Jump to content
Sign Up To Remove Ads! Or to Access Our Chatroom!
grav

Nasa Says The Earth Is Round Where's The Proof

Recommended Posts

 grav    904

@V M, you may want to post that link on the Dinosaurs thread. There could be good reasons for the emptiness around those yuuge buildings, like photographers waiting for weekends or good weather. Overall, Twilight Zone-ish, like those empty Chinese cities.

 

There are several new FE videos out there I want to check out. This one is about refraction being a negligible factor. @Rothbard has dealt with the topic before. My guess is that the atmosphere does significantly impact how we see the sun and stars, which are thousands of miles away. It is not so influential when sighting a building or other target for short distances, like Chicago from 50 miles away.

Besides, doesn't light bend downwards, thus making targets lower than the curve itself? That would seem to favor the globe model. We've gone back and forth on the math, 8xd^ 

Hello Mick West From Metabunk

Flat Earth Debate 117

NathanOakley1980 

Published on Jan 21, 2018. Original Video By Sleeping Warrior -

 

Subscribe now to my backup channel to keep up to date with the flat earth debate. Be here or be sphere as Nathan Oakley is joined by guests to discuss Flat Earth. Prepare for the worst and hope for the best. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 VonLud    926
22 hours ago, Anthem(0) said:

Agent Smith-level dodging. Who told you you didn't know anything? You're no victim here dude, the emoting is not strengthening your arguments. Though I'm not entirely sure what your arguments even are here and you're apparently unwilling to clarify. Expected, I suppose.

And the peeps everywhere else say everything the authority teaches us is real or proven true without much else behind it. Challenging unproven narratives shouldn't be met with such resistance and dismissiveness.

Maybe everything is BS but that's irrelevant. The simple fact is no one has ever seen an atom and no one knows if such a thing even exists, let alone in the form disseminated to us proles. The evidence that the establishment interpretation of microspace accurately reflects reality is as non-existent as the evidence that the ground is curved and moving. These ideas are dogma, not science. I'm just pointing out the underspoken obvious. My "agenda", if you will.

And yes this might be construed as giving you shit about the Converse...but the shoe fits, ya dig? oooooooh

#PunchlineChamp

I was about to give you a like.

But

#LunchLineChamp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 grav    904
56 minutes ago, VonLud said:

I was about to give you a like.

But

#LunchLineChamp

 

On 1/20/2018 at 8:03 PM, VonLud said:

Yo mamma

Uhh, gentlemen, and I use the term loosely, this is not GLP. Nor LOP. 

If you have an idea, about the atom or refraction or other bit of evidence, say it. Is Mick Metabunk right or is he full of it? His little graphic equates refraction with mirages. 

https://www.metabunk.org/sk/20150414-085233-8yzlw.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 VonLud    926
5 hours ago, grav said:

 

Uhh, gentlemen, and I use the term loosely, this is not GLP. Nor LOP. 

If you have an idea, about the atom or refraction or other bit of evidence, say it. Is Mick Metabunk right or is he full of it? His little graphic equates refraction with mirages. 

https://www.metabunk.org/sk/20150414-085233-8yzlw.jpg

 

Juvenile indiscretion.

Mick West Is McWest you got played.

I don't have a clue so I resort to these tactics.

I heard Trump's gonna build a wall out of impenetrable Antarctic  Ice Blocks.

Then we can be the only place that can't be visited except by UFO.

  • Like 1
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 bogart    10

What do you guys think about Pangea and the continental drift and stuff?  If the earth is a lot younger than they say, did the continents move apart quickly during the flood or something?  Or maybe they never did fit together and it just looks like they could have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 grav    904
1 hour ago, bogart said:

What do you guys think about Pangea and the continental drift and stuff?  If the earth is a lot younger than they say, did the continents move apart quickly during the flood or something?  Or maybe they never did fit together and it just looks like they could have?

Charles Hapgood proposed Crustal Displacement to account for continents drifting apart. It does look like Africa and South America once fit together. The theory accepts the globe model but not tectonic plates. 

This video suggests another theory -- that the magnetic field moves, while the crust remains stationary. You can fast forward through the slow-moving slides. 

And this page, by Ashlee Webster, examines tsunamis on a ball earth. 

https://flatgeocentricearth.wordpress.com/2015/12/03/tsunamis-and-flat-earth/

Look at her maps of water currents and tsunami locations plotted in an Azimuthal_equidistant-style reference. It's not the Gleason map, though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 Redorblue    705
19 hours ago, grav said:

 

Uhh, gentlemen, and I use the term loosely, this is not GLP. Nor LOP. 

If you have an idea, about the atom or refraction or other bit of evidence, say it. Is Mick Metabunk right or is he full of it? His little graphic equates refraction with mirages. 

https://www.metabunk.org/sk/20150414-085233-8yzlw.jpg

 

Full of it . Atmospheric refraction can only ever be a rough approximation . That's taken from his website 's link    http://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/bending.html . 

It's in the introduction.

In the "basic facts" bit we can read - "the atmosphere is curved because it follows the curvature of the earth , and we will assume the density depends only the distance from the centre of the earth." Hell of a group of assumptions . 

It doesn't exist in the way he uses it in his calculator site. Full of assumptions and circular arguments. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 VonLud    926
6 hours ago, Redorblue said:

Full of it . Atmospheric refraction can only ever be a rough approximation . That's taken from his website 's link    http://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/bending.html . 

It's in the introduction.

In the "basic facts" bit we can read - "the atmosphere is curved because it follows the curvature of the earth , and we will assume the density depends only the distance from the centre of the earth." Hell of a group of assumptions . 

It doesn't exist in the way he uses it in his calculator site. Full of assumptions and circular arguments. 

 

 

His calculator is B.S. because it has the fatal flaw.

Interpreting distance to a target using the tangent line instead of the distance over the surface of a spherical earth.

I talked to him about it one time and he was super cool and helpful until I brought up that point.

Then I never heard from him again.

 

Edited by VonLud
to the target

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 grav    904
20 hours ago, VonLud said:

Mick West Is McWest you got played

Wait. Whaaaat?

@McWest? What?

No. Really?

No. Can't be. I use the freemason symbol as my avatar at FE Friends. Irony. 

And what is so damn hard about using punctuation marks to stop sentences? :angry:

Mac, say it ain't so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 VonLud    926
2 minutes ago, grav said:

Wait. Whaaaat?

@McWest? What?

No. Really?

No. Can't be. I use the freemason symbol as my avatar at FE Friends. Irony. 

And what is so damn hard about using punctuation marks to stop sentences? :angry:

Mac, say it ain't so. 

I do it to bug you because YOUR so anal.

And ITS only natural to be fooled.

By the won's you trust the most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 grav    904
8 minutes ago, VonLud said:

I do it to bug you because YOUR so anal.

And ITS only natural to be fooled.

By the won's you trust the most.

I know you do. More's the pity. 

For you, butthead - - >

You like clowns, n'est-ce pas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 VonLud    926

I lost respect for anyone that can't see how the distance over the surface of the earth is far removed from the distance measured using a tangent line. So the HOLE thing is like a joke at this point. Rothbard says he has a new CAD chart that is better but, meh. The other chart was B.S. in relation to this topic, and I have little faith that the "New and Improved" chart is any better.

You can ask for formulas or accuse me of chicanery but I still am waiting for the aha moment from any person on this thread.

See what is right in front of you're face lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×