Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Glad you still have your sense of humor. Many people get angry, hostile and bash people..Why would they have to? Dig a ditch. The ditch is the depth you make it regardless of how long it is. What does the curve change?
Yeah about that, your math is wrong.
Except that if the sun was that close it's gravity would affect us differently. Gravity as a concept doesn't work at all in a FE model. Globes are formed because of gravity, other shapes can't maintain themselves.
But the only way to even allow for an FE model is to throw out TONS of evidence and say it's a vast conspiracy to fool you. The live stream from the ISS for example or pictures from the Apollo missions. Any new scientific model has to explain existing and established evidence not just throw it out.
I'm sure they make the same mistakes you do.
Why say that? We're all using the same earth curve calculations. They're uncontroversial. Even the globe-believers who take up the argument accept that 'we see too far', they just try to explain it away, generally by 'refraction'. This is clearly inadequate, as for instance, there is no distortion, and also in some experiments you can see things like far shorelines behind the objects eg buoys, that are supposed to be refracted.
Unfortunately, the theory of universal gravitation has led us to having to postulate 95%+ of the 'universe' is dark matter and dark energy. Totally unknown. As Michiu Kaku admits, the theory is out by a factor of 1^120, which he concedes is the biggest gap between theory and observation in the history of science. So congrats modern cosmology and Big G, you've debunked your own absurd paradigm. Time to leave it behind. Just the gravitational solar system idea is totally unworkable when you think about it afresh.
Sure, we don't trust the photos from space. They're unverified and unverifiable. And moreover, some of the 'classics' like 'earthrise' are proven to have been edited. There are so many anomalies. Sometimes stars, other times not. The astronauts are always contradicting each other on this point too, as well as things like the experience of the hi-radiation van halen belt (yes, van allen). What other evidence is there of 'outer space' than maths theory plus star trek?
Ok, if you're going to dismiss it out of hand, just admit you're totally prejudiced and sorry, but quit wasting my time trying to give you resources. But if you're ready to entertain the possibility that the world actually matches your daily experience of it - flat and stationary - then I encourage you to delve in.
I take it you don't get how refraction works.
If you can provide a unified theory that doesn't need dark matter go for it but it has to account for things we already know like the gravitational constant and observations of the movement of the planets. From what we know about gravity a large disk in space will not hold it's shape.
So every space faring country on Earth is involved in a massive conspiracy to fool you specifically.
That every single frame from the ISS is doctored to fool you personally?
That every government adds delays to their communications satellites just to fool you personally?
That every airline in the world takes a longer route just to fool you personally?
That every shipping company takes a longer route just to fool you personally?
That every astronomer ever in the history of humanity lied about their observations to fool you personally?
You dismiss everything that disproves FE out of hand, I encourage you to learn more physics.
These are physics 101 issues that are just imponderable for the globe-believer. And before you turn to your all-purpose ad hoc 'Gravity' to answer all, just think about it...if you dare.
No, there are many flight routes that have been re-mapped onto flat earth and make more sense. You must have experienced plenty of flights eg 'via Dubai' for no good reason.
Of course not, but there are many experiments disproving the refraction hypothesis. For instance, the guy on the boat who keeps the building in shot as he heads 15kms towards it and back out again. I take it you don't get how pride blinds.
Yes, it's called the flat, stationary and enclosed earth. It doesn't need inconceivable theoretical distances and timeframes, nor ad hoc postulates to hold together an almost infinite set of moving parts.
It offends the modern mind in its simplicity.
Not me specifically or personally, but the general public as a whole. It is 'occult knowledge', for the 'illuminated ones'. But not really, it's there in plain words in the Bible.
What satellites? Something like 97% of the worlds comms use land and undersea cables. Look it up.
No, there are many flight routes that have been re-mapped onto flat earth and make more sense. You must have experienced plenty of flights eg 'via Dubai' for no good reason.
Same as above. The Suez Canal is totally straight and FLAT the whole way. That's how it was engineered and built, no compensation for curvature.
Where do you get these sweeping generalisations? Check out the Michelson Morley experiment, Michelson Gale, Sagnac for starters. Airey's Failure, there's another one. The flat non-rotating earth was still being taught in schools in the early 20th century.
I understand it's a lot to take in, and challenges some pretty basic issues of trust that have been instilled in you by the system. You might want to start with a less 'radical' truth, like 911 or the moon landing frauds.
Ah, the denial is strong in this one. Let me know what I've dismissed. And whil'd your at it, maybe you could point me to an experiment with spinning ball holding water to its exterior. Or how to maintain a high and low pressure system side by side with no barrier separating them.
These are physics 101 issues that are just imponderable for the globe-believer. And before you turn to your all-purpose ad hoc 'Gravity' to answer all, just think about it...if you dare.
I used to map great circle flights for marketing purposes for the Boeing 777 for fuel saving amounting to millions of dollars. Believe me, if we could map on a flat earth, we would have.
I take it you didn't like the math in physics.
But a LOT of people would need to know the truth to pull off such a ruse, to the point where the people in the know would out number the people being fooled.
Military satellites are used to communicate with forces far from friendly communication infrastructure so it's important for them, every major country has some satellite communications for that.
Long flight routes are for logistical and cost cutting reasons. In general though flights are setup to save fuel, hence the globe arc in their paths.
And there it is, the real heart of the issue. An FE model is SPECIAL knowledge that you know because you are ever so smart and not like the sheep. No one is trying to fool you (without trying to take your money at least) and you know why? Because you are not special and it's just not worth the effort.
An FE model requires gravity for the same answers you know. Water stays down in either model because of gravity and the air doesn't leave (at least not all at once) because of gravity in both models. It's just that gravity in a globe model also explains the moon and other planets and their orbits and those things just don't work in an FE model.
Gravity comes from mass in a globe model and it can't come from mass in an FE model because again mass based gravity forms into a globe. I suppose it could come from the turtle the world is on top of but that creates it's own problems.
Gravity is a major part of Physics 101. With that, you can use pretty easy calculations to determine the amount of force due to gravity on a given mass of water at a given distance from the center of the Earth. Plenty to keep it from spinning into space. Oh, and note that the water pressure increases with the depth of the water, thanks to the weight of the water due to gravity.
Right, so do the calcs on the mass of the moon and its ability to affect the tides at 250,000km distance. I think you'll find it doesn't work. And if it did, why doesn't the moon fall to earth...due to gravity?
Ow, it burns. If you want to try to make a case that refraction explains the sighting etc of objects at distance X that should be obscured by a mountain of bulge at height Y on a 40,000km circumference sphere, be my guest. Make the case or drift.
Not really, if everyone just believes it because they're taught it from day dot, it becomes de facto reality. Like those '5 monkeys' experiments where everyone ends up falling in line but never asking why. Group psychology shows it's actually disturbingly easy. Why? Because we're sheepish and accepting. That's why I choose the Good Shepherd, because I know I can trust the God who suffered and died for me. Who you gonna trust?
No satellites. For starters, find me just one photograph of a satellite, whether on earth or up there. Lots of cartoons. There's supposed to be around 30,000 satellites in space, try finding one (shooting stars don't count). If you think GPS can perfectly triangulate you driving along by a team of satellites at 35000km distance all orbitally tumbling in lockstep at 16000km/h as the gyrating spinning nutating earth hurtles elliptically through space weather, I'd say you're off with the faeries.
What's the signal delay at that distance, anyways?
Sure, so you're saying the average commercial airplane (get it 'plane'?) has to dip its nose every few minutes to follow the curve of the earth? Is that how gyroscopes work? I don't think so. Planes fly flat and level. After disembarking a long flight, do you really think you're standing upside down relative to where you were 12 hours before? Dang jetlag lol!
Not to mention the mess of flying when the earth is spinning away at 1,000 mph at the equator. Tell me, how high would you need to go straight up in a chopper, in order to come straight down and land in a different spot? Why not just hover and let your westerly destination come to you?
See above. I am the sheep, I choose the Good Shepherd, I gladly hear his voice. Don't follow the wolf in sheep's clothing, he just comes for to steal and kill and destroy. 'When he lies, he speaks his native language'. God is waiting for you to humble yourself, confess you don't know. Then He can show you.
Perhaps gravity is required in FE, but it isn't asked to do a magic show. If gravity holds the water to the spinning earth, why isn't there a huge drag on the oceans as the sea bed rotates away underneath?
1000mph is massive linear velocity.
Why doesn't the moon fall to earth?
And remember, pressure is a much stronger force than gravity. Why aren't we getting sucked into space?
I've watched the video. It's complete nonsense.@Akita Suggagaki You didn't even watch the video yet you say it is not the truth. You responded 8 mins after I posted, yet the video is 20 minutes long...
@messianist You didn't watch it either, for it proves NASA uses CGI/graphic manipulation.
Agreed. I don't know whether to laugh or to cry in despair.I've watched the video. It's complete nonsense.
I see that you are from Australia.. tell me, why can't you see the North Star over there?
It's more likely the experiment was done wrong.
But you are saying that a HUGE group of people are actively changing data and doing things that lose them money to fool you. According to you people are hiding an ice wall, faking the ISS and every satellite, lying about plane paths, etc, etc. That takes a lot of people to know that they are lying.
Satellites are small and fast so you wouldn't see one with the naked eye or even with a telescope, except maybe geosynchronous satellites.
Also you don't believe in GPS satellites?
How do you think all that works then?
The speed of light to the satellite and back, it's far enough that I believe it comes out to dozens of milliseconds.
You are really confused on how gravity works aren't you.
You are misunderstanding relative motion.
You've been in a car, once you stop accelerating and hit cruise control everything in the car is going to the same speed as you so if you pick up a ball and drop it in the car it would go straight down and not fly to the back.
The same thing is going on with the spin of the Earth, everything is going the same speed so if a helicopter goes straight up the earth doesn't just spin under them because the helicopter was already spinning with the earth when it was on the ground.
There is a special case when something goes very high very fast as in rocket launches. You notice that they start to curve, that's not the rocket curving it's the earth rotating away from it.
Many Christians believe in the globe model, what do you make of them?
Relative motion first of all and second there IS a drag. The oceans actually slow down the rotation of the earth VERY slightly.
Again, if FE requires gravity and gravity comes from mass then FE is already disproved because any mass large enough for gravity to be relevant will form into a globe.
Also the air would fall off the sides in an FE model.
It is but if EVERYTHING is going at that same speed would you notice it?
The same way all things orbit, it's going very fast sideways.
Pressure comes from gravity.
Haze. Tell me, how did Marconi send his radio signals trans-Atlantic when they're line-of-sight? How is it that Navy ship radar set at <50m height has a 250 mile range? How is it that whales can hear each other's sonar half a world away? The list goes on and on my friend. Any spectrum line of sight tech you can find - optics, laser, radio, microwave, sonar etc - all go much further than they should for a ball of 40,000 km circumference. And long range ballistics too.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?