FLAT EARTH

[Seedz]

Like captain Nemo?

Hmm

Im just curious post human:

Have you ever found anything that caught your eye, or caused some deep inquisition from the things you have learned from sources such as NASA, and others?

Have you ever second guessed any of the images, or details. Anything at all?

If the answers are no, I'd love to hear why is it that you are so confident in these sources and what we learn from them.

I understand math will be math, matter will be matter, and logic will be logic, but at which point are values aligned and molded for convincince and comfort to uphold any particular idea?

I hope you don't find any of this as harmful or Ill-intentioned, I'm genuinely curious.

 

[posthuman]

Im just curious post human:

Have you ever found anything that caught your eye, or caused some deep inquisition from the things you have learned from sources such as NASA, and others?

Have you ever second guessed any of the images, or details. Anything at all?

If the answers are no, I'd love to hear why is it that you are so confident in these sources and what we learn from them.

I understand math will be math, matter will be matter, and logic will be logic, but at which point are values aligned and molded for convincince and comfort to uphold any particular idea?

I hope you don't find any of this as harmful or Ill-intentioned, I'm genuinely curious.

i don't believe Hubble's conclusions from the redshift he observed are accurate. he theorized given what he knew, but i believe that he was working from incomplete information. the whole 'dark matter/dark energy' debacle is a glaring demonstration that there is more out there than what we know, in terms of fundamental forces and of matter & radiation distribution, and these unknowns contribute to what Hubble observed.

there is also a tacit assumption in calculations of time and distance that fundamental constants and measures do not and have never changed. there is an assumption that the observed laws of nature are equally applicable everywhere at all times. i am not convinced these are valid assumptions.

 

[Seedz]

i don't believe Hubble's conclusions from the redshift he observed are accurate. he theorized given what he knew, but i believe that he was working from incomplete information. the whole 'dark matter/dark energy' debacle is a glaring demonstration that there is more out there than what we know, in terms of fundamental forces and of matter & radiation distribution, and these unknowns contribute to what Hubble observed.

there is also a tacit assumption in calculations of time and distance that fundamental constants and measures do not and have never changed. there is an assumption that the observed laws of nature are equally applicable everywhere at all times. i am not convinced these are valid assumptions.

Are you saying you don't agree with the idea that the universe is expanding?

So I guess you are also saying that it is possible that laws of nature have not always been what they are? Meaning constants haven't always been what they are now?

 

[LibrarianLeo]

I actually saw a flat earth news article, on my phone, this week... Did not read it but made me think of this thread... I think that is great in a strange, great, abstract way...lol I decided I love our flat earth person... (please do not take offence I do not know your online name but I know you are there) you made me smile.... Thank you... And to all who participate in the flat earth and bring about enjoyment in my small round life...lol ...

My computer desk has more curve than the earth does. So anyone complaining
about Flat Earthers does not use their rulers much.

 

[Dino246]

i don't believe Hubble's conclusions from the redshift he observed are accurate. he theorized given what he knew, but i believe that he was working from incomplete information. the whole 'dark matter/dark energy' debacle is a glaring demonstration that there is more out there than what we know, in terms of fundamental forces and of matter & radiation distribution, and these unknowns contribute to what Hubble observed.

there is also a tacit assumption in calculations of time and distance that fundamental constants and measures do not and have never changed. there is an assumption that the observed laws of nature are equally applicable everywhere at all times. i am not convinced these are valid assumptions.

Are you saying you don't agree with the idea that the universe is expanding?

So I guess you are also saying that it is possible that laws of nature have not always been what they are? Meaning constants haven't always been what they are now?

While I am not prepared to defend their assertions, I've been looking into the Electric Universe theory a little bit. Their researchers have some interesting ideas regarding red shift, expansion, and related topics. More information is available at their web site: thunderbolts.info.

 

[LibrarianLeo]

I'm going to guess flat earthers have never been in a commercial aircraft. If you're up at least 37,000 feet you can see a slight curvature to the earth.

A majority of people in the world likely have not.

 

[LibrarianLeo]

This just shows how brainwashed we are as a people...

There is a lot more evidence and sound fact in a flat earth model. The globe model is filled with ridiculous numbers and values far too great for anyone to actually measure, unless of course you are a scientist from NASA.

Just go look across lake Michigan and tell me how it is possible to see the Chicago skyline clearly and completely at about 40 miles away.

Oh yeah, cus the earth is flat, that's why.

If you put your eye at water level much of the lower half of the skyline will be obscured.
The higher above water you stand, the more skyline you will see.

 

[tourist]

I'm going to guess flat earthers have never been in a commercial aircraft. If you're up at least 37,000 feet you can see a slight curvature to the earth.

The highest altitude that I have flown in 42,000 feet and could definitely see a curve of the earth's surface.

 

[Seedz]

The highest altitude that I have flown in 42,000 feet and could definitely see a curve of the earth's surface.

Oh really?

Are you sure it wasnt the windows lying to you.

According to round earth math and models, you can't see much of a curvature until you surpass 120K feet.

give this a try:
Curvature App: Simulation of Globe-Earth and Flat-Earth - Waltis Blog - english - Walter Bislin

 

[tourist]

Oh really?

Are you sure it wasnt the windows lying to you.

According to round earth math and models, you can't see much of a curvature until you surpass 120K feet.

give this a try:
Curvature App: Simulation of Globe-Earth and Flat-Earth - Waltis Blog - english - Walter Bislin

It could have been the windows. I don't really know for sure.

 

[MichaelOwen]

So this is where you got your model? Weird......or maybe attention seeking?

 

[tourist]

So this is where you got your model? Weird......or maybe attention seeking?

Why don't flat-liners produce their own flat earth map that accurately depicts the geographical location of all of the continents. I noticed on the generic rendition that the continent of Antarctica is missing along with the South Pole.

In reality the North and South Poles are diametrically opposed to each other and on a flat earth model that would be impossible. You can have a North Pole or even a South Pole but you can't have both.

On this flat earth representation that white stuff is supposed to be an ice barrier to prevent the oceans from flowing over the edge and into space. Of course, no flat-liner has ever been to the edge before to actually document what is there.

A flat-liner once told me that it's too dangerous to venture to the edge and besides that, it is hard to do. I guess flat-liners lack ambition and are fearful of everything that they do not understand.

 

[Seedz]

So this is where you got your model? Weird......or maybe attention seeking?

FYI....

This is the Azimuthal Equidistant map.

It is one of the most accurate representations of the world map, rendering with high precision all locations and continents. (in scale, unlike other maps)

It has been the preferred map by many navigators for a long time.

It perfectly represents the "Globe" in a flat plane.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection


You clearly make a fool out of yourselves when you demonstrate your ignorance on such basic concepts.

Maybe you really don't know as much as you think.

RESEARCH, don't mock.

 

[Seedz]

Why don't flat-liners produce their own flat earth map that accurately depicts the geographical location of all of the continents. I noticed on the generic rendition that the continent of Antarctica is missing along with the South Pole.

In reality the North and South Poles are diametrically opposed to each other and on a flat earth model that would be impossible. You can have a North Pole or even a South Pole but you can't have both.

On this flat earth representation that white stuff is supposed to be an ice barrier to prevent the oceans from flowing over the edge and into space. Of course, no flat-liner has ever been to the edge before to actually document what is there.

A flat-liner once told me that it's too dangerous to venture to the edge and besides that, it is hard to do. I guess flat-liners lack ambition and are fearful of everything that they do not understand.

There is no "south pole"

Antarctica is the beginning of the edge, just like a coastline is the beginning of a continent.

Instead of imposing your own preconceived notions, why don't you take some time and unbiased-ly research flat earth facts?

It may surprise you.

 

[tourist]

FYI....

This is the Azimuthal Equidistant map.

It is one of the most accurate representations of the world map, rendering with high precision all locations and continents. (in scale, unlike other maps)

It has been the preferred map by many navigators for a long time.

It perfectly represents the "Globe" in a flat plane.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection


You clearly make a fool out of yourselves when you demonstrate your ignorance on such basic concepts.

Maybe you really don't know as much as you think.

RESEARCH, don't mock.

I'm having a problem locating Antarctica and the South Pole on this map. Could you please highlight where it is on this map?

 

[MichaelOwen]

FYI....

This is the Azimuthal Equidistant map.

It is one of the most accurate representations of the world map, rendering with high precision all locations and continents. (in scale, unlike other maps)

It has been the preferred map by many navigators for a long time.

It perfectly represents the "Globe" in a flat plane.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection


You clearly make a fool out of yourselves when you demonstrate your ignorance on such basic concepts.

Maybe you really don't know as much as you think.

RESEARCH, don't mock.

Actually, I have researched it, and it's pretty clear to see your mind it blinded, and you try and push these fallacies on the weak minded people, and in my opinion it's very laughable coming from an armchair expert who uses the internet and uses that as their research....anyone with a brain stem can see that map is a duplicate of the UN logo, but oh that's your model.....laughable, utterly laughable.

 

[tourist]

There is no "south pole"

Antarctica is the beginning of the edge, just like a coastline is the beginning of a continent.

Instead of imposing your own preconceived notions, why don't you take some time and unbiased-ly research flat earth facts?

It may surprise you.

This is a representation of Antarctica based on actual visible observation. It is not some round object along the entire edge of the earth. Without a South Pole there can be no North Pole. How can you say that the edge of the earth is Antarctica if no one has been to the edge of the earth to document what is there? This flat-earth map is make believe. You obviously don't believe in this crap either. Welcome to the round earth society.

 

[Seedz]

I'm having a problem locating Antarctica and the South Pole on this map. Could you please highlight where it is on this map?

Antartica is the outer edge:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection#/media/File:Azimuthal_Equidistant_with_Tissot%27s_Indicatrices_of_Distortion.svg


On any given continent you can reach Antarctica if you head due south.

On the Azimuthal map, Antarctica's size is accurately depicted, unlike others such as Mercator, Gall-Peters, Mollweide, etc.

There is no such thing as a south pole because the earth is not a globe.

The few North to South circumnavigation accounts that you may find are far less than those of East to West, and they lack detail.

The first alleged circumnavigation did not happen until 1982, and it is brought to you by none other than the mega mainstream Guinness world records.


Go figure.

 

[Seedz]

This is a representation of Antarctica based on actual visible observation. It is not some round object along the entire edge of the earth. Without a South Pole there can be no North Pole. How can you say that the edge of the earth is Antarctica if no one has been to the edge of the earth to document what is there? This flat-earth map is make believe. You obviously don't believe in this crap either. Welcome to the round earth society.

Visible eh?


Have you seen it?

Plenty have been to Antarctica, but not many have been to the absolute edge (ends of the earth)

Have you looked into admiral Byrd's missions?

Have you looked into the vast amount of evidence of the Nazis in Antarctica?

Have you looked into the UN treaty?

There is much that they are trying to sweep under the rug.

Why aren't there flight routes that cut across Antarctica?

 

[Seedz]

Actually, I have researched it, and it's pretty clear to see your mind it blinded, and you try and push these fallacies on the weak minded people, and in my opinion it's very laughable coming from an armchair expert who uses the internet and uses that as their research....anyone with a brain stem can see that map is a duplicate of the UN logo, but oh that's your model.....laughable, utterly laughable.

LOL.

alright Mike.

Let's pretend you know what you're talking about when you couldn't even pinpoint what the azimuthal map is.