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   
grav

You guys!

and your little jokes :lglpnKW:

bother me not. I also dismissed the flat earth for a long time. Then I looked at it and admitted that flat might not be right, but spherical wasn't getting it done either. 

The only way to discuss it is point by point, sans cartoons and childish remarks. K9 pointed out that airplane windows add one more optical illusion to the already untrustworthy vanishing point of perspective. That's what we need, specific reasons to present and refute. Giggling and face-palming only clutter up what I want to be a serious discussion of the issue. Pleeeease stay on track. Sky Cat, really, I thought you of all posters would have an open and an inquiring attitude. 

Why does everyone think round is right? If you stood on top of an airplane flying 30,000 feet up, what would you see below you? A circle of blue and brown. Which proves nothing. There is no depth to be observed. If you believe the photos from the space station are real, then you are a very trusting soul. Pictures of earth from the moon are so fake, it's embarrassing. The earth would be several times the size of that iconic and fraudulent flim-flam.

How does the earth move through space? In a vortex, right?  Rotating 1000 mph, revolving in a gyre around the sun at 67,000 mph. And yet the North Star is always in one spot.  The sun and moon move leisurely across our skies. Sunlight comes down in a fan shape, when it should beam on us in straight and parallel rays. Where is the North Star in this picture?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8-EXGSjCbFo/TRaYj42MWbI/AAAAAAAABIM/9s8_6Kj2qTE/s1600/inner%2Bplanets%2Bvortex.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grav   
grav

Assumptions piled on top of arrogance. 

Yes, that's how I see it.

Cat, videos with no text are worthless. Explain or refrain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
On 7/6/2015, 6:51:10, grav said:

You guys!

and your little jokes :lglpnKW:

bother me not. I also dismissed the flat earth for a long time. Then I looked at it and admitted that flat might not be right, but spherical wasn't getting it done either. 

The only way to discuss it is point by point, sans cartoons and childish remarks. K9 pointed out that airplane windows add one more optical illusion to the already untrustworthy vanishing point of perspective. That's what we need, specific reasons to present and refute. Giggling and face-palming only clutter up what I want to be a serious discussion of the issue. Pleeeease stay on track. Sky Cat, really, I thought you of all posters would have an open and an inquiring attitude. 

Why does everyone think round is right? If you stood on top of an airplane flying 30,000 feet up, what would you see below you? A circle of blue and brown. Which proves nothing. There is no depth to be observed. If you believe the photos from the space station are real, then you are a very trusting soul. Pictures of earth from the moon are so fake, it's embarrassing. The earth would be several times the size of that iconic and fraudulent flim-flam.

How does the earth move through space? In a vortex, right?  Rotating 1000 mph, revolving in a gyre around the sun at 67,000 mph. And yet the North Star is always in one spot.  The sun and moon move leisurely across our skies. Sunlight comes down in a fan shape, when it should beam on us in straight and parallel rays. Where is the North Star in this picture?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8-EXGSjCbFo/TRaYj42MWbI/AAAAAAAABIM/9s8_6Kj2qTE/s1600/inner%2Bplanets%2Bvortex.jpg

It's neither my "attitude" nor opinion, Grav.  My conclusion is based solely upon irrefutable evidence and the logical interpretation thereof.

I'm sorry, but I've not heard one piece of info nor argument YET, including the ones you state here, which indicate anything that would suggest a "flat Earth".  None, zero, zip.  Keep em coming, if that's what you wish to do, and if/when I spot one claim which does not make sense apropos a spherical Earth I will let you know.

I've done quite a lot of astronomical, GIS, physics, Newtonian and Relativity Theory calculations, geometric- and orbital mechanics math, simulation, research, astronomical and orbital data processing, light rendering, physical light and spectrum modelling and sky simulation before.  I've applied logic, I've applied reason, and it ALL points to a (more or less) spherical Earth.  I've even built my own precision mathematical model of the solar system which includes distant stars and galaxies.  Do some of these things and then come back to me and tell you still think the Earth is flat, deal?

BTW, that whole thing about "the planetary vortex"-thing is both a misnomer and a truth.  In essence, it's simply one of many (many different) interpretations of the same physical process.  The only difference is the perspective, and no perspective invalidates any other valid perspective of it.

There are tens of thousands of amateur astronomer, who watch the skies all the time; who also compare their observations to each other and published data, etc.  A lot of them crunch numbers, do a lot of math and spend a lot of time making sense of what they are seeing.  Many of them will (and do), of course, ALSO ask questions which are counter to what they are told or taught, as that is part of the scientific process, so as to verify the stated facts, etc.  Do you think these tens of thousands of amateur astronomers are stupid, ignorant, or all part of some big conspiracy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grav   
grav

SC, if the movements of objects in the solar system are open to "interpretations," that means the scientists are clueless or lying.

Defending the Body Scientific is like the spherical model -- unprovable and general.  You offer no reasons, no specifics at all. Jargon and the definition-of -the-day are as useful as tits on a boar hog. Here is a simple experiment: set up yardsticks at the water's edge of 2 locations across Monterrey Bay, 25 miles across from each other. The atmosphere is arid, the waters are relatively still. Mount telescopes at equal heights at the 2 locations. Observe marks on the yardsticks through the lenses. If the earth is round, the bottoms of the yardsticks should be hidden from view by the water held fast to the curvy earth. Apply any of the formulas that determine how much drop-off results per mile.

A similar observation was made in the Bishop Experiment on page 1. And engineers and surveyors have reported the same anomaly -- clear view of objects from distances of miles, defying round-earth geometry. You are taking university classes. Why not try one out?

Tsk, you play with magnets and theoretical physics , then post a thread about invisible aliens and a contactee.

I bet that goes over like a lead balloon with f & f. :IGly6RW:

What is this thread's topic -- that flat earth is the correct shape? 

No ---------- it's that round earth is not provable.

Can it be a hologram? Did anyone see Crrow's moon hologram video? No comments unless you watch it.

And then there's this:

 

Researchers in Japan have provided some clear evidence that the universe may be a hologram.

According to nature magazine there is now "compelling" evidence that the universe as we know it is in fact a projection from a lower-dimensional universe.

The theory can be explained in simple terms as akin to a hologram on a credit card. Professor Kostas Skenderis at the University of Southampton explained the concept earlier this year.

He said: "The idea is similar to that of ordinary holograms where a three-dimensional image is encoded in a two-dimensional surface, such as in the hologram on a credit card, but now it is the entire Universe that is encoded in such a fashion."

The Japanese researchers formed two calculations; one showed the internal energy of a black hole and other properties connected with it.

Full article at   

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/10513737/Why-the-universe-could-be-a-hologram-according-to-new-research.html
Edited by grav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 YourMom2    1,354

Assumptions, yes. It's well known that the theories we accept as fact today came from freemasons. Why were these few men exalted? Was everyone else really that stupid? In order to prove flat or round earth try using reason and logic WITHOUT relying on past theories or any math. Pretty pictures from NASA don't count either.

CM used to say "nothing is ever as it seems" and can also be understood as "everything you think you know is wrong."  It is in this spirit that I cannot fully accept either theory because we live in a world comprised of a small force capable of some really big lies. Flat earth comes with a whole 'nuther set of questions!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

SC, if the movements of objects in the solar system are open to "interpretations," that means the scientists are clueless or lying.

Defending the Body Scientific is like the spherical model -- unprovable and general.  You offer no reasons, no specifics at all. Jargon and the definition-of -the-day are as useful as tits on a boar hog. Here is a simple experiment: set up yardsticks at the water's edge of 2 locations across Monterrey Bay, 25 miles across from each other. The atmosphere is arid, the waters are relatively still. Mount telescopes at equal heights at the 2 locations. Observe marks on the yardsticks through the lenses. If the earth is round, the bottoms of the yardsticks should be hidden from view by the water held fast to the curvy earth. Apply any of the formulas that determine how much drop-off results per mile.

A similar observation was made in the Bishop Experiment on page 1. And engineers and surveyors have reported the same anomaly -- clear view of objects from distances of miles, defying round-earth geometry. You are taking university classes. Why not try one out?

Tsk, you play with magnets and theoretical physics , then post a thread about invisible aliens and a contactee.

I bet that goes over like a lead balloon with f & f. :IGly6RW:

What is this thread's topic -- that flat earth is the correct shape? 

No ---------- it's that round earth is not provable.

Can it be a hologram? Did anyone see Crrow's moon hologram video? No comments unless you watch it.

And then there's this:

Have you performed the experiment you refer to?  If so, please post all the details, measurements and results.  If not, please point me to the paper by others who performed the experiment.  I'm asking you to provide something of substance for the claim you (and/or others) are making.  That ought to be a starting point.  Even so, I can't promise to give up my time and energy to something which is thus-far showing no sign of having any substance (the fist video on the first page is an utter fail if ever saw one.)

If you can provide me with quality details of the experiment claiming to be anomalous I certainly will perform one similar.  I've not seen any evidence of what is being claimed there (and I have done visual and E.M. work over bays of that size.)  You will need to start off by impressing me with some quality data before I'd even think of spending time investigating it further (which would unlikely be any time soon, even if it garnered my interest.)

"F&F"?  What's that? :1XqXnoz:

University courses?  No, I'm self-taught, and, not to blow my own horn, have been in the position to correct a university on their physics material before.
Being self-taught is the only way I like to do things (I always taught myself in other lifetimes as well.)  Being indoctrinated in universities is something I generally abhor.

As for what I described about the interpretation of the planetary movements, you clearly do not grasp what I'm saying.  If you would like me to explain it again I will do so if I have a few moments.

Everything is holographic.  That's no big deal (to me, at least.)  It's a bit of complex subject, however, and simply calling something a hologram isn't quite sufficient: The context in which it is a hologram (and is not) is what is important when labeling it as such (and that is why it will take more than a few sentences to adequately do so) because perspective and context is important if one wishes to be as objective as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 DarkKnightNomeD    2,080
On 7/6/2015, 6:51:10, grav said:

You guys!

and your little jokes :lglpnKW:

bother me not. I also dismissed the flat earth for a long time. Then I looked at it and admitted that flat might not be right, but spherical wasn't getting it done either. 

The only way to discuss it is point by point, sans cartoons and childish remarks. K9 pointed out that airplane windows add one more optical illusion to the already untrustworthy vanishing point of perspective. That's what we need, specific reasons to present and refute. Giggling and face-palming only clutter up what I want to be a serious discussion of the issue. Pleeeease stay on track. Sky Cat, really, I thought you of all posters would have an open and an inquiring attitude. 

Why does everyone think round is right? If you stood on top of an airplane flying 30,000 feet up, what would you see below you? A circle of blue and brown. Which proves nothing. There is no depth to be observed. If you believe the photos from the space station are real, then you are a very trusting soul. Pictures of earth from the moon are so fake, it's embarrassing. The earth would be several times the size of that iconic and fraudulent flim-flam.

How does the earth move through space? In a vortex, right?  Rotating 1000 mph, revolving in a gyre around the sun at 67,000 mph. And yet the North Star is always in one spot.  The sun and moon move leisurely across our skies. Sunlight comes down in a fan shape, when it should beam on us in straight and parallel rays. Where is the North Star in this picture?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8-EXGSjCbFo/TRaYj42MWbI/AAAAAAAABIM/9s8_6Kj2qTE/s1600/inner%2Bplanets%2Bvortex.jpg

I know

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 DarkKnightNomeD    2,080

This recent explosion of flat earth idiocy is deliberate cointelpro designed to make CT'ers look stupid

Deliberately designed so that when someone is going through an awakening and encounters a CT forum they're immediately turned off by such displays of wilful idiocy.

Shep, I'm really against censorship of anything - is it possible that a sub forum named along the lines of flat earth cointelpro with a short explanation for the beginner of what's happening

Hey Ya'll be nice. - You don't have to agree on anything to be nice.

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.


×