It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Flat earth theory?

page: 41
14
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 02:13 AM

originally posted by: dragonridr

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.

Not when the adult doesn't have the Sun and moon positioned correctly.

I'm referring to the Sun and moon in daylight, seen at the correct positions in the blue sky, above me.

The graphic shows a moon above the Earth, while the Sun is nowhere near it's actual position, above me.

And the sunlight in the graphic hits the left face of the moon, where it reflects the light back, at a 45 degree angle, towards the Earth! So when a graphic shows it that way, it certainly must be true!

And the moon isn't really blocking out the blue sky, because that's how an object below the blue sky would be able to block out the blue sky, DIRECTLY BEHIND the object!.......it just 'looks' like it!

It should be simple to replicate this phenomenon, which shows an object 250,000 miles away beaming itself below an atmosphere about 6000 miles above Earth, blocking it out...?

I bet a 'graphic' can show anything is possible, but I prefer physical demonstrations, proving how any such crap is actually possible...

I don't expect proof, though. It would not work in reality.

posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 02:21 AM

originally posted by: dragonridr

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.

It's funny that you put words in my mouth, first of all.

I said a plane must DESCEND in order to follow curvature. I didn't say anything about the plane's nose, you did.

The plane must descend, to follow a descending surface at altitude. A descent of about 5 feet per minute would be required to follow the curvature. And it would be measured by the plane's instruments, as a descent always is measured on board.

Anything else?

posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 02:28 AM
The Idiocracy may be inevitable

posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 02:28 AM
I personally don’t know anyone who believes this. I’d love to hear what proof they have though.

posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 03:22 AM

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: dragonridr

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.

It's funny that you put words in my mouth, first of all.

I said a plane must DESCEND in order to follow curvature. I didn't say anything about the plane's nose, you did.

The plane must descend, to follow a descending surface at altitude. A descent of about 5 feet per minute would be required to follow the curvature. And it would be measured by the plane's instruments, as a descent always is measured on board.

Anything else?

Yes. You are now trolling on a legendary level.

posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 03:41 AM

originally posted by: Akragon

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...

I know that the instruments on a plane measure level flight, by atmospheric pressure. The ground has nothing to do with measuring level flight.

I know that a descent would be about 5 feet per minute to follow 'curvature', which would be indicated by the plane's instruments, as well. I know there is no descent because the instruments prove it.

Instruments are my evidence. It's not a fantasy of magical forces, it's actual evidence.

You refuse to accept the precise measurements of the instruments on planes, simply to live within a fantasy-land round Earth, which is your right. I prefer truth over a fantasy, myself.

You made it clear that you don't care about evidence, or instruments, that prove the reality. You want 'gravity', a non-existent, non-proven, non-repeatable theory, capable of anything you can't explain with evidence.....

Proof is not going away, it's reality. I accept the reality, and you don't. So be it.

posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 03:54 AM

I know that the instruments on a plane measure level flight, by atmospheric pressure. The ground has nothing to do with measuring level flight.

I know that a descent would be about 5 feet per minute to follow 'curvature', which would be indicated by the plane's instruments, as well. I know there is no descent because the instruments prove it.

Instruments are my evidence. It's not a fantasy of magical forces, it's actual evidence.

Sure.. but you don't actually understand how these instruments work... You just like to use certain words associated with the subject in your arguments to make others believe you actually understand what you're talking about...

You refuse to accept the precise measurements of the instruments on planes, simply to live within a fantasy-land round Earth, which is your right. I prefer truth over a fantasy, myself.

No.. You prefer Youtube, and "the flat earth society" as opposed to intelligent thought, logic.. science... and rationality in thought... you would rather deny the obvious to stroke your own egotistical thoughts in your conspiracy based reality

You made it clear that you don't care about evidence, or instruments, that prove the reality. You want 'gravity', a non-existent, non-proven, non-repeatable theory, capable of anything you can't explain with evidence.....

Proof is not going away, it's reality. I accept the reality, and you don't. So be it.

Nah... i've made it clear that flat earth believers are morons... but you seem to be the exception to the rule...

your arguements are nonsense but you still persist... so, i've come to the conclusion that you are either a complete moron, or a frickin genius trolling this forum...

and im still undecided honestly... though i tend to lean to one side..

but do go on

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

posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 05:44 PM

Take a journey across the surface of the moon. See the earth rise and set from the lunar surface. This video was recorded by the SELENE Lunar Orbiter - images are copyright JAXA / NHK SELENE , better known in Japan by its nickname Kaguya, was the second Japanese lunar orbiter spacecraft following the Hiten probe]

Rewind the vid to the beginning. From -4:10 mark.

posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 06:29 PM
No one cares for science and instruments if it goes against their religious scientism beliefs.

That's what's really happening...and if you disagree, you're a moron, an heretic and a troll.

People on this forum still believe we've been to the moon in 1969 when we still can't today leave low Earth orbit almost FIFTY years later.

NASA lost the technology, they lost the data...they lost our damn money if you ask me.

On top of that, they are still stuck on the flat Earth society which is a controlled opposition and that no serious flat Earther believes in.

I'm not a full on flat Earther but I'm all for truth...people fighting you only care about not having their fake realities destroyed. I see their rethoric all the time and they never bring anything new to the table.

posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 08:19 PM

Truth is... the earth ain't flat

posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 11:11 PM

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: dragonridr

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.

It's funny that you put words in my mouth, first of all.

I said a plane must DESCEND in order to follow curvature. I didn't say anything about the plane's nose, you did.

The plane must descend, to follow a descending surface at altitude. A descent of about 5 feet per minute would be required to follow the curvature. And it would be measured by the plane's instruments, as a descent always is measured on board.

Anything else?

Yes. You are now trolling on a legendary level.

I addressed someone else's comments, which were directed at me. When you quoted my post, not addressed to you, and didn't address it, nor even discuss the issue itself....you'd already done enough to show you are a troll. Calling me one kind of sealed the deal.

Next time you feel the urge to be a troll, start your post with something that sort of looks like you are actually addressing the points, before you call them a troll. At least then, you won't look so obviously like you're being a troll.

posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 11:39 PM

originally posted by: Akragon
Sure.. but you don't actually understand how these instruments work... You just like to use certain words associated with the subject in your arguments to make others believe you actually understand what you're talking about...

I know how the instruments work, which I've already explained to you, several times already.

If you want me to provide sources on this, which will prove what I've said about the instruments is true, let me know.

I think you know that already, because you've never once asked me to provide sources for what I've said about the instruments.

It's a little bit silly to say I don't understand how the instruments work, and don't even support your claim in any way.

If you have anything worthwhile to support your argument, it's time to show it.

originally posted by: Akragon
Nah... i've made it clear that flat earth believers are morons... but you seem to be the exception to the rule...

your arguements are nonsense but you still persist... so, i've come to the conclusion that you are either a complete moron, or a frickin genius trolling this forum...

I'm supporting my argument with valid evidence, while you haven't done anything at all for your argument.

Name-calling is not supporting an argument, but you still persist.

posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 12:21 AM

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
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

Must?
What makes you think that you can tell someone that they must do something?

It's beyond ridiculous, because you are so blinded by your own scientism beliefs, that you can't even see that you can't fill those same three requirements for your spherical earth claims.

If that last statement is right: would it not show your claims to be mere beliefs?

For an open-minded critical thinker: that should at least open their eyes.

PS: Oh yeah: you still haven't answered the question, previously posed twice of you.

posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 05:29 AM

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: sapien82

Your dishonesty is showing, and my interest in dealing with you is rapidly waning, once again.

Dishonesty , aye ok then , you can say I'm this or that , but end of the day you didnt take me up on the offer to share in experiment to resolve matter
it is your intellectual dishonesty , and honesty with yourself that has brought this to a close !

My patience for you ran out long ago , but I thought I'd give the benefit of the doubt and see if you would at least concede to reason !

Alas I was wrong , learning experience for me , just don't give it the time of day !

Once again , aww the best and even if you continue to believe in FE , and adhere to science being scientism you will not be able to change the objective facts of the natural world

edit on 17-9-2018 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-9-2018 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 05:41 AM
41 pages now of same old same old verbal ping pong.

No amount of reasoning will convince some people....as is evident in this thread.

posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 07:28 AM

You want 'gravity', a non-existent, non-proven, non-repeatable theory, capable of anything you can't explain with evidence..... Proof is not going away, it's reality. I accept the reality, and you don't. So be it.

I have said it a few times when you trolled a past flat earth thread.

There is a repeatable experiment to prove gravity, a very simple one you can repeat over and over

You will get the same results every time you do it, every time.

Is that not solid evidence even proof that if you repeat an experiment over and over and keep getting the same result that it means that its quite proven to exist?

Next time you feel the urge to be a troll, start your post with something that sort of looks like you are actually addressing the points, before you call them a troll. At least then, you won't look so obviously like you're being a troll.

Its great getting point on how to be as masterful as the master.

posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 05:08 PM

Proving your dishonesty, by posting your reply, within a quoted area by me, so as to give your words the appearance as being a quote from me.

That is a well-known dishonest tactic here on ATS, and other forums.

Sure: sometimes beginners make that mistake, but for a poster with 9 years membership, and over 5000 posts...

Just naughty disinformation.

posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 05:15 PM

originally posted by: Freeborn
41 pages now of same old same old verbal ping pong.

No amount of reasoning will convince some people....as is evident in this thread.

Would agree that some are more easily convinced than others. (Pong).

posted on Sep, 18 2018 @ 03:40 PM

I hope you're not about to tell me its CGI...

Obviously gravity doesn't exist, it's only difference in density; does a piece of wood sink in water, as would a bowling ball?

posted on Sep, 18 2018 @ 04:01 PM

The dickens, you say!?

Are you sure? Might have changed, you know? Sometime between now and then...it suddenly might have changed to flat.

Maybe?

top topics

14