Flat earth theory?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

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.

To you, it's never been about the truth, or seeking the truth. It's all about obeying your masters, the almighty NASA.

Saturn, so what?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

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.

To you, it's never been about the truth, or seeking the truth. It's all about obeying your masters, the almighty NASA.

Saturn, so what?

What does that have to do with the fact I actually star and plant gaze? And that flat earth is actually a blatant lie?

a reply to: turbonium1

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...

How would the most upper part of the celestial filament ever be blocked by the horizon unless the earth was curved. You just proved the spherical model of earth. Thank you.

a reply to: turbonium1

Again....

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.

Your a hack.

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.

a reply to: turbonium1

This was your original statement

Polaris is far too distant from Australia to be seen from there. It has nothing to do with the Earth being a ball. A plane can't be seen when it's too far away, either, but the plane is obviously seen when it is near enough, as we all know.

But all the sudden you want to throw horizon in? Is Polaris to dim to see from Australia or not? Going to contradict yourself some more. The more you post, the more you contradict yourself, the more you kill your credibility.


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. How is it possible for the highest point of the celestial filament to drop out of view below the horizon if the earth was flat?

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

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.

And still no turbo response

a reply to: turbonium1

You never answered how the below is possible for the flat earth model. Why some of the plants were called wanders, and they were differentiated from stars because they would move “backwards” from time to time.

What is retrograde motion?
Posted by Christopher Crockett in ASTRONOMY ESSENTIALS | SPACE | February 6, 2017

earthsky.org...


Sometimes, as seen in Earth’s sky, the planets seem to move backwards!

Typically, the planets shift slightly eastward from night to night, drifting slowly against the backdrop of stars. From time to time, however, they change direction. For a few months, they’ll head west before turning back around and resuming their easterly course. Their westward motion is called retrograde motion by astronomers. Though it baffled ancient stargazers, we know now that retrograde motion is an illusion caused by the motion of Earth and these planets around the sun.

a reply to: neutronflux

Yeah I've asked him about planetary retrograde at least 5 times...

No flat earther has an explanation for it...

They're all hopeless morons... don't waste your time

Why not address the clips of Saturn, instead of avoiding it like cowards?

a reply to: turbonium1

Pretty simple honestly... its the same reason you see the moon at dusk or dawn...

The light from the moon and Saturn, Mars, venus is bright enough to be seen though the prevailing light of the rising or falling sun... not to say that these planetary bodies emit their own light... but this has been covered many times already...

notice you don't see them when the sun is higher in the sky? This is because the light of the sun is brighter in the sky then the light being reflected from said planetary bodies... poof they're gone! Though im sure you think they just disappear...lol

I've even posted a video that shows exactly why we see the light reflected from them... you just don't want to learn anything that deviates from your stupidity

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

Pretty simple honestly... its the same reason you see the moon at dusk or dawn...

The light from the moon and Saturn, Mars, venus is bright enough to be seen though the prevailing light of the rising or falling sun... not to say that these planetary bodies emit their own light... but this has been covered many times already...

notice you don't see them when the sun is higher in the sky? This is because the light of the sun is brighter in the sky then the light being reflected from said planetary bodies... poof they're gone! Though im sure you think they just disappear...lol

I've even posted a video that shows exactly why we see the light reflected from them... you just don't want to learn anything that deviates from your stupidity

The obvious problem you still cannot address is that Saturn spins like a top. It clearly does not take 10.7 hours for one single rotation to occur, which they claim.

We clearly see it spinning like a top, without a doubt.

a reply to: turbonium1

of course it spins, every planet does...

Another problem - if Saturn was really 746 million miles away from Earth, we could never see details of it with a Nikon camera, with only 125x magnification!

Not to mention how stars, that are supposedly LIGHT YEARS AWAY FROM EARTH, could ever be seen in such detail, using the very same Nikon camera!!


Sure, that's all fine and dandy, no problem folks!

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

of course it spins, every planet does...

No planet could ever spin like a top, sorry to say.

Nice try.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

of course it spins, every planet does...

No planet could ever spin like a top, sorry to say.

Nice try.

Nice try?

Dude you don't understand anything when it comes to science, flight, or even reality...

You are not allowed to say "nice try" to anyone... You have no credibility what so ever LOL

Your rants are idiocy incarnate... with nothing to even come close to backing them, not that any flat earth argument has any weight, but you take it to a whole other level..

We've found stars far more massive then our own that spin hundred of times a second

These lies about stars, and planets, held up for many centuries, because the technology to view them in detail was not available to the public.

But now, we have such technology available in public, and we can see we've been lied to all along. It doesn't work anymore.

In future, our technology will be even better. More details will be seen of stars, and planets, which further show they were all a pack of liars.

I'm glad to see them being exposed as the lying scumbags they all are.

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

of course it spins, every planet does...

No planet could ever spin like a top, sorry to say.

Nice try.

Nice try?

Dude you don't understand anything when it comes to science, flight, or even reality...

You are not allowed to say "nice try" to anyone... You have no credibility what so ever LOL

Your rants are idiocy incarnate... with nothing to even come close to backing them, not that any flat earth argument has any weight, but you take it to a whole other level..

We've found stars far more massive then our own that spin hundred of times a second

I am 'not allowed to say' that?

Nice try, arrogant toady.


Saturn spins like a top, which makes them liars, and only fools would still believe such liars, after seeing it's all a lie.


So have fun holding on to your delusions... I don't care.

a reply to: turbonium1

Here is your list....

How can Polaris being at the apex of the celestial filament drop below the horizon when traveling south across the equator.

A blatant falsehood by turbo

Polaris is far too distant from Australia to be seen from there. It has nothing to do with the Earth being a ball. A plane can't be seen when it's too far away, either, but the plane is obviously seen when it is near enough, as we all know.

Where do you look in the Australian night sky to see Polaris with the naked eye or with a telescope?

You cannot say what would cause a brick thrown straight up into the air in the flat earth no gravity model reverse its direction to fall back to the earth. Specially in the context of Newton’s first law and your assertions of:

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?

And

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.

With your own words, “But no resistance is offered at all. This proves there is no force at all.” Why would a brick thrown straight up into the air “care” if it is falling up away from earth in a less dense atmosphere? With “But no resistance is offered at all”. How is that different than a brick falling to earth because the atmosphere is less dense. What makes a brick thrown straight up into the air reverse direction and fall back to earth in the flat earth model?

What is the flat earth model answer to the retrograde of the visible plants path across the night sky the ancients called wanders?

If the moon is only 6000 miles away in the earth’s atmosphere, why doesn’t the flat earth society fly a blimp to the moon to make their case? They have time to take cruises full of alcohol, gambling, and debauchery? I bet the amount of money spent on one flat earth society booze cruise on alcohol and condoms would pay for a blimp mission.

The summer solstice for the northern Hemisphere is the northern Hemisphere’s longest period of daylight hours. For the flat earth model, how is the same day the Southern Hemisphere’s shortest period of daylight hours?

You ignore the biological effect of gravity.

a reply to: turbonium1

Saturn spins like a top, which makes them liars, and only fools would still believe such liars, after seeing it's all a lie.

Actually Saturn spins like a big ball of gas and liquid.

Are you confusing the movement of Saturn’s upper weather for the spin of the bulk of its liquid body? Could you imagine making assumptions on Earth’s spin based only on the movement of Earth’s clouds.

Look at that, another fact addressing your concerns. All the while you have to avoid questions, try to change the subject, and ignore how you contradict yourself.

Keep going with your documented false arguments and your intellectually dishonest form of debate.

a reply to: Somethingsamiss

Every time they try and present evidence it's either an outright lie (civilians are barred from going to Antarctica, airline flights taken daily by hundreds of people don't exist etc) or pathetic pseudoscience that is easily debunked by things observed by billions of people every day (the sun is a magic spotlight a few thousand miles away that arbitrarily chooses to be invisible to half the planet at any given time) They're an anti-science faith group that literally believes the hoax runs so deep that reality itself is in on it.