Flat Earth

[Vod]

I can't understand how there is believers in such a theory in 2017.

No one believes the earth is flat in today's day and age.  No one can be that stupid and use a computer.

Don't be trolled... 

[1714747704]

1714747704

[1714747704]

1714747704

[1714747704]

1714747704

[1714747704]

1714747704

[1714747704]

1714747704

[YuTü.Co.in]

http://www.popsci.com/strange-signals-distant-galaxy

Deciphered: People of Flat Earth, do you have thin-crust pizza with the works cut Chicago-style? And do you deliver? And do you accept BCC? Peace. PS: Is it true what they say about Montana? YaYaYa

[BADecker]

I can't understand how there is believers in such a theory in 2017.

No one believes the earth is flat in today's day and age.  No one can be that stupid and use a computer.

Don't be trolled... 

But when you say it, maybe the FE people are right after all.

[Vod]

But when you say it, maybe the FE people are right after all.

That's perfectly reasonable for someone who believes without evidence.

No one is stopping you from believing in FE - it's not like your credibility could go any lower.

[nomad13666]

But when you say it, maybe the FE people are right after all.

That's perfectly reasonable for someone who believes without evidence.

No one is stopping you from believing in FE - it's not like your credibility could go any lower.

Demonstrate how water can stick to a spinning ball or piss the fuck off, Void.

Please take your kooky nemesis BADipstick back to the thread you followed him from and keep him there.

Make sure he tucks his imaginary friends Santa Christ and the Jesus Bunny in his shirt pocket and spirits them away with you guys.

PS; Take this along with you as well:  https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22globe+earth%22

[TooQik]

Your entire world view and belief system is based on gravity, an unproven theory.

It is a theory in that they don't know how it interacts with space time yet.

It is proven that gravity exists.  

There really is no proof that gravity exists. Density and buoyancy explain why heavier than air objects fall.

Oh gravity exists, regardless of your flat Earth mindset that wants to discredit it.

Have you ever wondered why the air thins out the higher your altitude? Yes, you can thank gravity.

In your world the air density, and air pressure, should remain the same all the way from the surface of the Earth right up until it reaches your dome. The reality is it doesn't. A prime example of this is the balloons you flat Earthers like to send into the sky with cameras to capture the "flat horizon". This is the reason the balloons expand the higher they go until they finally burst at high altitude allowing the camera owner to retrieve their camera after its fall (due to gravity). Again in your world, the balloon shouldn't expand at all but simple float up until it touches the dome.

Why would the air pressure remain the same, earth still has a pressure density gradient. Either this is a weak attempt at a strawman argument or you're just soft in head. Everything can be explained with the force ultimately coming the domes trillions of volts.

Still on the "static electricity replaces gravity" bandwagon I see.

Okay, let's pretend that an object's charge is the reason that it gravitates (pun intended) towards either the Earth or the dome. Negative charged objects would move one way and positive objects the other. In the case of the air, this would cause a high concentration of molecules close to the Earth and close to the dome, with a large void in the middle.

Now an area void of molecules, or matter in general, is a vacuum. We define the vacuum above Earth as outer space, so the first problem with your theory is you now have to acknowledge the existence of outer space, something flat Earther's generally don't believe exists.

The next problem you have is you claim about density and buoyancy. When you refer to density and buoyancy like you have, you're referring to gravitational forces affecting an objects acceleration. We know from observation that objects of different mass will accelerate at the same rate towards Earth. If you replace gravity with electric charge, as you're trying to do, you'll find that objects with different mass but the same electric charge will accelerate at different speeds, something that falling objects do not do.

[notbatman]

Your entire world view and belief system is based on gravity, an unproven theory.

It is a theory in that they don't know how it interacts with space time yet.

It is proven that gravity exists.  

There really is no proof that gravity exists. Density and buoyancy explain why heavier than air objects fall.

Oh gravity exists, regardless of your flat Earth mindset that wants to discredit it.

Have you ever wondered why the air thins out the higher your altitude? Yes, you can thank gravity.

In your world the air density, and air pressure, should remain the same all the way from the surface of the Earth right up until it reaches your dome. The reality is it doesn't. A prime example of this is the balloons you flat Earthers like to send into the sky with cameras to capture the "flat horizon". This is the reason the balloons expand the higher they go until they finally burst at high altitude allowing the camera owner to retrieve their camera after its fall (due to gravity). Again in your world, the balloon shouldn't expand at all but simple float up until it touches the dome.

Why would the air pressure remain the same, earth still has a pressure density gradient. Either this is a weak attempt at a strawman argument or you're just soft in head. Everything can be explained with the force ultimately coming the domes trillions of volts.

Still on the "static electricity replaces gravity" bandwagon I see.

Okay, let's pretend that an object's charge is the reason that it gravitates (pun intended) towards either the Earth or the dome. Negative charged objects would move one way and positive objects the other. In the case of the air, this would cause a high concentration of molecules close to the Earth and close to the dome, with a large void in the middle.

Now an area void of molecules, or matter in general, is a vacuum. We define the vacuum above Earth as outer space, so the first problem with your theory is you now have to acknowledge the existence of outer space, something flat Earther's generally don't believe exists.

The next problem you have is you claim about density and buoyancy. When you refer to density and buoyancy like you have, you're referring to gravitational forces affecting an objects acceleration. We know from observation that objects of different mass will accelerate at the same rate towards Earth. If you replace gravity with electric charge, as you're trying to do, you'll find that objects with different mass but the same electric charge will accelerate at different speeds, something that falling objects do not do.

It's the atmosphere pushing on an object that defines the magnitude of the acceleration, while the electric field acts on the atmosphere in defining the direction of this acceleration.

[flekkelek]

Your entire world view and belief system is based on gravity, an unproven theory.

It is a theory in that they don't know how it interacts with space time yet.

It is proven that gravity exists.  

There really is no proof that gravity exists. Density and buoyancy explain why heavier than air objects fall.

Oh gravity exists, regardless of your flat Earth mindset that wants to discredit it.

Have you ever wondered why the air thins out the higher your altitude? Yes, you can thank gravity.

In your world the air density, and air pressure, should remain the same all the way from the surface of the Earth right up until it reaches your dome. The reality is it doesn't. A prime example of this is the balloons you flat Earthers like to send into the sky with cameras to capture the "flat horizon". This is the reason the balloons expand the higher they go until they finally burst at high altitude allowing the camera owner to retrieve their camera after its fall (due to gravity). Again in your world, the balloon shouldn't expand at all but simple float up until it touches the dome.

Why would the air pressure remain the same, earth still has a pressure density gradient. Either this is a weak attempt at a strawman argument or you're just soft in head. Everything can be explained with the force ultimately coming the domes trillions of volts.

Still on the "static electricity replaces gravity" bandwagon I see.

Okay, let's pretend that an object's charge is the reason that it gravitates (pun intended) towards either the Earth or the dome. Negative charged objects would move one way and positive objects the other. In the case of the air, this would cause a high concentration of molecules close to the Earth and close to the dome, with a large void in the middle.

Now an area void of molecules, or matter in general, is a vacuum. We define the vacuum above Earth as outer space, so the first problem with your theory is you now have to acknowledge the existence of outer space, something flat Earther's generally don't believe exists.

The next problem you have is you claim about density and buoyancy. When you refer to density and buoyancy like you have, you're referring to gravitational forces affecting an objects acceleration. We know from observation that objects of different mass will accelerate at the same rate towards Earth. If you replace gravity with electric charge, as you're trying to do, you'll find that objects with different mass but the same electric charge will accelerate at different speeds, something that falling objects do not do.

It's the atmosphere pushing on an object that defines the magnatude of the acceleration, while the electric field acts on the atmosphere in defining the direction of this acceleration.

Sure, so the dome pushes everything down with static force? That would mean negative acceleration from top to bottom. Do we experience that? Not to menton if the dome is around us and it produces a homogenic static field, you can't even define the "down" direction. And how do you explain friction with static force?

[notbatman]

Your entire world view and belief system is based on gravity, an unproven theory.

It is a theory in that they don't know how it interacts with space time yet.

It is proven that gravity exists.  

There really is no proof that gravity exists. Density and buoyancy explain why heavier than air objects fall.

Oh gravity exists, regardless of your flat Earth mindset that wants to discredit it.

Have you ever wondered why the air thins out the higher your altitude? Yes, you can thank gravity.

In your world the air density, and air pressure, should remain the same all the way from the surface of the Earth right up until it reaches your dome. The reality is it doesn't. A prime example of this is the balloons you flat Earthers like to send into the sky with cameras to capture the "flat horizon". This is the reason the balloons expand the higher they go until they finally burst at high altitude allowing the camera owner to retrieve their camera after its fall (due to gravity). Again in your world, the balloon shouldn't expand at all but simple float up until it touches the dome.

Why would the air pressure remain the same, earth still has a pressure density gradient. Either this is a weak attempt at a strawman argument or you're just soft in head. Everything can be explained with the force ultimately coming the domes trillions of volts.

Still on the "static electricity replaces gravity" bandwagon I see.

Okay, let's pretend that an object's charge is the reason that it gravitates (pun intended) towards either the Earth or the dome. Negative charged objects would move one way and positive objects the other. In the case of the air, this would cause a high concentration of molecules close to the Earth and close to the dome, with a large void in the middle.

Now an area void of molecules, or matter in general, is a vacuum. We define the vacuum above Earth as outer space, so the first problem with your theory is you now have to acknowledge the existence of outer space, something flat Earther's generally don't believe exists.

The next problem you have is you claim about density and buoyancy. When you refer to density and buoyancy like you have, you're referring to gravitational forces affecting an objects acceleration. We know from observation that objects of different mass will accelerate at the same rate towards Earth. If you replace gravity with electric charge, as you're trying to do, you'll find that objects with different mass but the same electric charge will accelerate at different speeds, something that falling objects do not do.

It's the atmosphere pushing on an object that defines the magnitude of the acceleration, while the electric field acts on the atmosphere in defining the direction of this acceleration.

Sure, so the dome pushes everything down with static force? That would mean negative acceleration from top to bottom. Do we experience that? Not to menton if the dome is around us and it produces a homogenic static field, you can't even define the "down" direction. And how do you explain friction with static force?

I just said the atmosphere does the pushing, just shut up and fuck off if you can't read.

[flekkelek]

Your entire world view and belief system is based on gravity, an unproven theory.

It is a theory in that they don't know how it interacts with space time yet.

It is proven that gravity exists.  

There really is no proof that gravity exists. Density and buoyancy explain why heavier than air objects fall.

Oh gravity exists, regardless of your flat Earth mindset that wants to discredit it.

Have you ever wondered why the air thins out the higher your altitude? Yes, you can thank gravity.

In your world the air density, and air pressure, should remain the same all the way from the surface of the Earth right up until it reaches your dome. The reality is it doesn't. A prime example of this is the balloons you flat Earthers like to send into the sky with cameras to capture the "flat horizon". This is the reason the balloons expand the higher they go until they finally burst at high altitude allowing the camera owner to retrieve their camera after its fall (due to gravity). Again in your world, the balloon shouldn't expand at all but simple float up until it touches the dome.

Why would the air pressure remain the same, earth still has a pressure density gradient. Either this is a weak attempt at a strawman argument or you're just soft in head. Everything can be explained with the force ultimately coming the domes trillions of volts.

Still on the "static electricity replaces gravity" bandwagon I see.

Okay, let's pretend that an object's charge is the reason that it gravitates (pun intended) towards either the Earth or the dome. Negative charged objects would move one way and positive objects the other. In the case of the air, this would cause a high concentration of molecules close to the Earth and close to the dome, with a large void in the middle.

Now an area void of molecules, or matter in general, is a vacuum. We define the vacuum above Earth as outer space, so the first problem with your theory is you now have to acknowledge the existence of outer space, something flat Earther's generally don't believe exists.

The next problem you have is you claim about density and buoyancy. When you refer to density and buoyancy like you have, you're referring to gravitational forces affecting an objects acceleration. We know from observation that objects of different mass will accelerate at the same rate towards Earth. If you replace gravity with electric charge, as you're trying to do, you'll find that objects with different mass but the same electric charge will accelerate at different speeds, something that falling objects do not do.

It's the atmosphere pushing on an object that defines the magnatude of the acceleration, while the electric field acts on the atmosphere in defining the direction of this acceleration.

Sure, so the dome pushes everything down with static force? That would mean negative acceleration from top to bottom. Do we experience that? Not to menton if the dome is around us and it produces a homogenic static field, you can't even define the "down" direction. And how do you explain friction with static force?

I just said the atmosphere does the pushing, just shut up and fuck off if you can't read.

But how can the atmosphere push something down, if there is no gravity? You are getting dumber and dumber from page to page.

[BADecker]

The greatest point in favor of flat earth is, there are tons of evidences, that if applied to show flat earth, do a good job of it.

The thing that shows flat earth is false is, there are a few completely true scientific observations that prove globe earth to be factual.

[notbatman]

Your entire world view and belief system is based on gravity, an unproven theory.

It is a theory in that they don't know how it interacts with space time yet.

It is proven that gravity exists.  

There really is no proof that gravity exists. Density and buoyancy explain why heavier than air objects fall.

Oh gravity exists, regardless of your flat Earth mindset that wants to discredit it.

Have you ever wondered why the air thins out the higher your altitude? Yes, you can thank gravity.

In your world the air density, and air pressure, should remain the same all the way from the surface of the Earth right up until it reaches your dome. The reality is it doesn't. A prime example of this is the balloons you flat Earthers like to send into the sky with cameras to capture the "flat horizon". This is the reason the balloons expand the higher they go until they finally burst at high altitude allowing the camera owner to retrieve their camera after its fall (due to gravity). Again in your world, the balloon shouldn't expand at all but simple float up until it touches the dome.

Why would the air pressure remain the same, earth still has a pressure density gradient. Either this is a weak attempt at a strawman argument or you're just soft in head. Everything can be explained with the force ultimately coming the domes trillions of volts.

Still on the "static electricity replaces gravity" bandwagon I see.

Okay, let's pretend that an object's charge is the reason that it gravitates (pun intended) towards either the Earth or the dome. Negative charged objects would move one way and positive objects the other. In the case of the air, this would cause a high concentration of molecules close to the Earth and close to the dome, with a large void in the middle.

Now an area void of molecules, or matter in general, is a vacuum. We define the vacuum above Earth as outer space, so the first problem with your theory is you now have to acknowledge the existence of outer space, something flat Earther's generally don't believe exists.

The next problem you have is you claim about density and buoyancy. When you refer to density and buoyancy like you have, you're referring to gravitational forces affecting an objects acceleration. We know from observation that objects of different mass will accelerate at the same rate towards Earth. If you replace gravity with electric charge, as you're trying to do, you'll find that objects with different mass but the same electric charge will accelerate at different speeds, something that falling objects do not do.

It's the atmosphere pushing on an object that defines the magnitude of the acceleration, while the electric field acts on the atmosphere in defining the direction of this acceleration.

Sure, so the dome pushes everything down with static force? That would mean negative acceleration from top to bottom. Do we experience that? Not to menton if the dome is around us and it produces a homogenic static field, you can't even define the "down" direction. And how do you explain friction with static force?

I just said the atmosphere does the pushing, just shut up and fuck off if you can't read.

But how can the atmosphere push something down, if there is no gravity? You are getting dumber and dumber from page to page.

Again it seems you have reading comprehension problem, the atmosphere "knows" to push down due to the electric field, it defines what's up and down.

[BADecker]

Your entire world view and belief system is based on gravity, an unproven theory.

It is a theory in that they don't know how it interacts with space time yet.

It is proven that gravity exists.  

There really is no proof that gravity exists. Density and buoyancy explain why heavier than air objects fall.

Oh gravity exists, regardless of your flat Earth mindset that wants to discredit it.

Have you ever wondered why the air thins out the higher your altitude? Yes, you can thank gravity.

In your world the air density, and air pressure, should remain the same all the way from the surface of the Earth right up until it reaches your dome. The reality is it doesn't. A prime example of this is the balloons you flat Earthers like to send into the sky with cameras to capture the "flat horizon". This is the reason the balloons expand the higher they go until they finally burst at high altitude allowing the camera owner to retrieve their camera after its fall (due to gravity). Again in your world, the balloon shouldn't expand at all but simple float up until it touches the dome.

Why would the air pressure remain the same, earth still has a pressure density gradient. Either this is a weak attempt at a strawman argument or you're just soft in head. Everything can be explained with the force ultimately coming the domes trillions of volts.

Still on the "static electricity replaces gravity" bandwagon I see.

Okay, let's pretend that an object's charge is the reason that it gravitates (pun intended) towards either the Earth or the dome. Negative charged objects would move one way and positive objects the other. In the case of the air, this would cause a high concentration of molecules close to the Earth and close to the dome, with a large void in the middle.

Now an area void of molecules, or matter in general, is a vacuum. We define the vacuum above Earth as outer space, so the first problem with your theory is you now have to acknowledge the existence of outer space, something flat Earther's generally don't believe exists.

The next problem you have is you claim about density and buoyancy. When you refer to density and buoyancy like you have, you're referring to gravitational forces affecting an objects acceleration. We know from observation that objects of different mass will accelerate at the same rate towards Earth. If you replace gravity with electric charge, as you're trying to do, you'll find that objects with different mass but the same electric charge will accelerate at different speeds, something that falling objects do not do.

It's the atmosphere pushing on an object that defines the magnitude of the acceleration, while the electric field acts on the atmosphere in defining the direction of this acceleration.

Sure, so the dome pushes everything down with static force? That would mean negative acceleration from top to bottom. Do we experience that? Not to menton if the dome is around us and it produces a homogenic static field, you can't even define the "down" direction. And how do you explain friction with static force?

I just said the atmosphere does the pushing, just shut up and fuck off if you can't read.

But how can the atmosphere push something down, if there is no gravity? You are getting dumber and dumber from page to page.

Again it seems you have reading comprehension problem, the atmosphere "knows" to push down due to the electric field, it defines what's up and down.

You are simply creating a new form of gravity theory. It isn't well developed, since the science behind it is extremely incomplete.

The word is "gravity." Calling it something else is only semantics.

[blanchharris]

lol flat earth.

I'm sure all the astronauts lied about it.

Anyone making satellites liars!

LOL Oh way i gotta get my favorite though  -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbZlf4KDnGA  (old astronaut punching a conspiracy theorist in the face for calling him a liar)

Oh Felix -> he lied about jumping from the stratosphere. All fake Hollywood shit.

LOL
 

If you stop worrying about it today, go make alot of money by 2050 you'll be able to take a rocket to the moon and see for yourself. I'll be there w/ my Lambo... will you?

[flekkelek]

Your entire world view and belief system is based on gravity, an unproven theory.

It is a theory in that they don't know how it interacts with space time yet.

It is proven that gravity exists.  

There really is no proof that gravity exists. Density and buoyancy explain why heavier than air objects fall.

Oh gravity exists, regardless of your flat Earth mindset that wants to discredit it.

Have you ever wondered why the air thins out the higher your altitude? Yes, you can thank gravity.

In your world the air density, and air pressure, should remain the same all the way from the surface of the Earth right up until it reaches your dome. The reality is it doesn't. A prime example of this is the balloons you flat Earthers like to send into the sky with cameras to capture the "flat horizon". This is the reason the balloons expand the higher they go until they finally burst at high altitude allowing the camera owner to retrieve their camera after its fall (due to gravity). Again in your world, the balloon shouldn't expand at all but simple float up until it touches the dome.

Why would the air pressure remain the same, earth still has a pressure density gradient. Either this is a weak attempt at a strawman argument or you're just soft in head. Everything can be explained with the force ultimately coming the domes trillions of volts.

Still on the "static electricity replaces gravity" bandwagon I see.

Okay, let's pretend that an object's charge is the reason that it gravitates (pun intended) towards either the Earth or the dome. Negative charged objects would move one way and positive objects the other. In the case of the air, this would cause a high concentration of molecules close to the Earth and close to the dome, with a large void in the middle.

Now an area void of molecules, or matter in general, is a vacuum. We define the vacuum above Earth as outer space, so the first problem with your theory is you now have to acknowledge the existence of outer space, something flat Earther's generally don't believe exists.

The next problem you have is you claim about density and buoyancy. When you refer to density and buoyancy like you have, you're referring to gravitational forces affecting an objects acceleration. We know from observation that objects of different mass will accelerate at the same rate towards Earth. If you replace gravity with electric charge, as you're trying to do, you'll find that objects with different mass but the same electric charge will accelerate at different speeds, something that falling objects do not do.

It's the atmosphere pushing on an object that defines the magnitude of the acceleration, while the electric field acts on the atmosphere in defining the direction of this acceleration.

Sure, so the dome pushes everything down with static force? That would mean negative acceleration from top to bottom. Do we experience that? Not to menton if the dome is around us and it produces a homogenic static field, you can't even define the "down" direction. And how do you explain friction with static force?

I just said the atmosphere does the pushing, just shut up and fuck off if you can't read.

But how can the atmosphere push something down, if there is no gravity? You are getting dumber and dumber from page to page.

Again it seems you have reading comprehension problem, the atmosphere "knows" to push down due to the electric field, it defines what's up and down.

No, it's not reading comprehension, your bullshit just doesn't make any sense.

[notbatman]

lol flat earth.

I'm sure all the astronauts lied about it.

Anyone making satellites liars!

LOL Oh way i gotta get my favorite though  -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbZlf4KDnGA  (old astronaut punching a conspiracy theorist in the face for calling him a liar)

Oh Felix -> he lied about jumping from the stratosphere. All fake Hollywood shit.

LOL
 

If you stop worrying about it today, go make alot of money by 2050 you'll be able to take a rocket to the moon and see for yourself. I'll be there w/ my Lambo... will you?

You clearly haven't watched enough clips of astronauts hanging upside down suspended by wires yet. Here's a good video to get you started. -- https://youtu.be/X-huF7fRlnA

BTW I love how Aldrin gets violent when confronted by the truth in your video, classic.

[nomad13666]

@blanchharris don't forget to send us a postcard.

PS; Suck Neil Armstrong's dead dick, you fucking goof.

[Vod]

Demonstrate how water can stick to a spinning ball or piss the fuck off, Void.

You want astronauts to take your ball into space, spray a mist of water on it, and rotate it slowly every 24 hours to prove the earth is round?

Why would they waste their time?

You don't mean it, and you don't believe the earth is flat either.

You are just trolling.

[nomad13666]

Demonstrate how water can stick to a spinning ball or piss the fuck off, Void.

You want astronauts to take your ball into space, spray a mist of water on it, and rotate it slowly every 24 hours to prove the earth is round?

Why would they waste their time?

You don't mean it, and you don't believe the earth is flat either.

You are just trolling.

Eat shit, Void.

If you had half a clue you'd be dangerous.

PS; Don't tell me what I mean or what I believe, you ignorant twat.

PPS; Keep licking your boob, goof. You only wish you could reach your cock.

[escapefrom3dom]

How as an individual can I know if the Earth is a sphere or a flat disc? What experiment can I do that doesn't involve trusting information from a 3rd party that would prove what the geometry really is?

flat earth is fairy tale for narrow-minded and not educated persons.

one question from me to them: how do u explain the Foucault pendulum?