature of Earth'! It's too wordy, so why bother?

4. Because 'level flight' is actually the correct term for a plane flying level.


The answer is not 1, 2, or 3, that's a little hint, just for you.


Level flight is based on atmospheric pressure, not the ground.


A plane cannot remain at 35,000 feet, over a continually descending surface, unless the plane itself physically descends, to follow the same path of the descending surface, 35,000 feet below the plane.


There is no magical force that makes it follow 'curvature' of 8 inches per mile. You have no proof of any kind to support that claim. It's that simple.

The descent rate of a plane would have to be about 5 feet per mile, for every mile flown, in order for a plane to follow a curvature of about 8 inches per mile. It cannot follow curvature any other way, except for a continuous rate of DESCENT.

This is a measurable rate of descent, of about 5 feet per mile. It doesn't measure any descent at all, which is proof it does NOT descent, which proves there is NO curvature of Earth below the plane.

Atmospheric pressure is used to measure level flight. The atmospheric pressure around the plane itself, which is maybe 160 feet long, determines level flight of the plane.

A mile is about 5280 feet. Curvature would be about 8 inches per mile. So if a plane measures level flight within 200 feet, you'd have around 1/32 inch of curvature ...!

The fact is that the surface DOES NOT matter to a plane flying level. If you believe 1/32 inch of curvature, 35,000 feet below a plane, is determining 'level flight', you need to prove this utterly absurd claim. Not at all possible, of course.


Saying 'gravity makes a plane fly level over curvature' is ridiculous. The plane's instruments prove my claim, beyond any doubt.

You ignore the instruments, and go on ranting about gravity, the magical fantasy force, which excuses all of your problems away!



posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 01:58 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Have you ever been to an airport? You seem to think planes fly nose up or nose down. The nose of the plane has nothing to do with altitude. A plane generates lift from air moving over the wings. The faster the air moves over the wing the higher the altitude it flys.
A pilot never has to change the direction of the nose to climb he only has to increase thrust and this will automatically create lift. Now the pilot can chose to fight this lift and increase speed at the dame altitude. But that requires the pilot to adjust the trim in flight. And if you have ever been on a plane after takeoff the plane remains level until landing. The only reason they orientate the nose up during takeoff is they need to get to their assigned altitude quickly. But notice landing the nose of the aircraft never points down.

This is easy to verify go to your local airport try to take a picture of a plane landing nose down.

What i think is funny is either your trolling or you know nothing about airplanes and how they work.
edit on 9/15/18 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1



The answer is not 1, 2, or 3, that's a little hint, just for you.


When you don't have any legitimate answers... You're not allowed to give hints...


A plane cannot remain at 35,000 feet, over a continually descending surface, unless the plane itself physically descends, to follow the same path of the descending surface, 35,000 feet below the plane.


There is no magical force that makes it follow 'curvature' of 8 inches per mile. You have no proof of any kind to support that claim. It's that simple.


No... theres not a magical force... its simple physics...

And of course you know a plane can move up and down without pointing the nose right?

8 inches per mile... so every 2.2klm the plane would decend... 8 inches.. close to the size of your computer screen

and for some reason you believe this would make the aircraft dive to the ground... at 35,000 feet...




The descent rate of a plane would have to be about 5 feet per mile, for every mile flown, in order for a plane to follow a curvature of about 8 inches per mile. It cannot follow curvature any other way, except for a continuous rate of DESCENT.

This is a measurable rate of descent, of about 5 feet per mile. It doesn't measure any descent at all, which is proof it does NOT descent, which proves there is NO curvature of Earth below the plane.


No... its actually PROOOF... you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about

like everyone replying to you has been saying for... always lol


The fact is that the surface DOES NOT matter to a plane flying level. If you believe 1/32 inch of curvature, 35,000 feet below a plane, is determining 'level flight', you need to prove this utterly absurd claim. Not at all possible, of course.


So... It kinda sounds like you believe we live in a minecraft world...





Saying 'gravity makes a plane fly level over curvature' is ridiculous. The plane's instruments prove my claim, beyond any doubt.


Fortunately gravity does not rely on plane's instruments... lol

It certianly doesn't make a plane fly over a curvature... in fact it prevents it... these are things you must learn before you venture into "gravity"... yet another subject you know nothing about... clearly


You ignore the instruments, and go on ranting about gravity, the magical fantasy force, which excuses all of your problems away!


I don't give a flying F*** about the instruments in a plane when we're talking about gravity...


You believe birds fly so that proves gravity doesn't exist... and a plane flying at 35k feet would just slam into the ground with a very minor decent... You don't know what gravity is... only because you've never actually attempted to learn it, or just dismissed the ideas and the math behind it... And you don't know how flight works, let alone the properties of lift

You litterally believe in a fantasy world... with magical fantasy forces that you don't even understand the machanics of... but happily believe exist regardless of what proves otherwise


I believe you win the Darwin Award this year my friend...



edit on 15-9-2018 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join