Mega Thread The Flat Earth Mega thread.

[Duritz]

Really good research there GG.
As an Australian I'm disappointed we aren't at the forefront of this ball myth.
Yes the whole world doesn't understand how we can just spin,spin,spin and not know,but how do us Aussies explain that we are upside down?
We are not upside down,anyone can prove that.

I can see out my window right now, and I can see my neighbours house. Beryl my neighbour is again home on her own, no doubt waiting on the postman (he seems to take an awfully long time to hand deliver her parcels), however Beryl is not upside down, I can clearly see that, and her house is not either. None of the trees are upside down either. Nor is their dog.

 

[Duritz]

Who knows why things fall at that rate? you can that gravity all you want but.....yeah its not really, well not the whole picture of the heliocentric model.

Big G is a problem its a massive problem you can spin it however you want but you know it is. Luckily we have science to.invent things such as dark energy and matter to whisk away all of gravities problems of the galaxy rotation problem.
It's based on assumption and not reality. One example.. you have to believe that a teaspoon of a neutron star weighs 900 times more than a pyramid in Giza...please....give me a break.




As far as FE answers I really don't know what you want from it, I don't know what you expect from it. I know you believe its a bunch of trolls but I have been following this for year now and yes I would agree there are a bunch of stupids in the fe movement. But I also know that there are very smart people in the movement as well. Just like any group.





It's a hypothesis stemming from a 2 simple questions.

Where is the 8 inches squared per mile curvature?
Where is the measurement/detection for the earth moving?

That's it.

Now 3 years no budget they have come a long way ....to the point it is isn't go away the numbers are growing.

Youre asking questions of the flat earth that they cannot possibly answer given the access to recourses budget time etc.

Science is beautiful when used correctly.. But science can be ugly too, it can be let's say political...money and power driven devastating.

Exactly. Ball lovers like Tuco can come up with as many pretty looking formulas like 9.8 m/s2 as they want but when I read m/s I think multiple sclerosis and that’s what the ball lovers have when they argue their point. Squared.

Tuco watch the video posted on the previous page where the whispering guy uses infra red to see the mountains which should be hidden, then come back and explain how the earth isn’t flat.

 

[iBeng]

Can someone explain how the hell this is gonna work on our Plate-Planet?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/science/105...e-sun-and-an-eclipsed-moon-in-the-sky-at-once

 

[Tuco]

Exactly. Ball lovers like Tuco can come up with as many pretty looking formulas like 9.8 m/s2 as they want but when I read m/s I think multiple sclerosis and that’s what the ball lovers have when they argue their point. Squared.

Tuco watch the video posted on the previous page where the whispering guy uses infra red to see the mountains which should be hidden, then come back and explain how the earth isn’t flat.

Well 9.8 m/s2 isn't a formula for a start. It's a result.

9.8 metres per second per second.

It is the rate of acceleration of gravity on Earth.

It can be calculated any number of ways to prove it. Bur pretty much just drop something and time how long it takes to land over a known distance and you'll get that number.

Galileo measured it by rolling some balls down an inclined plane. No billion dollar LIGO required.

 

[Duritz]

Well 9.8 m/s2 isn't a formula for a start. It's a result.

9.8 metres per second per second.

It is the rate of acceleration of gravity on Earth.

It can be calculated any number of ways to prove it. Bur pretty much just drop something and time how long it takes to land over a known distance and you'll get that number.

Galileo measured it by rolling some balls down an inclined plane. No billion dollar LIGO required.

So you have no answer to the infra red huh. Another ball lover with no facts who ignores the only people producing facts: FE’ers.

 

[Tuco]

So you have no answer to the infra red huh. Another ball lover with no facts who ignores the only people producing facts: FE’ers.

Nah. Just had to go back and watch it.

Lol. That's pretty funny.

A guy has discovered the witchcraft of an infrared camera which can see 'hidden' objects 100 miles away?

Wow.

I wonder if he's tried pointing it at the Sun. Would he be amazeballed to find his camera can see it to?

That's an object 148 million km away.

Or even if FE is to be helieved an object 3000 miles away, or whatever nonsense FE believes it to be.

100 miles.

Seriously, this theory of only believing what you can see thing is a pretty limiting world view.

 

[Duritz]

Nah. Just had to go back and watch it.

Lol. That's pretty funny.

A guy has discovered the witchcraft of an infrared camera which can see 'hidden' objects 100 miles away?

Wow.

I wonder if he's tried pointing it at the Sun. Would he be amazeballed to find his camera can see it to?

That's an object 148 million km away.

Or even if FE is to be helieved an object 3000 miles away, or whatever nonsense FE believes it to be.

100 miles.

Seriously, this theory of only believing what you can see thing is a pretty limiting world view.

So yep, you got nothin.

 

[Tuco]

So yep, you got nothin.

Hardly.

The earth curves about 8 inches per mile. That mountain was 117 miles away and 10000ft high.

That means only 8 x 117 = 936 inches or 23.7 feet should not have been visible.

In his graphic he had the ENTIRE 10000foot mountain below the horizon in what he claimed was the spherical earth model.

The guy is a fraud. Simply put.

Even giving him the benefit of the doubt, that crappy video was a napkin effort using pictures with the words "not to scale" on them. And I defy anyone to tell me that blurry, cloudy mountain in the distance wasn't 23.7 ft below the horizon.

Utter joke.

 

[Duritz]

Hardly.

The earth curves about 8 inches per mile. That mountain was 117 miles away and 10000ft high.

That means only 8 x 117 = 936 inches or 23.7 feet should not have been visible.

In his graphic he had the ENTIRE 10000foot mountain below the horizon in what he claimed was the spherical earth model.

The guy is a fraud. Simply put.

Even giving him the benefit of the doubt, that crappy video was a napkin effort using pictures with the words "not to scale" on them. And I defy anyone to tell me that blurry, cloudy mountain in the distance wasn't 23.7 ft below the horizon.

Utter joke.

LOL. Nice one. Soooooo you’re using the false ball lover maths to disprove flat earth? How convenient! That’s like me inventing fairies in the garden who kill mice, then telling the family that we have no mice because the fairies are the proof.

That’s the thing about ball loving science. It’s a house of cards.

 

[Tuco]

LOL. Nice one. Soooooo you’re using the false ball lover maths to disprove flat earth? How convenient! That’s like me inventing fairies in the garden who kill mice, then telling the family that we have no mice because the fairies are the proof.

That’s the thing about ball loving science. It’s a house of cards.

No. You can't have it both ways.

Your fraudster put up a graphic supposedly using that EXACT same math.

It was his claim that the real world model puts that mountain below the horizon, when the real world math does nothing of the sort.

Instead of having a graphic with a mountain 936 inches below the horizon he completely lied and put it >10,000 feet below the horizon.

Youre being lied to for clickbait - or possibly to sell infra red gear.

 

[NEGAN]

Hardly.

The earth curves about 8 inches per mile. That mountain was 117 miles away and 10000ft high.

That means only 8 x 117 = 936 inches or 23.7 feet should not have been visible.

In his graphic he had the ENTIRE 10000foot mountain below the horizon in what he claimed was the spherical earth model.

The guy is a fraud. Simply put.

Even giving him the benefit of the doubt, that crappy video was a napkin effort using pictures with the words "not to scale" on them. And I defy anyone to tell me that blurry, cloudy mountain in the distance wasn't 23.7 ft below the horizon.

Utter joke.

You're right the guy did make a mistake.

But so did you...


8 inches per mile squared bruh....


I am going to let you do your calculation again and report back to us.

 

[NEGAN]

Can someone explain how the hell this is gonna work on our Plate-Planet?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/science/105...e-sun-and-an-eclipsed-moon-in-the-sky-at-once

Why don't you model it for us using the heliocentric model beng...

 

[Tuco]

You're right the guy did make a mistake.

But so did you...


8 inches per mile squared bruh....


I am going to let you do your calculation again and report back to us.

Whoops. Good call.

So in fact to be perfectly accurate, and taking refraction into account, the amount hidden would actually be 7395.8 feet. Leaving more than 2600 feet visible.

Again, his method of evaluating the visible height was very sketchy.

But that calculation about was from a height of 6 feet. Pretty clearly he filmed that on a high cliff.

Even being generous and saying he was only 100ft high that would mean only 6154 feet would be hidden.

Source: https://www.metabunk.org/curve/

Eh. No one's perfect. But that video needs to be held to a pretty high standard if we're going to be claiming it is as proof of anything.

All it proves to me is the guy is naive about what his infra red camera is xspable of, and quite possibly dishonest about how he interprets his footage.

 

[NEGAN]

Whoops. Good call.

So in fact to be perfectly accurate, and taking refraction into account, the amount hidden would actually be 7395.8 feet. Leaving more than 2600 feet visible.

Again, his method of evaluating the visible height was very sketchy.

But that calculation about was from a height of 6 feet. Pretty clearly he filmed that on a high cliff.

Even being generous and saying he was only 100ft high that would mean only 6154 feet would be hidden.

Source: https://www.metabunk.org/curve/

Eh. No one's perfect. But that video needs to be held to a pretty high standard if we're going to be claiming it is as proof of anything.

All it proves to me is the guy is naive about what his infra red camera is xspable of, and quite possibly dishonest about how he interprets his footage.

You're still wrong.

You have to take in the observers height...

So its just under 7000 feet of curvature


But don't worry, I don't consider you a fraud

You didn't claim refraction.

 

[Tuco]

You're still wrong.

You have to take in the observers height...

So its just under 7000 feet of curvature

Erm that's exactly what I just wrote.

7395.8 of hidden drop is calculated from an observer's height of 6 feet.

So like I said plenty of mountain visible for anyone to film with ease.

Frankly, watching that vid the viewer's height could easily be hundreds of feet high, though. Meaning half the mounrain or more should be seen.

 

[Duritz]

Whoops. Good call.

So in fact to be perfectly accurate, and taking refraction into account, the amount hidden would actually be 7395.8 feet. Leaving more than 2600 feet visible.

Again, his method of evaluating the visible height was very sketchy.

But that calculation about was from a height of 6 feet. Pretty clearly he filmed that on a high cliff.

Even being generous and saying he was only 100ft high that would mean only 6154 feet would be hidden.

Source: https://www.metabunk.org/curve/

Eh. No one's perfect. But that video needs to be held to a pretty high standard if we're going to be claiming it is as proof of anything.

All it proves to me is the guy is naive about what his infra red camera is xspable of, and quite possibly dishonest about how he interprets his footage.

LOL, and another card falls in the ball loving house.

In a matter of a few short posts you’ve gone from ball loving mania to realising “hey hang on actually...”

This is the first step to your awakening. Don’t be afraid.

 

[NEGAN]

Erm that's exactly what I just wrote.

7395.8 of hidden drop is calculated from an observer's height of 6 feet.

So like I said plenty of mountain visible for anyone to film with ease.

Frankly, watching that vid the viewer's height could easily be hundreds of feet high, though. Meaning half the mounrain or more should be seen.

Observers height = 150 feet bruh.

So almost 2/3 of the mountain should be hidden but I will call it half to be fair.

The only mistake the guy made was with his camera position...hence why he thought the whole mountain should of been hidden.

 

[NEGAN]

LOL, and another card falls in the ball loving house.

In a matter of a few short posts you’ve gone from ball loving mania to realising “hey hang on actually...”

This is the first step to your awakening. Don’t be afraid.

Sometimes I actually wonder if you are truly part of the fes in disguise.

 

[iBeng]

Why don't you model it for us using the heliocentric model beng...

Open the link?

I want to see how it works on your model.

 

[Tuco]

Observers height = 150 feet bruh.

So almost 2/3 of the mountain should be hidden but I will call it half to be fair.

The only mistake the guy made was with his camera position...hence why he thought the whole mountain should of been hidden.

Okay well I had it at 100ft. 150ft only makes that video even less impressive.

Whispering guy says the Earth is flat because the mountain shouldn't be visible according to science. Meanwhile, science actually says the mountain should be visible.

Compelling.

If the earth was flat, he should probably be able to see Japan from Malibu. Why didn't he film that?

 

[Tuco]

Anyone care to help me understand this idea FE has that instead of gravity pulling down, the Earth magically pushes up?

I'm reading you believe that the Earth flies up at the rate of 9.8m/s/s

That really mucks up just about everything we know about the movement of heavenly bodies in space, and makes no sense.

 

[exe ex machina]

Maybe planetary objects are fixed and celestial objects move

 

[The Delusionist]

What are the odds that both of you joined bigfooty on September 2005?

 

[Duritz]

Okay well I had it at 100ft. 150ft only makes that video even less impressive.

Whispering guy says the Earth is flat because the mountain shouldn't be visible according to science. Meanwhile, science actually says the mountain should be visible.

Compelling.

If the earth was flat, he should probably be able to see Japan from Malibu. Why didn't he film that?

Because there was a big ****ing mountain in the way!

 

[NEGAN]

Okay well I had it at 100ft. 150ft only makes that video even less impressive.

Whispering guy says the Earth is flat because the mountain shouldn't be visible according to science. Meanwhile, science actually says the mountain should be visible.

Compelling.

If the earth was flat, he should probably be able to see Japan from Malibu. Why didn't he film that?

You took the evidence you analysed it and attempted to debunk (though you were wrong)but for that I respect you.

But if you walk away hand on heart and say at least 50% but more like 70% of that mountain is hidden by curvature...well there is nothing more to say on the matter, only you can decipher the data and interpret it for yourself and i don't want to try and change that. It's squarely up to you.

Is it 100% proof of flat earth...no... But at some point I do need to see something that resembles the 8 inches per mile squared in a 360 degree field of view.


As far as seeing japan from Malibu hypothetically speaking on a flat earth of course ....i will ask you this...can you see through clouds?