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: 97
14
<< 94  95  96    98  99  100 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2019 @ 04:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Where were we topic changer. The last two questions you will not answer because you have no intellectual honesty


Before you do a Saturday morning blitz turboLag....

Please answer how a equatorial mount for a telescope would work on a flat earth model.



Equatorial Mounts - a huge problem for Flat Earth.

m.youtube.com...



This ties in with the equatorial mount.
You do realize on a flat earth model, the sun would never set.



How Do Flat-Earthers Explain the Equinox? We Investigated.

www.livescience.com...

This explanation has its problems. For starters, a sun circling 3,000 miles (5,000 km) above a flat Earth would never actually "set," even at the most southern latitudes. YouTube user Wolfie6020, a globe-Earth proponent, demonstrated this by building a scale model of the flat-Earth-style sun as it would be seen from Sydney on a vernal equinox. As shown in his video, the sun (actually a drone carrying a ping-pong ball) never dips below the horizon, even at its farthest point from the observer.




That's absurd.

A plane surface has an unlimited view of anything above it, from any point on the surface below....is that what you're suggesting here? Are you that dense?



What’s absurd. That the sun would actually never go below the horizon on a flat earth model.

Or that you don’t understand how an equatorial mount Kills the flat earth theory.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 04:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Now, for no gravity model.

What causes a brick thrown straight up into the air to change direction and return to escape.

For a no gravity model. Why does a brick dropped straight down not slow down like a brick thrown straight up?


Because the brick thrown into air loses energy from the initial force, of the throw, and its mass takes over, and falls through air, just like it does in the other case. Nothing else to it.


If a force pulled objects down to Earth's surface, wouldn't the force be stronger NEARER to the Earth's surface, than at a distance from the source? Actual forces are stronger nearer the source, and weaker at a distance from the source....


Not 'gravity', of course. It's a magical, fantasy force



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 04:32 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1



Because the brick thrown into air loses energy from the initial force, of the throw, and its mass takes over, and falls through air, just like it does in the other case. Nothing else to it.


If there is no gravity, then why does a brick dropped straight down not slow down.

How does mass take over. Mass is not a force.
edit on 4-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 04:36 AM
link   
Why would you fall from 30,000 feet at the same speed as 1000 feet, if the source of a 'force' pulls you down, from the Earth?

It wouldn't.


The object falls at the same rate, at any height, because it is falling through the same medium, air, and that's why it's the same rate of fall.

That's simple enough, for anyone to grasp, no?



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 04:37 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1



If a force pulled objects down to Earth's surface, wouldn't the force be stronger NEARER to the Earth's surface, than at a distance from the source? Actual forces are stronger nearer the source, and weaker at a distance from the source....


Not 'gravity', of course. It's a magical, fantasy force


Yes, the force of gravity exerted by earth gets weaker as you get father away from earth.



Why do mass and distance affect gravity?

Gravity is a fundamental underlying force in the universe. The amount of gravity that something possesses is proportional to its mass and distance between it and another object. This relationship was first published by Sir Issac Newton. His law of universal gravitation says that the force (F) of gravitational attraction between two objects with Mass1 and Mass2 at distance D is:

F = G(mass1*mass2)/D squared.

(G is the gravitational constant, which has the same value throughout our universe.)

www.qrg.northwestern.edu...



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 04:43 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Now you are getting in to acceleration to the point of termination velocity.



en.m.wikipedia.org...

With air resistance acting on an object that has been dropped, the object will eventually reach a terminal velocity, which is around 53 m/s (195 km/h or 122 mph[1]) for a human skydiver. The terminal velocity depends on many factors including mass, drag coefficient, and relative surface area and will only be achieved if the fall is from sufficient altitude. A typical skydiver in a spread-eagle position will reach terminal velocity after about 12 seconds, during which time he will have fallen around 450 m (1,500 ft).[



Again

If there is no gravity, then why does a brick dropped straight down not slow down.

How does mass take over. Mass is not a force.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 04:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1



Because the brick thrown into air loses energy from the initial force, of the throw, and its mass takes over, and falls through air, just like it does in the other case. Nothing else to it.


If there is no gravity, then why does a brick dropped straight down not slow down.

How does mass take over. Mass is not a force.


And yet the mass stops the brick, right?

A force is not required to stop the brick from falling, it is mass that stops it.


The brick falls through air, which has little mass or density. The brick stops falling when it hits the rooftop, which has much more mass and density than air, or the brick.


No force is stopping the brick's fall.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You


And yet the mass stops the brick, right?


No. The force of collision stopped the brick.

Mass and force are two different items in a collision equation



www.physicsclassroom.com...

Impulse-Momentum Change Equation
In a collision, a force acts upon an object for a given amount of time to change the object's velocity. The product of force and time is known as impulse. The product of mass and velocity change is known as momentum change. In a collision the impulse encountered by an object is equal to the momentum change it experiences.

Impulse = Momentum Change

F • t = mass • Delta v



You cannot substitute mass and force in the equation to have it work right. So mass is not force.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 04:55 AM
link   
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.

Please answer how a equatorial mount for a telescope would work on a flat earth model.

This ties in with the equatorial mount.
You do realize on a flat earth model, the sun would never set.

Foucault's pendulum

Coriolis Force



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 05:01 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

And remember you posted:


They are not forces, obviously


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.


So......

-what causes a brick thrown straight into the air in the no gravity model to switch direction and return to earth.

-There is gravity. But you stated, “But no resistance is offered at all. This proves there is no force at all. ”. Then you tell me why we don’t float off into space?

-if there is no gravity. Why would a brick not slow down immediately once dropped straight down like it immediately starts to slow when it is thrown straight up.

-if there is no gravity. How does a brick “know” to act one way when thrown straight up. But “knows” to act differently when thrown straight down.
edit on 4-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

And your biggest fallacy is the roof doesn’t really stop the brick does it. The collision with the brick doesn’t stop the brick cold. The brick will fall through the roof, or the brick will be still moving after the collision. It my be a glancing blow, a recoil, bounce, bounce back, but the brick more than likely will still for a moment travel in another direction after the collision. With some sort of energy going to damaging the roof, and with some kinetic energy changed to heat and sound.



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 06:15 AM
link   
how far away can the sun be seen on a " hypothetical " flat earth " "

a rather silly question - but it actually came up in a convo last night with a real flat earth cultist

and the answer - as always = magic

here is the graphic to illustyrate the silliness of the flat earth claim



[ the premise - it is december 21st - and local noon in barcelona spain . 3 observers are positioned at the following points :

1 - the true north pole [ tip of purple line ]
2 - 88 degrees west , 23 degrees south [ tip of red line ]
3 - 92 degrees east , 23 degrees south [ tip of blue line ]

now - the north pole observer = in total darkness - despite the fact that he is alledgedly nearer to the sun

the westermost oncerver [ red line ] - can just see the start of sunrise

the eastermost observer - [ blue line ] sees the fading twighlight as the sun sets

its magic people - the sun shines different distances - in different directions

so much for vanishing points , perspective or any other cultist hand waving

its almost like they are using ad hoc fantasies for each observation

go figure


ETA - the base layer of the graphic = from a flat earth website - its what they claim to believe
edit on 5-5-2019 by ignorant_ape because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2019 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Ah yes, the classic flat earther explanation for the sunset that the sun is a magical, sentient being that can arbitrarily choose who can and cannot see it at any given time, of course the sun is also "in on it"
edit on 6-5-2019 by captainpudding because: typo



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

-what causes a brick thrown straight into the air in the no gravity model to switch direction and return to earth.

-There is gravity. But you stated, “But no resistance is offered at all. This proves there is no force at all. ”. Then you tell me why we don’t float off into space?

-if there is no gravity. Why would a brick not slow down immediately once dropped straight down like it immediately starts to slow when it is thrown straight up.

-if there is no gravity. How does a brick “know” to act one way when thrown straight up. But “knows” to act differently when thrown straight down.


Why would you assume we'd "float off into space"?

Because you think 'astronauts' are 'floating in space'?

It's all an illusion, and you buy into it, big time.


A brick simply falls through air, that's all that happens. Nothing 'pulls' it down to Earth.



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

And your biggest fallacy is the roof doesn’t really stop the brick does it. The collision with the brick doesn’t stop the brick cold. The brick will fall through the roof, or the brick will be still moving after the collision. It my be a glancing blow, a recoil, bounce, bounce back, but the brick more than likely will still for a moment travel in another direction after the collision. With some sort of energy going to damaging the roof, and with some kinetic energy changed to heat and sound.


The roof still stops the brick, that's the point. What does it matter if the brick doesn't stop 'cold', or not, at that instant? The fact is that the brick is on the roof, and never moves off the roof, correct?

So what stops the brick, other than the roof it lies on? Nothing else stops it, whether or not right away, or moments later...



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You


Why would you assume we'd "float off into space"?


We don’t float off the surface of the earth because of gravity. Gravity is what gives weight to items of mass on Earth’s surface.

Why don’t we float off the surface of the earth using your own words?


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.



You


Because you think 'astronauts' are 'floating in space'?


Yes, when they are not pulled to a planet or a moon because of gravity. You are learning TurboLag.

You


It's all an illusion, and you buy into it, big time.
. There is noting about density or mass by scientific definition that create their own force. Gravity is an inherent force proportional to how massive an object is.

You


A brick simply falls through air, that's all that happens. Nothing 'pulls' it down to Earth.


The question for your earth free of gravity is what force causes a brick thrown straight up into the air to reverse direction to fall back to earth. Stop trying to change the argument.

You


The roof still stops the brick, that's the point. What does it matter if the brick doesn't stop 'cold', or not, at that instant? The fact is that the brick is on the roof, and never moves off the roof, correct?

False statement. The force collision of the brick with the roof causes the brick to change direction of travel, even if the brick only continues to travel for a split second.

Example, Newton’s cradle comes to mind.


Amazing Demonstration Of A Giant Newton's Cradle!
m.youtube.com...





You


So what stops the brick, other than the roof it lies on? Nothing else stops it, whether or not right away, or moments later...


I don’t know. How about the force of friction that eats away at the traveling brick if it try’s to move along the roof after the collision.

Or you asking why solids don’t pass through each other?



If atoms are mostly empty space, why do objects look and feel solid?
theconversation.com...

Resistance when touched

So why does a table also feel solid? Many websites will tell you that this is due to the repulsion – that two negatively charged things must repel each other. But this is wrong, and shows you should never trust some things on the internet. It feels solid because of the dancing electrons.
If you touch the table, then the electrons from atoms in your fingers become close to the electrons in the table’s atoms. As the electrons in one atom get close enough to the nucleus of the other, the patterns of their dances change. This is because, an electron in a low energy level around one nucleus can’t do the same around the other – that slot’s already taken by one of its own electrons. The newcomer must step into an unoccupied, more energetic role. That energy has to be supplied, not by light this time but by the force from your probing finger.

So pushing just two atoms close to each other takes energy, as all their electrons need to go into unoccupied high-energy states. Trying to push all the table-atoms and finger-atoms together demands an awful lot of energy – more than your muscles can supply. You feel that, as resistance to your finger, which is why and how the table feels solid to your touch.









edit on 10-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Added photo

edit on 10-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

More at...


What is an inelastic collision?

www.khanacademy.org...

An inelastic collision is a collision in which there is a loss of kinetic energy. While momentum of the system is conserved in an inelastic collision, kinetic energy is not. This is because some kinetic energy had been transferred to something else. Thermal energy, sound energy, and material deformation are likely culprits.



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
We don’t float off the surface of the earth because of gravity. Gravity is what gives weight to items of mass on Earth’s surface.



You haven't answered my question...


You've accepted it as a fact that everything would 'float' around in 'space', without something to 'hold' everything down to Earth....right?

Everything was ALREADY on Earth, before anyone was ever ON the Earth, so why do you think it's a fact that everything on Earth must be 'forced down to Earth', in the first place?

Because to you, everything 'beyond' Earth, like 'astro-nots', are 'floating around in space', which you believe is what happens in a '0 gravity' environment....that's why you believe we'd all 'float', without 'gravity'.....

It's all a sham, from start, to finish.


Nobody 'floats' around, it's an illusion, a fake..that's what sells 'gravity' to people - to see them 'float' around, within '0 gravity', in 'outer space'!


And it works superbly, as well..but sadly, it's all a grand illusion, played over and over, which helps to reinforce the illusion.


You have a CGI, airbrushed fantasy Earth, and yet, you have the gall to claim 'Earth is not flat, it's a ball', and even worse, to insult those who doubt you, is simply ludicrous...



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
How about the force of friction that eats away at the traveling brick if it try’s to move along the roof after the collision.


If you believe friction is a force, that makes a brick stop falling through air, then isn't it the lack of air having adequate levels of frictional force the reason why it would fall through the air, in the first place? For sure.

You've said it's frictional force of the roof, which stops the brick from it's fall, through the air....

Air lacks frictional force, so the brick will not stop falling through air. It is the exact same reason why the brick will stop falling - frictional force offered by the rooftop.

Nothing is 'pulling' objects down to the Earth's surface, the brick doesn't even land on the surface of Earth, in the first place. It lands on a rooftop, and stays on the rooftop, afterwards.



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
how far away can the sun be seen on a " hypothetical " flat earth " "

a rather silly question - but it actually came up in a convo last night with a real flat earth cultist

and the answer - as always = magic

here is the graphic to illustyrate the silliness of the flat earth claim



[ the premise - it is december 21st - and local noon in barcelona spain . 3 observers are positioned at the following points :

1 - the true north pole [ tip of purple line ]
2 - 88 degrees west , 23 degrees south [ tip of red line ]
3 - 92 degrees east , 23 degrees south [ tip of blue line ]

now - the north pole observer = in total darkness - despite the fact that he is alledgedly nearer to the sun

the westermost oncerver [ red line ] - can just see the start of sunrise

the eastermost observer - [ blue line ] sees the fading twighlight as the sun sets

its magic people - the sun shines different distances - in different directions

so much for vanishing points , perspective or any other cultist hand waving

its almost like they are using ad hoc fantasies for each observation

go figure


ETA - the base layer of the graphic = from a flat earth website - its what they claim to believe


You do realize that a flat surface won't offer unlimited viewpoints of any, and every, single object, above the flat surface, no matter what, or where, those objects are....yes?

If you think the Sun would be different, and must be seen from every point, if it were above a flat surface...... that is complete nonsense.

How can objects- of any height above a flat surface - be seen at all points on the surface, no matter how large the surface is? No way, no how.


The Sun isn't seen because Earth's surface is far too large to see it from every point on Earth, at the same time, all the time, as I've told you several times already...


Why would you insist on claiming that objects above a flat surface would be visible from all points of that flat surface, at the same time, and would be seen all the time??? It's moronic.


That map is hardly holding up your argument, sorry to say.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 94  95  96    98  99  100 >>

log in

join