Is The Earth Flat Or Round?

[GaryA]

Probably the flatters ( and concavers) with the weakest legs to stand on are
the conspiracy theorists alleging that the USA, Russia, China, SpaceX,
Google Earth, and the European Space Agency, plus all the imaging teams,
all the astronauts, all the cartographers, and all the folks involved in
designing satellite communications and the GPS system, have colluded to
fool the world into believing the Earth is spherical.

Here is the 'mastermind' of your 'collusion':

Revelation 12:

9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

It is unfortunate that you do not believe that Satan is actually capable of doing such - or, that he has actually done it.

Is the 'covid' subterfuge not a world-wide deception? (Anyone who does not know this is still being deceived by it.)

And, this is only one-of-many forms of deception that Satan has accomplished world-wide. There are many others.

Not everyone involved has to be "in on it" - many organizations maintain their operations on a "need to know" basis. Most of the people "at the bottom" are just/simply "doing their job" and have no knowledge of their participation in the deception.

 

[kinda]

.



That's for sure; I mean just look how successful Dr. Anthony Fauci's
collusion with the FDA, the CDC, and the NIH has been at fooling Americans
with spurious Covid science.

However, in order for NASA to fool Americans into believing the earth is flat,
concave, or whatever, it would be necessary to collude with Russia, China,
SpaceX, Google Earth, and the European Space Agency, plus all the imaging
teams, all the astronauts, all the cartographers, and all the folks involved in
designing satellite communications and the GPS system; not to mention all
the engineers, mathematicians, astronomers, physicists, tradesmen, and
contractors involved with space related stuff.

* There's a Native American woman up in the international space station. I'm
very proud of her because I have 13 Native American nieces and nephews. I
had 14, but one dropped dead of natural causes a few years back.
_

Well, we can blame public education, and universities. These are the institutions that teach evolution and obey authority. They pretty much make everyone believe the same thing, or else being labeled an idiot or something.

I remember my math professor in college trying to discredit the Bible, when there wasn't any subject matter in the book that was related, it's just the culture of school...Anti-christ.

You have to remember, if you don't obey the rules of your job, than you get fired. There are few that step out, but it's rare. Bill Kaysing was a contractor who worked for NASA, but was probably the founder of the moon landing hoax (you know the guy that started it?). Also, a Russian astronaut has spoke out against the U.S. moon landings, but I can't seem to find the link any more, since the google, and youtube have tried to scrub the internet from alternative view points.

There are more, but you won't hear it on evening news at 6p.m..

Sorry to hear about the 14th Native American relative that passed away. I think the Natives has a lot of wisdom, that has been ignored. I have been to Indian reservations and they live pretty much the same way every one else does. If a native is on I.S.S. it further proves my point.

 

[GaryA]

Fooling people isn't difficult, just saying.

That's for sure;

Those who are least likely to be fooled are those who accept the fact and are willing to admit that they can be fooled.

Those who claim that they cannot be fooled - are the biggest fools of all...

 

[kinda]

Those who are least likely to be fooled are those who accept the fact and are willing to admit that they can be fooled.

Those who claim that they cannot be fooled - are the biggest fools of all...

You must be fooling?!?!

 

[kinda]

I think some of you are getting the 'cause-and-effect' characteristics of 'gravity' and 'momentum' confused...

And, I am still waiting for an explanation on how the downward force of gravity can manifest an impervious 'hard-lock' grasp on anything enough to move it sideways against all other forces in existence as if they did not exist at all.

*Humor alert*

Someone posted in the concave hollow earth theory thread, "that planes are swimming". I mean, if you can't accept that, than there is something wrong with you right?!?! lol

I will try to defend the Heliocentric model regarding planes, but this is more fun, than anything.... It's called spaceship laws of motion, if you never been in a spaceship you will not understand, and you will probably believe the moon landings were faked. It's that you just don't understand spaceships, as well as spaceship science.

You need to watch Star Trek more and listen to Eric Dubay far less. Look spaceships have their own laws of motion inside the spaceship, so try to understand you are on a spaceship, you are an astronaut, and maybe you will understand that airplanes are swimming in the earth spaceship. Got it?!?! It's so easy, even a third grader believes this.

Just look at this spaceship, it will probably sink in. Notice the spaceship is even swimming?!?! I'm guessing you don't even know how to swim. First learn to swim, than learn to fly a spaceship, and you will believe the science. It's a three step process.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Van Allen Radiation Belts. There is no way a space craft would be able to get able to go through that,

Not true.
Transit time through the Van Allen radiation belt at the beginning of the Apollo voyages was incredibly short.
Travelling through the belt if you are going fast enough, is no problem at all.

It's very similar to passing your finger through a flame of fire. If you do it quickly, you don't get burned.

 

[kinda]

Not true.
Transit time through the Van Allen radiation belt at the beginning of the Apollo voyages was incredibly short.
Travelling through the belt if you are going fast enough, is no problem at all.

It's very similar to passing your finger through a flame of fire. If you do it quickly, you don't get burned.

Just a quick follow up question. Than why is NASA still trying to create the technology to do this?

Here is the video once again for reference. NASA admits, they are still trying to create the technology to protect them. Maybe they are just trying to create a spaceship fast enough?!?! Please explain in depth, I don't want to miss anything.

 

[Webers.Home]

.

Well, if you believe the Heliocentric model, then get ready to fly into space,
because according to your own believed science, the earth is orbiting the sun
at 66,600 mph, or a speed close to this.

An object in motion, tends to stay in motion, viz: my body is moving thru
space @ 66,600 mph the same as the Earth because I am aboard it as a
passenger, just as my body moves @ freeway speeds in my Ford Ranger
when I am aboard it.

Now if the Earth were to reduce its orbital velocity a bit too much at once,
then my body's momentum would become something to reckon with, just as
when I reduce my Ranger's speed a bit too much at once causes my body's
momentum something to reckon with.

In point of fact, prior to mandatory seat belts, passengers were commonly
thrown forward against dashboards whenever drivers slammed on the brakes
because of the sudden difference in momentum relative to their body and the
car, but I don't anticipate the Earth's orbital velocity slowing down like that
any time soon.
_

 

[kinda]

.


* 1,000 mph is too slow to throw people off into space. For that to happen,
they need to be going 25,020 mph.
_

.



An object in motion, tends to stay in motion, viz: my body is moving thru
space @ 66,600 mph the same as the Earth because I am aboard it as a
passenger, just as my body moves @ freeway speeds in my Ford Ranger
when I am aboard it.

Now if the Earth were to reduce its orbital velocity a bit too much at once,
then my body's momentum would become something to reckon with, just as
when I reduce my Ranger's speed a bit too much at once causes my body's
momentum something to reckon with.

In point of fact, prior to mandatory seat belts, passengers were commonly
thrown forward against dashboards whenever drivers slammed on the brakes
because of the sudden difference in momentum relative to their body and the
car, but I don't anticipate the Earth's orbital velocity slowing down like that
any time soon.
_

I understand the spaceship science, may not agree, but I understand. At this point, I'm learning to accept everyone's view, don't agree with most of them, but I love Astronomy! So, this topic is interesting to me.

What happened to the, "1,000 mph is too slow to throw people off into space. For that to happen,
they need to be going 25,020 mph"? Did you change your mind?

Can you explain why believing the earth is stationary to be false, since you believe that the earth and planes, Ford Rangers, and etc will not be effected by earth's movement? Essentially one can believe the earth is stationary and believe there is no movement to affect flight or motor vehicles. Are the two points so different that one is false and one is right, or for this instance they can be viewed the same?

In my opinion, the earth is stationary, that is why flight is not affected by the earth's movement, since the earth is NOT moving. In the Heliocentric model, flight is not affected, because the plane is synchronized to the earth by gravity. Let me know if I'm misunderstand the science.

I personally can't see why someone would look down upon a view that the earth is stationary, when the Heliocentric model basically says, the earth's movement doesn't affect airplanes in flight. Both are coming to the same conclusion, while viewing the observation of flight. Yes? No? Maybe so?

 

[Webers.Home]

.

I personally can't see why someone would look down upon a view that the
earth is stationary, when the Heliocentric model basically says, the earth's
movement doesn't affect airplanes in flight. Both are coming to the same
conclusion, while viewing the observation of flight. Yes? No? Maybe so?

A common word seen in scientific explanations is "apparent" roughly defined
as how we perceive things with our unaided natural senses.

For example; to our unaided natural senses, the Sun rises in the east. But in
reality, it doesn't rise at all: the Earth simply rolls in that direction making
the Sun appear to rise. Whether the Earth rolls, or the Sun rises; the visual
effect is the same though one is actual and the other apparent.

For another example: we perceive things over our heads in space as "up
there" while in reality there is no up there for folks living on a sphere:
everything is "out there"

For example at my location on the Earth in the northern latitudes; that which
is up for me is down for someone on the direct opposite side of the Earth in
the southern latitudes because "perpendicular" is relative to the pull of
gravity, which is always towards an object's center of mass.

* Gravity's properties are somewhat similar to light's. The further an
observer is from a source of gravity, the weaker its pull on him; like as when
the further an observer is from a source of light, the less it provides him
with illumination.
_

 

[GaryA]

And, I am still waiting for an explanation on how the downward force of gravity can manifest an impervious 'hard-lock' grasp on anything enough to move it sideways against all other forces in existence as if they did not exist at all.

Despite the proclivity of most/some people to believe that 'gravity' holds everything in a structured spatial pattern relative to the earth, Ball Earth model physics itself does not support the idea.

According to Ball Earth model physics, the force of gravity only pulls objects (in the context of this discussion) toward the [center of the] earth. It cannot apply a force of any kind to an object other than to pull it toward the [center of the] earth. It cannot move an object in any direction other than toward the [center of the] earth.

According to Ball Earth model physics, an object leaving the ground has a certain amount of momentum - in a particular direction. It is a limited amount of momentum - it is not infinite-amount-of-energy-and-force 'forever' momentum. And, to whatever degree that the motion of the object changes direction, the initial momentum - in the initial/original direction - is lost (in terms of driving the object in the initial/orginal direction). Whatever has caused it to change direction has 'overcome' the initial momentum - in the initial/original direction.

According to Ball Earth model physics, the momentum of the object comes from the movement of the object (mass x velocity) - not the force of gravity!

The force of gravity has nothing whatsoever to do with the momentum of the object.

It can be said that the turning of the surface of the earth - in contact with the object - "imparts" to it a certain velocity - which is "retained" at the moment the object is no longer in contact with the earth. However, at/after that moment, no other 'earthbound' force is acting upon it. Whatever momentum it has when it "leaves" the earth (amount and direction) - that is it.

Whatever momentum it has will 'drive' the object in the initial/orginal direction; however, if another force overcomes it (driving it in a different direction), the momentum in the initial/original direction is 'lost'.

The force of gravity cannot do anything but pull the object toward the [center of the] earth.

No other 'earthbound' force is acting upon it for as long as it is not in contact with the earth.

There is no 'earthbound' force - of any kind - acting upon it in a horizontal/'sideways' direction.

And, gravity can only pull it 'downward'.

According to Ball Earth model physics, the only possibility of an off-ground object 'following' (staying with) the rotation of the earth - "at best" - is until the initial/original momentum is 'lost'/'changed'/'converted'/etc.

If a airplane takes off - makes a circle (as they often do) - and heads for its destination - the momentum from the 1000 MPH (classic example) velocity in the initial/original direction is 'lost'/'changed'/'converted'/etc.

In such a case - in the Ball Earth model - the earth should "spin away from" the airplane after it took off - because, there is no force acting upon the airplane that would drive it in the same direction as the rotation of the earth.

The momentum of an object is an aggregate vector. There is no such thing as the momentum of an object in one direction (i.e. - an airplane) "riding on top of" a separate momentum in a different direction (i.e. - from the rotation of the earth).

 

[kinda]

Despite the proclivity of most/some people to believe that 'gravity' holds everything in a structured spatial pattern relative to the earth, Ball Earth model physics itself does not support the idea.

According to Ball Earth model physics, the force of gravity only pulls objects (in the context of this discussion) toward the [center of the] earth. It cannot apply a force of any kind to an object other than to pull it toward the [center of the] earth. It cannot move an object in any direction other than toward the [center of the] earth.

According to Ball Earth model physics, an object leaving the ground has a certain amount of momentum - in a particular direction. It is a limited amount of momentum - it is not infinite-amount-of-energy-and-force 'forever' momentum. And, to whatever degree that the motion of the object changes direction, the initial momentum - in the initial/original direction - is lost (in terms of driving the object in the initial/orginal direction). Whatever has caused it to change direction has 'overcome' the initial momentum - in the initial/original direction.

According to Ball Earth model physics, the momentum of the object comes from the movement of the object (mass x velocity) - not the force of gravity!

The force of gravity has nothing whatsoever to do with the momentum of the object.

It can be said that the turning of the surface of the earth - in contact with the object - "imparts" to it a certain velocity - which is "retained" at the moment the object is no longer in contact with the earth. However, at/after that moment, no other 'earthbound' force is acting upon it. Whatever momentum it has when it "leaves" the earth (amount and direction) - that is it.

Whatever momentum it has will 'drive' the object in the initial/orginal direction; however, if another force overcomes it (driving it in a different direction), the momentum in the initial/original direction is 'lost'.

The force of gravity cannot do anything but pull the object toward the [center of the] earth.

No other 'earthbound' force is acting upon it for as long as it is not in contact with the earth.

There is no 'earthbound' force - of any kind - acting upon it in a horizontal/'sideways' direction.

And, gravity can only pull it 'downward'.

According to Ball Earth model physics, the only possibility of an off-ground object 'following' (staying with) the rotation of the earth - "at best" - is until the initial/original momentum is 'lost'/'changed'/'converted'/etc.

If a airplane takes off - makes a circle (as they often do) - and heads for its destination - the momentum from the 1000 MPH (classic example) velocity in the initial/original direction is 'lost'/'changed'/'converted'/etc.

In such a case - in the Ball Earth model - the earth should "spin away from" the airplane after it took off - because, there is no force acting upon the airplane that would drive it in the same direction as the rotation of the earth.

The momentum of an object is an aggregate vector. There is no such thing as the momentum of an object in one direction (i.e. - an airplane) "riding on top of" a separate momentum in a different direction (i.e. - from the rotation of the earth).

Is this a direct quote for Eric Dubay?!?! Is this original material, or was it copied?

Looks like Rhamstein is poking fun of the moon landing.

 

[oyster67]

Over the years NASA has twice changed their story regarding the shape of the Earth. At first they maintained Earth was a perfect sphere, which later changed to an “oblate spheroid” flattened at the poles, and then changed again to being “pear-shaped” as the Southern hemisphere allegedly bulges out as well. Unfortunately for NASA, however, none of their official pictures show an oblate spheroid or pear-shaped Earth! All their pictures, contrary to their words, show a spherical (and clearly CGI fake) Earth.

View attachment 246322

I personally adhere to the pregnant-pear model. Earth is basically a big water balloon suspended in space.

 

[Gideon300]

90,000 feet is 17 miles, so it's entirely possible. SR 71 flies nose up some where between 7-8 degrees. If the earth was convex, it would fly nose down at 7-8 degrees. Think about it.

If you think this is non-sense, consider Joshua Nowicki's photo.


https://www.abc57.com/news/mirage-of-chicago-skyline-seen-from-michigan-shoreline

An aircraft's angle of attack depends on aerodynamics, not on the curvature of the earth. I suggest that you learn something about aerodynamics before displaying your ignorance for the world to see.

 

[Gideon300]

There is no way a man landed on the moon, it's just not possible. I think the moon landing marks the point in which the government has lost the trust of the American people. Pretty much everything after that has been a Hollywood story.

Lee Harvey Oswalt the lone shooter, that kills the JFK. LBJ and the Vietnam War. Richard Nixon and Watergate/Moon Landings...........I could go on. Remember Oliver North?!?! Bill Clinton giving China military secrets.............. Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. 911

Yes, flat earthers should study up, before they start posting. It looks really bad. We can all blame Eric Dubay though, this guy in the ring leader on the non-sense.

So 6 born again Christians have lied to the world since 1968. So have the several hundred who have been into space and seen the globe earth. So have the thousands of aircraft pilots who have circumnavigated the earth. So have the countless seafarers who have likewise been around the globe. Liars all.

Flat earthers who have been to the edge of the earth: zero.
Flat earthers who can explain tides and the appearance of the moon: none
Flat earthers who can explain why things fall down and not up or sideways: none (hint - it's not pressure)
Flat earthers with even a modicum of common sense, logic and reason: none.

 

[Moses_Young]

So 6 born again Christians have lied to the world since 1968. So have the several hundred who have been into space and seen the globe earth. So have the thousands of aircraft pilots who have circumnavigated the earth. So have the countless seafarers who have likewise been around the globe. Liars all.

Flat earthers who have been to the edge of the earth: zero.
Flat earthers who can explain tides and the appearance of the moon: none
Flat earthers who can explain why things fall down and not up or sideways: none (hint - it's not pressure)
Flat earthers with even a modicum of common sense, logic and reason: none.

Far more lied about the covid-19 vaccines, with much more serious and immediate effect. Many probably lied with the best intentions. Born again Christians are not God - they are still fallible. And many who claim to be are not.

And even if you're referring to the astro-nots, at least some admitted toward the end of their lives they had lied, but in a subtle way, so as not to get themselves or their families killed, most likely.

 

[Moses_Young]

For example - Buzz Aldrin admits to a child that "we" didn't go to the moon.

 

[kinda]

An aircraft's angle of attack depends on aerodynamics, not on the curvature of the earth. I suggest that you learn something about aerodynamics before displaying your ignorance for the world to see.

Please educate me on why, the faster planes fly, the more the nose is pitched up? I don't want to be ignorant any more.

Please go into depth on aerodynamics between a commercial airlines, concord jet, and SR71. Is it that all these planes are just coincidence on speed vs angle of attack?

I don't mind your rudeness, as long as you can back up what you say. So, please go into depth on the aerodynamics of those three airliners, if you don't, than maybe the ignorance on your side.

 

[kinda]

So 6 born again Christians have lied to the world since 1968. So have the several hundred who have been into space and seen the globe earth. So have the thousands of aircraft pilots who have circumnavigated the earth. So have the countless seafarers who have likewise been around the globe. Liars all.

Flat earthers who have been to the edge of the earth: zero.
Flat earthers who can explain tides and the appearance of the moon: none
Flat earthers who can explain why things fall down and not up or sideways: none (hint - it's not pressure)
Flat earthers with even a modicum of common sense, logic and reason: none.

I don't believe the earth is flat, so your flat earth points do nothing for me.

Which 6 born again Christians have said, we live on a globe? Just curious. Who are the hundreds, who have seen the globe? Not the earth, but have seen and confirmed the earth is a globe?

Yes, I know the earth is round on the inside, not the out. So, what's your point exactly?

Your confusing me as a flat earther, which may show your ignorance again. The whole world is seeing it on display now. lol

For the record, you are proclaiming to the world, that sun is the center of the universe, and not God? Just want to make sure how your scientific superiority aligns with your faith. Ever wonder why people worship on Sunday, instead of the Sabbath?!?! It just might be a conspiracy...

My beliefs in a concave hollow earth, confirms that God is in the center of our universe, and the sun is orbiting inside the earth, and also orbiting around God. God is the center of our lives and the universe.

 

[Webers.Home]

.

I personally adhere to the pregnant-pear model. Earth is basically a big
water balloon suspended in space.

While true that the Earth isn't truly spherical, it isn't out of round all that
much. The equatorial diameter is roughly 7,929 miles and it's polar diameter
is roughly 7,900 miles. That's a difference of only 29 miles which, on an
object the size of the Earth, is scarcely noticeable.
_