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: 49
14
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 09:28 AM

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: wmd_2008

So do you want to explain the second experiment when the large weight is below the smaller one and the smaller weight increases

Want to explain that using your flat Earth density

I can show you countless examples of the opposite, actually.

A heavy, large object NOT attracting any smaller object.

Want to explain that?

Explain the second experiment like I said you would dodge it and you did

You obviously have no grasp of physics every post shows that.

posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 09:35 AM

Free Fall

A free falling object is an object that is falling under the sole influence of gravity. Any object that is being acted upon only by the force of gravity is said to be in a state of free fall

An object can free fall in a vaccum .

Terminal Velocity

Terminal velocity, steady speed achieved by an object freely falling through a gas or liquid. ... At terminal velocity, air resistance equals in magnitude the weight of the falling object. Because the two are oppositely directed forces, the total force on the object is zero, and the speed of the object has become constant.

An object at terminal velocity will continue to fall it WON'T accelerate.

I suggest a night school class in physics that's if they actually have an education system were you live.

posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 09:47 AM

Hey WMD , they dont need to , its free

nae bother ,just take a free course in physics online from many of the well respected Universities

knock yourself out

just make sure you calculate the required force to knock yourself out first

free online physics courses
edit on 1-10-2018 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 04:56 AM

As usual your lack of understanding shines like a beacon. The ISS and Astronauts stay in orbit because the forces are BALANCED. The solar array deployed therefore introducing an additional force on the Astronauts which would push them away do you actually have the capacity to think about events before showing how dumb your thought processes are

posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 10:57 PM

originally posted by: JameSimon

originally posted by: Nothin
The questions referred-to, for 3 posts now. Are you trying to confuse things so that they go-away?

Don't recall posting here those opposing views about trusting our senses. Please post the proof here, or retract your accusation.

1. Perhaps math may not deceive you, but might not your observation and faith in it not?
2. Great! You have acknowledged that science is not 100% correct: is it not our best guess, or such?

3.Great! So some third-party data, may be more likely closer to being right, than others, and we recognize the always
present uncertainty.
4. Do we not use some sort of reasoning to interpret math/science, and data?
Does not this reasoning, give meaning/sense to it? Maybe sometimes not though?

5. It's not about lying, which is purposeful deception. It's about saying things that are untrue, in a statement that implies
truth. Perhaps inadvertently, or unconsciously? Occasional errors abound, no?
6. Good that you have retracted your previous affirmation of authority. You have stepped-out of a delusional belief. Good!
Which opinion? What proof?

7. The data is what it is: a data set. Its it not our interpretations that may vary?
What about when observational data is shared, or transferred? Is there not a chance for corruption of the data-set?
8. It was a reference to this site's motto, those that wave it about, and the possibility that they don't recognize their own
ignorance.

Which questions are not being answered by me?
What if it's not deflection?

So, first of all, sorry for not getting back earlier but I was on holidays for a week.

Second, I'm not trying to confuse anything, I sincerely don't see what questions I didn't address. Care to quote them as I asked before?

Third:

1. I don't have faith in maths. Maths work, they allowed us to build these wonderful machines you use to write everything you say. They allow us to travel oceans using flight. They rule the world and the universe. I don't need to have faith in Math, it just works.

2. I did not acknowledge that science is not 100% correct, please don't put words in my keyboard. What I said is that a behavior can be predicted, but we can never be 100% sure of the outcome. Why? Because we cannot replicate something ad eternum as it would require an infinite amount of time. In that particular case, even if something happens 1 million times out of 1 million tries we cannot say that it will happen 100% of the times forever (even if the likely outcome is that it will, and we do round to that).

3. I take being 90% close to the truth (or 99.99%) to 0% (no proof).

4. I don't understand what you mean. I don't care about metaphysical concepts, I care about data that is replicable and falsifiable. The rest doesn't matter, no matter how you sugar coat it.

5. Things are true until they are not, so you missed the point again. Today every onset of proof we have points to the big bang. if we find conclusive proof tomorrow that the big bang didn't happen it doesn't mean that we're lying. It means that our data was wrong. This is the beauty of science, it's not afraid to be wrong. Still, and getting back on topic, we can observe the earth to be round (observational data), we can calculate that the earth is round and we can predict why the earth is round. There is little to nothing left to doubt of the roundness of the earth, even if the mechanisms that explain such roundness may be subject to change (I doubt that, we have a very accurate understanding of Gravity).

6. I didn't retract anything, so please don't put words in my keyboard (see number 2). I base my statements on actual data, you base yours in belief. You're actually the one in a delusional belief and the one refusing to accept actual data (we've posted several times on this thread).

7. Our interpretations may vary in a lot of things, but a ball is always a ball, 2+2 is always 4, and the world keeps on spinning. You also added yet another straw man to avoid what I said when you're the one basing your theories in beliefs not supported by any data whatsoever. There is not 1 shred of proof for the flat earth.

8. Well, you should apply it to yourself since you're the one that is purposely changing the arguments and using logical fallacies to deflect what is being said. I'm denying ignorance: The earth is not flat.

How can you be denying ignorance, if you are holding-on to false beliefs?

posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 11:42 PM

Didn't want to return to this thread, but just wanted to commend you on sticking to your word, and doing all of that searching and assembling.

The whole challenge on the "Science is truth" thing, was not about that detail, but about looking to see if we could find a false belief.
We were unable to agree, so will take that as my failure to communicate the concept, it in a better way.

The goal was to challenge the supposes knowledge, of the folks whom are challenging the FE beliefs, to see if they could see the chance that they might also be engaging in beliefs.
But: failed.

Personally have done the contemplative gymnastics, and have come to be unsure of anything.
How might one, sitting in a chair, in front of a computer, be truly sure that they are on a planet zipping through the galaxy at some supposed 490000 mph?
At some point: they would have to believe, no?

posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 03:32 AM

well my fiance' and I , done a bit of experimentation at the weekend and if it helps We were given the opportunity to see the underpinning framework for whatever this reality is !

I cant discuss it here because of terms and conditions , but we cannot be certain of any reality !

I will look even further for a false belief ! Im sure just a couple minutes on the net and we will be inundated with these examples !

one for example of the top of my head was the false belief that the sun rotated around the earth and not vice versa
but that wasnt my belief but pre heliocentric earthlings beliefs !

I will continue to look

Just because we dont share the same opinions , or truths! doesnt mean we cant be friendly
which is pretty much like 90% of my real life mates hahahahah
Aww the best mate
speak to you soon
edit on 4-10-2018 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 07:56 AM

originally posted by: Nothin
The whole challenge on the "Science is truth" thing, was not about that detail, but about looking to see if we could find a false belief.

Science would tell you it is NOT truth. Science is only a tool that uses evidence and critical thought in order to hopefully get closer to the truth about the universe around us. Scientific ideas -- theories and hypotheses -- are always being challenged to find weaknesses in those ideas in order to strengthen them -- or even toss them aside for a better theory.

This constant challenge of ideas is a mechanism built into science (the scientific method), and it's what makes science such a dynamic tool. And Science encourages all people to logically scrutinize those ideas prior to accepting them as being valid ideas.

That is the opposite of faith, in which people blindly put their trust in an idea that is not supported by any evidence or critical scrutiny. People put their faith in something because they are told to believe in an idea without questioning or challenging that idea.

Faith has no mechanism for challenging its ideas, nor does faith encourge self-challenges.

edit on 4/10/2018 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 09:47 AM
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I was reading something or watching it I cant remember , no watching it was neil degrasse tyson on Joe Rogan , and it seems that human consciousness is uniquely set up so that we have the inquiring scientific mind to begin with !

As children we learn things, and we question and change our ideas as we grow , essentially we are scientific by our very nature!

posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 02:47 PM

I give up. You hold yourself to a belief that no matter what proof is provided one is wrong and accuse me of holding to beliefs. Science is not based on beliefs and doesn't care about ones feelings.

posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 09:26 PM

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

An astronaut can "float" away from the spacecraft because they and the spacecraft craft are already moving at 17,000 mph relative to the Earth's surface. If a spacewalking astronaut decides to push off of his spacecraft, he or she would then have a delta-v, or change in velocity, relative to that spacecraft. The astronaut would still be moving at around 17,000 mph, but it would be along a slightly different orbit at maybe a slightly different speed than their spacecraft.

If they are not tethered or have any means of changing their momentum then there would be no way for them to get back to the craft, and they would float away from the spacecraft along a different orbit.

I suppose eventually that orbit would decay due to atmospheric drag (if in LEO, where that very-slight-but-still-present drag can occur), and the astronaut's orbit would eventually cause he or she to re-enter, but that may take a long time (months?, years?) -- much longer than the space suit's life support could handle, so they'd already be dead.

The astronauts don't say anything about zipping through space at 17,000 mph, they only say they'd 'float away' into space.

They'd be zipping through space at 17,000 mph relative to the surface of Earth even if they were floating away.

Astronauts spacewalking around the ISS are already moving at about 17,000 mph, along with the ISS. If they float away at (say) 5 mph relative to the space station, then they are still generally moving at about 17,000 mph relative to the surface of the Earth (plus or minus that 5 mph).

The astronauts say they'd simply float off, float away, or drift away, in space.....

None say they'd be zipping out in space at 17,000 mph.

Why do YOU say it, then?

Zipping through space at 17,000 mph, is not exactly described as 'floating off into space'.......

posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 10:42 PM

originally posted by: JameSimon

I give up. You hold yourself to a belief that no matter what proof is provided one is wrong and accuse me of holding to beliefs. Science is not based on beliefs and doesn't care about ones feelings.

Which false belief is being held by me?

You claim to hold no false beliefs?

posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 10:58 PM

originally posted by: wmd_2008

Free Fall

A free falling object is an object that is falling under the sole influence of gravity. Any object that is being acted upon only by the force of gravity is said to be in a state of free fall

Objects are either falling to Earth, without a force acting on them, or they are pulled down to Earth, by a force acting on them......

We say objects FALL to Earth. Not 'pulled down' to Earth.

If objects are 'pulled down towards Earth's surface', why are they always claiming objects 'fall' to Earth?

Why would they lie about it?

posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 11:14 PM

Agreed

posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 11:19 PM

originally posted by: sapien82

well my fiance' and I , done a bit of experimentation at the weekend and if it helps We were given the opportunity to see the underpinning framework for whatever this reality is !

I cant discuss it here because of terms and conditions , but we cannot be certain of any reality !

I will look even further for a false belief ! Im sure just a couple minutes on the net and we will be inundated with these examples !

one for example of the top of my head was the false belief that the sun rotated around the earth and not vice versa
but that wasnt my belief but pre heliocentric earthlings beliefs !

I will continue to look

Just because we dont share the same opinions , or truths! doesnt mean we cant be friendly
which is pretty much like 90% of my real life mates hahahahah
Aww the best mate
speak to you soon

So you have seen deeper. Excellent! It cannot be unseen.
Kinda diminishes all of these FE/Spherical Earth debates a tad, no?

It's always odd to see how many folks leap quickly to the belief that one is something they are not.
It is part of a larger pattern, where folks seem to like to jump to quick judgement, and pigeonhole everybody.
Stick labels on them.

(Don't 'know' these things. They are merely opinion/belief/temporary ideas).

edit on 4-10-2018 by Nothin because: sp

posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 11:42 PM

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Nothin
The whole challenge on the "Science is truth" thing, was not about that detail, but about looking to see if we could find a false belief.

Science would tell you it is NOT truth. Science is only a tool that uses evidence and critical thought in order to hopefully get closer to the truth about the universe around us. Scientific ideas -- theories and hypotheses -- are always being challenged to find weaknesses in those ideas in order to strengthen them -- or even toss them aside for a better theory.

This constant challenge of ideas is a mechanism built into science (the scientific method), and it's what makes science such a dynamic tool. And Science encourages all people to logically scrutinize those ideas prior to accepting them as being valid ideas.

That is the opposite of faith, in which people blindly put their trust in an idea that is not supported by any evidence or critical scrutiny. People put their faith in something because they are told to believe in an idea without questioning or challenging that idea.

Faith has no mechanism for challenging its ideas, nor does faith encourge self-challenges.

Agree that the scientific method is not faith.
The aspects of Scientism, however, are faith, and are perhaps not quite as you described faith.
It appears to be faith, built-up on science, like an extra layer added to it. So not always entirely ..."...an idea that is not supported by any evidence or critical scrutiny..."...

Scientism piggybacks on the shoulders of science, and is thusly difficult to spot, without examination.

(Don't 'know' these things. They are merely opinion/belief/temporary ideas).

posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 12:25 AM
The only reason they keep on saying objects fall to Earth is to serve their grand deception.

Anyone who falls down knows they were not pulled down. We know the difference between a fall, and a pull.

So they call it a fall, since no pull is felt. To call it a pull would not wash.

posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 12:46 AM

When I get up from my bed, I have to use force to lift me upright. In your world this would not be necessary, as there would be no force pulling me down.

posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 02:12 AM

originally posted by: turbonium1
The only reason they keep on saying objects fall to Earth is to serve their grand deception.

Anyone who falls down knows they were not pulled down. We know the difference between a fall, and a pull.

So they call it a fall, since no pull is felt. To call it a pull would not wash.

there is no difference between a fall to earth and being pulled to earth

IF you were not pulled to earth then when you "Fall" in any circumstance you wouldn't move in a direction... you would float...

Why does everything go directly towards the ground in your world view?

edit on 5-10-2018 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 02:39 AM

grand deception or semantics!

some say fall , plummet , descend, crash

there is no grand deception , unless you count deceiving yourself

edit on 5-10-2018 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)

top topics

14