Flat Earth

[notbatman]

^^^ Instead of spouting nonsense about a theory that's been experimentally falsified (relativistic gravity), why don't you explain to us how a gyroscope proven to maintain its position in space with a 15 deg/hr rotation doesn't register the claimed spin of the earth?

After you're finished explaining that doozy you can explain how a pressure gradient can exist without a container next to a vacuum. There's nothing (including the falsified theory of gravity) to prevent everything from blowing off into space.

While you're at it you might also explain how the sheer forces present in a 4,000 mile wide radius flywheel with a 1,000 MPH rim speed don't cause it to instantly explode.

The shitty arguments you promote for a spinning globe earth and outer space are worse than those propped up to support the theory of evolution, worse by a factor of many magnitudes. You're a huge cuck and a sellout!

Gyroscope explanation is easy. Most airplanes use gyroscopic action for guidance in one way or another. It works.


Relativity and gravity in theory have been falsified to the extent that these theories remain theories. Since they are theories, the falsification lies in their application to the REAL phenomenon of relativity and gravity. To say it in a simple way, there aren't many people who think about relativity and gravity theory. Rather, the people think about relativity and gravity. The theory might be wrong regarding reality, but it is right in that it is theoretical. But the reality includes real relativity and real gravity, which have nothing to do with something that is theoretical.


The answer regarding your flywheel is gravity. The earth is almost 8,000 miles in diameter. An object weighs very little less at the poles than it does at the equator. This alone shows that the centrifugal force is insignificant when compared with the force of gravity. So, why isn't everything crushed by gravity? Molecular resistance is much stronger than gravity. Gravity is the weak force with regard to molecular and atomic resistances.


Why is it that you can't take the spinning-ball-on-the-table example, and disprove it right at the example? It's because your whole idea of the way centrifugal force works is wrong. If you were right, the change in direction of the pistons in a car engine would cause the whole engine to explode. But the engine doesn't explode... so you are shown to be wrong.

"hey look it's an airplane!" isn't an explanation for the missing rotation.

Thanks for pointing out I stated the diameter but gave a radius, corrected. My point about sheer stress stands, this area of engineering is clearly out of your league. You're neck deep in theoretical bullshit and can't change a fucking light bulb to save your life bruh.

I can't make sense of your last paragraph, you appear to be rambling incoherently.



The gyroscope is proven to react to 15 deg/hr, where's the rotation?

The P900 can see too far, where's the curve?

[BADecker]

^^^ Instead of spouting nonsense about a theory that's been experimentally falsified (relativistic gravity), why don't you explain to us how a gyroscope proven to maintain its position in space with a 15 deg/hr rotation doesn't register the claimed spin of the earth?

After you're finished explaining that doozy you can explain how a pressure gradient can exist without a container next to a vacuum. There's nothing (including the falsified theory of gravity) to prevent everything from blowing off into space.

While you're at it you might also explain how the sheer forces present in a 4,000 mile wide radius flywheel with a 1,000 MPH rim speed don't cause it to instantly explode.

The shitty arguments you promote for a spinning globe earth and outer space are worse than those propped up to support the theory of evolution, worse by a factor of many magnitudes. You're a huge cuck and a sellout!

Gyroscope explanation is easy. Most airplanes use gyroscopic action for guidance in one way or another. It works.


Relativity and gravity in theory have been falsified to the extent that these theories remain theories. Since they are theories, the falsification lies in their application to the REAL phenomenon of relativity and gravity. To say it in a simple way, there aren't many people who think about relativity and gravity theory. Rather, the people think about relativity and gravity. The theory might be wrong regarding reality, but it is right in that it is theoretical. But the reality includes real relativity and real gravity, which have nothing to do with something that is theoretical.


The answer regarding your flywheel is gravity. The earth is almost 8,000 miles in diameter. An object weighs very little less at the poles than it does at the equator. This alone shows that the centrifugal force is insignificant when compared with the force of gravity. So, why isn't everything crushed by gravity? Molecular resistance is much stronger than gravity. Gravity is the weak force with regard to molecular and atomic resistances.


Why is it that you can't take the spinning-ball-on-the-table example, and disprove it right at the example? It's because your whole idea of the way centrifugal force works is wrong. If you were right, the change in direction of the pistons in a car engine would cause the whole engine to explode. But the engine doesn't explode... so you are shown to be wrong.

"hey look it's an airplane!" isn't an explanation for the missing rotation.

Thanks for pointing out I stated the diameter but gave a radius, corrected. My point about sheer stress stands, this area of engineering is clearly out of your league. You're neck deep in theoretical bullshit and can't change a fucking light bulb to save your life bruh.

I can't make sense of your last paragraph, you appear to be rambling incoherently.

https://i.imgur.com/8F3cqut.jpg

The gyroscope is proven to react to 15 deg/hr, where's the rotation?

The P900 can see too far, where's the curve?

You are the one who keeps on using the example of the earth can't be moved from the Bible. There isn't any sheer stress on a globe the size of Earth, spinning at the slow speed of 1000 mph at its equator.

You can't understand my last paragraph, above, because you don't want to. You don't want to because you can't explain away the fact that the earth spins only one turn in 24 hours. This throws a monkey wrench into all your ideas of stress.

The P900 can't see at all. It's still the eye that sees. All your sight that leads you to believe there is no curve is flawed.

[notbatman]

^^^ The Bible, no that came after I saw earth was flat. You don't want to go there anyhow, there's not a single passage that supports the heliocentric model.

The globe earth is going ~66.6k MPH around a globe sun in an elliptical orbit. The speed of ~66.6k MPH is not constant it varies causing constant acceleration [and decceleration].

Now add a constant 1k MPH acceleration [and decceleration] at the equator from the rotation of the earth.

Finally there would be a few grams of centripetal force constantly trying to push you to the side from the rotation, if you're not on the equator. This however is kind of irrelevant considering the mad ~66.6k MPH carnival ride the heliocentric model says we're on.

The gyroscope is proven to react to 15 deg/hr, where's the rotation?

The camera has a robotic eye and the P900 can see too far, where's the curve?



Also, you still haven't explained how a pressure gradient can exist next to a vacuum without a container!

[BADecker]

^^^ The Bible, no that came after I saw earth was flat. You don't want to go there anyhow, there's not a single passage that supports the heliocentric model.

That's a fancy way to agree and disagree with yourself in the same two sentences.

The Bible doesn't agree with flat earth. The wording has to do with salvation, not science.

The globe earth is going ~66.6k MPH around a globe sun in an elliptical orbit. The speed of 66.6k MPH is not constant it varies causing constant acceleration [and decceleration].

Now add a constant 1k MPH acceleration [and decceleration] at the equator from the rotation of the earth.

That's nothing. Go to the poles where there isn't any equatorial-like spin at all. There is barely any difference in weight. If you phase the equatorial weight difference in gradually, because the spin is so slow (24 hours to make one turn), nobody is going to feel it at all. You would barely be able to find it on the most sensitive scale.

Finally there would be a few grams of centripetal force constantly trying to push you to the side from the rotation, if you're not on the equator. This however is kind of irrelevant considering the mad ~66.6k carnival ride the heliocentric model says we're on.

In the scale involved in the orbit of the earth around the sun, there wouldn't be anything felt or noticed. Here's a test you can do.

Place a basketball on the table. Place your hand on the ball, and turn the ball 1 full turn in 1 year. All the fantastic speeds you talk about mean nothing because everything is balanced almost perfectly.

The gyroscope is proven to react to 15 deg/hr, where's the rotation?

The gyroscope reacts to the galactic center, where the rotation takes approximately 25,000 years. You can't notice something like the tiny piece of arc minute in the revolution of the earth around the sun, to say nothing about the Earth's tiny rotation.

The camera has a robotic eye and the P900 can see too far, where's the curve?

https://i.imgur.com/qai0mqa.jpg

So says you.

If you happen to be sincere, and happen to not be in the funny farm, I really feel bad for you.

[notbatman]

^^^ "gyroscope reacts to the galactic center" <--- proof of senility.

[guigui371]

Flat earth is a cult, same as the scientologist, the 7 days Adventists and others ...
I have read hundred of page of this thread without seeing one proof of the earth being flat.
The only proof you have advanced is that a P90 camera is the absolute truth and beat all the expensive satellite, spacial shuttles and gyroscopes that scientist have.
(Does the P90 also cure cancer and avoid the need of vaccine ? If so, I might buy one for me).

If you have, as you say, hundred of thousands, or millions of members. Why not setting up your own satellite?  

SpaceX / Elon musk is doing it for $2,5 - 5 millions + cost of the satellite.  

It wouldn't be to hard / expensive  to build a satellite that is open source, built by flat earther  (so no globe earther can put malicious code to modify the video stream), put some batteries, a small solar panel, a camera and a stream of communication with earth.

That way you can have the images from the sky to back your theory.  

[notbatman]

^^^ I don't need to run a massive taxpayer funded scam, we've got eyes in the sky too.

[BADecker]

^^^ "gyroscope reacts to the galactic center" <--- proof of senility.

Come on! Even Batman knows this.     

[BADecker]

^^^ I don't need to run a massive taxpayer funded scam, we've got eyes in the sky too.

The curvature was there before the CGI.     

[guigui371]

^^
120 000 feet is just 35km

Try to go higher : maybe 35 000km like the satellites

Even an apple looks flat if you are close enough.  

[notbatman]

[reasons and excuses omitted]

You requested the high altitude image.


Meanwhile back on earth:

   The P900 can see too far and the globe fails the distance to the horizon test with a wide margin of error. Where's the fucking curvature asshole?

[guigui371]

Again the P900, man maybe i should buy one too ?
Does the P900 also mine BTC because that would make the perfect tool !

Experiment
For our experiment, we will use Google Earth because it's exactly the 3D sphere that is follows spherical Earth model dimensions. But you can easily model the same by any 3D modelling tool.

Best amateur high altitude balloons (because we don't trust NASA, right?) goes up to around 120,000 ft which is about 36.5 km above sea level. Everyone would expect to see nice curvature from this height, right? But then we see something like this:


Image from 121,000 ft (36km) balloon flight

It seems like that this tells us 100% that the Earth is really flat. But according to wise saying "measure twice, cut once" we will do some other experiment. How exactly should look like the curvature on this altitude? The Google Earth image will show us.


Google Earth eye altitude about 120,000ft (36km)

What does this tell us?
On the Google Earth model image there is also almost none curvature, but still if we look properly we can see very slight bend there. But is that conclusive? Unfortunately not. Add fuzzy atmosphere and consider some lens distortion effect and other influences and you can see we are not able to prove flat or curved surface from this kind of altitude. Also the balloon image above shows that earth horizon is below the center which means that center of the lens is up and if there is any barrel distortion it will make any bended line more flat. We just need go a lot higher!

Result: It's impossible to properly see curvature of the Earth from altitude 120,000ft, resp. 36km unless it's caused by lens distortion.

source : https://steemit.com/science/@jimmco/earth-curvature-and-why-not-everything-looks-like-expected


I won't copy and paste the rest that says that you need to go to at least 1 000km to start to see the curvature because you will not believe because you can't replicate it yourself (unless you guys send a proper rocket and prove the whole world that you are right).

[notbatman]

^^^ You're moving the goal posts from conclusive ground based observations with super-zoom cameras that anybody can replicate, to claims about high altitude observations that nobody can replicate.

Time to throw in the towel, you got nothing.

[guigui371]

^^
Throwing the towel ? Nah !

Do you have an actual P900 experiment that has been replicated by scientist ? (i'll be curious to read it).
Because all i can see about the P900 is that flat earther don't know about the aperture of a lens.

https://flatearth.ws/entrance-pupil#more-570

Question to you, why don't flat earther install a large telescope in New York and try to see the french Eiffel tower.

If the earth is flat, it wouldn't be to hard to spot an object that is more than 300m tall, it is only 6000 km away.

[notbatman]

[X-POST]

The globe fails a distance to the horizon test with a wide margin or error using the modern super-zoom lens; with a Nikon P900 I can prove my point conclusively, a test anybody can replicate.

You need Photoshop to replicate the big blue balls NASA gives you. They're not a space agency, they're a propaganda agency!

The Earth is flat by default, it's a falsifiable theory that the earth curves just beyond the limit of human eyesight. The globe is truly the king of hoaxes.

Here's the test, one anybody (including scientists) can replicate:

@BADecker, the camera (a Nikon P1000 in this case) is in good working order:

   Flat Earth Proven Again - 11.22 Miles and ZERO Curvature [Wide Awake] -- https://youtu.be/6hqzqmY9ny8

[Cryptotourist]

Here's the test, one anybody (including scientists) can replicate:

How come flat-heads use GPS for anything?
It's not FEPS ffs.
Kindly explain GPS for us Batty. How does it work?

Also, why is there a hard cap on flat-head IQ? 80 seems to be the limit. Any comments there?

[BADecker]

Here's the test, one anybody (including scientists) can replicate:

@BADecker, the camera (a Nikon P1000 in this case) is in good working order:

   Flat Earth Proven Again - 11.22 Miles and ZERO Curvature [Wide Awake] -- https://youtu.be/6hqzqmY9ny8

Ship me your "Nikon P1000 in this its case," and I'll give it a whirl.

Ship to:
BADecker
c/o General Delivery
4949 E Van Buren St
Phoenix, AZ 85026

Be sure to include your return address in case of delivery failure.

PM me the date and time you shipped it, and estimated time for delivery. Your local P.O. should be able to tell you approx. delivery time.

Thanks. I always wanted one of those cameras.

[solosequenosenada]

[solosequenosenada]

***

[dewin]

wow, I can't believe in 2019 there are still people who assume that the Earth is flat. Ahhh, the flat earth society has members all around the globe