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: 55
14
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2018 @ 04:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: turbonium1
The Earth is supposedly flying through space, while the exact same constellations are seen, above Earth!!


While stars are millions of light years away, they all follow Earth, and remain exactly in the same position, moving all at once, too?

Good one.


Erm, have you ever studied astronomy? Your trolling is getting increasingly amusing. Kudos to you! What a master troller!


Who doesn't address the issue, and only calls someone who DOES address the issue.... a troll?

You must like to waste everyone's time, reading all of your crap, right?



posted on Nov, 10 2018 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nothin
Have a hard time comprehending, how folks in Perth, Cape-Town, and Buenos-Aries, can all see the same stars, at the same time, on a spherical Earth model?


That's because I didn't say all three places see the same stars at the same time. I said (1) Perth and Cape Town could see the same stars at the same time (same moment) when looking south, then I said (2) Cape Town and Buenos Aires could see the same stars at the same time when looking south.

Two different cases, both of which don't make sense on the Flat Earth maps of the world I have seen, but do make sense for a spherical Earth.

That's because looking south from all three places on a spherical Earth is looking toward the same part of the spherical Earth's sky, but looking at the sky towards the south on a flat Earth from those places has the people looking towards three completley different regions of that flat Earth's sky.


edit on 10/11/2018 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2018 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1


Get BACK to a maths class 6 inch per mile squared is 32 inches at 2 miles the MILES get squared so not only do you talk BS it's the wrong BS.

3 MILES SQUARED is 3x3 = 9.

9 inches x 8 inches is 72 inches or 6 feet NOT 314 feet.

edit on 10-11-2018 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2018 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




Nonsense.


Well, you've certainly described that post in simple, yet unmistakably correct, terms. What utter and complete nonsense.



posted on Nov, 10 2018 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
The Earth is supposedly flying through space, while the exact same constellations are seen, above Earth!!


While stars are millions of light years away, they all follow Earth, and remain exactly in the same position, moving all at once, too?

Good one.


ALL the stars you see are in the Milky Way so guess what there relative motions are similar to Earth and due to distance that will not be seen over your lifetime with just your EYES.

You are the typical FLAT EARTHER NO grasp of Maths, Physics, Astonomy, SCALE or digital imaging.



posted on Nov, 10 2018 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

Or even the slightest hint of reality




posted on Nov, 10 2018 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: turbonium1


Get BACK to a maths class 6 inch per mile squared is 32 inches at 2 miles the MILES get squared so not only do you talk BS it's the wrong BS.

3 MILES SQUARED is 3x3 = 9.

9 inches x 8 inches is 72 inches or 6 feet NOT 314 feet.


My bad, it was late.

As for your numbers, the formula is 8 inches per mile squared, not 6 inches.

Now that both found each others mistakes, let's get back to the issue.



posted on Nov, 10 2018 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




let's get back to the issue.


Ok.

The world is round. Deal with it.



posted on Nov, 11 2018 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: turbonium1
The Earth is supposedly flying through space, while the exact same constellations are seen, above Earth!!


While stars are millions of light years away, they all follow Earth, and remain exactly in the same position, moving all at once, too?

Good one.


ALL the stars you see are in the Milky Way so guess what there relative motions are similar to Earth and due to distance that will not be seen over your lifetime with just your EYES.

You are the typical FLAT EARTHER NO grasp of Maths, Physics, Astonomy, SCALE or digital imaging.


Start with the fact that the constellations have remained in the same positions relative to Earth, and relative to each other, for thousands of years. A bit more than a 'lifetime', no?

It is also claimed that all of these stars move at various speeds. Yet they remain in the same relative position, above Earth, and relative to each other. Polaris, the North Star, has remained fixed at the same position, directly above the North Pole, over thousands of years. It has been used to guide travelers, and explorers, for those very same thousands of years. That alone proves that Polaris has remained in the exact same position above Earth, and DIRECTLY above Earth's north pole, all these years.

So that leaves you with two choices - either the Earth, and Polaris, are zipping through space at precisely the same speed, which is some amazing coincidence, by itself, let alone that Polaris is also the one star, among countless stars, that we have used to indicate direct north, for thousands of years.

And if Polaris and Earth are zipping through space at PRECISELY the same speed, purely by coincidence, of course.....what would suggest that the countless other stars, and constellations, are moving at other speeds? Nothing, of course.

The main excuse is that all the stars are 'many millions of light years away from Earth', so their movement through space is not noticeable from Earth, 'over a lifetime'.

They claim stars do change position, but it takes thousands of years, or more, to notice it from Earth.

But Polaris has never changed position, over thousands of years. It would certainly be 'noticeable' over that time, but it has remained fixed, in the very same position. I guess you'll have to use the 'it takes MILLIONS of years to notice any change, because stars are MILLIONS of light years away from Earth' argument. (We know it is the famous catch-all 'evolution of a species takes millions of years' excuse.)

No need to show actual evidence, either - look at how many 'scientific' papers are supporting it!! But that's another issue.


Science is supposed to be about the actual, measurable evidence, and direct observations. When I hear 'it takes millions of years to notice', or 'it's millions of light years away, and that's why we don't notice any movement'...I know it's going to be pure bs, mixed with scientific mumbo-jumbo that proves NOTHING.

Any a-hole can claim something will happen over millions of years, and can't be proven wrong. (I can say we'll have pink flying elephants in 5 million years, show you some bs research that backs it up, and nobody can prove me wrong. If I paid off all the leading 'experts' to support my argument, with reams of bs papers, it becomes 'undeniable evidence of flying pink elephant evolution'. By pure coincidence, I 'discover' ancient elephant fossils, which indicate wings were part of the elephant 'ancestor' species. Without a single piece of actual evidence, I have 'proven' the flying pink elephant story is TRUE!)

Back to the issue -

Your excuses for why the stars,, and constellations, have never moved from their positions in the sky, are just that - excuses. They are no better than my flying pink elephant claim, or the 'evolution' claim.

It is obvious to everyone that the stars have never moved their positions. Polaris alone proves that. Saying they do move, but it isn't noticeable, or that it wouldn't be noticed for millions of years, is pink elephant-land. Science is based on proof, and evidence, and direct observations. We can directly observe that the stars have never changed position over thousands of years. Polaris is measured to the exact north point of the Earth, over thousands of years.

If you still want to believe in their bs excuses, over what you can see with your own eyes, over all of the actual evidence, then go right ahead.



posted on Nov, 11 2018 @ 02:32 AM
link   
So now that we have laser measurements to prove the Earth is flat, we have airplane instruments which prove the Earth is flat, thousands of times each day, let's consider how submarines prove the Earth is flat...

Zero buoyancy is when a submarine is level, to the water it resides in. In water, of course, the gravity excuse is a non-issue.

So let's say a sub is 10 feet below the water, at zero buoyancy, which is level. The sub propels itself through the water, at 10 feet below, with zero-buoyancy, or level. Over several miles, the sub stays 10 feet below, at zero buoyancy.

If the sub was propelling itself on a round Earth, it would not remain 10 feet below over several miles. It would be closer and closer to the surface, because the Earth's curvature would take effect. That is, the water 'curves' over the Earth. However, the sub remains at 10 feet below, throughout its passage.

Sub measurements prove the Earth is flat, along with plane instruments, and laser measurements. Don't be blind, or follow these liars. Think for yourself, for once...it will open your eyes to the truth, and the reality, which they are still trying to hide from us.



posted on Nov, 11 2018 @ 03:42 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Here's a question for you: do you have even the faintest idea how far away the nearest stars are? Even just the vaguest inkling? Do you also have the faintest idea about the way that the Galaxy works?
Oh dear.
Here's some handy information.



posted on Nov, 11 2018 @ 03:47 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Oh, dear god. (Facepalm, more hysterical laughter)
You clearly are not an expert on water either. Or submarines. Or physics.



posted on Nov, 11 2018 @ 05:41 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Did you even take basic science? Buoyancy in a fluid would not change on a curved surface. When you reach a level of boyancy in a fluid it will always remain at the same depth. Bouncy is determined by how much force is above you. This is why you can make tubes between 2 fish tanks. Because the weight of the water makes pressure high enough to keep the tubes filled. In your world this could never happen.




edit on 11/11/18 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2018 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: turbonium1

Here's a question for you: do you have even the faintest idea how far away the nearest stars are? Even just the vaguest inkling? Do you also have the faintest idea about the way that the Galaxy works?
Oh dear.
Here's some handy information.


Again, this doesn't account for Polaris, which has remained in the exact same position above Earth for thousands of years, The star referred to in the article (Barnard's Star) is claimed to move about 'one pinky-width' over a span of 350 years. If so, then Polaris should have moved over thousands of years, even if it were 1/3 speed of Barnard's Star. To use their own term, Polaris should have moved at least a 'pinky-length' from direct North above Earth.

You keep playing the role of 'pompous ass pseudo-professor', who has no clue how to respond to the points of others, so he posts any source that he thinks will help his argument.

Instead of actually citing/writing from the source, like a real Professor would, the pseudo-prof just posts a link to whatever seems to support his view, and barks insults about how others are stupid, or trolls, etc.

If you actually had a valid reply to my points, you'd cite from the actual sources.

I've seen many others try the same thing, it doesn't work. It's childish, and shows desperation.


Are you able to have a mature discussion, that sticks to the actual points?



posted on Nov, 12 2018 @ 12:38 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




Again, this doesn't account for Polaris, which has remained in the exact same position above Earth for thousands of years,

No. Not really.

But can you explain how the latitude of Polaris can correspond to the latitude from which it is observed?



posted on Nov, 12 2018 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

The problem with your post is that you ignore, misrepresent, or misunderstand every fact used against you, sometimes with extreme wilfulness. You have no intention of debating the rest of us, you have a fixed position that you never deviate from. At no point have you been willing to have a mature discussion. Instead you have spun this frankly ridiculous thread over page after page of silliness.
And you accuse me of being childish? (Further laughter)



posted on Nov, 12 2018 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Ohhh what do we haves here?



posted on Nov, 12 2018 @ 01:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: turbonium1

Did you even take basic science? Buoyancy in a fluid would not change on a curved surface. When you reach a level of boyancy in a fluid it will always remain at the same depth. Bouncy is determined by how much force is above you. This is why you can make tubes between 2 fish tanks. Because the weight of the water makes pressure high enough to keep the tubes filled. In your world this could never happen.





I didn't say buoyancy would change on/over a curved surface. It is your own interpretation, of what I actually said. Just like you did with the aircraft example, where you thought the surface below planes were acting on altitude, flying level, etc.

Being at 0 buoyancy has nothing to do with the surface below the submarine. Same as flying level in a plane has nothing to do with the surface below. That should be obvious to you, because Earth's surface is not one, constant surface - not a perfectly flat plane across the entire surface, not a perfectly curved surface, or anything else. It has mountains, and valleys, and so on, across the expanse of Earth. Subs and planes could never use the wildly varying surface of Earth to measure along its path. A plane would fly over a mountain range, and think the altitude of his plane was 2000 feet lower than before, when he was at sea level. And a minute later, after flying past the mountain range, the altitude would be 2000 feet higher again. Do you understand this??


Water stays level, or seeks to find level. Your fish tanks prove that. It does not change over a larger expanse of water, no matter how large. I know you believe it magically curves around Earth, because they tell you so. No evidence, no proof, no demonstration, of water 'curving', but you prefer to believe in what they tell you, over valid evidence.


Anyway, let's consider a sub 10 feet below water. It doesn't matter if it's in the ocean, or in a lake, or in a huge, man-made 'fish tank'. To achieve 0 buoyancy in water, at 10 feet below, the sub doesn't care what surface is below it. Same as a standard level in your garage doesn't care what surface you are on. A level uses a bubble in a tube of water to measure for level. You could be standing on a slope, or a mountaintop, or any surface, and you will be able to find level. Try and grasp the point here.

So a sub does the same thing as your level does, on a larger scale. It achieves level, or 0 buoyancy, using the same physics as your level uses.


So we have a sub in level water, 10 feet below, which achieves 0 buoyancy - or level - within water. If the sub propels itself while level, 10 feet below, over a mile....it remains 10 feet below water, right?

However, if the Earth had curvature, the sub would not have remained 10 feet below after traveling a mile. It would have been 9 feet, 4 inches below water at that point.

Same as airplanes remain at level flight, at 20,000 feet altitude, over thousands of miles.

I'm only using a sub to make it clear to you that 'gravity', if it even existed, would have nothing to do with it.


Not one scientific instrument measures for Earth's curvature, they all measure for a flat Earth.



posted on Nov, 12 2018 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Sup with those satellites?

Those just attached to blimps?



posted on Nov, 12 2018 @ 02:10 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




It does not change over a larger expanse of water, no matter how large.

Actually, it does.




top topics



 
14
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join