Mega Thread The Flat Earth Mega thread.

[Wallaby]

Seriously?

If this is the case why is there such a thing as nebulae in the vacuum of space?

If gravity is this weak force how did over come the vacuum of space for stars to form within this nebulae? (considering you need a planet sized sphere for gravity to take hold)

Quite simply put these space clouds couldn't exist if gravity did it's thing or these space clouds would of evaporated in the vacuum of infinite space because gravity was too weak.

I did point out that gravity was an incredibly weak force. Nevertheless - it exists and it has an attractive force. Nebulae are clouds of gas and dust - they have mass - therefore there is a gravitational force between the particles, and a gravitational force between nebulae. They will clump together and form asteroids, planetoids, planets, and eventually, if massive enough, stars.

Gravity is a function of mass and distance - it operates independently of any intervening 'particles' between mass objects. It operates in a vacuum.

Seriously?

I mean this is assuming you believe in this nebulae bull**** theory in the first place. But you do because planets do not exist in this Terra firma form in space. Not only that the formed planets inside this nebulae they are shot out into space magically. I mean how does a star relative to a gas cloud just automatically get shot out and go on to form it's own galaxy? Then on top that what forces ceases the star to stop sucking up everything from the nebula via gravity? This whole thing is just absurd.

I'm sorry - I have no idea what this means. Please clarify what objects or phenomenon you are referring to.

But hypothetically speaking There is obviously a downward force I believe it has to do with an object finding its equilibrium given its surrounding medium in relation with electricity, temperature, vibration, magnetism and frequency....But this is just my opinion and something I can happily change.
/QUOTE]

So why does gravity (or the force that we call gravity) also occur as a sideways force? If you place a plumb line near a large mountain, an attractive force towards the mountain can be measured (of course, very small, and far less then the force towards the centre of the earth). You can even measure the horizontal force of gravity between two lead balls in a lab (this was done first pre-1800 - see the Cavendish experiment) Also, why is the strength of the downwards force vary across the earth?

By the way, did you watch the entire Neil de Grasse Tyson video (it's only 2 minutes long), or just the first 10 seconds where he makes his gravity joke?
To reiterate - the law of gravity describes what happens - every time, repeatable, predictable. You can call it the Law of Universal Downwards Force if you like. How it does what it does - yeah, that's complex - the scientific consensus seems to be that the Theory of General Relativity has the best explanation - that has been slightly modified over the years, and is incomplete (the theory actually states it's own incompleteness, and Einstein himself was adamant that his theory was not complete), but overall, it is generally accepted to be on the right track.

So why does gravity (or the force that we call gravity) also occur as a sideways force? If you place a plumb line near a large mountain, an attractive force towards the mountain can be measured (of course, very small, and far less then the force towards the centre of the earth). You can even measure the horizontal force of gravity between two lead balls in a lab (this was done first pre-1800 - see the Cavendish experiment) Also, why is the strength of the downwards force vary across the earth?

By the way, did you watch the entire Neil de Grasse Tyson video (it's only 2 minutes long), or just the first 10 seconds where he makes his gravity joke?
To reiterate - the law of gravity describes what happens - every time, repeatable, predictable. You can call it the Law of Universal Downwards Force if you like. How it does what it does - yeah, that's complex - the scientific consensus seems to be that the Theory of General Relativity has the best explanation - that has been slightly modified over the years, and is incomplete (the theory actually states it's own incompleteness, and Einstein himself was adamant that his theory was not complete), but overall, it is generally accepted to be on the right track.

 

[darthbards]

Lol,I iove how ball lovers always say what a weak force Gravity is,absolute gold. Funny how it's so weak it can hold down billions of tonnes of water without to much problem.
It's Majik

 

[darthbards]

 

[Wallaby]

Lol,I iove how ball lovers always say what a weak force Gravity is,absolute gold. Funny how it's so weak it can hold down billions of tonnes of water without to much problem.
It's Majik

The total mass of the Earth's hydrosphere is about 1.4 × 1018 tonnes, which is about 0.023% of Earth's total mass. So the earth weighs about 4,000 times as much as all the water on earth.

The earth weighs about 6 trillion trillion tonnes. That's a lot of mass to provide gravity. The gravitational attraction provided by every atomic particle is very small - but there's a lot of them.

Please read the post further up this thread (this page) where I explain how the strength of gravitational attraction varies with mass.

Look, I saw an earlier post where someone who believed in the Flat Earth was claiming 'My 3 year old can do this'. And I agree entirely. To a 3-year old, the earth may be flat (well, a bit bumpy). The thing is, most of us have moved beyond a 3-year old's understanding of reality. I am only trying to provide information that you may be able to give to your 3-year old to help him understand reality more accurately.

Of course, if you still have a 3-year old's level of understanding, and believe the earth is flat (reading what I and others have posted above may help you get over that), you can expect your view to be treated with ridicule and disdain. This is no reflection on you - you might be a well-brought up polite, engaging person, who just happens to hold a belief that is refuted by every airline company in the world, every nautical shipping agency (including sailors trading many hundreds of years ago), every telecommunications company, basically every historical scientist and explorer since at least 1AD (the majority of proponents of a Flat Earth model after then were religous-based), commercial satellite companies, or even just the evidence of your own eyes when looking at the stars.

This is not NASA or the Jesuits. It's not even 'Big Science Conspiracy' since the round earth was well established and understood long before the 'scientific method' was codified.

 

[darthbards]

The total mass of the Earth's hydrosphere is about 1.4 × 1018 tonnes, which is about 0.023% of Earth's total mass. So the earth weighs about 4,000 times as much as all the water on earth.

The earth weighs about 6 trillion trillion tonnes. That's a lot of mass to provide gravity. The gravitational attraction provided by every atomic particle is very small - but there's a lot of them.

Please read the post further up this thread (this page) where I explain how the strength of gravitational attraction varies with mass.

Look, I saw an earlier post where someone who believed in the Flat Earth was claiming 'My 3 year old can do this'. And I agree entirely. To a 3-year old, the earth may be flat (well, a bit bumpy). The thing is, most of us have moved beyond a 3-year old's understanding of reality. I am only trying to provide information that you may be able to give to your 3-year old to help him understand reality more accurately.

Of course, if you still have a 3-year old's level of understanding, and believe the earth is flat (reading what I and others have posted above may help you get over that), you can expect your view to be treated with ridicule and disdain. This is no reflection on you - you might be a well-brought up polite, engaging person, who just happens to hold a belief that is refuted by every airline company in the world, every nautical shipping agency (including sailors trading many hundreds of years ago), every telecommunications company, basically every historical scientist and explorer since at least 1AD (the majority of proponents of a Flat Earth model after then were religous-based), commercial satellite companies, or even just the evidence of your own eyes when looking at the stars.

This is not NASA or the Jesuits. It's not even 'Big Science Conspiracy' since the round earth was well established and understood long before the 'scientific method' was codified.

Lol,keep telling yourself the earth is a ball and keep living upside down and living with the fairies. Does Majik Gravity stop your magic fairies from floating away?

Looking at the stars lol,if you've been paying attention I've already explained the stars existance. How about you do the looking at the moon experiment that's been mentioned.

I've also been on a boat,the earth looks as flat as a tack.
At the FES we don't go for your ball love so you can spew forth as much garbage as you want. Our members are swelling and will continue to swell. If you want to exist in a dreamland be our guest.
Sounds like you have no interest in Flat Earth Theory so go talk your ball love somewhere else.

At the FES we're more about teaching the next generation real science and couldn't care for those already lost. We're about teaching the kids real science before the religion of fraudulent and institutionalised science get their brainwashing mits on them.

 

[Ships]

Is there a chance that you are wrong about the earth being flat?
Is there anything that could falsify the broad premise of your FE theory?

 

[Heisenberg_]

The total mass of the Earth's hydrosphere is about 1.4 × 1018 tonnes, which is about 0.023% of Earth's total mass. So the earth weighs about 4,000 times as much as all the water on earth.

The earth weighs about 6 trillion trillion tonnes. That's a lot of mass to provide gravity. The gravitational attraction provided by every atomic particle is very small - but there's a lot of them.

Please read the post further up this thread (this page) where I explain how the strength of gravitational attraction varies with mass.

Look, I saw an earlier post where someone who believed in the Flat Earth was claiming 'My 3 year old can do this'. And I agree entirely. To a 3-year old, the earth may be flat (well, a bit bumpy). The thing is, most of us have moved beyond a 3-year old's understanding of reality. I am only trying to provide information that you may be able to give to your 3-year old to help him understand reality more accurately.

Of course, if you still have a 3-year old's level of understanding, and believe the earth is flat (reading what I and others have posted above may help you get over that), you can expect your view to be treated with ridicule and disdain. This is no reflection on you - you might be a well-brought up polite, engaging person, who just happens to hold a belief that is refuted by every airline company in the world, every nautical shipping agency (including sailors trading many hundreds of years ago), every telecommunications company, basically every historical scientist and explorer since at least 1AD (the majority of proponents of a Flat Earth model after then were religous-based), commercial satellite companies, or even just the evidence of your own eyes when looking at the stars.

This is not NASA or the Jesuits. It's not even 'Big Science Conspiracy' since the round earth was well established and understood long before the 'scientific method' was codified.

You're wasting your time on him, too much facts, logic and big words.

 

[darthbards]

Is there a chance that you are wrong about the earth being flat?
Is there anything that could falsify the broad premise of your FE theory?

Well I'm pretty convinced the earth is flat because it's so obvious,with so much evidence and so many clear lies associated with majik ball earth.
I do think it's possible the stars exist but science tells me it's pretty doubtful.
I'm more interested now in compilex issues like the age of this earth,and most of my research is currently focused on that.

 

[JackOutback]

Well I'm pretty convinced the earth is flat because it's so obvious,with so much evidence and so many clear lies associated with majik ball earth.
I do think it's possible the stars exist but science tells me it's pretty doubtful.
I'm more interested now in compilex issues like the age of this earth,and most of my research is currently focused on that.

By research, do you mean Google searches and YouTube videos? Because I would be interested to hear of your methodology and peer review process.

 

[darthbards]

By research, do you mean Google searches and YouTube videos? Because I would be interested to hear of your methodology and peer review process.

How many threads do you police Jack? Bit strange don't you think?
Would you be more comfortable if I tweeted my views? Is that the peer review you find acceptable? The Larry road?
I don't put forward institutionalised viewpoints,I've stated that. I don't support the bullying my teachings have produced,I've stated that also and have full intentions to work through that.
I study and teach real science. My viewpoints on the stars and this earths age have not been reproduced on You Tube. Some of my views on the earths shape have been,big deal. Your high priests also speak on You Tube,do you police that and condemn?
I have no interest in the field of reporting on everybody else's business,nor policing others viewpoints. If you were to start a ball loving thread you would not see me there.

What are you offering to this thread bar your parasitic police work? If you have better theories concentrate on them.
Your scared Jack,that's why you must police everybody else's viewpoints,deep down you know you've been brainwashed. This is why you have no meaningful drive behind your own ideas. This is why you concentrate on others.

 

[darthbards]

You're wasting your time on him, too much facts, logic and big words.

Welcome back Hieldeberg and at the FES we knew your return would coincide with further comments of nothingness.
Maybe you'd like to call the poster you quoted out for claiming majik gravity is a law? Maybe you would like to explain why we spend $600mil a year at LIGO for something that is already discovered and is a law?
Here's your opportunity to actually post something that is a legitimate post?

 

[Boston tiger]

Lol,keep telling yourself the earth is a ball and keep living upside down and living with the fairies. Does Majik Gravity stop your magic fairies from floating away?

Looking at the stars lol,if you've been paying attention I've already explained the stars existance. How about you do the looking at the moon experiment that's been mentioned.

I've also been on a boat,the earth looks as flat as a tack.
At the FES we don't go for your ball love so you can spew forth as much garbage as you want. Our members are swelling and will continue to swell. If you want to exist in a dreamland be our guest.
Sounds like you have no interest in Flat Earth Theory so go talk your ball love somewhere else.

At the FES we're more about teaching the next generation real science and couldn't care for those already lost. We're about teaching the kids real science before the religion of fraudulent and institutionalised science get their brainwashing mits on them.

Do you live in a compound?

 

[Duritz]

Now the ball lovers are resorting to personal insults. Pretty poor form. The refuge of the defeated.

 

[Rigby!]

Now the ball lovers are resorting to personal insults. Pretty poor form. The refuge of the defeated.

Strategy of the climate change deniers. Rinse. Repeat.

 

[JackOutback]

How many threads do you police Jack? Bit strange don't you think?
Would you be more comfortable if I tweeted my views? Is that the peer review you find acceptable? The Larry road?
I don't put forward institutionalised viewpoints,I've stated that. I don't support the bullying my teachings have produced,I've stated that also and have full intentions to work through that.
I study and teach real science. My viewpoints on the stars and this earths age have not been reproduced on You Tube. Some of my views on the earths shape have been,big deal. Your high priests also speak on You Tube,do you police that and condemn?
I have no interest in the field of reporting on everybody else's business,nor policing others viewpoints. If you were to start a ball loving thread you would not see me there.

What are you offering to this thread bar your parasitic police work? If you have better theories concentrate on them.
Your scared Jack,that's why you must police everybody else's viewpoints,deep down you know you've been brainwashed. This is why you have no meaningful drive behind your own ideas. This is why you concentrate on others.

I don't need to provide theories, we have some with extensive research and peer review. If you want to supersede this theory, then you need more than your thought bubbles; you need published research and peer review. Otherwise, it's just inane ramblings.

 

[NEGAN]

I did point out that gravity was an incredibly weak force. Nevertheless - it exists and it has an attractive force. Nebulae are clouds of gas and dust - they have mass - therefore there is a gravitational force between the particles, and a gravitational force between nebulae. They will clump together and form asteroids, planetoids, planets, and eventually, if massive enough, stars.

Gravity is a function of mass and distance - it operates independently of any intervening 'particles' between mass objects. It operates in a vacuum.

I know what gravity theoretically is, and I know how it is supposed to theoretically work in a vacuum that's not the issue.

Your reasoning is either breaking your law of gravity or breaking the physics law of fluid dynamics.

Gravity as we both agree is weak as s*** and it doesn't get stronger as gas particles expand through space so these clouds shouldn't exist and gas doesn't stay together in a vacuum of space. There is no a little from column A and a little from column B.

But science and as you stated gets around this by saying these clouds are able to form because space is not a total vacuum thus the gravity within in the clouds is supposed to be strong enough to hold these clouds together....... but the contradiction comes when they tell us space is expanding at 68km/s. Actually the biggest contradiction comes with the big bang. The mass of literally everything existence is when gravity would of been at it strongest just doesn't collapse back on itself.

It is just ridiculous and I haven't even begun to talk about everything packed into a pea sized hole one day just exploded into utter chaos only to form harmony and order in our universe. I mean you have a greater chance of blowing up random material and and have that material form into a perfectly working swiss made watch.

So why does gravity (or the force that we call gravity) also occur as a sideways force? If you place a plumb line near a large mountain, an attractive force towards the mountain can be measured (of course, very small, and far less then the force towards the centre of the earth). You can even measure the horizontal force of gravity between two lead balls in a lab (this was done first pre-1800 - see the Cavendish experiment)

I am not denying a downward force at all I've stated that already. I don't know what it is but if you want to call it gravity thats fine by me represented by 9.81mps^2 cool. I don't believe it to be mass attracting mass.

The Cavendish experiment. "The discovery of big G" where do I start.....

I seriously cant believe people eat this experiment up as proof of gravity. 2 freaking leads balls.....2 Leads balls??? I know lead isn't ferrous but gee wizz.

What was he measuring with 2 lead balls

-plate tectonics movement?
-electromagnetism?
-Static electricity and the laws of electrostatics?
-A swift breeze?
-Air viscosity?
-Vibrations?
-Temperature effects?
-How level his roof is?






Find me an experiment with a grains of sand attracted to massive rock then do it with grain of salt and a watermelon do it with a fibre of wood and and big glass orbs. (IN A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT).

http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm

Here is a similar experiment which is very long winded shows electrical influences on gravity ...

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/9803/9803039.pdf
Similar one but effects on pressure and gravity very long winded

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...itational-constant-ignites-debate-slide-show/

Here is one about how big G is inaccurate and after 200 years they still can't get it right.

"Either something is wrong with the experiments, or there is a flaw in our understanding of gravity,” says Mark Kasevich, a Stanford University physicist who conducted an unrelated measurement of big G in 2007 using atom interferometry. “Further work is required to clarify the situation".

By the way, did you watch the entire Neil de Grasse Tyson video (it's only 2 minutes long), or just the first 10 seconds where he makes his gravity joke?
To reiterate - the law of gravity describes what happens - every time, repeatable, predictable. You can call it the Law of Universal Downwards Force if you like. How it does what it does - yeah, that's complex - the scientific consensus seems to be that the Theory of General Relativity has the best explanation - that has been slightly modified over the years, and is incomplete (the theory actually states it's own incompleteness, and Einstein himself was adamant that his theory was not complete), but overall, it is generally accepted to be on the right track

He was joking for his first sentence he wasn't joking when he said "we don't know" Then he went on a tried to be prophetic about it.

As I have always stated I don't deny a downward force. If you want to call this downward motion gravity...ok I won't argue that. Space pushing me down ugh!

I am not going into Einstein again.

 

[exe ex machina]

This goes into the Jesuits re: Flat Earth and why and what the endgame is....

 

[exe ex machina]

This goes into the Jesuits re: Flat Earth and why and what the endgame is....

Another great point the video makes is how in a religious society that the Jesuits were, a massive amount of Jesuits were astronomers. Which highlights how much their focus has been on this field.

Really awesome video. Worth the watch whether youre pro or anti FE, because it's illuminating on the truth of the Jesuits. A satanic-based religion that has taken hold of so much power in the world via industry, education, science, astronomy, medicine, government, etc etc.

 

[Boston tiger]

Another great point the video makes is how in a religious society that the Jesuits were, a massive amount of Jesuits were astronomers. Which highlights how much their focus has been on this field.

Really awesome video. Worth the watch whether youre pro or anti FE, because it's illuminating on the truth of the Jesuits. A satanic-based religion that has taken hold of so much power in the world via industry, education, science, astronomy, medicine, government, etc etc.

I always thought this flat earth thing was just a bit of Catholic bashing.

This is probably the greatest compliment you can give to the Catholic Church.

Thank you .

 

[Jackaaa]

Another great point the video makes is how in a religious society that the Jesuits were, a massive amount of Jesuits were astronomers. Which highlights how much their focus has been on this field.

Really awesome video. Worth the watch whether youre pro or anti FE, because it's illuminating on the truth of the Jesuits. A satanic-based religion that has taken hold of so much power in the world via industry, education, science, astronomy, medicine, government, etc etc.

We know the story.

Catholic Church was the authority on Christianity that pre dated the Bible by 300 years. Catholic Church as the authority on all the teaching of Jesus compile the Bible. Bible is not seen as the authority on the teaching of Christ and no where on the bible does it say that it the authority.

Then comes the Protestant reformation and the birth of fundamentalism. Fundamentalist no longer have the church as the authority so deem the Bible to be the only authority on Christian matters.

As science discovers more and more things the Catholic Church because it's authority isn't tied to the literalistic interpretation of the Bible just embrace any scientific discoveries by man.

The Fundamentalist however are stuck between a rock and a hard place and one of the ways around it out is to call a big scientific conspiracy created by guess who ... The Catholic Church.

Never mind you can always come back to the church as the song says
" You can check out anytime you like,
But you can never leave"






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Boston tiger]

Now the ball lovers are resorting to personal insults. Pretty poor form. The refuge of the defeated.

Is there a compound in your life ?

 

[Duritz]

Is there a compound in your life ?

If by compound you mean "drive to seek truth and show as frauds the Starbucks loving NASA liars", then yes, yes there is.

Or, if by compound you mean "shadow object" then the answer is again yes.

 

[Toump Ass]

cariculum

What the **** is 'cariculum'?!?!?

Seriously mate, it sounds like something you buy from an Indian grocer.

Forget teaching your kids about the flat earth for a second, teach yourself some basic spelling and grammar first.

Your poor children.

Anyway, can you please point me to where I can see the Shadow Object? Surely it's visible outside of an eclipse?

 

[cannot]

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/07/07/colorado-earth-flat-gravity-hoax/

Trending:
Uruguay’s pot experiment
Hospitals: too risky to release?
Missing man
Flat Earth truthers
Camping getaways near Denver
NEWSCOLORADO NEWS
These Coloradans say Earth is flat. And gravity’s a hoax. Now, they’re being persecuted.

 

[NEGAN]

One thing I have noticed with comments is I am see more and more pilots starting to jump on board with this movement it's insane.

They were the first ones to abuse the Flat Eathers but now not so much.

It's really building up steam.