[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
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
^^^ That's why the globe is the big lie, it sets the stage.
|
|
|
|
|
^^^ 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.
|
|
|
|
|
^^^ That's not a fair analysis, we've got a plethora of hoaxes here! It's just that the globe is the big lie.
|
|
|
|
[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? |
|
|
|
^^^ I don't need to run a massive taxpayer funded scam, we've got eyes in the sky too.  |
|
|
|
|
^^^ "gyroscope reacts to the galactic center" <--- proof of senility.
|
|
|
|
^^^ 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! |
|
|
|
^^^ 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? |
|
|
|
^^^ 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! @sirazimuth I noticed you also invoked the "space pancake", no, space is a hoax think "snow globe".  |
|
|
|
^^^ Seriously, have you considered that you're gullible, you know being spoon fed plausible sounding stories?
Once species has never been shown to give birth to another. Adaptation to the environment certainly doesn't prove this nor are there any intermediate fossils to back up this claim.
Your entire paradigm of big bang to cheeky monkey is a farce and you're being played the fool.
>Doesn't have any facts >Instantly resorts to ad hominems You do realize that changes happen slowly over thousands of years. Also, how did humans turn wolves into dogs and how did humans turn horses into donkeys if evolution doesn't work? Also have you heard of Neanderthals? IIRC scientists recently decided that dogs aren't the direct ancestors of wolves, none-the-less they're still the same species and can breed effectively. As for donkeys they're definitely not breed from horses and are in fact a separate spices. Selective breeding can create variations of a species but you're never going to breed a dog into a cat, a rat or a bat. You accuse us of not having facts yet what you're saying isn't even in line with what modern science pretends to know; you proclaim that creationists are "scientifically illiterate" yet your arguments betray your own illiteracy. It has never been shown that one spices can become another simply by the process of environmental selection and adaptation. It's claimed that this occurs over long periods of time but there's no hard evidence to back it up and, in fact there's no hard evidence earth is older than 10,000 years. The fact is you're being sold a story of creation that while seeming plausible on the surface is just not true. It's not that scientists are wrong, they're paid to lie and push whatever so-called facts their handlers give them. There's an agenda and an official narrative with malicious actors at play here. The various species on earth including humans were engineered. |
|
|
|
|
^^^ Seriously, have you considered that you're gullible, you know being spoon fed plausible sounding stories?
Once species has never been shown to give birth to another. Adaptation to the environment certainly doesn't prove this nor are there any intermediate fossils to back up this claim.
Your entire paradigm of big bang to cheeky monkey is a farce and you're being played the fool.
|
|
|
|
^^^ It's a steel dome.  Gravity hijacks the electrical Coulomb force behind density and buoyancy.  Epstein hung himself on his knees. |
|
|
|
@BADecker, Your misleading statements only serve to steer or move people away from the truth. Illustrations or engravings of a ball (ba'al) earth are a violation of the second commandment as written by the hand of zeus himself. Claiming God works within this paradigm is heresy.  Your children are sacrificed to BADecker's ba'al earth god! |
|
|
|
There is no missing link. That's a myth.
Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon, Homo floresiensis, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo habilis, Paranthropus boisei, Paranthropus aethiopicus, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus afarensis ....
How come all these 'species' of humans existed in different times if evolution isn't true?
I've highlighted the problem with your argument; sausage links are made for a hotdog party not good science. You see different races of humans like dogs or rabbits doesn't prove Epstein didn't kill himself. How come all these rabbit holes exist if he hung himself on his knees? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
