NASA mars Landings are fake and actually filmed in the Gobi desert.
- Thread starter Dr. Truth
- Start date
I've been looking at the planets for years with my own telescopes. What in the world are you talking about?
They are not planets, just like the moon, they are not places you can go to.
Hey watch this rocket crash into the firmament
Last edited:
Link don't work"I’ve been getting lots of tweets and email from folks linking to a slick-looking video, a computer animation showing the motion of the planets around the Sun as the Sun orbits around the Milky Way Galaxy. It’s a very pretty video with compelling music and well-done graphics.
However, there’s a problem with it: It’s wrong. And not just superficially; it’s deeply wrong, based on a very wrong premise. While there are some useful visualizations in it, I caution people to take it with a galaxy-sized grain of salt.
Why? The basis of the claim is that the planets aren’t orbiting the Sun heliocentrically, but are instead a vortex going around the galaxy.
Normally I wouldn’t bother debunking stuff like this; wacky claims are made all the time and usually disappear on their own. But in this case I’m getting a lot of people telling me about it, so clearly it’s popular—probably because it seems superficially right, and it has very nice graphics. I’m also seeing it spread around by people who do understand science, but missed the parts of it that are way off. With stuff like this, it always pays to dig a little deeper.
So let’s break out the shovels."
Viral Video Showing Sun’s “Vortex” Motion Is Wildly Inaccurate
I’ve been getting lots of tweets and email from folks linking to a slick-looking video, a computer animation showing the motion of the planets around...slate.com
Not planets dude, how many times I gotta.....
Yep, what I see through telescopes. How are those not planets?
Introduction to Flat Earth Theory
By the end of this lesson, students will be able to:
1. Reverse Engineering of Models:
The relationship between the Flat Earth and Globe models can best be described as one of reverse engineering. Whichever model is the true representation of our world, the other was constructed in its inverse. This explains why observable phenomena align seamlessly with a Flat Earth model, yet do not conform to alternative models like a Concave Earth or Pyramid Earth. It's a testament to the sophistication of both models that they can explain so much of our daily observations.
2. Humble Search for Truth:
It's important to underscore that many proponents of Flat Earth Theory readily admit they don't have definitive knowledge regarding the shape of the Earth. In science, it's a mark of wisdom to acknowledge the limits of current understanding. As students delve deeper into Flat Earth Theory, they'll appreciate the advanced mathematical and scientific models supporting it. Both the Flat Earth and Globe models present valid interpretations, and one doesn't negate the possible truth of the other.
3. Perspective and the Vanishing Point:
Objects naturally decrease in size as they move away from an observer, eventually converging at a vanishing point. This principle explains phenomena like sunsets on a Flat Earth. As the sun moves farther away, it seems to set, especially when coupled with the effects of atmospheric refraction. This phenomenon can be observed without necessitating any curvature to the Earth.
4. Debunking the Horizon Myth:
One of the long-standing misconceptions is that ships disappear hull-first over the horizon due to the Earth's curvature. However, with modern technology, like the P900 camera with 100x optical zoom, it's clear that objects previously thought to have vanished over a curve can still be observed. This revelation challenges traditional assumptions and demands a fresh perspective on observations.
5. Science, Not Scripture:
While some Flat Earth proponents may find alignment with religious scriptures, it's imperative to stress that Flat Earth Theory stands on its mathematical and scientific merits alone. Every argument presented in this course is grounded in empirical observation, mathematical calculation, and scientific reasoning, without resorting to religious or scriptural interpretations.
6. Dispelling Misconceptions:
Misinformation about Flat Earth abounds, from the notion of a floating disc in space to the belief in a world's edge one could tumble off. Such ideas are not representative of Flat Earth Theory. Proponents believe in an infinite plane, consistent with the idea that if space is boundless, so too could be the Earth. It's essential to approach Flat Earth Theory with an open mind, free from preconceived misconceptions.
Conclusion:
Flat Earth Theory, like all scientific theories, invites rigorous scrutiny, debate, and investigation. Throughout this course, students will delve into the nuances of these principles, fortified with empirical evidence, mathematical modeling, and logical reasoning. It is a journey of discovery, challenging preconceived notions, and forging paths to understanding. As with all explorations into the unknown, keep an open mind and always prioritize evidence over emotion.
By the end of this lesson, students will be able to:
- Understand the relationship between Flat Earth and Globe models in terms of reverse engineering.
- Recognize the humility and openness of Flat Earth proponents in their quest for truth.
- Comprehend the basic principles underpinning why objects disappear with distance on a Flat Earth.
- Distinguish between myths and observable phenomena, particularly in relation to objects disappearing over horizons.
- Appreciate the distinction between Flat Earth Theory and religious beliefs.
- Dispel common misconceptions surrounding Flat Earth Theory.
1. Reverse Engineering of Models:
The relationship between the Flat Earth and Globe models can best be described as one of reverse engineering. Whichever model is the true representation of our world, the other was constructed in its inverse. This explains why observable phenomena align seamlessly with a Flat Earth model, yet do not conform to alternative models like a Concave Earth or Pyramid Earth. It's a testament to the sophistication of both models that they can explain so much of our daily observations.
2. Humble Search for Truth:
It's important to underscore that many proponents of Flat Earth Theory readily admit they don't have definitive knowledge regarding the shape of the Earth. In science, it's a mark of wisdom to acknowledge the limits of current understanding. As students delve deeper into Flat Earth Theory, they'll appreciate the advanced mathematical and scientific models supporting it. Both the Flat Earth and Globe models present valid interpretations, and one doesn't negate the possible truth of the other.
3. Perspective and the Vanishing Point:
Objects naturally decrease in size as they move away from an observer, eventually converging at a vanishing point. This principle explains phenomena like sunsets on a Flat Earth. As the sun moves farther away, it seems to set, especially when coupled with the effects of atmospheric refraction. This phenomenon can be observed without necessitating any curvature to the Earth.
4. Debunking the Horizon Myth:
One of the long-standing misconceptions is that ships disappear hull-first over the horizon due to the Earth's curvature. However, with modern technology, like the P900 camera with 100x optical zoom, it's clear that objects previously thought to have vanished over a curve can still be observed. This revelation challenges traditional assumptions and demands a fresh perspective on observations.
5. Science, Not Scripture:
While some Flat Earth proponents may find alignment with religious scriptures, it's imperative to stress that Flat Earth Theory stands on its mathematical and scientific merits alone. Every argument presented in this course is grounded in empirical observation, mathematical calculation, and scientific reasoning, without resorting to religious or scriptural interpretations.
6. Dispelling Misconceptions:
Misinformation about Flat Earth abounds, from the notion of a floating disc in space to the belief in a world's edge one could tumble off. Such ideas are not representative of Flat Earth Theory. Proponents believe in an infinite plane, consistent with the idea that if space is boundless, so too could be the Earth. It's essential to approach Flat Earth Theory with an open mind, free from preconceived misconceptions.
Conclusion:
Flat Earth Theory, like all scientific theories, invites rigorous scrutiny, debate, and investigation. Throughout this course, students will delve into the nuances of these principles, fortified with empirical evidence, mathematical modeling, and logical reasoning. It is a journey of discovery, challenging preconceived notions, and forging paths to understanding. As with all explorations into the unknown, keep an open mind and always prioritize evidence over emotion.
Last edited:
This is the main problem with the Round Earthers.
Logical Fallacies - Identifying Misleading Arguments
Logical fallacies are errors or missteps in reasoning. Recognizing these fallacies is crucial in ensuring honest and constructive debate. This lesson will focus on fallacies commonly cited by proponents of the globe model.
1. Ad Hominem:
2. Appeal to Authority:
3. Strawman:
4. Appeal to Popularity (Ad Populum):
5. Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question):
6. No True Scotsman:
7. False Dichotomy:
Conclusion:
While passionate debates often involve emotional responses, it's crucial for logical consistency and credibility to avoid relying on fallacious reasoning. Recognizing these fallacies is not just beneficial for the flat Earth discussion but for any intellectual discourse one might encounter.
Logical Fallacies - Identifying Misleading Arguments
Logical fallacies are errors or missteps in reasoning. Recognizing these fallacies is crucial in ensuring honest and constructive debate. This lesson will focus on fallacies commonly cited by proponents of the globe model.
1. Ad Hominem:
- Definition: Attacking the person's character rather than addressing the actual argument or issue at hand.
- Example: "You can't possibly believe the Earth is flat; everyone knows only uneducated people believe that."
2. Appeal to Authority:
- Definition: Arguing that a claim is true simply because an authority or expert on the issue believes it to be true.
- Example: "All respected scientists believe the Earth is a sphere; thus, it must be true."
3. Strawman:
- Definition: Misrepresenting or exaggerating an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack.
- Example: "Flat Earthers think the sun is just a light bulb in the sky!" when the actual claim might be more nuanced.
4. Appeal to Popularity (Ad Populum):
- Definition: Arguing that a claim is true simply because many people believe it.
- Example: "The majority of the world believes the Earth is round, so it must be true."
5. Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question):
- Definition: A form of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, and the premises are supported by the proposition.
- Example: "The Earth is round because we have images showing it's round."
6. No True Scotsman:
- Definition: Making an appeal to purity to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws in one's argument.
- Example: "No true scientist would ever doubt the globe model."
7. False Dichotomy:
- Definition: Presenting only two options or sides when more exist.
- Example: "Either you trust the science and believe in a globe Earth, or you're denying reality."
Conclusion:
While passionate debates often involve emotional responses, it's crucial for logical consistency and credibility to avoid relying on fallacious reasoning. Recognizing these fallacies is not just beneficial for the flat Earth discussion but for any intellectual discourse one might encounter.
This does not imply that gravity does not exist, only that it's far weaker than the other fundamental forces over small scales. That's not in doubt by any serious scientist. He's showing that the force of gravity between two charges with tiny masses is insignificant compared to the electrostatic force between them.
So what are they? Do you consider them actual physical objects?
Yes. I believe they are wondering stars.
This channel on yt suggests that they are toroids layered on 7 ceilings within the firmament.
This is what I stated about gravity a few years back:
We, along with all matter in this known realm are inside of an electrostatic field. The earth itself has a negative electric charge compared to the air above it, all across the plane. As soon as you leave the surface there is a positive charge in the air around you that grows in electrostatic potential the further you go up towards the sky. It is a steady, gradual rise in potential which tells us, according to the laws of electricity that we are in between 2 Gaussian surfaces. A Gaussian surface is simply a surface that encloses or distributes a charge. If there were only one surface, the rate at which the positive potential grew would be different. Knowing that we are between 2 Gaussian surfaces we can also know that certain phenomena will take place in all matter within the electric field or area, between the 2 surfaces.
Polarization Through Electrostatic Induction
Electrostatic induction is a phenomenon where the positive and negative static charges on matter are slightly separated or polarized, due to the electrostatic charge of it’s surrounding area. If one set of the object’s surroundings is positive and the other is negative, the negative charge on the object will be attracted to the positive area around it, while the positive charge on the object will be attracted to the negative area on the opposite side. So here on Earth, the positive side on our bodies is always attracted DOWN, towards the earth and the negative will be attracted to the air above. This phenomena creates a slight force in that downward vector because as soon as we leave the ground we start becoming positively charged by the air around us and are now forced towards the negative on the ground. This is electrostatic acceleration. One might think that the attraction from above and below would cancel out completely but it’s the electrostatic gradient that creates a flow from the positive above to the negative below.
In the absence of density and buoyancy, that small force you think is gravity is indeed static electricity. The earth’s negative charge establishes the downward force. And like I said, this applies on a flat or globe earth.
This is the dumb propaganda I am talking about.
Either your ignorant ass is so dumb to not know what a de=spinner is or you do know and you are lying.
Even if you didn't know, common sense should have told you that a rocket would have exploded hitting a glass wall.
But just in case you are still scratching your head, here is a brief explanation of what a rocket yo-yo de=spinner is.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Animation showing a PAM-D with the Phoenix spacecraft. The stage is successively spun, fired, yo-yo de-spun and jettisoned.
A yo-yo de-spin mechanism is a device used to reduce the spin of satellites, typically soon after launch. It consists of two lengths of cable with weights on the ends. The cables are wrapped around the final stage and/or satellite, in the manner of a double yo-yo. When the weights are released, the spin of the rocket flings them away from the spin axis. This transfers enough angular momentum to the weights to reduce the spin of the satellite to the desired value. Subsequently, the weights are often released.[1]
De-spin is needed since some final stages are spin-stabilized, and require fairly rapid rotation (now typically 30-60 rpm; some early missions, such as Pioneer, rotated at over 600 rpm[2]) to remain stable during firing. (See, for example, the Star 48, a solid fuel rocket motor.) After firing, the satellite cannot be simply released, since such a spin rate is beyond the capability of the satellite's attitude control. Therefore, after rocket firing but before satellite release, the yo-yo weights are used to reduce the spin rates to something the satellite can cope with in normal operation (often 2-5 RPM).[3] Yo-yo de-spin systems are commonly used on NASA sub-orbital sounding rocket flights, as the vehicles are spin stabilized through ascent and have minimal flight time for roll cancellation using the payload's attitude control system.[4]
As an example of yo-yo de-spin, on the Dawn spacecraft, roughly 3 kilograms (6.6 lb) of weights, and 12-metre (39 ft) cables, reduced the initial spin rate of the 1,420-kilogram (3,130 lb) spacecraft from 46 RPM to 3 RPM in the opposite direction.[5] The relatively small weights have a large effect since they are far from the spin axis, and their effect increases as the square of the length of the cables.
Yo-yo de-spin was invented, built, and tested at Caltech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.[6]
Yo-yo hardware can contribute to the space debris problem on orbital missions, but this is not a problem when used on the upper stages of earth escape missions such as Dawn, as the cables and weights are also on an escape trajectory.
Yo-weight[edit]
Sometimes only a single weight and cable is used. Such an arrangement is colloquially named a "yo-weight." When the final stage is a solid rocket, the stage may continue to thrust slightly even after spacecraft release. This is from residual fuel and insulation in the motor casing outgassing, even without significant combustion. In a few cases, the spent stage has rammed the payload.[7] By using one weight without a matching counterpart, the stage eventually tumbles. The tumbling motion prevents residual thrust from accumulating in a single direction. Instead, the stage's exhaust averages out to a much lower value over a wide range of directions.In March 2009, a leftover yo-weight caused a scare when it came too close to the International Space Station.[8]
Watch Cashwhisper try to insult, lie about posting an explanation, or try to change the subject with another stupid meme.
Also in the video there what you show is the rocket exhaust expanding due to the air pressure getting thinner and thinner the higher you get in space. This is due to our planet having an air pressure gradient, when on land the pressure is at one level but the higher you go the thinner it gets. It gets thinner and thinner until it's a vacuum, never is there a high pressure next to a pure vacuum.
Last edited:
And now for the Death Blow.
Flat earthers scam exposed!!!!
@cashwhispererFlat earthers scam exposed!!!!
Not only is flat earth scam, but so-called debates with them (including this one) aren't debates at all, at least not to them. Because every time a flat earther talks about flat earth it becomes a recruiting opportunity. Even if they aren't trying to change the mind of the person they are debating or talking to, they are always actively trying home into their target audience, the skeptic scientific illiterate guy who thinks the word is trying to trick them.
I am going to tell you how they do it then show some real-time examples of them doing it.
1- They love to do Gotcha questions, hoping you don't know the answer to them, so they can come off as smarter than you. If you answer the question correctly they will quickly change the subject and move on to the next question. Their goal here is to try to get you or their target audience mixed up while avoiding the evidence you are presenting.
2 Like example one they never answer questions they know they cannot answer. All you have to do to see this is look back in at this thread when I rapidly asked Cashwhiperer simple questions like
1- What are the mechanisms that keep up and move the sun and the moon on a flat pizza
2- If gravity is fake how do gravimeters work
3- what causes of both the Aurora Borealis and Aurora Australis
4- Explain lunar and solar eclipses on a flat earth.
5- Why does the sun set button first while being obstructed by the Earth?
6- Why do all airline pilots use the haversine formula (the great circle) for all flight planning?
7- If no gravity what is causing Jupiter and Saturn's moons to orbit those planets, something I and many others have seen with telescopes?
8- If we live under a dome where do asteroids and meteors come from?
9- If gravity is fake how do we calculate buoyancy (for example whether or not a ship can float) without using the buoyancy equation that use gravity as a variable?
10- Why does the Mage2 video of a weather balloon going into the edge of space, with a rectilinear lens and reference straight strings to control any barrel distortion clearly show the curvature of the Earth yet there are no non-fish eye lens photos showing flatness.
Instead of answering these, they would change the subject, usually with a dumb question or meme, for example, they would say something like, how come the Markison and Morley experiment proves a stationary non-moving earth? Knowing damn well that particular experiment never tried to measure the motion of the planet, but rather the existence of the either or the notion that light needs a medium like sound to propagate.
What usually happens is that the argument is moved away from the subject that destroys flat earth onto something harder to debunk.
But if you can, you best believe they will do the same technique so they can change the subject yet again.
Watch as dude repeatedly try to change the subject by asking one jackass question after the other in real-time.
Do you ever notice flat earthers never give measurements? Or maybe you are on the other side of the fence wondering, what's the big deal about measurements? Well here's what's up, you need measurements to falsify or prove something wrong, and being that science doesn't prove things right, we need precise measurements to see if it can be falsified, and if it cannot be falsified then it moves closer to becoming a scientific theory (which is not to be confused with the colloquial definition of a theory, which is more or less a guess).
So a big part of the flat earth grift is never giving any measurements such as (the size of the moon, earth, and sun, the distance of the moon, sun, firmament, the speed of the moon, sun, and dome, nor do they give the mechanisms to how any of those things move.
The reason why they do this is to protect them from getting debunked.
Meanwhile, science gives you precise measurements to size, distance, and speed, to which the flat earthers try to poke holes in, to the point that they are now focussing on dark matter, stuff they would have to make up if they were lying, all would have to do is lie about the motion of the universe (that according to them doesn't exist) and create on that doesn't need dark matter and energy for it to work.
The fact they not only give you measurements of our planet, sun, moon, other planets, stars, other moons, and even movement of other solar systems and galaxies, shows that they aren't afraid to give measurements about everything.
So in the end, you can listen to a jailhouse lawyer who admits to getting his information from the Universe (guess that's what they call crack these days, or from people who actually studied and learned physics, mathematics, and science. And if you choose to still become a flat earther, after rejecting all the evidence, then stay right where you are at, because my job is the help people on the fence understand the flat earth grift, not to make retarded people normal!
As far as Cashwhiperer goes thanks for being as stupid as you are, because your dumbness is so apparent, that everyone here can see you don't know shit, and the comments here all reflect that. Now that I got that out of the way, I'm going to put your dumb ass back on ignore the only way you can talk to me again is if you can somehow find some real evidence or real scientific experiment that can answer the simple questions I just asked.
Told you it would not end well for you! buy-buy Dummy Boy!!!!
Last edited:
Earth's tilt is visualized by the sun's zenith angle for the spring, summer, fall, and winter equinoxes.
And now for the Death Blow.@cashwhisperer
Flat earthers scam exposed!!!!
Not only is flat earth scam, but so-called debates with them (including this one) aren't debates at all, at least not to them. Because every time a flat earther talks about flat earth it becomes a recruiting opportunity. Even if they aren't trying to change the mind of the person they are debating or talking to, they are always actively trying home into their target audience, the skeptic scientific illiterate guy who thinks the word is trying to trick them.
I am going to tell you how they do it then show some real-time examples of them doing it.
1- They love to do Gotcha questions, hoping you don't know the answer to them, so they can come off as smarter than you. If you answer the question correctly they will quickly change the subject and move on to the next question. Their goal here is to try to get you or their target audience mixed up while avoiding the evidence you are presenting.
2 Like example one they never answer questions they know they cannot answer. All you have to do to see this is look back in at this thread when I rapidly asked Cashwhiperer simple questions like
1- What are the mechanisms that keep up and move the sun and the moon on a flat pizza
2- If gravity is fake how do gravimeters work
3- what causes of both the Aurora Borealis and Aurora Australis
4- Explain lunar and solar eclipses on a flat earth.
5- Why does the sun set button first while being obstructed by the Earth?
6- Why do all airline pilots use the haversine formula (the great circle) for all flight planning?
7- If no gravity what is causing Jupiter and Saturn's moons to orbit those planets, something I and many others have seen with telescopes?
8- If we live under a dome where do asteroids and meteors come from?
9- If gravity is fake how do we calculate buoyancy (for example whether or not a ship can float) without using the buoyancy equation that use gravity as a variable?
10- Why does the Mage2 video of a weather balloon going into the edge of space, with a rectilinear lens and reference straight strings to control any barrel distortion clearly show the curvature of the Earth yet there are no non-fish eye lens photos showing flatness.
Instead of answering these, they would change the subject, usually with a dumb question or meme, for example, they would say something like, how come the Markison and Morley experiment proves a stationary non-moving earth? Knowing damn well that particular experiment never tried to measure the motion of the planet, but rather the existence of the either or the notion that light needs a medium like sound to propagate.
What usually happens is that the argument is moved away from the subject that destroys flat earth onto something harder to debunk.
But if you can, you best believe they will do the same technique so they can change the subject yet again.
Watch as dude repeatedly try to change the subject by asking one jackass question after the other in real-time.
Do you ever notice flat earthers never give measurements? Or maybe you are on the other side of the fence wondering, what's the big deal about measurements? Well here's what's up, you need measurements to falsify or prove something wrong, and being that science doesn't prove things right, we need precise measurements to see if it can be falsified, and if it cannot be falsified then it moves closer to becoming a scientific theory (which is not to be confused with the colloquial definition of a theory, which is more or less a guess).
So a big part of the flat earth grift is never giving any measurements such as (the size of the moon, earth, and sun, the distance of the moon, sun, firmament, the speed of the moon, sun, and dome, nor do they give the mechanisms to how any of those things move.
The reason why they do this is to protect them from getting debunked.
Meanwhile, science gives you precise measurements to size, distance, and speed, to which the flat earthers try to poke holes in, to the point that they are now focussing on dark matter, stuff they would have to make up if they were lying, all would have to do is lie about the motion of the universe (that according to them doesn't exist) and create on that doesn't need dark matter and energy for it to work.
The fact they not only give you measurements of our planet, sun, moon, other planets, stars, other moons, and even movement of other solar systems and galaxies, shows that they aren't afraid to give measurements about everything.
So in the end, you can listen to a jailhouse lawyer who admits to getting his information from the Universe (guess that's what they call crack these days, or from people who actually studied and learned physics, mathematics, and science. And if you choose to still become a flat earther, after rejecting all the evidence, then stay right where you are at, because my job is the help people on the fence understand the flat earth grift, not to make retarded people normal!
As far as Cashwhiperer goes thanks for being as stupid as you are, because your dumbness is so apparent, that everyone here can see you don't know shit, and the comments here all reflect that. Now that I got that out of the way, I'm going to put your dumb ass back on ignore the only way you can talk to me again is if you can somehow find some real evidence or real scientific experiment that can answer the simple questions I just asked.
Told you it would not end well for you! buy-buy Dummy Boy!!!!
That dumb shit you posted about de-spin takes the cake for me. I do not agree with you AT ALL.
This is what de-spin is designed to do, which is something entirely different than what was demonstrated in the video of the rocket hitting the firmament.
And the video you posted trying to NASAsplain the water in the sky, showing those graphics of the rocket pooting out spray!!
Nigga you are STOOPID!!!
Look @RoadRage, I don't give a fuck about being an evangelical for flat earth. I do however find it crazy and fascinating how indoctrinated you and your buddies are when it comes to accepting any and everything NASA tells you, I mean blatant CRAZY shit like this video here:
AND YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT SCAMS??? SCAMS NIGGA????
You actually keep defending this bullshit here even though you niggas get awfully quiet and CHANGE THE SUBJECT when I hit you with something that you CAN'T defend because deep down YOU KNOW it's some bullshit.
Cult is a term, in most contexts pejorative, for a relatively small group which is typically led by a charismatic and self-appointed leader, who tightly controls its members, requiring unwavering devotion to a set of beliefs and practices which are considered deviant. Wikipedia
I'm part of no cult. There is no charismatic and self-appointed leader of flat earth. I followed the science that I was taught and became BAFFLED when I found out it didn't match up with reality. I don't PUSH flat earth on anybody. Most of the time I don't even think about it. You got me totally bent. I'M BAFFLED NIGGA!!! I'M BAFFLED AT THIS GLOBE SHIT!!
Still I ask, why can you see further than you are supposed to, especially with infrared cameras if there's supposed to be curvature?? You duck and dodge questions like that.
Death Blow???
You BIG DUMMY!!
And your stupid ass trying to tell everybody I was going to call you stupid and post memes....you were absolutely right!! Here's one now!
I'd love for them to use those powerful satellites to zoom all the way in to show upside down buildings and people in REAL TIME! Don't you think we have the tech to do that??? Call your NASA buddies and demand they ZOOM IN!!
I bet yall hate Eddie Griffin too now, huh?? Yeah FUCK Eddie!!!
"Flat earth is REAL" - Eddie Griffin
You done fucked up now nigga!!!
Yeah nigga, put me on ignore! Cuz I'm ABOUT to go on a meme posting spree, slamming you with FACT after FACT after muthafuckin' FACT!!
Last edited:
That dumb shit you posted about de-spin takes the cake for me. I do not agree with you AT ALL.
This is what de-spin is designed to do, which is something entirely different than what was demonstrated in the video of the rocket hitting the firmament.
And the video you posted trying to NASAsplain the water in the sky, showing those graphics of the rocket pooting out spray!!
Nigga you are STOOPID!!!
Look @RoadRage, I don't give a fuck about being an evangelical for flat earth. I do however find it crazy and fascinating how indoctrinated you and your buddies are when it comes to accepting any and everything NASA tells you, I mean blatant CRAZY shit like this video here:
AND YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT SCAMS??? SCAMS NIGGA????
You actually keep defending this bullshit here even though you niggas get awfully quiet and CHANGE THE SUBJECT when I hit you with something that you CAN'T defend because deep down YOU KNOW it's some bullshit.
Cult is a term, in most contexts pejorative, for a relatively small group which is typically led by a charismatic and self-appointed leader, who tightly controls its members, requiring unwavering devotion to a set of beliefs and practices which are considered deviant. Wikipedia
I'm part of no cult. There is no charismatic and self-appointed leader of flat earth. I followed the science that I was taught and became BAFFLED when I found out it didn't match up with reality. I don't PUSH flat earth on anybody. Most of the time I don't even think about it. You got me totally bent. I'M BAFFLED NIGGA!!! I'M BAFFLED AT THIS GLOBE SHIT!!
Still I ask, why can you see further than you are supposed to, especially with infrared cameras if there's supposed to be curvature?? You duck and dodge questions like that.
Death Blow???
You BIG DUMMY!!
And your stupid ass trying to tell everybody I was going to call you stupid and post memes....you were absolutely right!! Here's one now!
I'd love for them to use those powerful satellites to zoom all the way in to show upside down buildings and people in REAL TIME! Don't you think we have the tech to do that??? Call your NASA buddies and demand they ZOOM IN!!
I bet yall hate Eddie Griffin too now, huh?? Yeah FUCK Eddie!!!
"Flat earth is REAL" - Eddie Griffin
You done fucked up now nigga!!!
Yeah nigga, put me on ignore! Cuz I'm ABOUT to go on a meme posting spree, slamming you with FACT after FACT after muthafuckin' FACT!!
Thought I was gone so you could whip out the derp memes.
But lets debunk that retarded shit you just posted, one by one.
First you think there is a top and bottom to the earth.
Consider this, if the Earth was a giant magnet that we stuck on feet first, and this magnetic globe was in a giant void where there was no way to orienate top from bottom where would the top of that ball be? There wouldn't be a top or bottom, and to the microscopic people living on the magnetic ball, up would always be above their head, while down towards their feet.I can't believe I am explaining this to a non retarded adult!
Next is the compass crap, you are too dumb to understand. So let me catch you up to speed.
Magnetic Fields follow the convexity of the globe.
BTW how do you think we get both Northern and Southern lights?????
In reality, the earth has two poles and is not a MONOPOLE tell me have you ever seen a MONOPOLE????
As far as Eddie Griffen saying shit, on the global side, we have every single scientist who made just about every major invention and discovered in the last 200 years (I think that trumps a washed-up comedian who never did anything as far as academically).
But thanks for proving you will pop up a bunch of stupid memes rather than try to answer any of my questions proving once and for all, you are just as Dumb as you are Predictable, and thanks to you everyone here can see how retarded the flat earth crap is.
Now that you proved my point, time to really put you on iggy. Oh, you can carry on with the retarded memes, by now everyone knows your lame game and how desperate you are to hide from the questions!
Today's Flat Earth Lesson
This is similar to what our brother Cashie B was saying earlier in this thread.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decoupling Gravity from Earth's Shape: A Quantitative Analysis of Gravitational Forces on a Flat Earth
Steven Alonzo, B.Sc. in Geocentric Cosmology
Abstract
While the shape of Earth has been the subject of contentious debate, the force of gravity is commonly used to substantiate one viewpoint at the expense of another. Newton's law of universal gravitation and Einstein's general theory of relativity, for example, are often cited within the context of a heliocentric and globular Earth model. This paper aims to decouple the concept of gravity from any particular model of Earth's shape, urging a more open investigation that allows for multiple theoretical frameworks. To this end, we present an alternative approach based on Morton F. Spears' Electrostatic Theory of Gravity.
Our analysis includes rigorous mathematical models to calculate the gravitational constant G using this electrostatic approach, revealing that it aligns astonishingly well with empirically observed values. By doing so, we demonstrate that gravity, as a measurable force essential for calculations in buoyancy and other phenomena, can be understood through different theoretical frameworks, each independent of the shape of the Earth.
In conclusion, we argue that the shape of the Earth, be it a globe, flat, or any other geometry, could be viewed as a derivation from real-world observations rather than as a precursor dictating gravitational behaviour. This paper calls for a paradigm shift in our understanding of gravity, inviting more nuanced and inclusive scientific dialogues that transcend the divisive debates on Earth's shape.
Introduction
The debate surrounding the shape of the Earth has evolved over millennia, incorporating theories and explanations from both classical and modern physics. One of the most frequently cited arguments for a spherical Earth has been the force of gravity, which is assumed to act towards the center of mass of the Earth. This notion has been widely used to dismiss alternative theories on Earth's shape, particularly the Flat Earth model. Similarly, some proponents of the Flat Earth model reject the concept of gravity, attributing the force we experience to other phenomena like buoyancy and density, perhaps without recognizing that even these rely on the gravitational constant G.
Yet, what if the debate has inadvertently confined our understanding of gravity? What if the force of gravity, one of the four fundamental forces in the universe, exists independently of the Earth's shape? This paper aims to decouple the concept of gravity from any particular model of Earth's shape, urging a more open investigation that allows for multiple theoretical frameworks.
We draw upon the electrostatic model of gravity, proposed by Morton F. Spears, as a case in point. Spears' model, although rooted in different assumptions than Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, arrives at a value of G that is astonishingly similar to the widely accepted figure. This model could theoretically be adapted to describe a Flat Earth scenario, indicating that our understanding of gravity may not be as tightly bound to the shape of the Earth as commonly thought.
By focusing on Spears' work, we intend to showcase how gravity can be understood through various theoretical lenses, advocating for an inclusive scientific discourse that invites scrutiny and alternative viewpoints. This approach not only broadens our scientific horizons but also encourages a more nuanced discussion around the shape of the Earth, one that does not hastily dismiss alternative perspectives due to seemingly rigid scientific principles.
This paper will unfold as follows: first, we will present a brief history of the gravitational theories from Newton to Einstein. We will then delve into Morton F. Spears' electrostatic model and discuss its implications for both a spherical and Flat Earth. Lastly, we will examine the limitations of tying gravitational theories too closely to specific models of Earth's shape and propose paths for future research.
By the end of this paper, our aim is to provide compelling arguments that decouple the theories of gravity from the shape of the Earth, creating a space for meaningful scientific discussions that rise above polarizing debates.
Electrostatic Model of Gravity in a Flat Earth Context
One intriguing attempt to offer an alternative explanation for gravitational forces is Morton F. Spears' electrostatic model. Spears' paper begins by comparing the force between two electrons separated by one meter, calculated through electrostatic equations, to the empirical gravitational force defined by Newton's law. Remarkably, Spears derives a new value for G denoted as Ge which is virtually identical to the conventionally accepted G (Spears, M. F. (1997)).
Electrostatic Force in Spears' Model
In Spears' model, the electrostatic force Fge is calculated as:
F ge=-5.54779×10-71newtons This leads him to derive Ge as:
Ge=-6.68541×10-11 (coulomb-volt-meters)/kilograms2
Adapting to Flat Earth
The Flat Earth model necessitates a re-examination of gravitational phenomena. A crucial parameter that requires modification is the gravitational constant G, or in our case Gf for the Flat Earth. To derive Gf, one could hypothetically adapt Spears' electrostatic equations. For simplicity, let's assume that Gf=Ge, as derived by Spears.
Derivation of 9.8 m/s2
In the round Earth model, the gravitational force Fg between Earth Me and an object m is defined as: F g=G ( (Me⋅m)/r2 )
For G=6.67430 × 10-11 m3/kg s2 and Me=5.972×1024 kg, we get 9.8 m/s2
In a Flat Earth model with Gf = -6.68541×10-11 coulomb-volt-meters/kilograms2 , we would need to redefine F g.
Let's assume that F g=m×a where a=9.8 m/s2 Simplifying, we could propose that:
9.8 m/s2 = (Gf⋅Mf )/(r2) Where Mf represents the mass of the Flat Earth and r is a constant distance from the Earth's surface to its 'center'. This aims to show how Spears' electrostatic model could be adapted to a Flat Earth context.
Buoyancy and the Inextricable Role of Gravity
Overview
A prevalent misconception within some Flat Earth circles is that buoyancy, driven solely by density differences, can replace the need for gravity in explaining why objects fall. However, this notion falls apart when scrutinized mathematically, as the formula for
buoyant force itself relies on gravity (Batchelor, 2000). This section aims to underscore the role of gravity in buoyancy, demonstrating that gravitational force is a cornerstone of both mainstream and alternative theories, independent of Earth's geometric shape.
The Buoyant Force Equation
The buoyant force (Fb) acting on an object submerged in a fluid is given by:
Fb = ρf ⋅ ⋅ V g Where:
• Fb is the buoyant force
• ρf is the density of the fluid
• V is the volume of the fluid displaced
• g is the acceleration due to gravity (Batchelor, 2000)
Why Gravity Matters
Notice that the acceleration due to gravity (g) is an integral part of the equation. Absence or denial of gravity would render the buoyant force equation incomplete and nonfunctional, thus unable to explain why things float or sink (Batchelor, 2000).
Example Problem
Consider a 1-meter cube (1 m3) of wood floating in water. The density of water is
approximately 1000 kg/m3, and the density of the wood is 800kg/m3. Calculate the buoyant force acting on the wood.
Solution
First, find the volume of water displaced by the wood. In this case, it's the same as the
volume of the wood: V=1 m3. Using the buoyant force equation: Fb = ρf ⋅ ⋅ V g
=1000 kg/m3×1 m3×9.8 m/s2 =9800 N
Here, we used g=9.8 m/s2, the accepted value of acceleration due to gravity (Batchelor, 2000).
Conclusion
The buoyant force, often cited in Flat Earth theories as an alternative to gravity, is ironically dependent on gravity for its very definition (Batchelor, 2000). Our calculations reveal that eliminating gravity from the buoyant force equation renders it nonsensical. Thus, irrespective of one's stance on the shape of the Earth, the role of gravity remains indisputable and essential for understanding fundamental physical phenomena like buoyancy
Conclusion: The Ubiquity of Gravity Across Geometric Paradigms
In this paper, we embarked on an intellectual exploration aimed at decoupling the concept of gravity from any particular model of Earth's shape. Our objective was to challenge the prevailing notion that certain models of Earth inherently validate or invalidate the concept of gravity. Through rigorous analysis and mathematical modeling, we demonstrated that gravity's role as a fundamental force in the universe remains constant, regardless of the geometric paradigm one subscribes to.
We first introduced the Electrostatic Theory of Gravity as an alternative to Newtonian and Einsteinian gravitation, showing that this theory can adequately account for the gravitational forces we observe and measure. Using a series of calculations, we demonstrated that the Electrostatic Theory can generate a value for the gravitational constant G consistent with empirical data, even within the context of a flat Earth model. Moreover, we dissected the buoyant force, a frequently cited concept in discussions around Flat Earth theories as a purported alternative to gravity. We presented a mathematical example that showcased how the buoyant force equation intrinsically requires the acceleration due to gravity (g) to function. This serves as empirical evidence against the notion that gravity could somehow be excluded or replaced in any comprehensive theory of physical interactions on Earth, whether it is flat, round, or any other shape. The implication here is crucial: gravity is not an optional component that can be toggled on or off depending on one's perspective on Earth's geometry. It is a universal constant that exists irrespective of such viewpoints.
Our findings urge for a more nuanced understanding of gravity, one that is open to investigation across multiple theoretical frameworks. Just as our comprehension of gravity evolved from Newton to Einstein, who is to say it will not continue to evolve? But what should remain constant in these evolving frameworks is the recognition of gravity as a fundamental force of nature. We conclude that the shape of the Earth, be it flat, spherical, or otherwise, should not and does not negate the essential role of gravity in our physical world. Instead, our research affirms that gravity is a pivotal element that must be accounted for in any serious scientific discussion about the Earth's shape and the forces that govern it.
Through this paper, we hope to contribute to a broader, more inclusive scientific discourse that allows for questioning and testing without dismissing foundational principles that have been empirically verified. We call for further research that continues to test the boundaries of our understanding, always grounded by the constants that make the universe intelligible.
Reference
• Spears, M. F. (1997). "An Electrostatic Solution for the Gravity Force and the
Value of G." http://www.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/MFSpears/
• Batchelor, G. K. (2000). An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
This is similar to what our brother Cashie B was saying earlier in this thread.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decoupling Gravity from Earth's Shape: A Quantitative Analysis of Gravitational Forces on a Flat Earth
Steven Alonzo, B.Sc. in Geocentric Cosmology
Abstract
While the shape of Earth has been the subject of contentious debate, the force of gravity is commonly used to substantiate one viewpoint at the expense of another. Newton's law of universal gravitation and Einstein's general theory of relativity, for example, are often cited within the context of a heliocentric and globular Earth model. This paper aims to decouple the concept of gravity from any particular model of Earth's shape, urging a more open investigation that allows for multiple theoretical frameworks. To this end, we present an alternative approach based on Morton F. Spears' Electrostatic Theory of Gravity.
Our analysis includes rigorous mathematical models to calculate the gravitational constant G using this electrostatic approach, revealing that it aligns astonishingly well with empirically observed values. By doing so, we demonstrate that gravity, as a measurable force essential for calculations in buoyancy and other phenomena, can be understood through different theoretical frameworks, each independent of the shape of the Earth.
In conclusion, we argue that the shape of the Earth, be it a globe, flat, or any other geometry, could be viewed as a derivation from real-world observations rather than as a precursor dictating gravitational behaviour. This paper calls for a paradigm shift in our understanding of gravity, inviting more nuanced and inclusive scientific dialogues that transcend the divisive debates on Earth's shape.
Introduction
The debate surrounding the shape of the Earth has evolved over millennia, incorporating theories and explanations from both classical and modern physics. One of the most frequently cited arguments for a spherical Earth has been the force of gravity, which is assumed to act towards the center of mass of the Earth. This notion has been widely used to dismiss alternative theories on Earth's shape, particularly the Flat Earth model. Similarly, some proponents of the Flat Earth model reject the concept of gravity, attributing the force we experience to other phenomena like buoyancy and density, perhaps without recognizing that even these rely on the gravitational constant G.
Yet, what if the debate has inadvertently confined our understanding of gravity? What if the force of gravity, one of the four fundamental forces in the universe, exists independently of the Earth's shape? This paper aims to decouple the concept of gravity from any particular model of Earth's shape, urging a more open investigation that allows for multiple theoretical frameworks.
We draw upon the electrostatic model of gravity, proposed by Morton F. Spears, as a case in point. Spears' model, although rooted in different assumptions than Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, arrives at a value of G that is astonishingly similar to the widely accepted figure. This model could theoretically be adapted to describe a Flat Earth scenario, indicating that our understanding of gravity may not be as tightly bound to the shape of the Earth as commonly thought.
By focusing on Spears' work, we intend to showcase how gravity can be understood through various theoretical lenses, advocating for an inclusive scientific discourse that invites scrutiny and alternative viewpoints. This approach not only broadens our scientific horizons but also encourages a more nuanced discussion around the shape of the Earth, one that does not hastily dismiss alternative perspectives due to seemingly rigid scientific principles.
This paper will unfold as follows: first, we will present a brief history of the gravitational theories from Newton to Einstein. We will then delve into Morton F. Spears' electrostatic model and discuss its implications for both a spherical and Flat Earth. Lastly, we will examine the limitations of tying gravitational theories too closely to specific models of Earth's shape and propose paths for future research.
By the end of this paper, our aim is to provide compelling arguments that decouple the theories of gravity from the shape of the Earth, creating a space for meaningful scientific discussions that rise above polarizing debates.
Electrostatic Model of Gravity in a Flat Earth Context
One intriguing attempt to offer an alternative explanation for gravitational forces is Morton F. Spears' electrostatic model. Spears' paper begins by comparing the force between two electrons separated by one meter, calculated through electrostatic equations, to the empirical gravitational force defined by Newton's law. Remarkably, Spears derives a new value for G denoted as Ge which is virtually identical to the conventionally accepted G (Spears, M. F. (1997)).
Electrostatic Force in Spears' Model
In Spears' model, the electrostatic force Fge is calculated as:
F ge=-5.54779×10-71newtons This leads him to derive Ge as:
Ge=-6.68541×10-11 (coulomb-volt-meters)/kilograms2
Adapting to Flat Earth
The Flat Earth model necessitates a re-examination of gravitational phenomena. A crucial parameter that requires modification is the gravitational constant G, or in our case Gf for the Flat Earth. To derive Gf, one could hypothetically adapt Spears' electrostatic equations. For simplicity, let's assume that Gf=Ge, as derived by Spears.
Derivation of 9.8 m/s2
In the round Earth model, the gravitational force Fg between Earth Me and an object m is defined as: F g=G ( (Me⋅m)/r2 )
For G=6.67430 × 10-11 m3/kg s2 and Me=5.972×1024 kg, we get 9.8 m/s2
In a Flat Earth model with Gf = -6.68541×10-11 coulomb-volt-meters/kilograms2 , we would need to redefine F g.
Let's assume that F g=m×a where a=9.8 m/s2 Simplifying, we could propose that:
9.8 m/s2 = (Gf⋅Mf )/(r2) Where Mf represents the mass of the Flat Earth and r is a constant distance from the Earth's surface to its 'center'. This aims to show how Spears' electrostatic model could be adapted to a Flat Earth context.
Buoyancy and the Inextricable Role of Gravity
Overview
A prevalent misconception within some Flat Earth circles is that buoyancy, driven solely by density differences, can replace the need for gravity in explaining why objects fall. However, this notion falls apart when scrutinized mathematically, as the formula for
buoyant force itself relies on gravity (Batchelor, 2000). This section aims to underscore the role of gravity in buoyancy, demonstrating that gravitational force is a cornerstone of both mainstream and alternative theories, independent of Earth's geometric shape.
The Buoyant Force Equation
The buoyant force (Fb) acting on an object submerged in a fluid is given by:
Fb = ρf ⋅ ⋅ V g Where:
• Fb is the buoyant force
• ρf is the density of the fluid
• V is the volume of the fluid displaced
• g is the acceleration due to gravity (Batchelor, 2000)
Why Gravity Matters
Notice that the acceleration due to gravity (g) is an integral part of the equation. Absence or denial of gravity would render the buoyant force equation incomplete and nonfunctional, thus unable to explain why things float or sink (Batchelor, 2000).
Example Problem
Consider a 1-meter cube (1 m3) of wood floating in water. The density of water is
approximately 1000 kg/m3, and the density of the wood is 800kg/m3. Calculate the buoyant force acting on the wood.
Solution
First, find the volume of water displaced by the wood. In this case, it's the same as the
volume of the wood: V=1 m3. Using the buoyant force equation: Fb = ρf ⋅ ⋅ V g
=1000 kg/m3×1 m3×9.8 m/s2 =9800 N
Here, we used g=9.8 m/s2, the accepted value of acceleration due to gravity (Batchelor, 2000).
Conclusion
The buoyant force, often cited in Flat Earth theories as an alternative to gravity, is ironically dependent on gravity for its very definition (Batchelor, 2000). Our calculations reveal that eliminating gravity from the buoyant force equation renders it nonsensical. Thus, irrespective of one's stance on the shape of the Earth, the role of gravity remains indisputable and essential for understanding fundamental physical phenomena like buoyancy
Conclusion: The Ubiquity of Gravity Across Geometric Paradigms
In this paper, we embarked on an intellectual exploration aimed at decoupling the concept of gravity from any particular model of Earth's shape. Our objective was to challenge the prevailing notion that certain models of Earth inherently validate or invalidate the concept of gravity. Through rigorous analysis and mathematical modeling, we demonstrated that gravity's role as a fundamental force in the universe remains constant, regardless of the geometric paradigm one subscribes to.
We first introduced the Electrostatic Theory of Gravity as an alternative to Newtonian and Einsteinian gravitation, showing that this theory can adequately account for the gravitational forces we observe and measure. Using a series of calculations, we demonstrated that the Electrostatic Theory can generate a value for the gravitational constant G consistent with empirical data, even within the context of a flat Earth model. Moreover, we dissected the buoyant force, a frequently cited concept in discussions around Flat Earth theories as a purported alternative to gravity. We presented a mathematical example that showcased how the buoyant force equation intrinsically requires the acceleration due to gravity (g) to function. This serves as empirical evidence against the notion that gravity could somehow be excluded or replaced in any comprehensive theory of physical interactions on Earth, whether it is flat, round, or any other shape. The implication here is crucial: gravity is not an optional component that can be toggled on or off depending on one's perspective on Earth's geometry. It is a universal constant that exists irrespective of such viewpoints.
Our findings urge for a more nuanced understanding of gravity, one that is open to investigation across multiple theoretical frameworks. Just as our comprehension of gravity evolved from Newton to Einstein, who is to say it will not continue to evolve? But what should remain constant in these evolving frameworks is the recognition of gravity as a fundamental force of nature. We conclude that the shape of the Earth, be it flat, spherical, or otherwise, should not and does not negate the essential role of gravity in our physical world. Instead, our research affirms that gravity is a pivotal element that must be accounted for in any serious scientific discussion about the Earth's shape and the forces that govern it.
Through this paper, we hope to contribute to a broader, more inclusive scientific discourse that allows for questioning and testing without dismissing foundational principles that have been empirically verified. We call for further research that continues to test the boundaries of our understanding, always grounded by the constants that make the universe intelligible.
Reference
• Spears, M. F. (1997). "An Electrostatic Solution for the Gravity Force and the
Value of G." http://www.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/MFSpears/
• Batchelor, G. K. (2000). An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Flat Earth Teachings in the Bible - If Jesus Knew This How Come You Don't?
Introduction:
Religion has long been a source of knowledge and understanding about our place in the universe. This lesson will delve into the descriptions and interpretations of Earth's shape from various religious traditions, many of which predate our modern scientific understanding.
1. Biblical Interpretations:
Religious texts offer insights into how ancient civilizations perceived the world around them. While some interpretations align with a flat, geocentric Earth, it's essential to approach these texts with an understanding of their historical context and the possibility of symbolic or allegorical meanings.
Introduction:
Religion has long been a source of knowledge and understanding about our place in the universe. This lesson will delve into the descriptions and interpretations of Earth's shape from various religious traditions, many of which predate our modern scientific understanding.
1. Biblical Interpretations:
- Flat Earth References: Passages from the Old Testament (e.g., Isaiah 40:22 describes the Earth as a "circle") are sometimes interpreted as supporting a flat Earth view.
- The Firmament: Genesis 1:6-8 speaks of a 'firmament' separating waters, leading some to suggest a dome-like structure above a flat Earth.
- Earth as a Bed: Several verses (e.g., Quran 20:53) describe the Earth as spread out like a bed, leading some to perceive it as a flat expanse.
- Mountains as Stakes: Quran 78:6-7 mentions mountains as "stakes" or "pegs," which some interpret in line with a flat Earth view.
- Bhu-mandala: Ancient Vedic cosmology portrays the Earth as a series of flat discs or planes. Bhu-mandala, as described in the Puranas, is often likened to a flat Earth model.
- Pillars of the Earth: Some texts reference the Earth being supported by pillars, hinting at a stationary flat Earth.
- Buddhism: While Buddhist cosmology has intricate descriptions of the universe, it does not explicitly dwell on the shape of the Earth.
- Taoism: Taoist texts primarily focus on harmony and balance in nature without direct references to Earth's geometry.
- African & Indigenous Religions: Many indigenous belief systems emphasize a deep connection with nature and the land. While they may have cosmological narratives, these often don't dwell on the shape of the Earth but rather on humanity's relationship to the cosmos.
- Pre-scientific Understanding: Many religious texts were written in eras when humanity's understanding of the universe was different from today's. Interpretations may reflect the cosmological views of the time.
- Symbolic vs. Literal: Some religious teachings may be symbolic, allegorical, or metaphoric rather than literal descriptions of reality.
- Group Activity: Divide students into groups, assigning each a religious text or passage. Groups will analyze their given text for interpretations about Earth's shape, considering historical context.
- Discussion: Each group will share its findings, followed by a collective discussion about the challenges of interpreting ancient texts through a modern lens.
Religious texts offer insights into how ancient civilizations perceived the world around them. While some interpretations align with a flat, geocentric Earth, it's essential to approach these texts with an understanding of their historical context and the possibility of symbolic or allegorical meanings.
I know earlier someone was asking about Flat Earth scholars. The scholar who wrote the brilliant piece I posted above is called Steven Alonzo. He holds a B.S. in Flat Earthology. This is his picture.
Man I’m learning more and more bout the ancient people of MexicoEarth's tilt is visualized by the sun's zenith angle for the spring, summer, fall, and winter equinoxes.
Olmecs, so Teotihuacán was already there when the Aztec people showed up
The Olmec knew about the movements of Venus, earth, the moon, sun
I remember being at Teotihuacán I got to speak with a professor who works the site, I asked him did the Aztecs build it, he said na they just build on top of it,
Who taught the olmecs? that african sailed to Mexico, in that region of Mexico The darkest Mexicans live. my moms dads people are from there, her moms people left Cuba and naturally went to where other dark people were in the Veracruz region
Makes so much sense tho.
Like my home built in the 50s, I found the original tile in bath, this pink hard tile(first owner) , another tile was just laid over it( second owner) and a third tile the guy I bought it from, then I removed all of it and put my own shit
That’s what we do as people
Yes, that’s what we do. It’s usually connected to power. Whoever got the power, gets to lay the tiles. So much of history is rewritten or stolen.
The overwhelming scientific consensus, supported by extensive evidence from multiple fields including astronomy, geology, physics, and satellite imagery, is that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, meaning it is mostly spherical but slightly flattened at the poles and bulging at the equator due to its rotation.
Claims that the Earth is flat are not supported by scientific evidence and contradict centuries of observations and research. The curvature of the Earth can be directly observed through phenomena such as the horizon, the changing position of celestial bodies as one travels, and the behavior of ships and airplanes as they navigate over long distances.
Additionally, satellite images, space missions, and measurements from various scientific instruments all confirm the spherical shape of the Earth. The idea of a flat Earth has been thoroughly debunked by science.
No, the Earth is not flat; it is an oblate spheroid. This means that it is mostly spherical, but slightly flattened at the poles and bulging at the equator due to its rotation. The evidence supporting the Earth's roundness is overwhelming and comes from various sources, including satellite imagery, observations of celestial bodies, measurements of curvature, and experiments such as those involving ships disappearing over the horizon or the changing positions of stars as one travels north or south. The idea of a flat Earth has been debunked by centuries of scientific inquiry and exploration.
Claims that the Earth is flat are not supported by scientific evidence and contradict centuries of observations and research. The curvature of the Earth can be directly observed through phenomena such as the horizon, the changing position of celestial bodies as one travels, and the behavior of ships and airplanes as they navigate over long distances.
Additionally, satellite images, space missions, and measurements from various scientific instruments all confirm the spherical shape of the Earth. The idea of a flat Earth has been thoroughly debunked by science.
No, the Earth is not flat; it is an oblate spheroid. This means that it is mostly spherical, but slightly flattened at the poles and bulging at the equator due to its rotation. The evidence supporting the Earth's roundness is overwhelming and comes from various sources, including satellite imagery, observations of celestial bodies, measurements of curvature, and experiments such as those involving ships disappearing over the horizon or the changing positions of stars as one travels north or south. The idea of a flat Earth has been debunked by centuries of scientific inquiry and exploration.
So why don't you ever SEE an oblate spheroid in the "pictures" they show you of the earth??
And why aren't the other "planets" oblate spheroids???
I dont believe the united states landed humans on the moon because theres no way in hell the US has the technology to fly 500,000 miles to the moon and back on a single tank of gas on a fucking rocket developed in the 1960's. Plus all 5 moon landings happened under the Nixon Administration. An Administration not known for its honesty. Plus here is a picture of the moon lander
The temperatures of the moon range from -100 to -300 Celsius. Does that aluminum foil looking bullshit look like it was made to withstand those freezing temperatures? We're told the astronauts lived in this thing for 11 days while on the moon. Then magically this piece of shit flew back up and docked with the mother ship hovering 100 miles above the moon floor. A feat never tested on earth but they managed to successfully dock on the first try
. I can go on and on but the moon landing was fake
The temperatures of the moon range from -100 to -300 Celsius. Does that aluminum foil looking bullshit look like it was made to withstand those freezing temperatures? We're told the astronauts lived in this thing for 11 days while on the moon. Then magically this piece of shit flew back up and docked with the mother ship hovering 100 miles above the moon floor. A feat never tested on earth but they managed to successfully dock on the first try
. I can go on and on but the moon landing was fake
Because of katts like you fam...So why don't you ever SEE an oblate spheroid in the "pictures" they show you of the earth??
And why aren't the other "planets" oblate spheroids???
Instagram models have been showing katts a better/shopped image for years you think nasa won't. Where are the pictures of a real actual flat earth? Post them up. You know what I don't even care It doesn't matter at the end of the earths cycle flat or round. I'm on this bitch.
LMBAOOOOOO
Actually, the Sun and all the planets are oblate spheroids. The Earth is about 20 miles wider Equatorially than Pole to Pole, about a 0.3 percent difference. This can be measured but is too small to see visually. Jupiter has a 7% difference, which is noticeable visually.So why don't you ever SEE an oblate spheroid in the "pictures" they show you of the earth??
And why aren't the other "planets" oblate spheroids???
NASA told you that huh?
Where are the stars?