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: 98
14
<< 95  96  97    99  100  101 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2019 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Why would Werner Von Braun, the father of rocketry, who started up NASA itself...


Indicate on his tombstone that the firmament truly does exist, in fact....?


What might that tell you about space, perhaps?



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 01:49 AM
link   
And why would he wait until after his death, before he ever admitted this, as well?


This shows Earth is not round, not flying through space, and they know it's all a grotesque lie, which is finally revealed on a gravestone..


If anyone doesn't see the message here, think again.

Von Braun was certainly an authority on the subject of space, and nobody on your side can dispute that.


Think what his message really means, and perhaps, you'll start to understand that it's a massive ruse.



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You


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.


I never said such a thing. I was referring to sliding along the roof after a collision. You are using false arguments again.

You


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


I was referring to after the collision of the rooftop. Again. You take items out of context to create false arguments.



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.


Not sure about this? But there is a thing called wind resistance. And items do heat up, and can burn up on entry into Earth’s atmosphere.



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.


The question is. If you believe earth has no gravity, what causes a brick thrown straight up into the air to reverse direction and fall back to earth. Especially since you stated, “Nothing is 'pulling' objects down to the Earth's surface,”



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

And 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, 12 2019 @ 01:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You


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.


I never said such a thing. I was referring to sliding along the roof after a collision. You are using false arguments again.

You


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


I was referring to after the collision of the rooftop. Again. You take items out of context to create false arguments.


No, you're just trying to avoid the question I asked.

If frictional force stops the brick only after it hits the roof, then what force stops the brick from falling through air, moments before frictional force stops it entirely? Whatever you think this force is, you now have TWO, completely different forces, that make the brick stop, and stay, on the rooftop!!

Oh, I remember what you called it - a 'collision force'!

Please explain what a 'collision force' is, before I continue further...



originally posted by: neutronflux
The question is. If you believe earth has no gravity, what causes a brick thrown straight up into the air to reverse direction and fall back to earth. Especially since you stated, “Nothing is 'pulling' objects down to the Earth's surface,”


Because nothing is 'pulling' objects down to the Earth's surface.

Then, you keep on asking me - if gravity doesn't 'pull' everything down to the Earth's surface, then what 'force' makes objects fall down to Earth's surface?'

I've then asked you why any force would be required for an object to fall through air, in the first place?

You said a force was required to throw the brick into air, so a force is required to stop the brick from going upward, and back to the surface again.....

I told you there is no force if the brick is thrown from a rooftop, which is why you changed your whole argument, again...



Now, once again, you're trying to avoid the problem....


I asked you to explain how the brick stops falling through air, onto a rooftop, without a force, within the context of your argument...Being that a force must stop the brick from going upward into air, and down to the surface....or it would keep going upward into air, without another 'force' to stop it....correct?


What stops a brick falling through the air? It is the rooftop, which has enough mass, and density, to stop the brick's fall through the air.

What force is required to stop a brick falling through air? Name it, if you can.

Perhaps there is no force required to stop the brick from continuing it's 'motion', through air, because the rooftop is not a force, yet stops the brick's fall??

Are you ever going to admit there is NO FORCE that stops the brick falling through air?


You will make up excuses for it, once again.



Why do you ignore the firmament Von Braun referred to on his tombstone?





But all of it is easy to fake, and that's why it works so well, to this very day.



Why did all of those 'experts' claim, under oath, that smoking didn't cause cancer? Money, having, or promised to have, those very prestigious positions in our top colleges, perhaps.

When all the 'experts' claimed that smoking didn't cause cancer, while under oath, without any problem, how can anyone trust what they ALL



posted on May, 12 2019 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Von Braun's tombstone indicates two things..

His years on Earth - 1912-1977

And - Psalms 19 : 1


Here is Psalms 19 : 1..

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.


He obviously knew the firmament existed, and the truth he knew was finally revealed to us, after he had died.
edit on 12-5-2019 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2019 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You


Because nothing is 'pulling' objects down to the Earth's surface.


The question is why a brick thrown straight up into the air away from earth changes direction to fall back towards the earth.



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 05:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Von Braun's tombstone indicates two things..

His years on Earth - 1912-1977

And - Psalms 19 : 1


Here is Psalms 19 : 1..

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.


He obviously knew the firmament existed, and the truth he knew was finally revealed to us, after he had died.


Yes, he obviously knew the sky existed:

www.collinsdictionary.com...



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




Why did all of those 'experts' claim, under oath, that smoking didn't cause cancer? Money, having, or promised to have, those very prestigious positions in our top colleges, perhaps. When all the 'experts' claimed that smoking didn't cause cancer, while under oath, without any problem, how can anyone trust what they ALL


Nice bit of whataboutism. So, because of this ALL experts lie about everything? But, of course, Flat Earthers never lie.......



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: turbonium1
Von Braun's tombstone indicates two things..

His years on Earth - 1912-1977

And - Psalms 19 : 1


Here is Psalms 19 : 1..

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.


He obviously knew the firmament existed, and the truth he knew was finally revealed to us, after he had died.


Yes, he obviously knew the sky existed:

www.collinsdictionary.com...


Nice try, but he referred to the Biblical term 'firmament', which is specifically described below...

Genesis 1:

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,


The firmament, as described in the Bible, as Von Braun referred to, contains all the stars, the Sun, the moon, and is called the heavens, or the sky, as well.

Obviously, you're trying to cherry-pick out a definition of 'firmament' which doesn't include anything about the actual Biblical term 'firmament', but it doesn't work that way, much as you'd hope it would.


Instead of trying to twist the reality, you should admit to it, and move forward from there.



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

And flat earth is a blatant falsehood.

Here’s 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, 17 2019 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Incoherent drunken rant in vain attempt to change topics by TurboLag in three, two, one....



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

By the way, are you saying God cannot make a spherical Earth or gravity? Seems you are the one boxing God in, and denying the vastness, diversity, and depth of God’s universe. I don’t know about you, but my God can create a spherical earth, create gravity, and millions of galaxies.

Your god made a single flat planet in a fishbowl?
edit on 17-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Changed wording.

edit on 17-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: turbonium1




Why did all of those 'experts' claim, under oath, that smoking didn't cause cancer? Money, having, or promised to have, those very prestigious positions in our top colleges, perhaps. When all the 'experts' claimed that smoking didn't cause cancer, while under oath, without any problem, how can anyone trust what they ALL


Nice bit of whataboutism. So, because of this ALL experts lie about everything? But, of course, Flat Earthers never lie.......


I'm simply pointing out that 'experts' can lie, as anyone else can lie, and the problem with 'experts' lying, as a group, is that people believe them, because they are considered 'experts', or 'authorities', and taken at their word, without question, or doubt. When all our 'experts' agree, as one, that something is so, everyone else automatically believes that they, as 'experts', must be speaking the truth. Almost as if they are regarded as our 'Gods', above mere mortals....


The reality is that they are not Gods, not above questions, or doubts, and they are proven to be straight-faced liars, in the past.


You seem to believe if all the 'experts' agree, on the Earth being a sphere, flying through space, then it must be true....

You never even consider that the 'experts' never agree on anything, without a question, without a doubt...that's because - in actual science - it's always questioned, always doubted.

When have you ever seen them agree 100% on anything, never a single doubt, or question, before??


Only the claims NOBODY CAN PROVE AS TRUE, OR FALSE, have been taken by all our 'experts' as 100% true, without a single doubt, without anyone questioning it as 100% true!

A claim such as the Earth being round, is taken as 100% true, without doubt, or question. Nobody can even prove the claim is true, but it's accepted by all 'experts' as being true, anyway.

Another claim they all agree 100% on being true is that we landed humans on the moon, 50 years ago, and six times in all, to near perfection, then stopped it all, only to orbit the Earth, over and over again, during the next 40+ years.... supposedly.

That's complete nonsense. Even if they DID agree we landed on the moon, it would still have raised doubts, over specific claims, at very least..

They act like zombies, who have no thoughts of their own, or something!


It's ridiculous. Nonsensical. Impossible.


Another claim they all agree 100% is true - evolution of all life on Earth, where species are constantly changing into other, new, different species!!

Even though we can prove it is a false claim, from all the valid evidence on hand, we have taken 'evolution' as being true, anyway.... because all our 'experts' are saying it is true, we shall accept whatever our famous, god-like 'experts', proclaim as true!!

The 'experts' have no evidence to support their claims, so they are lying, or silent, which is NOT the same as being in 100% agreement....

If they ever DID agree about some aspect of scientific research or studies, before the Earth was claimed to be a sphere, (the claim that holds up all their other claims).....nothing was in 100% agreement, on all points, on all aspects, on any potential causes behind it, etc.....

In physical laws, which are proven to exist, some don't accept it as 100% true, on all points!

You surely know that, yes? Quantum physics, for example?


When the laws of physics are not 100% agreed on, by scientists, I'd suggest that if someone claims the Earth is really not flat, it is round, which is not proven at all to be round, no force proven to exist in the Earth holding us down, no resistance offered by this force to any opposing forces.

Anyone who claims the Earth is round, and spinning in space, while a force withing Earth holds everything to Earth's surface, without resisting any opposing force against it, which is impossible, is accepted by all 'experts' as true, without a single doubt.....


Not like the laws of physics, of course!!



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

By the way, are you saying God cannot make a spherical Earth or gravity? Seems you are the one boxing God in, and denying the vastness, diversity, and depth of God’s universe. I don’t know about you, but my God can create a spherical earth, create gravity, and millions of galaxies.

Your god made a single flat planet in a fishbowl?


I'm pointing out what Von Braun said, you're just ignoring it, as usual!

Why would Von Braun mention the existence of a firmament, if it didn't exist?



posted on May, 18 2019 @ 12:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

By the way, are you saying God cannot make a spherical Earth or gravity? Seems you are the one boxing God in, and denying the vastness, diversity, and depth of God’s universe. I don’t know about you, but my God can create a spherical earth, create gravity, and millions of galaxies.

Your god made a single flat planet in a fishbowl?


I'm pointing out what Von Braun said, you're just ignoring it, as usual!

Why would Von Braun mention the existence of a firmament, if it didn't exist?


Maybe he was a spiritual person believing in the spiritual plane of God which has nothing to do with the truth the physical earth is spherical.

Little Hebrew lesson for ya




Does Genesis 1 teach the sky was solid like some critics claim? What does the original Hebrew say?

answersingenesis.org...

The context of Genesis 1:6–8, 14–22 makes it clear that Moses intended his readers to understand raqia simply as the sky (atmosphere and heavens or space) above the earth, as even the sun, moon, and stars were placed in them. In fact, in modern Hebrew raqia is the word used for sky, and there is no connotation of hardness.

Genesis 1 is perfectly worded for what the author wanted to communicate. It says nothing more than God created the sky and its constituent elements, while remaining completely silent about what those elements were. It really depends upon where one starts: if one starts with the presumption of a solid dome, one will read that into the text. However, if one starts with a modern conception of sky, the text permits that understanding as well, and, hence, there is no contradiction.



posted on May, 18 2019 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

And flat earth is a blatant falsehood. You are boxing in God, and don’t understand the translation from Hebrew. Your the one putting context that was no intended by Moses.

and 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, 18 2019 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

How dare the Hebrew word raqia have multiple uses.

Like the English word space for space in a closet, or space as in the entire galaxy.

Like the English word plane. Can mean flat or mean level of existence. Do you believe your soul exists on a solid flat plane of a plank? Or your soul is in a spiritual plane of existence?



posted on May, 18 2019 @ 01:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
Maybe he was a spiritual person believing in the spiritual plane of God which has nothing to do with the truth the physical earth is spherical.



You're grasping for any excuse, that's for sure.

I'm sure he was 'a spiritual person', who didn't believe in the existence of the firmament, but somehow, he selected one of the specific passages which mentions God creating Earth's firmament!! Now, I've heard almost every sort of ridiculous excuse, but this one takes the prize!


The father of rocketry, first chief of NASA, wanted his last words to mention the existence of the firmament, so that's exactly what he did.

Ignore it all you want, twist it all you want, it is the truth of his last words, for all to see. Sadly, you want to ignore the truth he wished for us to know about, from one who WOULD know the truth. Too bad if you don't want to accept it.



posted on May, 18 2019 @ 02:01 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You


Ignore it all you want


That flat earth is a blatant lie.

Where is your list that shows the earth is spherical.

and 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




top topics



 
14
<< 95  96  97    99  100  101 >>

log in

join