SH Archive When does it start to curve?

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: jd755
Date: 2019-01-20 11:03:22
Reaction Score: 7

hey @jd755, your post is curiously different, I would like to ask you about some points you have made and perhaps make some counter points I think worthy of consideration. not to argue but to see where it leads.

all words are, right? if not then what words are not 'planted'?

how is water, fire? water is certainly an element. one of four according to the ancients (allegedly), five if we are to count plasma as one also.

which 't', which letter 't' in what word? maybe we can figure out the 'why'?

among the living waters, living memory, medium capable of transmitting sounds(word/verb/vibe) faster than air. water is certainly a key component for advanced connections.

the mad hatter. lol tell us about it!

p.s.
from: From Transylvania to Tunbridge Wells - Chapter 12

interesting to see your selection of 'bits'..i'll do me best.

the word earth obfuscates the reality of the water plane so is 'planted' into memory as soon as language gets im(in)planted of course they are just sounds to a baby (but who can remember?) but not for long.

everything takes place in water. strike a match a flame appears in the water vapour. don't do the 'elementals thing' any more due to an inherent yet for most of my life (not any more) latent aversion to 'being told'..the ego seems to creates limitations and defends them the divine has none divine sounds better than ego.

this one literally appeared 'out of the ether' one day whilst wandering around the manor "a plane is hidden by the simple addition of a t" it resonated is the only way i can describe the feeling i felt and still feel. certainly explains the existence of spell (in) books and the constant re (religious education) defining of me(ME)aning

cannot add anything to the last one save this bit , this is a water plane everything is bi(E)rthed,lives,dies, rises and falls, assembles and disassembles, waves and troughs, flows and ebbs within water, air is quite literally an illusion. hah possibly another 'planted' word just as earth is.

I cannot argue any more (got the t shirt) as its crystal the ego makes its own reality and yet go find an ego to 'deal with'.

yes i am glad this asylum found me.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Tyrion
Date: 2019-01-20 14:24:10
Reaction Score: 1

If “Earth” was a spinning globe how fast are those satellites to keep up with such a tremendous speed? Do Australians have magnets on their shoes to keep them from falling?

 

[Kentucky]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: kentucky
Date: 2019-01-20 14:37:42
Reaction Score: 10

I too find the idea of a dome earth interesting, and all the concepts of past cultures, etc., even though I'm not sure they have survived completely. A flat earth of some sorts is certainly an interesting idea, and definitely more credible than NASA's version.

I just think it would be nice if there was actual proof being produced by the flat-earth community, since they all seem to be 100% sure of their claims.

I think most flat-earthers are probably well-meaning, and I understand that no one can expected to be a scientist.

Also the basic realization that we are living in a small sphere, and there is a dome above us is probably correct, so they are on to something profound.

Here's a good article from creatonist.com about the logical flaws of flat earth ideology:

View attachment 15583

There are many different ways to think through these things, but here is one very powerful method. This Venn diagram illustrates two competing theories, represented by the blue and red circles.

Contrary to the way most people think, competing theories are often not mutually-exclusive. In fact, they often predict many of the same things (represented by the area of overlap, zone II, in purple). For example, both creation and evolution can handle ‘change over time’ and ‘natural selection’, so neither of these can be used as “proof” of evolution. Both of these ideas sit comfortably in zone II. Thus, evolution cannot be defined simply as “change over time”. In fact, that is about the lamest possible definition. Any definition of evolution must also include a belief in common ancestry, which is definitely not in the area of overlap!

Most people spend their time arguing about things that fit in the area of overlap. Very often, this results in a sort of tug-of-war over basic facts and the conversation just goes in circles. If you really want to get to the heart of something, you have to get to the outer regions, zones I and III. These are the make-it-or-break-it questions. This is the place where you can really answer something.

For example, if the earth was flat and spinning about the North Pole, one can easily explain why the stars rotate counter-clockwise around the north star. But this is also explained with a spherical earth, so this is a “zone II” argument. However, and this is the kicker, flat-earth theory cannot explain why stars rotate clockwise about the southern pole for stargazers in the southern hemisphere. This is simply not possible unless the earth is indeed a rotating sphere. In fact, there is no “zone 1” for the flat-earther. That is, there is no observational or physical evidence in that theory that is not readily explained by the earth being a sphere. Worse, there is much they cannot explain. Worse yet, some of their ‘evidences’ are demonstrably untrue. Beware! How to think - creation.com

This quote on creationist.com is a great summary of flat-earth thinking:

The weight of evidence is so strongly against you that you actually have no theory. All you can claim is "conspiracy" and "people are lying" and things like that. And you claim I do not understand science! Please, pop your head out of "the rabbit hole of deception" and take a look around.

So if the following assumptions are both true:

(1) flight paths are correct
(2) we live inside something

...what would that something possibly be?

Asking that question would probably be a first step towards answers. The answer migh be obvious, or it may sound like a rhetorical question, but since almost no one is asking that question, there haven't been many models of where we are.

I'd love to expand on the following and/or reintroduce the thought later, but i'll start here, i suppose.

As an observer/follower of "flat earth" research, I've noticed that the naming of the thing itself presents a strawman that even those that do the research get caught up in it. Yes, flat-earthers are seeking to solve for a flat earth. Yes, they are using the scientific method and "the earth is flat" is their hypothesis. To say they are not doing so accordingly (being empirical) is a subjective generalization from one's own observation, but does not qualify as a matter of fact. Have you had in-depth and personal conversations with those at the top of FE research?

However, the problem is in the categorizing, just as the problem for most of us here arise when someone calls us "conspiracy theorists". It pigeon-holes us into a stereotype that groups us all as a "they". Many here know by now the traps that neophyte conspiracy theorists fall into and wouldn't dare be identified with "that" crowd, and yet many don't give FE research the same credit. We lump them all as a "they" and generalize their beliefs and actions. But I digress.

The point that I am trying to make is that most people that study the FE hypothesis mistakenly let themselves be called FE'rs. What many actually are are non-heliocentric, ex-heliocentric, anti-heliocentric, helio-agnostic, etc. There is no attractive name for it, and it doesn't help rally those who share their passion for researching this.

If someone identifies as or is identified as flat-earthers, then it begs the question for them to "prove it" - which is the work in progress, from which they without a doubt don't have all of the answers yet. And yes, they acknowledge and are trying to reconcile many of seemingly difficult problems (southern trails, southern flights). And they're doing it earnestly and attempting it scientifically.

But, they *do* have many proofs that show that the heliocentric model cannot stand. Galileo's heliocentric model was immediately "proven" wrong by his direct inheritors when they chose to "expand", "correct", "update", and "improve upon" it. It has been nothing but cart-before-the-horse "corrections" that they've instead deemed as "discoveries", ever since. The heliocentric theory was merely that, for allegedly hundreds of years. Until the 1950's when NASA allegedly started offering what is to be accepted as empirical and optical proofs.

Nevertheless, if you tell your friends and families that you are a non-helio (an identification that doesn't have any meaning to the layman, therefore must explain that you "don't believe in the heliocentric model"), rarely would their initial response be to prove it. Instead, the impulse is to ask "so what do you believe it is then?" which then produces the pigeon-holing FE trap. Please try this for yourself and see what response you get and share it with us, if you'd like.

When discussion revolves around proving or disproving FE, I've witnessed non-stop fallacies committed by the best of both sides. By the "I don't believe in FE"rs, the absence of evidence fallacy and appeal to ignorance is prevalent especially, even in this thread.

The thing is, many here are skeptical about the nature of the heliocentric model, or at least skeptical about what we've been taught about space (and landing on the moon). And, for those that believe in the heliocentric model still, you'd be surprised how well-researched and knowledgable that doubters (and FE'rs) are about the heliocentric model. Do you know the distances to the sun and moon and relative sizes, the speed of earth's rotation, diameter and circumference of earth? These are simple measurements that many of the same people who call FErs anti-scientific nutjobs can't answer. Can you give an example of a 4- or 5-body problem and state an inference of that? Can you simply define dark matter to a lay-person in a way that they can understand it and infer a problem with it? I've seen so many throw spears at FE research and yet do not know the science that they claim to back.

I must stop here as I must be off for the day. Please AMA publically or privately about my experience with FE research, I'll get back to you as I have time and would love to.

 

[TH Dialectic]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: TH Dialectic
Date: 2019-01-20 14:47:16
Reaction Score: 2

I'd love to expand on the following and/or reintroduce the thought later, but i'll start here, i suppose.

As an observer/follower of "flat earth" research, I've noticed that the naming of the thing itself presents a strawman that even those that do the research get caught up in it. Yes, flat-earthers are seeking to solve for a flat earth. Yes, they are using the scientific method and "the earth is flat" is their hypothesis. To say it's not is a mere subjective generalization of one's own observation, but cannot qualify as a matter of fact. Have you had in-depth and personal conversations with those at the top of FE research?

However, the problem is in the categorizing, just as the problem for most of us here arise when someone calls us "conspiracy theorists". It pigeon-holes us into a stereotype that groups us all as a "they". Many here know by now the traps that neophyte conspiracy theorists fall into and wouldn't dare be identified by "that" crowd, and yet many don't give FE research the same credit. We lump them all as a "they" and generalize their beliefs and actions. But I digress.

The point that I am trying to make is that most people that study the FE hypothesis mistakenly let themselves be called FE'rs. What many actually are are non-heliocentric, ex-heliocentric, anti-heliocentric, helio-agnostic, etc. There is no attractive name for it, and it doesn't help rally those who share their passion for researching this.

If someone identifies as or is identified as flat-earthers, then it forces the question "prove it", which is the work in progress, and they don't have the answers yet. And yes, they acknowledge and are trying to reconcile many of seemingly difficult problems (southern trails, southern flights). And they're doing it earnestly and attempting it scientifically.

But, they *do* have many proofs that the heliocentric model can't stand. Galileo's heliocentric model was immediately "proven" wrong by his direct inheritors when they chose to "expand", "correct", and "update" it. It has been nothing but cart-before-the-horse "corrections" that they instead deem "discoveries, ever since.

Nevertheless, if you tell your friends and families that you are a non-helio (an identification that doesn't have any meaning to the layman, therefore must explain that you "don't believe in the heliocentric model"), rarely would their initial response be to prove it. Instead, the impulse is to ask "so what do you believe it is then?" which then produces the pigeon-holing FE trap. Please try this for yourself and see what response you get and share it with us, if you'd like.

When discussion revolves around proving or disproving FE, I've witnessed non-stop fallacies committed by the best of both sides. By the "I don't believe in FE"rs, the absence of evidence fallacy and appeal to ignorance is prevalent especially, even in this thread.

The thing is, that most here are skeptical about the nature of the heliocentric model. And, for those that believe in the heliocentric model still, you'd be surprised how well-researched and knowledgable they (and FE'rs) are about the heliocentric model. Do you know the distances to the sun and moon and relative sizes, the speed of earth's rotation, diameter and circumference of earth? These are simple measurements that many people that call FErs anti-scientific nutjobs can't answer. Can you give an example of a 4- or 5-body problem and state an inference of that? Can you simply define dark matter to a lay-person in a way that they can understand it and infer a problem with it? I've seen so many throw spears at FE research and yet do not know the science that they claim to back.

I must stop here as I must be off for the day. Please AMA publically or privately about my experience with FE research, I'll get back to you as I have time and would love to.

Very well articulated Kentucky, we are simply Geocentrists. No need to pigeonhole or ring fence anyone

The mainstream are permanently attacking a strawman and peddling false dichotomies to come to unrealistic claims and conclusions.

TH

 

[dreamtime]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: dreamtime
Date: 2019-01-20 14:58:09
Reaction Score: 1

I'd love to expand on the following and/or reintroduce the thought later, but i'll start here, i suppose.

As an observer/follower of "flat earth" research, I've noticed that the naming of the thing itself presents a strawman that even those that do the research get caught up in it. Yes, flat-earthers are seeking to solve for a flat earth. Yes, they are using the scientific method and "the earth is flat" is their hypothesis. To say it's not is a mere subjective generalization of one's own observation, but cannot qualify as a matter of fact. Have you had in-depth and personal conversations with those at the top of FE research?

However, the problem is in the categorizing, just as the problem for most of us here arise when someone calls us "conspiracy theorists". It pigeon-holes us into a stereotype that groups us all as a "they". Many here know by now the traps that neophyte conspiracy theorists fall into and wouldn't dare be identified by "that" crowd, and yet many don't give FE research the same credit. We lump them all as a "they" and generalize their beliefs and actions. But I digress.

The point that I am trying to make is that most people that study the FE hypothesis mistakenly let themselves be called FE'rs. What many actually are are non-heliocentric, ex-heliocentric, anti-heliocentric, helio-agnostic, etc. There is no attractive name for it, and it doesn't help rally those who share their passion for researching this.

If someone identifies as or is identified as flat-earthers, then it forces the question "prove it", which is the work in progress, and they don't have the answers yet. And yes, they acknowledge and are trying to reconcile many of seemingly difficult problems (southern trails, southern flights). And they're doing it earnestly and attempting it scientifically.

But, they *do* have many proofs that the heliocentric model can't stand. Galileo's heliocentric model was immediately "proven" wrong by his direct inheritors when they chose to "expand", "correct", and "update" it. It has been nothing but cart-before-the-horse "corrections" that they instead deem "discoveries, ever since.

Nevertheless, if you tell your friends and families that you are a non-helio (an identification that doesn't have any meaning to the layman, therefore must explain that you "don't believe in the heliocentric model"), rarely would their initial response be to prove it. Instead, the impulse is to ask "so what do you believe it is then?" which then produces the pigeon-holing FE trap. Please try this for yourself and see what response you get and share it with us, if you'd like.

When discussion revolves around proving or disproving FE, I've witnessed non-stop fallacies committed by the best of both sides. By the "I don't believe in FE"rs, the absence of evidence fallacy and appeal to ignorance is prevalent especially, even in this thread.

The thing is, that most here are skeptical about the nature of the heliocentric model. And, for those that believe in the heliocentric model still, you'd be surprised how well-researched and knowledgable they (and FE'rs) are about the heliocentric model. Do you know the distances to the sun and moon and relative sizes, the speed of earth's rotation, diameter and circumference of earth? These are simple measurements that many people that call FErs anti-scientific nutjobs can't answer. Can you give an example of a 4- or 5-body problem and state an inference of that? Can you simply define dark matter to a lay-person in a way that they can understand it and infer a problem with it? I've seen so many throw spears at FE research and yet do not know the science that they claim to back.

I must stop here as I must be off for the day. Please AMA publically or privately about my experience with FE research, I'll get back to you as I have time and would love to.

You can either critizize the mainstream model or propose an alternative, but when you do the latter you have to provide actual arguments. It's that simple. Someone in the thread said "The earth is flat", I want to know where is the basic evidence.

I don't care about sociological analyzing of the groups, I want to talk about the models itself.

Are you kidding, you want to tell me the thousands of spammy youtube videos like "FLAT EARTH WHAT I ATE FOR BREAKFAST TODAY PROVEN CONSPIRACY" are helio-agnostic?

The whole movement is a straw man, that is true. Because those who are focusing on the crtiticism of the mainstream model are being ignored.

The point that I am trying to make is that most people that study the FE hypothesis mistakenly let themselves be called FE'rs. What many actually are are non-heliocentric, ex-heliocentric, anti-heliocentric, helio-agnostic, etc. There is no attractive name for it, and it doesn't help rally those who share their passion for researching this.

this is definitely not being reflected by what can be found on the web about this. The FE movement undermines the non-heliocentric, geocentric researchers.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Tyrion
Date: 2019-01-20 15:08:28
Reaction Score: 3

Hundreds of cultures before us knew very well how the earth is!
What evidence can anyone provide anyways? No one has gone through the firmament to take a picture of the earth. When we say flat earth we say flat surface, is that simple. The surface of the whole world where we live is flat. The mountains, hills, rivers, oceans all stand over a flat surface. The horizon never curves anywhere, when a ship disappears in the horizon it can be seen again with a better optic.

Flat Earth is a term that lost all reputation, PTB made it so. Maybe we flat earthers should simply defend the inmovable plain surface, and ditch the the term “flat earth” forever.

 

[dreamtime]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: dreamtime
Date: 2019-01-20 15:39:40
Reaction Score: 2

Yes, Tyrion, you can't explore the topic further in any way beyond the simple observation, because no theoretical model works with a flat surface when thinking it through.

For example if the sun is always 3,000 miles above the plain surface, how could it ever set on the horizon? That would obviously include the bending of light. But if light bends, how can you be sure the flat plane you see really is flat?

Besides the entire lack of empirical evidence (flight paths, etc.), there is also a total lack of any coherent model.

The inversion of reality (Earth as a hollow sphere) into the illusion of earth as a ball was an evil genius move by the PTB. Now the people that see through the NASA/Space/heliocentrism/Einstein myths and lies are trapped in flat surface thinking.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Tyrion
Date: 2019-01-20 15:54:32
Reaction Score: 1

Yes, Tyrion, you can't explore the topic further in any way beyond the simple observation, because no theoretical model works with a flat surface when thinking it through.

For example if the sun is always 3,000 miles above the plain surface, how could it ever set on the horizon? That would obviously include the bending of light. But if light bends, how can you be sure the flat plane you see really is flat?

Besides the entire lack of empirical evidence (flight paths, etc.), there is also a total lack of any coherent model.

The inversion of reality (Earth as a hollow sphere) into the illusion of earth as a ball was an evil genius move by the PTB. Now the people that see through the NASA/Space/heliocentrism/Einstein myths and lies are trapped in flat surface thinking.

Maybe the sun does the same effect as a ship, disappears in the horizon because it follows its routine path. Nothing can be explained with any existing theoretical model because is all BS, excuse me for my language.

 

[dreamtime]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: dreamtime
Date: 2019-01-20 16:00:49
Reaction Score: 0

It's actually the other way round. All models can explain the empirical observable reality.

The nature of a model is that it can explain everything that is being observed.

Heliocentrism is one of those models, and it explains a great deal. Doesn't mean it's true.

I can also create a model of a big elephant at the center of the solar system, but it will be a bit harder to explain the fact that I don't see such elephant in the sky.

There's also attempts to create a model with a flat surface, but those are not very good, and fail to explain fundamental aspects. That's the problem. While explaining one thing, (for example the sun resolving around the surface in 3,000 km height) the model opens up new problems that are impossible to solve.

 

[KD Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2019-01-20 17:55:33
Reaction Score: 5

There are quite a few websites and videos on the issue of the setting Sun.

#1. What I would like to know is what happened to the centrifugal force, when comparing the below.

A person or object on the Equator travels 48,000 km or 24,901 miles in 24 hours.

• This is 2,000 kph, or 1,242 mph

A person or object 1 mile away from the North Pole travels 10.1 kilometers or 6.28 miles in 24 hours.

• This is 0.42 kph, or 0.26 mph

Obviously the distance traveled/speed changes while the Gravity Force stays more or less the same 9.8 m/s² anywhere you go. How does the globe model compensate for the Centrifugal Force changes between the above two points.

#2. I understand that the gravity is being claimed to affect airplanes by pulling them down (in simple terms), but how does it affect sound waves?

• Mach 1 speed, aka the speed of sound is 767.3 mph, or 1234.8 kph.
• Unless gravity attracts sound waves as well, some people on the Equator would have a very hard time communicating while outpacing the speed of sound by some 500 mph.
• Obviously between the North Pole and Equator rotational speed changes, but gravity and the speed of sound stay more or less the same.
• On flat and stationary surface the above issues do not exist.

 

[dreamtime]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: dreamtime
Date: 2019-01-20 18:48:48
Reaction Score: 0

There are quite a few websites and videos on the issue of the setting Sun.

In that model it is impossible for an object to actually go below the surface (obviously), like the sun does from the point of view of the observer. The difference between observation and reality is explained by the common observation of things around us and the 'law of perspective' without explaining what that possibly would be.

This 'law of perspective' is problematic, because it uses circular logic - The earth is flat. So things disappearing at the horizon are simply a matter of perspective. Thus the sun does not disappear into the sky. Thus the earth is flat.

So suddenly perspective is illusory, as long as it fits the theory, but looking at a straight horizon is taken at face value without taking into account this obscure law of perspective.

Using the common observation of disappearing objects approaching the horizon subjectively (like street lights or trees in a row) is also not relevant, because when you look through something that brings you closer to the object, you can actually observe it again. This does not happen with things that actually disappear into the horizon.

The only thing the sun could do would become proggressively smaller, actually disappearing/vanishing into the sky, but not going below the surface. Especially at the height it is supposed to travel.

Without a model that takes into account bending light, a sun could never go below the surface from the viewpoint of the observer.

A distinct difference in seize would be measurable, too. Sun at noon would be multiple times bigger than when it sets in the evening. But that's not the case, the sun sets with the same size as it is at noon.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Deleted_x7
Date: 2019-01-20 19:18:18
Reaction Score: 0

know it all, eats (buys into) the tree of know ledge of both. I call it 'knowitallitus'

I am recovering from it. I think my recovery was what allowed me to even contemplate FE, as I mentioned it was a fairly easy step for me and a good exercise. thats why I think anyone willing to consider it (FE) has to be somewhat awakened.

allegedly, a man who went by the name Socrates once said "I appear to be more intelligent than he because I do not think I know what I do not" something like that.. that is the gist of it anyway, this "old saying" has been most useful on my own path in order to heal from the dis ease that I call knowitallitus.

and then came the mandela effect.. but that seems to be more illusive? perhaps it only affects those who are ready, I do not know. before this ME I was already questioning everything, thats why I considered FE but I had already been on the lawful path for a while when it started making the rounds so I had a leg up on most as I had been able to form my own rules of evidence and hearsay (which are quite different from the legal societies, much stricter FWIW) understanding vs overstanding with innerstanding then overcoming instead of succumbing. I recommend unorthodox law studies to all truth seekers although it has been the most difficult of all. it actually includes all others, especially language and history.

after becoming a student of Law (not 'law student') I was able to reach conclusions that I could stand on, built upon solid ground (rock solid) upon a spherical earth, a conclusion I am able to prove in any competent court of law.

problem with FE vs SE, RE, etc, etc. and arguing any position in a court of public opinion is that there are no binding rules of this court and that why this will go on and on, never coming to a verifiable conclusion even when the case has already been settled by much higher courts.

there are no 'maxims of law' in the court of public opinion, no rules of evidence, no codes of conduct, etc. etc.

so whats the point? shake spears at ignorance, sabre rattle, argument for the sake of it, shine light in the darkness, false light, gas light..

its a dance floor this court of public opinion, a stage that we all play a part on. but whos pulling the strings? that is the most important question IMO

so since we are all (for the most part) open minded, this might blow you away:

Im not buying it but it is good exercise!

since the ME, Im not so invested in any terra firma of any shape. if/when it comes right down to it though and I am put into a position where I must act, I can hold my own (competent court), thats not gonna happen here though because it cant.

best wishes to all true seekers here on this subject and to the others, bird is the word!

 

[BStankman]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: BStankman
Date: 2019-01-21 12:11:40
Reaction Score: 2

I have a form of Deuteranopia, so I have to accept other people's perception of reality differs from mine.

Just want to interject a short video here.

 

[_harris]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: 0harris0
Date: 2019-02-21 01:19:37
Reaction Score: 1

it's all just a mental projection, if you wana see it flat, you do... it's just an infinitely scrolling horizon anyhow... like pacman!

photographers who render such long images have just broken the draw distance algorithm

 

[AthroposRex]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: AnthroposRex
Date: 2020-01-17 19:43:12
Reaction Score: 1

According to this "official" source, the refraction you speak of decided to be bipolar as it caused a bend upwards.

There is an excellent post on this over at wildheretic.
Bendy light – the evidence – The Wild Heretic

The wild heretic site in general is super interesting. With bendy light it really sells the whole concave earth concept. Pretty mind blowing to think about.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Sasarara
Date: 2020-01-18 03:17:47
Reaction Score: 0

Is the moon round

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: ion.brad
Date: 2020-01-18 09:28:28
Reaction Score: 0

I see lots of round Earthers on this thread and I would like to know where was pushamaku wrong on his table and graph from the link FE - Nullarbor Plain, so write your explanation here, please! I cannot understand how is Mississippi climbing more than half of the Everest!

 

[Dielectric]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Dielectric
Date: 2020-01-18 11:06:15
Reaction Score: 2

I see lots of round Earthers on this thread and I would like to know where was pushamaku wrong on his table and graph from the link FE - Nullarbor Plain, so write your explanation here, please! I cannot understand how is Mississippi climbing more than half of the Everest!

Like anyone curious I too was taken by the flat earth meme when it first appeared. Over time my realization and awareness grew and that along with a primary interest in other fields lead to the realization that it's a psyop.

Be that as it may, the nature of water itself is poorly understood. Only in recent history was water discovered to be capable of forming itself in to a crystalline structure, and which has many implications, and water is also a dielectric fluid and is conductive and thus it will interact with a magnetic field, natural or electrical, and an MHD Drive (magneto-hydrodynamic drive) is a proven propulsion system which works off this understanding.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: ion.brad
Date: 2020-01-18 18:37:37
Reaction Score: 3

Like anyone curious I too was taken by the flat earth meme when it first appeared. Over time my realization and awareness grew and that along with a primary interest in other fields lead to the realization that it's a psyop.

Be that as it may, the nature of water itself is poorly understood. Only in recent history was water discovered to be capable of forming itself in to a crystalline structure, and which has many implications, and water is also a dielectric fluid and is conductive and thus it will interact with a magnetic field, natural or electrical, and an MHD Drive (magneto-hydrodynamic drive) is a proven propulsion system which works off this understanding.

If it is a psyop, that does not means that we leave on an ellipsoid! You cannot invent an other math, so I please you to stick with what you have learned in school! The fact that we do not understand water does not stop us to build subs, because the math helped us. So you cannot throw some words and run! You need a force in order to makes millions of tonnes of water to climb more than five kilometers. Either you name that force or I have the right to doubt the cosmology which was fed on me, including WGS84.

And you cannot come with some hills where cars go upside a few tens of meters with a few kilometers per hour! I need a force big enough to cover potential energy of Mississippi waters Ep=mgh, where m is the estimated mass of a medium debit of the Mississippi, g lets take it 10 m/s2 to help you and h is the difference in Earth ellipsoid radius between Pilottown and Itasca Lake, which pushamaku nailed for you at more than five kilometers.

You are allowed to prove that the formula used by pushamaku is wrong, but here "prove" means like in school, when we had to prove that, for example, a triangle which has equals angles at the base has also equal sizes. I hope that my English is good enough!

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: zatrix
Date: 2020-01-18 20:00:11
Reaction Score: 1

I have a form of Deuteranopia, so I have to accept other people's perception of reality differs from mine.

Just want to interject a short video here.

Here is the study mentioned in the video.

Users Polarization on Facebook and Youtube

Also I tried watching the video linked on the first page of this thread,

But hilariously I get this,