Flat Earth

[notbatman]

More testimonies, just for you badecker:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYQsf5dAVVQ

Just because there are multitudes of testimonials, doesn't make them right. There has to be power behind the testimonials in order to have certainty. FE power hasn't even reached the stage of theory, yet. Standard globe earth power has gone way beyond theory into proof and photography.

What proof? The pictures are fake!

No they are not fake. If they were fake, we wouldn't be able to see them. Both FE and GE pictures are real... real pictures. Say it long enough, you'll start to believe it.

If pictures happened to be all that there was to it, there might be question. But there is lots more that pictures. And some GE pictures don't lie.

This is a CGI image stitched together from multiple photographs, it is however an authentic image of what really is. The globe Earth is NOT authentic, the world is flat and motionless like the above image.

[1715141737]

1715141737

[1715141737]

1715141737

[1715141737]

1715141737

[TooQik]

More testimonies, just for you badecker:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYQsf5dAVVQ

Just because there are multitudes of testimonials, doesn't make them right. There has to be power behind the testimonials in order to have certainty. FE power hasn't even reached the stage of theory, yet. Standard globe earth power has gone way beyond theory into proof and photography.

What proof? The pictures are fake!

No they are not fake. If they were fake, we wouldn't be able to see them. Both FE and GE pictures are real... real pictures. Say it long enough, you'll start to believe it.

If pictures happened to be all that there was to it, there might be question. But there is lots more that pictures. And some GE pictures don't lie.

This is a CGI image stitched together from multiple photographs, it is however an authentic image of what really is. The globe Earth is NOT authentic, the world is flat and motionless like the above image.

And then you throw in your favorite experiment and the Sagnac effect proves that the Earth rotates, so much for motionless.

Beautiful picture btw.

[notbatman]

More testimonies, just for you badecker:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYQsf5dAVVQ

Just because there are multitudes of testimonials, doesn't make them right. There has to be power behind the testimonials in order to have certainty. FE power hasn't even reached the stage of theory, yet. Standard globe earth power has gone way beyond theory into proof and photography.

What proof? The pictures are fake!

No they are not fake. If they were fake, we wouldn't be able to see them. Both FE and GE pictures are real... real pictures. Say it long enough, you'll start to believe it.

If pictures happened to be all that there was to it, there might be question. But there is lots more that pictures. And some GE pictures don't lie.

This is a CGI image stitched together from multiple photographs, it is however an authentic image of what really is. The globe Earth is NOT authentic, the world is flat and motionless like the above image.

And then you throw in your favorite experiment and the Sagnac effect proves that the Earth rotates, so much for motionless.

Beautiful picture btw.

The aether drift (the measured effect you're referring to) at 10% of the predicted magnitude of Earth's rotation as detected by the Michelson & Morley experiment has a rotational period of 23 hours 56 minutes, this coincides with the rotation of the stars. An Earth day is 24 hours and if the Earth was in fact rotating the M&M experiment wouldn't have produced a null result (10% is too small for a positive result). To top it all off the rotation of the stars (the source of the aether drift) is independently corroborated by Airy's Failure experiment who like M&M produced a null result while observing stars through a water filled telescope to change the speed of light.

The Sagnac effect proves the aether and with that proof the M&M experiment proves the Earth is motionless. With Airy's Failure we have two "null results" that the Earth is motionless, case closed.

[BTC-Joe]

I haven't seen any good explanations for the coriolis effect, if the earth is a flat and motionless disk...and since it must be compensated for by hunters, snipers and anyone traveling from point A to B, it most certainly exists.

You can take a trip due west, then due south, then due east and you will end up at your starting point, forming a triangle pattern of travel path. If earth is flat, you would end up south of your starting point with a C shaped travel path.

One thing, however, is that the recent WMAP experiments that have created visual representations of "cosmic background radiation" show that the earth is centered within the known universe, and that the radiation emanates outward from earth. The idea that earth is insignificant or that our universe has no particular structure aside from random instances of celestial bodies is proven wrong. The CMB experiments were performed over a decade with 3 successive launches, each one delivering the same results.

I am open to new ideas in the pursuit of truth, therefore, I am willing to consider that the physical geometry of our Earth is not as is commonly explained...although I approach the matter with no desire to support an ideological perspective.

[notbatman]

I haven't seen any good explanations for the coriolis effect, if the earth is a flat and motionless disk...and since it must be compensated for by hunters, snipers and anyone traveling from point A to B, it most certainly exists.

You can take a trip due west, then due south, then due east and you will end up at your starting point, forming a triangle pattern of travel path. If earth is flat, you would end up south of your starting point with a C shaped travel path.

One thing, however, is that the recent WMAP experiments that have created visual representations of "cosmic background radiation" show that the earth is centered within the known universe, and that the radiation emanates outward from earth. The idea that earth is insignificant or that our universe has no particular structure aside from random instances of celestial bodies is proven wrong. The CMB experiments were performed over a decade with 3 successive launches, each one delivering the same results.

I am open to new ideas in the pursuit of truth, therefore, I am willing to consider that the physical geometry of our Earth is not as is commonly explained...although I approach the matter with no desire to support an ideological perspective.

The Coriolis effect is explained by the 23h 56m aether drift cycle I just explained and the triangle experiment is absolutely impractical.

[notbatman]

The Earth is Flat and Motionless.

[BTC-Joe]

The Coriolis effect is explained by the 23h 56m aether drift cycle I just explained and the triangle experiment is absolutely impractical.

Like I said, I haven't heard any good explanations for the coriolis effect - especially considering that the magnited of the coriolis effect can be calculated repeatedly with math.

You cannot dismiss the path "proof" as impractical. All you need is a compass and enough distance to make 3 lines of equal length, each with a 90 degree turn. Can be done quite easily in a plan, helicopter, or RC drone.

[notbatman]

The Earth is Flat and Motionless!

[notbatman]

The Earth is Flat and Motionless!

No. It's not.

Proof?

[notbatman]

The Earth is Flat and Motionless!

No. It's not.

Proof?

I've been at a high enough altitude to see the curvature of the Earth with my own eyes.

In regards to your comment here's a video on the U2 spy plane:

"The Curvature Zone" - Does the U2 Disprove the Flat Earth?
-- https://youtu.be/e5KsNni5hEc

[BTC-Joe]

@notbatman:
You could more easily make your case for a flat earth by stating that all camera lenses are subject to optical distortion (i.e. pincushion distortion), and could display straight lines as being curved - the same is true for the human eye to some extent.

That being said, the flat earth claims we're under a glass dome of sorts, and that beyond the dome is water. Far fetched, but it does make for fun stories.

[notbatman]

@notbatman:
You could more easily make your case for a flat earth by stating that all camera lenses are subject to optical distortion (i.e. pincushion distortion), and could display straight lines as being curved - the same is true for the human eye to some extent.

That being said, the flat earth claims we're under a glass dome of sorts, and that beyond the dome is water. Far fetched, but it does make for fun stories.

The dome is electrically polarized nickel-iron steel with a gold colour reflective oxide coating.

[notbatman]

The Earth is Flat and Motionless!

No. It's not.

Proof?

I've been at a high enough altitude to see the curvature of the Earth with my own eyes.

( stupidity deleted )

Go to a high altitude. See curvature of the Earth with your own eyes.

Go away troll.

No you fuck off, the horizon is flat and rises to eye level regardless of altitude.

[MiSKLaCH]

The Earth is Flat and Motionless!

No you fuck off, the horizon is flat and rises to eye level regardless of altitude.

You, notsmartman, are the dumbest troll I've ever seen! Congrats! 

[JoltCola]

The Earth is Flat and Motionless.

Then why do the bottom of the buildings appear to be lower than the horizon? Because of curvature that's why.

[MiSKLaCH]

The Earth is Flat and Motionless.
[image proving the curvature of Earth]

Then why do the bottom of the buildings appear to be lower than the horizon? Because of curvature that's why.

 

[anasis]

The Earth is Flat and Motionless.
[image proving the curvature of Earth]

Then why do the bottom of the buildings appear to be lower than the horizon? Because of curvature that's why.

 

And what then is the thickness of the earth at all? If She is flat, does it mean there is depth, or is the depth infinite? Maybe some dybils say the truth that there are still civilizations under the earth.

[MiSKLaCH]

Don't be a notsmartman
RESEARCH GLOBE EARTH

https://youtu.be/JgY8zNZ35uw
https://youtu.be/TeMooNFtFJk

[exemplaar]

The Earth is Flat and Motionless.

Then why do the bottom of the buildings appear to be lower than the horizon? Because of curvature that's why.

Nope. If that would be the case you should also see the curve on x axis, and you clearly do not.

Refraction and magnification - there is no curvature: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-Q-FuXJSTQ

[exemplaar]

The Earth is Flat and Motionless!

No you fuck off, the horizon is flat and rises to eye level regardless of altitude.

You, notsmartman, are the dumbest troll I've ever seen! Congrats! 

Misklach when realizes that there is no curvature: