Flat Earth

[YuTü.Co.in]

Vod and suchmoon are displaying their personality type right here beautifully in this thread.  

My personality is to help others.  Stop them from being scammed, or give them directions.

I'm showing you facts and proof.  You can't refute them - why won't you investigate them?  

To paraphrase a wise man, Just like prayer, masturbation makes you feel good but doesn't do anything for the Flat-earth goat you're thinking of.

[joerogers8]

Vod and suchmoon are displaying their personality type right here beautifully in this thread.  

My personality is to help others.  Stop them from being scammed, or give them directions.

I'm showing you facts and proof.  You can't refute them - why won't you investigate them?  

I'm trying to look into wave-shifting.  I'm not seeing much on it. (I assume this is what your talking about)

I would appreciate it if you could explain precisely what it is, how it proves the earth is moving and possibly how we can conduct an experiment which would irrefutably prove the earth is moving.   

I'm interested.

 

[Vod]

I would appreciate it if you could explain precisely what it is, how it proves the earth is moving

It does not prove the earth is moving.  It only proves something is moving relative to something else.

It's commonly known as The Doppler Effect.  It's the basis of our advanced radar systems.

Listen next time an emergency vehicle approaches and you will hear the siren develop a higher pitch as it approaches.  The distance between waves decreases because the vehicle moves in physical space.  Less distance means higher frequency means higher pitch.

This works with all waves - light waves included.

In the flat earth model, the sun and moon would be moving toward you or away from you at all times except for one instance for each where it is right above you and you see the pure light.  Both objects would have a violet hue as they approached you and a red hue as they moved away.  We see the same yellow light at all times because our distance to the sun does not change much or fast.  Same with the moon.   

The stars are all emitting a red hue.  They are all moving away from us, so they could not be on a dome surrounding the planet.

[Astargath]

^^^ I've included physical and mathematical proof if you don't trust your eyes.

If seeing the proof, calculating it with mathematics or interacting with it mechanically isn't your thing you can feel it. You've got a sixth sense you can use to prove it, your sense of balance; the earth isn't spinning.

Math is not a language, can't prove anything with it. You didn't prove anything, show me the flat earth.

[joerogers8]

I would appreciate it if you could explain precisely what it is, how it proves the earth is moving

It does not prove the earth is moving.  It only proves something is moving relative to something else.

It's commonly known as The Doppler Effect.  It's the basis of our advanced radar systems.

Listen next time an emergency vehicle approaches and you will hear the siren develop a higher pitch as it approaches.  The distance between waves decreases because the vehicle moves in physical space.  Less distance means higher frequency means higher pitch.

This works with all waves - light waves included.

In the flat earth model, the sun and moon would be moving toward you or away from you at all times except for one instance for each where it is right above you and you see the pure light.  Both objects would have a violet hue as they approached you and a red hue as they moved away.  We see the same yellow light at all times because our distance to the sun does not change much or fast.  Same with the moon.  

The stars are all emitting a red hue.  They are all moving away from us, so they could not be on a dome surrounding the planet.

I'm fairly certain I never claimed a dome on here.  I'm also not claiming any model at all.  I am not a believer in the bible (although I'm trying to get through it to give it a fair shake).  If I took the FE model I would be simply trading one thing for another.  The real answer is I don't fucking know.  Hence I'm here.  Now when you dinged me and I was hammered by the 4 horsemen then I started up asking for proof and going back and forth with you guys as sport.  

If you put a gun to my head I would claim flatness due to the water (I do not subscribe to a specific model).  I simply have issues with water bending.  That is the basis of my argument.  That is what I know.  Flat level water is what I see every single time I'm exposed to it.  I have never seen it do what is claimed and what I see on the planet earth photos that are given to me.  My position is I'm not on a sphere.  Due to the water once again.  There are a few other things that bother me like the amateur footage all showing flatness at 120k feet with horizon coming to eye level, the NASA shenanigans  (cloned clouds in images, word sex in the clouds and the assholes on what appear to be wires) and other less conclusive shit that just doesn't sit well with me but is not hard proof.  

I appreciate your response above (without insults)  however with all due respect, as I don't want to start a flame war, I don't know what the fuck I'm looking at up above.   When I view the "planets" though my telescope,  I see dancing lights of different colors.  I do not see a solid mass that we could land a craft on.  The only time I have seen pictures of solid planets is from NASA and it's CGI (I believe they admit to this).  Either way what's going on up there does not prove shape.

My question to you.  Is there absolute proof you can provide as you mentioned above of the shape of our earth, so we can put this to rest?  Something we can all see and do for ourselves.  I for one don't trust these fuckers .gov/NASA and I want to prove it to myself. (hence I'm here looking for free money without central bank interference i.e. Bitcoin or contemplating if its those assholes behind this creating a tax trap if they attach us to our wallet address)   If the answer is there is no way to 100% prove it then it is what it is.  

Is it a belief for you or a fact?  If it's a fact what is the one proof we can all do?  After 500 years there has got to be something indisputable that we can do.  We can put a video up here of the experiment and call it a day with all sides performing it for validity.  If it's a belief then I respect your belief.  

After 600 pages we should have a answer. 

 

[suchmoon]

I simply have issues with water bending.  That is the basis of my argument.  That is what I know.  Flat level water is what I see every single time I'm exposed to it.  I have never seen it do what is claimed and what I see on the planet earth photos that are given to me.  My position is I'm not on a sphere.  Due to the water once again.

There are things you can't possibly see due to scale - either too big or too small. How could that be not clear for someone who's using an internet forum? Can you see the billions of transistors that allow you do that? Can you see the full length of the fiber cable that allows you to do that?

When I view the "planets" though my telescope,  I see dancing lights of different colors.  I do not see a solid mass that we could land a craft on.  The only time I have seen pictures of solid planets is from NASA and it's CGI (I believe they admit to this).  Either way what's going on up there does not prove shape.

Point your telescope to the Moon. I doubt you have one or know how to point it to a planet though. Dancing lights SMH. No one who's ever looked at e.g. Saturn through a telescope would say such nonsense.

After 600 pages we should have a answer. 

This is not a thread for answers. This is nazibatman's trolling thread. You're not looking for answers. You're looking to feed your ignorance.

[joerogers8]

I simply have issues with water bending.  That is the basis of my argument.  That is what I know.  Flat level water is what I see every single time I'm exposed to it.  I have never seen it do what is claimed and what I see on the planet earth photos that are given to me.  My position is I'm not on a sphere.  Due to the water once again.

There are things you can't possibly see due to scale - either too big or too small. How could that be not clear for someone who's using an internet forum? Can you see the billions of transistors that allow you do that? Can you see the full length of the fiber cable that allows you to do that?

When I view the "planets" though my telescope,  I see dancing lights of different colors.  I do not see a solid mass that we could land a craft on.  The only time I have seen pictures of solid planets is from NASA and it's CGI (I believe they admit to this).  Either way what's going on up there does not prove shape.

Point your telescope to the Moon. I doubt you have one or know how to point it to a planet though. Dancing lights SMH. No one who's ever looked at e.g. Saturn through a telescope would say such nonsense.

After 600 pages we should have a answer.  

This is not a thread for answers. This is nazibatman's trolling thread. You're not looking for answers. You're looking to feed your ignorance.

"I don't need to "get" it. I can just take binoculars and watch a ship go beyond the horizon and marvel at your stupidity."
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009045.msg46585526#msg46585526

"There are things you can't possibly see due to scale - either too big or too small."
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009045.msg47001606#msg47001606

Classic!

[suchmoon]

Classic!

You're easy to impress.

Have you figured out yet what holds water in a container?

[notbatman]

^^^ I've included physical and mathematical proof if you don't trust your eyes.

If seeing the proof, calculating it with mathematics or interacting with it mechanically isn't your thing you can feel it. You've got a sixth sense you can use to prove it, your sense of balance; the earth isn't spinning.

Math is not a language, can't prove anything with it. You didn't prove anything, show me the flat earth.

...
The distance to the horizon on a globe at 33k' is 222.7 miles, if you can find a photo of an object on the ground below the horizon line and prove it's greater than 222.7 miles from the aircraft then you've got mathematical proof the earth is flat. There's infrared images available (just ask) that conclusively show landmarks of over 500 miles that are below the horizon.

If there's an island between your aircraft at 33k' and the globe horizon at 222.7 miles and, you can positively identify that island and determine the aircrafts current position then, you can calculate the distance from the aircraft to the island and, if that island is 500 miles away then you've got proof, mathematical proof the earth is flat.

Like the convex dome of water 3 miles out that ships sail up, over and behind, a horizon formed by the top of a dome 222.7 miles out while flying at 33k' is unavoidable on a globe.

[—]

refinements and moon, planets path added



the cross-cap
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-sKLN0VBkk

Cross cap with flat piece of paper

The Equivalence Of The Mobius Strip And The Cross Cap

[Astargath]

^^^ I've included physical and mathematical proof if you don't trust your eyes.

If seeing the proof, calculating it with mathematics or interacting with it mechanically isn't your thing you can feel it. You've got a sixth sense you can use to prove it, your sense of balance; the earth isn't spinning.

Math is not a language, can't prove anything with it. You didn't prove anything, show me the flat earth.

...
The distance to the horizon on a globe at 33k' is 222.7 miles, if you can find a photo of an object on the ground below the horizon line and prove it's greater than 222.7 miles from the aircraft then you've got mathematical proof the earth is flat. There's infrared images available (just ask) that conclusively show landmarks of over 500 miles that are below the horizon.

If there's an island between your aircraft at 33k' and the globe horizon at 222.7 miles and, you can positively identify that island and determine the aircrafts current position then, you can calculate the distance from the aircraft to the island and, if that island is 500 miles away then you've got proof, mathematical proof the earth is flat.

Like the convex dome of water 3 miles out that ships sail up, over and behind, a horizon formed by the top of a dome 222.7 miles out while flying at 33k' is unavoidable on a globe.

Then do it, show it and you will finally prove the earth is flat, what are you waiting for? You certainly have a lot of free time, might as well use it for something.

[notbatman]

^^^ I've included physical and mathematical proof if you don't trust your eyes.

If seeing the proof, calculating it with mathematics or interacting with it mechanically isn't your thing you can feel it. You've got a sixth sense you can use to prove it, your sense of balance; the earth isn't spinning.

Math is not a language, can't prove anything with it. You didn't prove anything, show me the flat earth.

...
The distance to the horizon on a globe at 33k' is 222.7 miles, if you can find a photo of an object on the ground below the horizon line and prove it's greater than 222.7 miles from the aircraft then you've got mathematical proof the earth is flat. There's infrared images available (just ask) that conclusively show landmarks of over 500 miles that are below the horizon.

If there's an island between your aircraft at 33k' and the globe horizon at 222.7 miles and, you can positively identify that island and determine the aircrafts current position then, you can calculate the distance from the aircraft to the island and, if that island is 500 miles away then you've got proof, mathematical proof the earth is flat.

Like the convex dome of water 3 miles out that ships sail up, over and behind, a horizon formed by the top of a dome 222.7 miles out while flying at 33k' is unavoidable on a globe.

Then do it, show it and you will finally prove the earth is flat, what are you waiting for? You certainly have a lot of free time, might as well use it for something.

First we need to agree on a couple of points:

1. Assuming a globe earth, the visible horizon line at an altitude of 33,000 feet is about 222.7 miles from from the observer. TRUE or FALSE?

2. Any point on the ground between the visible horizon line and the observer at 33,000 feet has a distance of less than 222.7 miles on a globe earth. TRUE or FALSE?



edit:

Here's one example:


^{Source: https://youtu.be/7CpAlOuZb2o}

[—]

Mercury passing Moon nearly 2 hour youtube downtime where necessary for it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWp_ZDMi7ZI

[Astargath]

^^^ I've included physical and mathematical proof if you don't trust your eyes.

If seeing the proof, calculating it with mathematics or interacting with it mechanically isn't your thing you can feel it. You've got a sixth sense you can use to prove it, your sense of balance; the earth isn't spinning.

Math is not a language, can't prove anything with it. You didn't prove anything, show me the flat earth.

...
The distance to the horizon on a globe at 33k' is 222.7 miles, if you can find a photo of an object on the ground below the horizon line and prove it's greater than 222.7 miles from the aircraft then you've got mathematical proof the earth is flat. There's infrared images available (just ask) that conclusively show landmarks of over 500 miles that are below the horizon.

If there's an island between your aircraft at 33k' and the globe horizon at 222.7 miles and, you can positively identify that island and determine the aircrafts current position then, you can calculate the distance from the aircraft to the island and, if that island is 500 miles away then you've got proof, mathematical proof the earth is flat.

Like the convex dome of water 3 miles out that ships sail up, over and behind, a horizon formed by the top of a dome 222.7 miles out while flying at 33k' is unavoidable on a globe.

Then do it, show it and you will finally prove the earth is flat, what are you waiting for? You certainly have a lot of free time, might as well use it for something.

First we need to agree on a couple of points:

1. Assuming a globe earth, the visible horizon line at an altitude of 33,000 feet is about 222.7 miles from from the observer. TRUE or FALSE?

2. Any point on the ground between the visible horizon line and the observer at 33,000 feet has a distance of less than 222.7 miles on a globe earth. TRUE or FALSE?



edit:

Here's one example:


^{Source: https://youtu.be/7CpAlOuZb2o}

LUL

[exemplaar]

...
@notbatman, 1.Enoch is legit, please DYOR:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtmmpE8y0tA

The Moon has it's own "glory" but according Enoch it's lit by the Sun, "Huston, we have a problem". I agree with The Council of Nicaea in their in their decision not to include this book.

I'd watch your video but the link doesn't work for me, just error messages.

I didn't notice...https://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/enoch/ENOCH_3.HTM Can you point the exact verse saying that.

Try then this link, hope it is legit(opens for you) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukXIdxJbxDk

[exemplaar]

I simply have issues with water bending.  That is the basis of my argument.  That is what I know.  Flat level water is what I see every single time I'm exposed to it.  I have never seen it do what is claimed and what I see on the planet earth photos that are given to me.  My position is I'm not on a sphere.  Due to the water once again.

There are things you can't possibly see due to scale - either too big or too small. How could that be not clear for someone who's using an internet forum? Can you see the billions of transistors that allow you do that? Can you see the full length of the fiber cable that allows you to do that?

When I view the "planets" though my telescope,  I see dancing lights of different colors.  I do not see a solid mass that we could land a craft on.  The only time I have seen pictures of solid planets is from NASA and it's CGI (I believe they admit to this).  Either way what's going on up there does not prove shape.

Point your telescope to the Moon. I doubt you have one or know how to point it to a planet though. Dancing lights SMH. No one who's ever looked at e.g. Saturn through a telescope would say such nonsense.

After 600 pages we should have a answer.  

This is not a thread for answers. This is nazibatman's trolling thread. You're not looking for answers. You're looking to feed your ignorance.

"I don't need to "get" it. I can just take binoculars and watch a ship go beyond the horizon and marvel at your stupidity."
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009045.msg46585526#msg46585526

"There are things you can't possibly see due to scale - either too big or too small."
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009045.msg47001606#msg47001606

Classic!

+1 

And btw this "suchmoon" has wrong username. Correct would be suchMORON 



+bonus pic

[BADecker]

First we need to agree on a couple of points:

1. Assuming a globe earth, the visible horizon line at an altitude of 33,000 feet is about 222.7 miles from from the observer. TRUE or FALSE?

2. Any point on the ground between the visible horizon line and the observer at 33,000 feet has a distance of less than 222.7 miles on a globe earth. TRUE or FALSE?



edit:

Here's one example:


^{Source: https://youtu.be/7CpAlOuZb2o}

Assuming a globe earth, what are the visible horizon line distances from the observer at 1 billion miles?

Are they any more or less at 2 billion miles?

But that is what keeps your thread going... talking about stupid stuff rather than using things that prove the truth... globe earth.

Consider. Assuming globe earth as it is, the difference in diameter between the poles and the equator is about 26 miles. The 33,000 feet you mention is only 6.25 miles. You are playing with all kinds of stuff that doesn't even figure regarding the way you are using them, because you are using such tiny distances.

But it DOES increase your Activity rating. So, go on and dazzle people with your stupidly useless questions.

[BADecker]

+1 

And btw this "suchmoon" has wrong username. Correct would be suchMORON 



+bonus pic

Einstein said it the other way in relativity theory. He said that gravity is the state of space that forces material occupying space, away from empty space, towards already occupied space. Repulsion, not attraction, even though it acts like attraction as far as we on earth are concerned.

[notbatman]

I'm sorry BADecker but that's not an argument.

Astargath why are you changing the topic you fucking weasel, huh why? You draw an angled line under the horizon to exaggerate the minor barrel distortion from the lens and window combined with the greater light intensity in the middle as your globe curvature? The proof I've provided isn't about curvature douchebag, it's a fucking strawman argument because of the uncertainty caused by an array of potential barrel distortions. Distance to the horizon, the fact the horizon rises to eye level and the fact observation of the horizon is consistent with perspective and convergence on a plane proves the earth is flat. Thanks to JTolan I have the infrared images to prove my point.

Vod, nice try but the red-shift assumes the stars are millions and billions of miles away and doesn't prove outer space is real, or that stars aren't close points of light projected off a concave mirrored dome. Given the radically different cosmology an engineered, enclosed flat earth provides an explanation for the observed wavelengths is going to be somewhat different.

[Flying Hellfish]

Thanks to JTolan I have the infrared images to prove my point.

Thanks to my own brain I have the ability to look at an image and identify a round object.