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: 89
14
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 05:00 AM

originally posted by: neutronflux

You have totally lost it.

Newton’s first law again, “Every object in a state of uniform motion will remain in that state of motion unless an external force acts on it.“

You

The removal of initial force required to go upward into the medium, makes the brick, or bird, or insect, fall in the opposite direction after removing the initial force which allowed it to fly upward, in the less dense medium, first of all.

There is noting in your model to remove initial force, and you are making zero sense. The brick is thrown straight up by my hand. Once the brick leaves my hand, it is not being acted upon by a force, the object has momentum/inertia. The brick is flying straight up through the “less dense” atmosphere. Why would the brick “care” if it’s falling up or down under the flat earth model with no gravity. According to Newton’s first law, it will continue upward until acted upon by another force. Worst case flat earth scenario, air fiction makes the brick slow down and stop. But if you throw a brick straight up in your scenario, the brick should travel straight up until it hits something more solid. Is that false? For flat earth no gravity, what force causes objects thrown straight up to lose all upward movement, and switch direction to fall back towards the earth.

The force is certainly acting on the brick after you have released it from your hand, upward into air, come on, get serious here!

As for Newton's 'first law', why would the brick 'continue upward' forever, after throwing it up into air, unless another force acts opposite of it? The initial force does not have unlimited energy potential, to keep propelling the brick forever higher and higher in air!! Forces do not act like that, they have limited energy.

The brick loses energy of the initial force when you threw it up into air. The density of the brick is greater than the density of air, so the brick falls through air, and hits the more dense surface below it. Whether ground, or a floor, or a table, that is what stops the fall of the brick. No force 'pulls' it down to a table, or a floor, yet a force 'pulls' it down to the surface of Earth? Nonsense.

posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 05:23 AM

originally posted by: neutronflux

Airplanes fly above clouds, so I guess they are also in 'space', right?!?

Then why doesn’t the moon look noticeably larger when seen from a Jet above the clouds. Why doesn’t the moon show up on a jest’s radar.

And why does the more dense moon not fall to the surface of the earth?

Being how you still believe the Sun is 93 million miles away from Earth, and that the moon is 1/4 million miles away from Earth....

Because the sun is acting like a large lightbulb that lights up a room. The room being our solar system illuminated by the sun.

The moon is about 6000 miles above Earth, so airplanes don't go high enough to notice much difference in its size from only 50,000 feet or so - which is less than 10 miles above Earth, btw.

Radar may not reach 6000 miles away, therefore, it wouldn't be able to measure the moon's distance.

If they CAN measure it, they're certainly not going to let us know about it, that's for sure!

As for the moon, it is part of the firmament, above Earth, as are all the stars, and the Sun, as well.

posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 05:46 AM
I've yet to see them demonstrate such a phenomenon, and never will, either.

posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 06:05 AM
Take a look at Saturn in close-up videos, and see it spinning like a top, and is obviously not some 'planet', as claimed by our great 'experts'.

There is some sort of ring, which appears to be attached to it, not separate, as they've always claimed it to be.

The spinning is obvious enough, by itself, to know it's no planet.

Lies, and more lies, is all they have told us. It's falling apart, piece by piece, today.

posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 06:14 AM
Look at stars in close-up, too. It's impossible to see any such details if stars were light years away from Earth, which proves they are very close to Earth, and small in size.

Another great lie, being ripped to shreds, finally.

posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 06:52 AM

What force. The force of gravity.

You

The force is certainly acting on the brick after you have released it from your hand, upward into air, come on, get serious here

Your own words there is no force in the flat earth model

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If gravity offers resistance to a rocket, why would a bird, or insect, not face any resistance, when flying above Earth, as the rocket supposedly does, when flying up from the Earth?

You

The brick loses energy of the initial force when you threw it up into air.

Please define what is causing the brick to lose energy

You

The density of the brick is greater than the density of air, so the brick falls through air, and hits the more dense surface below it.

You throw a brick straight up away from earth. Why does the brick not keep falling upward away from earth in the less dense atmosphere in the flat earth model. If there is no gravity, why would a brick care if it’s falling up from earth once thrown away from earth into the atmosphere. Why does the brick slow, then fall back to earth especially when you started “would a bird, or insect, not face any resistance, when flying above Earth, as the rocket supposedly does, when flying up from the Earth?“

You stayed objects in flight have no resistance. Is that false? So why would a brick thrown straight up away from earth in your model change direction and fall back to earth.
edit on 19-4-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 06:57 AM

The moon is about 6000 miles above Earth, so airplanes don't go high enough to notice much difference in its size from only 50,000 feet or so - which is less than 10 miles above Earth, btw.

Then fly a blimp to the moon and prove us all wrong. Be a better endeavor for the flat earth society than a booze cruise.

A man can fly a lawn chair, but the flat earth Society cannot fly to the moon to provide evidence they are not blatantly lying?

Lawnchair Larry flight
en.m.wikipedia.org...

The 45-minute successful flight of Larry Walters on July 2, 1982 was in a homemade airship made of an ordinary patio chair and 45 helium-filled weather balloons. The aircraft rose to an altitude of over 15,000 feet (4,600 m) and floated from the point of takeoff in San Pedro, California, into and violating controlled airspace near Los Angeles International Airport. During the landing, the aircraft became entangled in power lines, but Walters was able to safely climb down. The flight attracted worldwide media attention and inspired a later movie and imitators.

edit on 19-4-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 07:00 AM

What magnitude of brightness is Polaris, and you cannot see it from Australia? Not even with a telescope. Polaris doesn’t dim as you go from the northern Hemisphere south across the equator. Polaris gets lower and lower on the horizon until the curve of the earth blocks the view of Polaris when traveling south across the equator.

What’s it like to have to resort to blatant falsehoods to keep the lie of flat earth alive in your delusion?

posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 08:45 AM

Wonder how Turbo accounts for a less dense atmosphere above and the below effects of gravity that literally pulls down on our bodies?

www.evolutionhealth.com...

Spine
Perhaps, the most noticeable effect of gravity on the body is compression of the spine. Our spine consists of vertebrae and sponge-like discs. The downward force of gravity causes the discs to lose moisture throughout the day, resulting in a daily height loss of up to 1/2" - 3/4"! The moisture returns to the disc overnight, but not 100%. Over a lifetime, a person can permanently lose between 1/2" - 2" in height!

Organs
Gravity wreaks havoc on the inside of your body as well. Over time, organs begin to prolapse, or fall, from their rightful place in your body. Organ function becomes less efficient. It's not uncommon for people to experience bladder, kidney and digestive problems due to prolapsed organs. In fact, for centuries, yoga practitioners have performed head stands to ensure proper organ placement.

Circulation
If gravity can prevent water from flowing uphill, it can also prevent the blood in our bodies from freely flowing upward. Over time, gravity takes a toll on the circulatory system, which may cause varicose veins, decreased scalp circulation and swollen limbs. Poor circulation to the eyes, ears, skin, scalp and brain is one reason why our most valuable organs deteriorate over a lifetime.

Try this simple experiment to witness the powerful effect of gravity on the circulatory system: lift up your right arm for two minutes. Lower your arm and compare your right and left hands. Which is more pink? Now consider the effect of standing all day on your lower limbs. Our bodies subconsciously understand that we need to aid circulation from our limbs to our heart - how often do you find yourself propping up your legs on a desk or ottoman?

edit on 19-4-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 08:15 PM

originally posted by: neutronflux

What force. The force of gravity.

You

The force is certainly acting on the brick after you have released it from your hand, upward into air, come on, get serious here

Your own words there is no force in the flat earth model

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If gravity offers resistance to a rocket, why would a bird, or insect, not face any resistance, when flying above Earth, as the rocket supposedly does, when flying up from the Earth?

You

The brick loses energy of the initial force when you threw it up into air.

Please define what is causing the brick to lose energy

You

The density of the brick is greater than the density of air, so the brick falls through air, and hits the more dense surface below it.

You throw a brick straight up away from earth. Why does the brick not keep falling upward away from earth in the less dense atmosphere in the flat earth model. If there is no gravity, why would a brick care if it’s falling up from earth once thrown away from earth into the atmosphere. Why does the brick slow, then fall back to earth especially when you started “would a bird, or insect, not face any resistance, when flying above Earth, as the rocket supposedly does, when flying up from the Earth?“

You stayed objects in flight have no resistance. Is that false? So why would a brick thrown straight up away from earth in your model change direction and fall back to earth.

There is minimal resistance from air, specifically, as we know. When I was saying there is no resistance to a bird in flight, I was referring to an opposing resistance, called 'gravity', which is what your side claims is acting on all objects.

In the case of a brick thrown in air, the initial force, or energy, used in throwing the brick upward, dissipates, while air resistance becomes a factor. Eventually, the initial energy is gone, which leaves only the dense, mass brick in air, which has minimal density. So the brick falls through air, until it hits a denser surface below, like the ground, or a floor, or a table, which stops the brick.

There is no force 'pulling' down on the brick from below, that's the important point here.

Nor is there any resistance from a force within the Earth, when a bird flies into air, or a brick is thrown into air.

posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 08:28 PM

originally posted by: neutronflux

What magnitude of brightness is Polaris, and you cannot see it from Australia? Not even with a telescope. Polaris doesn’t dim as you go from the northern Hemisphere south across the equator. Polaris gets lower and lower on the horizon until the curve of the earth blocks the view of Polaris when traveling south across the equator.

What’s it like to have to resort to blatant falsehoods to keep the lie of flat earth alive in your delusion?

The only blatant falsehoods and lies are from your side, that's the problem.

This argument is no different than the argument about why we don't see the Sun all over Earth at the same time.

The Earth is an immensely large area, first of all. The Sun cannot shine down over the entire surface of Earth at one time, because it is only about 6000 miles above Earth, and too small to cast light everywhere.

Here's one demonstration of how this works on a flat Earth...

So if the Sun isn't visible over the entire Earth at the same time, Polaris certainly wouldn't be either.

Do you understand this yet?

posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 08:52 PM

originally posted by: neutronflux

Wonder how Turbo accounts for a less dense atmosphere above and the below effects of gravity that literally pulls down on our bodies?

www.evolutionhealth.com...

Spine
Perhaps, the most noticeable effect of gravity on the body is compression of the spine. Our spine consists of vertebrae and sponge-like discs. The downward force of gravity causes the discs to lose moisture throughout the day, resulting in a daily height loss of up to 1/2" - 3/4"! The moisture returns to the disc overnight, but not 100%. Over a lifetime, a person can permanently lose between 1/2" - 2" in height!

That is pure nonsense....

The tendency to become shorter occurs among all races and both sexes. Height loss is related to aging changes in the bones, muscles, and joints. People typically lose almost one-half inch (about 1 centimeter) every 10 years after age 40. Height loss is even more rapid after age 70. You may lose a total of 1 to 3 inches (2.5 to 7.5 centimeters) in height as you age.

medlineplus.gov...

Again, you attribute ANYTHING to a non-existent force within the Earth, no matter what it is.

If gravity was the reason we lose height, then it would obviously have to do cause height loss consistently over our lifetime. But, as we all know, height loss doesn't On average) start until our 40's or so.

Why would 'gravity' not work before that, if it was the reason for our height loss? Because it doesn't exist, that's why.

'Gravity' is your magical force that explains all things, without even existing!!
edit on 20-4-2019 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 08:54 PM

What magnitude of brightness is Polaris, and you cannot see it from Australia? Not even with a telescope. Polaris doesn’t dim as you go from the northern Hemisphere south across the equator. Polaris gets lower and lower on the horizon until the curve of the earth blocks the view of Polaris when traveling south across the equator.

What’s it like to have to resort to blatant falsehoods to keep the lie of flat earth alive in your delusion”

What do you not get about

“Polaris doesn’t dim as you go from the northern Hemisphere south across the equator. Polaris gets lower and lower on the horizon until the curve of the earth blocks the view of Polaris when traveling south across the equator.”

posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 09:19 PM

You

In the case of a brick thrown in air, the initial force, or energy, used in throwing the brick upward, dissipates

When this is also you...

That is what gravity is supposed to do, is it not?

How do all the scientists prove such a force exists? They don't.

If this force existed, it would offer RESISTANCE to opposing forces, no?

But no resistance is offered at all. This proves there is no force at all.

your original agreement was “But no resistance is offered at all.”

You again

Eventually, the initial energy is gone, which leaves only the dense, mass brick in air, which has minimal density.

But in your model there is no gravity. Density is not a force. If you think density is a force, please quote the definition of density. Then quote what gives an object weight. There is a huge difference between weight and density.

There is as much density above the brick as below the brick, how does the brick know to fall back to the earth. In your model of density, there is no reason for the brick thrown straight up into the air to stop falling up. The brick thrown straight up in your model in less dense atmosphere should keep falling until it hits something.

Again Newton’s first law:

“In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.[2][3]
en.m.wikipedia.org...'s_laws_of_motion

What makes the brick thrown straight up into the air reverse direction so it’s pulled back to earth. If it’s about density, why would a brick thrown straight up into a less dense atmosphere not keep going straight up until it hits something more dense. How is a brick in your model falling straight up into a less dense atmosphere any different than a brick falling straight down into a less dense atmosphere? Specially when you stated” But no resistance is offered at all. This proves there is no force at all. “

So if there is no force at all, what makes a brick thrown straight up into the atmosphere reverse direction and fall back to earth.
edit on 20-4-2019 by neutronflux because: Fixed

posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 09:48 PM
Why have none of you addressed what Saturn really looks like, as opposed to the fake Saturn, which NASA shows in airbrushed fantasies?

Here's one more, taken in daylight...

Both the moon and Saturn are below our blue skies, which is because they ARE below our blue skies, of the firmament.

According to NASA, and our astronomers, Saturn takes 10.7 hours to complete one full rotation....

One day on Saturn takes only 10.7 hours (the time it takes for Saturn to rotate or spin around once)

If you really think Saturn takes 10.7 hours to rotate once, then you should look again at these videos, without your rose-colored glasses, buddy.

There are many other videos, which show the same thing, as well.

Saturn clearly moves fast, spinning like a top, yes?

I'm still waiting for anyone to address this, so what about it?

posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 10:05 PM

You are trying to change the subject to another BS flat earth talking point. More evidence that your gravity and polars arguments are BS and have no credibility.

You

In the case of a brick thrown in air, the initial force, or energy, used in throwing the brick upward, dissipates

When this is also you...

That is what gravity is supposed to do, is it not?

How do all the scientists prove such a force exists? They don't.

If this force existed, it would offer RESISTANCE to opposing forces, no?

But no resistance is offered at all. This proves there is no force at all.

your original agreement was “But no resistance is offered at all.”

You again

Eventually, the initial energy is gone, which leaves only the dense, mass brick in air, which has minimal density.

But in your model there is no gravity. Density is not a force. If you think density is a force, please quote the definition of density. Then quote what gives an object weight. There is a huge difference between weight and density.

There is as much density above the brick as below the brick, how does the brick know to fall back to the earth. In your model of density, there is no reason for the brick thrown straight up into the air to stop falling up. The brick thrown straight up in your model in the less dense atmosphere should keep falling until it hits something.

Again Newton’s first law:

“In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.[2][3]
en.m.wikipedia.org...'s_laws_of_motion

What makes the brick thrown straight up into the air reverse direction so it’s pulled back to earth. If it’s about density, why would a brick thrown straight up into a less dense atmosphere not keep going straight up until it hits something more dense. How is a brick in your model falling straight up into a less dense atmosphere any different than a brick falling straight down into a less dense atmosphere? Specially when you stated” But no resistance is offered at all. This proves there is no force at all. “

So if there is no force at all, what makes a brick thrown straight up into the atmosphere reverse direction and fall back to earth.

posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 10:11 PM

I have no Idea what you are talking about. I see the real Saturn just fine with my 11 reflector telescope?

And you’re still a hack

But I do appreciate the different images from NASA that capture infrared information, or based by temperature, or produced by processing images off something other than the visual spectrum.

edit on 20-4-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixec

edit on 20-4-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 10:33 PM

By the way. If I am in Australia with my 11 inch reflector telescope, where would I point the telescope to see Polaris? And being in the northern Hemisphere. Why does my telescope point blow the horizon when I try to program the positioning computer to align with objects only visible from the Southern Hemisphere’s sky?

posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 10:36 PM

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

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.

Still no response from turbo?

posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 11:55 PM

originally posted by: neutronflux
What do you not get about

“Polaris doesn’t dim as you go from the northern Hemisphere south across the equator. Polaris gets lower and lower on the horizon until the curve of the earth blocks the view of Polaris when traveling south across the equator.”

Nonsense.

When Polaris looks lower and lower in the horizon, until it can no longer be seen, this has nothing to do with any supposed 'curvature' of Earth, which you believe exists...

Have you looked at the simulation clip yet? It explains how this works for the Sun, the stars, and moon, as well.

Here is the problem you still don't understand - which many people do not grasp. It is something I didn't understand, either....

Because we think of a flat surface as having as unlimited view - in that, to see an object above a flat plain, at one point, is seen everywhere else on that flat plain....

Since the flat surfaces are small, compared to the Earth, it's difficult to grasp. The main reason is confusing flat surfaces with having unlimited views..

This trick worked because flat surfaces have unlimited views of whatever appears above the surface, anywhere on the surface, because it is a flat surface.

You are asking why a star cannot seen everywhere on Earth, if it is a flat surface...

Any idea, yet?

top topics

14