Flat Earth, NASA, NWO, Moon Landings and More . . .

[Radagast]

I'm sorry you haven't studied. I thought you knew.

I know that your history is as wrong as your science.

 

[Arius]

Multiple people have done this already, but here you go:

Law of gravitational force: F = G × m1 × m2 / d^2 (the force is proportional to the product of the masses of the objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centres)

• F = force (in newtons)
• G = 6.67408 × 10^-11
• m1 = mass of one object, e.g. object falling to earth (in kg)
• m2 = mass of other object, e.g. Earth = 5.972 × 10^24 kg
• d = distance between centres of objects, e.g. 6371000 metres for something close to the Earth's surface

Law of force: F = m1 × a (force = mass times acceleration)

• F = force (in newtons)
• m1 = mass of object (in kg)
• a = acceleration of object (in m/s^2)

Simple algebra for an object falling to earth close to the Earth's surface:

• F = G × m1 × m2 / d^2 = m1 × a
• a = G × m2 / d^2 = 9.8

Therefore the acceleration is always 9.8 metres per second squared (ignoring air resistance) regardless of the object's mass.

This exactly matches what actually occurs when objects fall in a vacuum close to the Earth's surface.

Thank you my good sir for the: "the acceleration is always 9.8 metres per second squared (ignoring air resistance) regardless of the object's mass"

F = force (in newtons)
got it. And it doesn't include speed right? See, I'm learning like you guys said: "force is not speed".

G = 6.67408 × 10^-11
What is that number, weight of something? or some coordinates of the globe in space?

m1 = mass of one object, e.g. object falling to earth (in kg)
OK, so what does this have to do with anything since ALL objects, no matter their shape, size or mass fall to the globe at the same rate; 9.807 m/s^2 ?? I mean you just said this.

m2 = mass of other object, e.g. Earth = 5.972 × 10^24 kg
What if the globe is hollow? Jules Verne though so!? How did Newton get this number, and what does this has to do with falling objects? Are you making up the rest from what's measured, the falling rate? Anyone could make up stories.

d = distance between centres of objects, e.g. 6371000 metres for something close to the Earth's surface
Again, what does the distance between the center of a feather and the center of the globe has to do with the feather falling to the ground at 9.807 m/s^2? Will the feather fall faster or slower if you don't know how far is the center of your globe?

Besides, how did Newton figure out the diameter of the Globe? In 1650 I could ride my horse from NY to LA and say that's the circumference of a globe called U.S. So how did Newton get this number, and know it was a solid, and not a hollow globe to estimate its weight? And why a globe, did he notice the 8"^2 per mile drop as he was riding his horse?
What does this have to do with clocking things, all things no matter the mass, size, weight or shape, it could even be a feather, or an 18,000 lb. elephant falling to the earth at 9.807 m/s^2, .. we are clocking the rate of fall, simple.

In other words, if Lawrence Krauss here at ASU finds out tomorrow that the Globe is actually 25% bigger in diameter, would you guys increase the 9.807 m/s^2 falling rate even if it's timed at this rate?

F = force (in newtons)
m1 = mass of object (in kg)
a = acceleration of object (in m/s^2)

Again, we are clocking the fall of an object, and we notice that all objects, no matter the shape, size or weight fall the same rate, so what does "m1" has to do with ANYTHING? Like I said, I could measure from LA to NYC 3,500 miles and claim it's a globe, and time things falling down on it at 9.807 m/s^2, and make up the math from there... prove me wrong? The math would work.

I have shown you with the rocket experiment that there is no "force", because if there was a "force" pulling on the two objects, then any counter-force enough to lift the heavier object, will surely and absolutely lift the feather much, much faster. We KNOW this, but the diameter of this globe no one seen from no space.
Just like the telescope telling you guys how much planets weigh millions of light years away, is pseudoscience. I inspected real aircraft parts, in real life, not took a binocular and looked through my inspection room window at the parts on the machines, and determined if they were machined right or not?
Even that would be far, far more accurate that telling us accurate detail of something millions of light years away, when we also know light is a constant, "light doesn't travel", .. lol

Why are you fighting a lost battle my friends, .. it's time to give it up, admit there is no gravity, and praise the Lord for it!
Or wait, you think there is no other way to figure out the lies than to use algebraic expressions? You see how easily you just put a bunch of non-related numbers to those expressions?
Like I said, it's all like Einstein's hilarious E=MC^2 and the scientific community worships this worthless equation.

Anyways, I thank you for giving more detail than the Law of gravitational force: F = G × m1 × m2 / d^2 so I can show you how nonsensical it is.

 

[Radagast]

Thank you my good sir for the: "the acceleration is always 9.8 metres per second squared (ignoring air resistance) regardless of the object's mass"

F = force (in newtons)
got it. And it doesn't include speed right? See, I'm learning like you guys said: "force is not speed".

G = 6.67408 × 10^-11
What is that number, weight of something? or some coordinates of the globe in space?

m1 = mass of one object, e.g. object falling to earth (in kg)
OK, so what does this have to do with anything since ALL objects, no matter their shape, size or mass fall to the globe at the same rate; 9.807 m/s^2 ?? I mean you just said this.

m2 = mass of other object, e.g. Earth = 5.972 × 10^24 kg
What if the globe is hollow? Jules Verne though so!? How did Newton get this number, and what does this has to do with falling objects? Are you making up the rest from what's measured, the falling rate? Anyone could make up stories.

d = distance between centres of objects, e.g. 6371000 metres for something close to the Earth's surface
Again, what does the distance between the center of a feather and the center of the globe has to do with the feather falling to the ground at 9.807 m/s^2? Will the feather fall faster or slower if you don't know how far is the center of your globe?

Besides, how did Newton figure out the diameter of the Globe? In 1650 I could ride my horse from NY to LA and say that's the circumference of a globe called U.S. So how did Newton get this number, and know it was a solid, and not a hollow globe to estimate its weight? And why a globe, did he notice the 8"^2 per mile drop as he was riding his horse?
What does this have to do with clocking things, all things no matter the mass, size, weight or shape, it could even be a feather, or an 18,000 lb. elephant falling to the earth at 9.807 m/s^2, .. we are clocking the rate of fall, simple.

In other words, if Lawrence Krauss here at ASU finds out tomorrow that the Globe is actually 25% bigger in diameter, would you guys increase the 9.807 m/s^2 falling rate even if it's timed at this rate?

F = force (in newtons)
m1 = mass of object (in kg)
a = acceleration of object (in m/s^2)

Again, we are clocking the fall of an object, and we notice that all objects, no matter the shape, size or weight fall the same rate, so what does "m1" has to do with ANYTHING? Like I said, I could measure from LA to NYC 3,500 miles and claim it's a globe, and time things falling down on it at 9.807 m/s^2, and make up the math from there... prove me wrong? The math would work.

I have shown you with the rocket experiment that there is no "force", because if there was a "force" pulling on the two objects, then any counter-force enough to lift the heavier object, will surely and absolutely lift the feather much, much faster. We KNOW this, but the diameter of this globe no one seen from no space.
Just like the telescope telling you guys how much planets weigh millions of light years away, is pseudoscience. I inspected real aircraft parts, in real life, not took a binocular and looked through my inspection room window at the parts on the machines, and determined if they were machined right or not?
Even that would be far, far more accurate that telling us accurate detail of something millions of light years away, when we also know light is a constant, "light doesn't travel", .. lol

Why are you fighting a lost battle my friends, .. it's time to give it up, admit there is no gravity, and praise the Lord for it!
Or wait, you think there is no other way to figure out the lies than to use algebraic expressions? You see how easily you just put a bunch of non-related numbers to those expressions?
Like I said, it's all like Einstein's hilarious E=MC^2 and the scientific community worships this worthless equation.

Anyways, I thank you for giving more detail than the Law of gravitational force: F = G × m1 × m2 / d^2 so I can show you how nonsensical it is.

OK, well I guess you just don't understand the physics I presented.

 

[Rick Otto]

2500 years, actually.

And it's an observable fact, not a dogma.

You are smarter than August Piccard who is quoted in the Agust 1931 edition of Popular mechanics after reaching an altitude of 50,000 feet as saying the earth looked flat with upturned edges.

Certainly you are more credible than he, ammiright?
He was only there looking at it, but WE have YOU telling us!
Could we be more lucky?

 

[Rick Otto]

I'm sorry you haven't studied. I thought you knew.

He read the brochure.

 

[Rick Otto]

If you don't understand basic Newtonian physics, what makes you think you're capable of making any kind of meaningful criticism of it?

Newton thought lead could be turned into gold.

 

[A_Thinker]

You are smarter than August Piccard who is quoted in the Agust 1931 edition of Popular mechanics after reaching an altitude of 50,000 feet as saying the earth looked flat with upturned edges.

Can you, reliably, see the curve of the Earth at 50,000 feet ???

 

[lasthero]

You are smarter than August Piccard who is quoted in the Agust 1931 edition of Popular mechanics after reaching an altitude of 50,000 feet as saying the earth looked flat with upturned edges.

Piccard isn't quoted as saying that. The person who wrote the article wrote that, but if you read the actual article, you'll note it's not a direct quote. There are direct quotes of him in that article. That's not one of them.

Notably, in all of Piccard's writings after that article, he only ever refers to the Earth as a globe. It's also telling that, despite him writing extensively about that voyage, he never describes the Earth as appearing flat. There's no real indication that he thought the Earth was anything but round.

 

[Radagast]

You are smarter than August Piccard who is quoted in the Agust 1931 edition of Popular mechanics after reaching an altitude of 50,000 feet as saying the earth looked flat with upturned edges.

Just another lie. He didn't say that. And the article was in Popular Science, not Popular Mechanics: Popular Science

 

[Radagast]

Newton thought lead could be turned into gold.

You have a quote from his writings where he says that?

And how does that relate to his physics, anyway? Galileo and Newton pioneered what we call physics. Chemistry lagged behind.

 

[Radagast]

There's no real indication that he thought the Earth was anything but round.

He describes it as round, as every sane person does, as in this interview about the balloon ascent: Stratosphère vaincue

At 7:28, the interviewer asks: "at this altitude, can you see the curvature of the earth?" Piccard replies "Probably, if we compare exactly using a ruler we would certainly see that the earth is curved, but through the portholes we did not notice it."

 

[Rick Otto]

You have a quote from his writings where he says that?

And how does that relate to his physics, anyway? Galileo and Newton pioneered what we call physics. Chemistry lagged behind.

No quote required to know of his passion for alchemy.
His physics were perverted by his materialism. He ignored energy experimentation and observation in favor of mathematic modeling, leading to ...well, let's say "ungodly" conclusions, the results of which can only be obscured by indefinables like dark energy, dark matter, black holes, gravity, etc., ad infinitum.
The bang Galileo and Newton were getting for their buck was proving the bible wrong.
They ran with that crowd.

 

[Rick Otto]

He describes it as round, as every sane person does, as in this interview about the balloon ascent: Stratosphère vaincue

At 7:28, the interviewer asks: "at this altitude, can you see the curvature of the earth?" Piccard replies "Probably, if we compare exactly using a ruler we would certainly see that the earth is curved, but through the portholes we did not notice it."

He knew better than trigger anyone.
Thank God for "probably", right? lol

 

[Aldebaran]

The bang Galileo and Newton were getting for their buck was proving the bible wrong.
They ran with that crowd.

Early in 1616, Galileo was accused of being a heretic, a person who opposed Church teachings. Heresy was a crime for which people were sometimes sentenced to death. Galileo was cleared of charges of heresy, but was told that he should no longer publicly state his belief that Earth moved around the Sun.

Oh, if only we could all get our money's worth....

 

[patrick jane]

Can you, reliably, see the curve of the Earth at 50,000 feet ???

No and not at 125,000 feet either.

 

[Rick Otto]

Early in 1616, Galileo was accused of being a heretic, a person who opposed Church teachings. Heresy was a crime for which people were sometimes sentenced to death. Galileo was cleared of charges of heresy, but was told that he should no longer publicly state his belief that Earth moved around the Sun.

Oh, if only we could all get our money's worth....

It was theatre. Controlled opposition.
"The Church" by that time was as or more corrupt than the "synagogue of satan".
Get over it, get out of it.

 

[A_Thinker]

It was theatre. Controlled opposition.
"The Church" by that time was as or more corrupt than the "synagogue of satan".
Get over it, get out of it.

yup ... everybody's pulling rabbits out of thin air ...

 

[Radagast]

He ignored energy experimentation and observation in favor of mathematic modeling, leading to ...well, let's say "ungodly" conclusions

False. And, in any case, Newton's law of gravity and its Einsteinian correction have been very well tested.

The bang Galileo and Newton were getting for their buck was proving the bible wrong.
They ran with that crowd.

False. Yet again.

 

[patrick jane]

I'm looking into GPS a little more. It seems they work similarly to crank and cam sensors and wheel speed sensors in automotive applications. Smart phones as well, as they all have Hall Effect sensors inside.


GPS is actually Geolocation or Position with earth's magnetic field and the North Pole at it center. No internet or satellites are needed for these devices to function. Since is slightly off the True North all GPS systems are slightly off of the exact location.


IOW, if you're lost in the Outback with your phone you are out of luck because there are no towers to get a coverage. However, if you have saved a Google map of that area on your phone then even without data coverage you are good to go.


9 minutes

 

[Aldebaran]

It was theatre. Controlled opposition.
"The Church" by that time was as or more corrupt than the "synagogue of satan".
Get over it, get out of it.

99% of us already are. That's why the church of today (or at least 99% of it) no longer insists that the earth is flat and that people who say otherwise are liars.