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: 87
14
<< 84  85  86    88  89  90 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

We are LOLing...

tis the right forum



No, but the space forum would suit it quite perfectly, though.


what would be the point of that considering you believe no one has been outside the magical dome?

hmm?




posted on Apr, 6 2019 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

No, it doesn't.

It's right where it belongs.



posted on Apr, 7 2019 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

We are LOLing...

tis the right forum



No, but the space forum would suit it quite perfectly, though.


Your faith literally denies the existence of space, it would be like putting anti-vax threads in a science forum.
Speaking of space, our Australian stargazers are really looking forward to getting a nice look at Polaris, where should they look?
I'm in Canada and the overnight temperatures are starting to creep up above freezing, it would be awesome if you could give me the coordinates to check out Sigma Octantis tonight.



posted on Apr, 7 2019 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: captainpudding
Speaking of space, our Australian stargazers are really looking forward to getting a nice look at Polaris, where should they look?

Not only that, but another question would be this:

At the same moment at night when people in Perth Australia are looking southward to see the constellation Crux (The Southern Cross) or the star Sigma Octantis, which way should people in Madagascar be looking?

According to the Flat Earth map, People in Madagascar should be looking East to see the Southern Cross and Sigma Octantis at the same moment when people in Perth are looking south to see them. However, people in Madagascar would be looking south as well. In fact that constellation and star are always in the southern skies for them, as well are for the people looking from Perth.

I wonder how flat earther's explain that.

edit on 4/7/2019 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2019 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Wait, are you trying to tell me that everything about the flat earth faith literally contradicts the first hand observations of over 7 billion people every day? What's next are you going to tell me that people have seen the sun set over the horizon before? What about people in port cities, can they see ships slowly sink over the horizon? All those people who have been to Antarctica, they exist and they're not being paid off by not telling us about the millions of NASA soldiers and their thousands of ships patrolling the continent?

BALLONEY!!!!



posted on Apr, 7 2019 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Wait, are you trying to tell me that everything about the flat earth faith literally contradicts the first hand observations of over 7 billion people every day? What's next are you going to tell me that people have seen the sun set over the horizon before? What about people in port cities, can they see ships slowly sink over the horizon? All those people who have been to Antarctica, they exist and they're not being paid off by not telling us about the millions of NASA soldiers and their thousands of ships patrolling the continent?

BALLONEY!!!!


Dude. The 7 billion are all lying and part of the massive curved earth conspiracy. They are all lying and part of the conspiracy. All the star charts are lies. It’s all lies. The force of gravity is a lie. The curved earth conspiracists had to invent Newton so they could even lie more.

It’s the hand full of flat earthers pandering for likes and hits for their YouTube videos telling the truth. Yes that was sarcasm



posted on Apr, 7 2019 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

And yet they cannot give a reason as to why this lie was started in the first place.

My hunch is a couple people on youtube thought it would make for an interesting channel that might get them enough views to make money.
But then ignorant people swallowed it whole.

I have noticed that those wack job channels max out at about 50K subscribers.
That's 50K that the earth doesn't need.



posted on Apr, 7 2019 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: neutronflux

And yet they cannot give a reason as to why this lie was started in the first place.

My hunch is a couple people on youtube thought it would make for an interesting channel that might get them enough views to make money.
But then ignorant people swallowed it whole.

I have noticed that those wack job channels max out at about 50K subscribers.
That's 50K that the earth doesn't need.


Funny the flat earthers never fall off the edge of the flat earth on their “expeditions” never to be seen again. They always end up where they started, like the earth is a big curved ball. Huh........
edit on 7-4-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Apr, 7 2019 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent


And yet they cannot give a reason as to why this lie was started in the first place.


That's an easy one...

Christian fundamentalism... I don't think Flat earthers that aren't religious nuts exist




posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 05:13 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




What about birds, and insects? They don't have any resistance from a force, at all!!


Huh? If a bird stops flapping it's wings it will glide for a bit and then come down to Earth. Because: Gravity. Or do you think it would just stay up there for ever.



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 05:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: neutronflux

And yet they cannot give a reason as to why this lie was started in the first place.

My hunch is a couple people on youtube thought it would make for an interesting channel that might get them enough views to make money.
But then ignorant people swallowed it whole.

I have noticed that those wack job channels max out at about 50K subscribers.
That's 50K that the earth doesn't need.


Funny the flat earthers never fall off the edge of the flat earth on their “expeditions” never to be seen again. They always end up where they started, like the earth is a big curved ball. Huh........

How many flat earthers have travelled over the Antarctic?



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: captainpudding

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

We are LOLing...

tis the right forum



No, but the space forum would suit it quite perfectly, though.


Your faith literally denies the existence of space, it would be like putting anti-vax threads in a science forum.
Speaking of space, our Australian stargazers are really looking forward to getting a nice look at Polaris, where should they look?
I'm in Canada and the overnight temperatures are starting to creep up above freezing, it would be awesome if you could give me the coordinates to check out Sigma Octantis tonight.


Still no response from the Turbo-nator? Funny how some individuals cannot answer a simple and direct question........



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy

its my opinion that shooting a bird - and observing its IMEDIATE fall to earth = the " killer " argument < pun intended > against turbo-trolls delusion



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy

its my opinion that shooting a bird - and observing its IMEDIATE fall to earth = the " killer " argument < pun intended > against turbo-trolls delusion



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

hehehe totally!

but no the bird doesnt just fall dead and straight down it follows a nice curve ! as it still has some of its forward momentum!
but of course physics isnt real so that curve is a result of intelligent pulling !



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
Gravity keeps you pulled to the floor. If the floor is weak, then you are pulled through the floor. Using your logic, a person should be able to walk out on a floor made out of 1/16” thick sheet of lead as long as the total weight of the lead sheet is more than the person. That is not the case.

Is it false lead is more dense than a person? Is it false a floor made out of 1/16” lead can be big enough in square feet to weigh more than a person? Yet, I would say a person walking out on a floor made of 1/16” thick sheet of lead would tear through the lead sheet.

Quote where I ever said gravity doesn’t offer resistance. In fact, I talked in terms of net force. The thrust of a rocket creates more thrust than the pull of gravity. Gravity is still causing strain on the rocket, and the rocket has to be properly designed for that strain.

Now. What keeps the planets orbiting the sun. I can use a telescope and see moons orbiting Jupiter. What keeps Jupiter’s moons in orbit. What force in the vacuum of space pulls comets in to plants and causes deflections in comets orbits.


If it’s about earth’s atmosphere, why do objects essentially fall at the same rate in a vacuum in a vacuum chamber on earth. Vs in the atmosphere.

Why do birds visibly drop when they stop producing lift with their wings?



Which is it?

You use 'pull', 'drop', and 'fall', as if they mean the same thing. They don't.

If you want to be taken seriously, then use the correct term, instead of using contradictory terms.

I never say 'pull', because I don't mean 'pull'. Yet you use 'fall' and 'drop', which is what I'm arguing!!


Do you know why people say 'fall' and 'drop', all the time?

Because people always say it's a 'fall', or a 'drop', to describe a 'fall', or a 'drop'.


It doesn't matter if you think it's just 'a commonly used term', or whatever. The fact is that a 'fall', or a 'drop', do NOT mean the same thing as a 'pull'.


I use the terms properly, and if I didn't, you'd be saying how I'm contradicting my own argument, because I WOULD be contradicting my argument.

It's hard to argue for a 'pull', when you keep calling it a 'fall', or a 'drop'!!



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: neutronflux

And yet they cannot give a reason as to why this lie was started in the first place.

My hunch is a couple people on youtube thought it would make for an interesting channel that might get them enough views to make money.
But then ignorant people swallowed it whole.

I have noticed that those wack job channels max out at about 50K subscribers.
That's 50K that the earth doesn't need.


The reasons for lying about the Earth being round, instead of flat, are clear to see....

Saying Earth isn't created, life isn't created to inhabit the Earth, is saying that there is/was no God, or a creator, of any kind...

That allows them to say everyone on Earth is created out of primordial soup, all at random. Earth is just a ball, flying randomly through the endless universe, as well.

Science becomes our savior, our faith, our 'protector'...



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

Quote where I ever said gravity doesn’t offer resistance. In fact, I talked in terms of net force. The thrust of a rocket creates more thrust than the pull of gravity. Gravity is still causing strain on the rocket, and the rocket has to be properly designed for that strain.


No resistance offered against birds flying above Earth.

Why would rockets have resistance from gravity, you believe?

Rockets don't fly beyond Earth's atmosphere. It's merely an illusion. Nobody has ever seen any rockets fly up, beyond the atmosphere, ever....


They go up, at first. But they never keep flying upward, of course...

All rockets will have to veer off, because all rockets have to move around the Earth's orbit, to fly beyond Earth's 'gravity', which holds all things down to Earth, as we all know!!



posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 03:44 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

just for ammusement :

why do you believe that gravity " offeres no resistance " to birds // insects ?????

watch a swan or goose - or any lasrge heavy bird take to the air - thers a lot of effort involved - why ? [ assuming zero resistance as you claim ]

why are humans unable to simply fly unaided ????

why are birds and rockets subject to different " laws of physics " ????



posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: turbonium1

just for ammusement :

why do you believe that gravity " offeres no resistance " to birds // insects ?????

watch a swan or goose - or any lasrge heavy bird take to the air - thers a lot of effort involved - why ? [ assuming zero resistance as you claim ]

why are humans unable to simply fly unaided ????

why are birds and rockets subject to different " laws of physics " ????



There is no resistance at all, from any 'pulling' force which supposedly exists within the Earth. Absolutely none.

The reason we cannot fly above the Earth, while birds and insects can, is they have far less mass, and density, than humans, or most animals do, and having wings to lift their mass above the surface, into the air.

Some birds cannot fly at all, because flight requires less mass and density, plus having wings which are capable of lift, above ground...Penguins cannot fly because of those reasons. A chicken flies, but barely so, for those same reasons, as well.


Physics explains everything involved here, in case you don't know that yet.


Air hardly has any density, or mass, of course. Solid objects have far more density/mass than air, so if an object is in air, it cannot support those objects, and they fall through air, until they land on a solid surface of some kind, with sufficient density, which stops the fall.

Here is another relevant point - when an object is falling through the air, that is due to objects having more mass, and density, than the medium of less density, which is air.

So what makes an object stop falling through air? Something with greater density than the object has, right?

A floor in a building will stop a falling object, no matter how high the floor is above the ground, true?


Most of the time, we see objects fall to the ground, because the ground has more density than the objects do.


The surface of Earth does not 'pull' objects down. Objects can fall to ANY surface, like a floor, or a table, or any other surface with enough density to stop the object falling through air.



There is NOT any type of 'pulling' force involved, no resistance from opposing forces, like a bird, which flies freely in air.


Physics supports my argument, entirely. It does NOT support your argument, in any way.


All forces will resist another, opposing force. It is a fundamental principle of physical forces.

Nobody can dispute this, or should try to dispute it, anyway. It is a fact. No more silly excuses for 'gravity'.


So you claim there IS resistance against an opposing force, which is not true, not detected, not anywhere at all measurable, when all of our actual forces are measurable.

There is NO force that cannot be measured, offers no resistance against opposing forces, that is an absolute fact. Physical laws state all forces resist opposing forces, no exceptions to that rule.


Another point - a force is identified by it's source, or area, of origin...and where/how it behaves, extending outward from the source.

So if the source is within Earth, that is the origin point of that source. And where it extends outward beyond Earth, away from the source of this force, as well.


Forces are simply energy, with a source of energy, and outward from the source of energy, to some limit. Beyond the limit, there is no force, the energy is dissipated. Energy has a limiting point, where no more energy will remain beyond this point.


And once again, this does not apply to your force of 'gravity'. The source is supposed to be within Earth, where the force should be strongest. Outward, from the source, it should have less force. As actual forces will always work that same way, which is not what your force does.


There is nothing whatsoever to indicate such force even exists here. It is only your repeated claims that it does exists, despite the reality, right there, in front of you....




top topics



 
14
<< 84  85  86    88  89  90 >>

log in

join