Flat Earth

[BADecker]

At least notbatman comes up with some sensible goofy pictures. You FE jokers must be scraping the bottom of the barrel to find proof of a FE.

Says low level sellout.

Let me present you badecker's employers - Evil wicked jesuits, heliocentric cultists, "inventors" of spinning ball earth:

https://planetruthblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/fe-jesuit-collage.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/600x315/39/b1/ee/39b1ee466b1554b8896d60cff234a316.jpg

Don't stay ignorant, falling for their evil wicked lies. You can defend yourself by researching Biblical Cosmology (AKA Flat Earth)!

https://miro.medium.com/max/460/1*yogJUzA1MK8722MqCXDKvw.jpeg

What's the matter? I busted your false religion, so what else can I expect, right?

[1713611599]

1713611599

[1713611599]

1713611599

[1713611599]

1713611599

[1713611599]

1713611599

[odolvlobo]

@guigui371,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_Falls

Blood Falls is an outflow of an iron oxide-tainted plume of saltwater, ...

In other words, not blood.

Nothing in that misleading statement excludes it from originally being giants blood. Time to clue into the fact you don't live were you thought you did.

Nothing indicates it, either, unless you are claiming that anything that is red and contains iron used to be blood from prehistoric giants.

[notbatman]

Proving the earth is flat isn't the only thing you can do with your new P950. Dude with a camera at the beach turns the lens on the rocks and exposes the past!

   BLOODY GIANTS - Mudfossils (Eden, NSW) -- https://youtu.be/0UNH7a0uHwo (8:25)

[Luqueasaur]

Proving the earth is flat isn't the only thing you can do with your new P950. Dude with a camera at the beach turns the lens on the rocks and exposes the past!

   BLOODY GIANTS - Mudfossils (Eden, NSW) -- https://youtu.be/0UNH7a0uHwo (8:25)

So if I point at an arenite covered in iron oxide and claim it's a bit of a dragon covered in demon cum... suddenly I am proving dragons and demons exist?

Because that's exactly what you're defending right there.

EDIT: Nevermind. Took me a little while to realise you're a troll.

[notbatman]

^^^ We're not on a spinning wet rock in a hard vacuum. Everything based on that nonsense is also nonsense, this includes any sciences that rely on that model. The earth is not a geoid or any variation thereof thus, the science of geology is a fraud.

All rock formations are fossils, giant fossils or a concrete mix made from from fossils and fossilized material. There's giant chunks of flesh hiding in plain sight everywhere!

Also, the horizon is completely flat and rises to eye level, shit like this is right in your stupid face in plain sight, and you can't see it. Not only are you too stunned to see what's right in your face, you fucking argue with me about it, and act like I believe fairy tales or some shit.



Have a dolphin-eel hybrid, fuck that thing!

[Luqueasaur]

^^^ We're not on a spinning wet rock in a hard vacuum. Everything based on that nonsense is also nonsense, this includes any sciences that rely on that model. The earth is not a geoid or any variation thereof thus, the science of geology is a fraud.

All rock formations are fossils, giant fossils or a concrete mix made from from fossils and fossilized material. There's giant chunks of flesh hiding in plain sight everywhere!

Also, the horizon is completely flat and rises to eye level, shit like this is right in your stupid face in plain sight, and you can't see it. Not only are you too stunned to see what's right in your face, you fucking argue with me about it, and act like I believe fairy tales or some shit.



Have a dolphin-eel hybrid, fuck that thing!

https://i.imgur.com/YEOrZw6.jpg

Nay, minier. At this point I realised you don't really believe in this astounding gibberish - you pretend you do to annoy people. Well played, fella. Well played.

[notbatman]

^^^ Anything I believe has no real teeth, it's what I know that counts. I know the globe is nonsense because I can prove it with preponderance of objective evidence.

You on the other hand take the low energy path and rely completely on faith, faith that what you're being told about the world around you is actually true. What I say radically contradicts with what you learned in school, the fictional universe that all TV shows, movies & books share in common and of course, NASA propaganda. Instead of analyzing what I say, you steadfastly refuse to expend any energy whatsoever, instead of thinking you knee-jerk like a knee-jerking jerk-off jerking off!

[canovan25]

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?

Look at the angle of the sun at noon at a certain point in time, and then come to another point (preferably of the same latitude), for a large number of kilometers. Then again look at the angle of the sun and calculate the difference. Multiply the distance between these points by 360 and divide by the amount that we got when weaned. Thus, they proved that the earth is round 2.5 thousand years ago.

There are also a lot of experiments with magnetic coils that interact with the magnetic field of the earth, they very clearly show the fact that we are not perpendicular to the magnetic field (Otherwise, we could create transport on the magnetic field of the earth)

[notbatman]

^^^ If you don't make the assumption that the sun is millions of miles away with parallel rays and, if a close small sun with divergent rays is taken into consideration then the math works out the same.

This answer is often met by the globalist doubling down and claiming that, by adding a 3rd angle the globe is proven but, this is nonsense. They disregard the atmosphere and hijack the effect refraction causes falsely claiming that the earth curves.

The fact the surface of the earth is a stationary extended plain also agrees with earth's magnetic field just fine.

[BADecker]

^^^ If you don't make the assumption that the sun is millions of miles away with parallel rays and, if a close small sun with divergent rays is taken into consideration then the math works out the same.

This answer is often met by the globalist doubling down and claiming that, by adding a 3rd angle the globe is proven but, this is nonsense. They disregard the atmosphere and hijack the effect refraction causes falsely claiming that the earth curves.

The fact the surface of the earth is a stationary extended plain also agrees with earth's magnetic field just fine.

Except that when you use trig with the sun and several different equatorial stars, making the measurements 91 days apart, you find that the sun absolutely is in the range of dozens of millions of miles distant. Even you are familiar with the word "parallax." And I am talking about a backyard astronomer. Professionals can get it down close to the 93 million miles that we have determined, today.

The interesting thing is that you don't have to make some measurements and wait 91 days. Rather, you can make measurements everyday, and keep accurate records. Ninety-one days from each daily measurement confirms the 93 million miles almost to a tee. And professionals with professional, big, accurate telescopes can figure it even better.

[canovan25]

^^^ If you don't make the assumption that the sun is millions of miles away with parallel rays and, if a close small sun with divergent rays is taken into consideration then the math works out the same.

This answer is often met by the globalist doubling down and claiming that, by adding a 3rd angle the globe is proven but, this is nonsense. They disregard the atmosphere and hijack the effect refraction causes falsely claiming that the earth curves.

The fact the surface of the earth is a stationary extended plain also agrees with earth's magnetic field just fine.

So that at the north pole we have a perpendicular position to the magnetic near the earth’s field, but not at another latitude, the center of the magnetic field source should be exactly under the north pole. And I get a rather strange and simple question - the question of weight. This is measured as m (macca) * g (currently). g = G * M / R ^ 2, where G is the constant constant, M is the body weight, which attracts (Earth's body), and R is the period of the whole and whole
According to this form, what we can get is yours to be reduced with close to linear dependence. To the north, you’ll need to enter one number, and about the equator - completely different, less than one. If you do not understand why, you can paint.

^^^ If you don't make the assumption that the sun is millions of miles away with parallel rays and, if a close small sun with divergent rays is taken into consideration then the math works out the same.

This answer is often met by the globalist doubling down and claiming that, by adding a 3rd angle the globe is proven but, this is nonsense. They disregard the atmosphere and hijack the effect refraction causes falsely claiming that the earth curves.

The fact the surface of the earth is a stationary extended plain also agrees with earth's magnetic field just fine.

Except that when you use trig with the sun and several different equatorial stars, making the measurements 91 days apart, you find that the sun absolutely is in the range of dozens of millions of miles distant. Even you are familiar with the word "parallax." And I am talking about a backyard astronomer. Professionals can get it down close to the 93 million miles that we have determined, today.

The interesting thing is that you don't have to make some measurements and wait 91 days. Rather, you can make measurements everyday, and keep accurate records. Ninety-one days from each daily measurement confirms the 93 million miles almost to a tee. And professionals with professional, big, accurate telescopes can figure it even better.

Yes, all this is considered, but the argument in the style of "This is all a fraud" and further there is no point in developing this topic. There are more fundamental ways to confirm that the earth is an ellipsoid. I like the dilemma with the weight that arises from the hypothesis with a flat Earth, because we know that we weigh about the same throughout the Earth. This is the fundamental law of physics (the fact of the interaction between two bodies, as a result of which gives rise to
 attraction) and rejecting it, we reject too much that, even if desired, can not be manipulated.

[notbatman]

^^^ The earth's magnetic field is shaped the same as a speaker magnet, N in the middle and S around the outside. If the earth were spherical the compass needle would point up.

As for weight, it is caused by density and buoyancy. The denser objects get pushed down by the atmosphere they displace. The underlying mechanism indirectly involved is the Coulomb force (F = k_e q1q2/r², where k_e is Coulomb's constant q1 and q2 are the signed magnitudes of the charges, and the scalar r is the distance between the charges) between the ground and the firmament. The earths magnetic field is caused via induction from this electrostatic field.




@BADecker if you actually bothered to read what you wrote, you'd realize you're engaged in Olympic tier mental gymnastics...

[canovan25]

^^^ The earth's magnetic field is shaped the same as a speaker magnet, N in the middle and S around the outside. If the earth were spherical the compass needle would point up.

As for weight, it is caused by density and buoyancy. The denser objects get pushed down by the atmosphere they displace. The underlying mechanism indirectly involved is the Coulomb force (F = k_e q1q2/r², where k_e is Coulomb's constant q1 and q2 are the signed magnitudes of the charges, and the scalar r is the distance between the charges) between the ground and the firmament. The earths magnetic field is caused via induction from this electrostatic field.




@BADecker if you actually bothered to read what you wrote, you'd realize you're engaged in Olympic tier mental gymnastics...

We are interested not in the shape of the magnet, but in the fact of the presence of a magnetic field. The way the poles are distributed does not matter.

The strength of the Coulomb interaction (F = q1 * q2 / (4 * 3.14 * E0 * r ^ 2) does not affect the objects of interest to us, because q speaks of the distribution of the charge, and not the fact of its presence (It works only for material points in the form in which you indicated.) We are interested in the gravity formula. Since the weight is mg = G * m * M / R ^ 2, then we can calculate how much a person will weigh in the center of the disk and on its edge.

In the center of the disk it will weigh: G * m * M0 / R0 ^ 2

where M0 is the weight of the planet.

At the edge of the disc, it will weigh G * m * M0 * L / R1 ^ 2.
By the Pythagorean theorem, R1 ^ 2 = R0 ^ 2 + the distance from the center to the edge of the disk squared  (= R2). The proportionality coefficient L is valid for mass and it is proportional to R0 / R1, and since in the case of R0 = R1 it is equal to 1, we can say with confidence that it is equal to R0 / R1 We get in the second case the weight of the person. Let’s take a look at this from the whole and see what difference will be = G*M0*m (1/R0^2 - L/R1^2) = G*M0*m*R0(1/R0*R0*R0 - 1/(R0^2 + R2^2)^(3/2)).


Equality is achieved only if R0 ^ 3 = (R0 ^ 2 + R2 ^ 2) ^ 1.5 => R0^6 = R0^6 + 3*(R0^4)*(R2^2) + 3*(R0^2)(R2^4) + R2^6 => 3R0^4 + 3*(R0R2)^2 + (R2)^4 = 0 ===>  We have reached an obvious problem, that is, this expression can be 0 only if R0 and R1 and R2 are equal to zero. We get that the earth can be flat only if it is a material point (an object without size).


There are also many everyday examples that confirm that the earth is round. For example, the strength of Coriolis. The only assumption we make to prove it is that the earth is round. Everything else is rigorous math. There are many experimental installations that show and prove the power of Coriolis.


Also, during construction, a special device is used, which indicates the direction of the normal reaction force of the support, which in turn consists of two components. It is made on the assumption that the earth is round. In the case of flat earth, the houses between the equator and the south pole would have collapsed long ago, since there the angle would differ by a very large amount.

There are infinitely many such examples, but the catch itself is that it is useless to argue with physics, you need to be a complete nerd to not believe in this fundamental science, and there are a lot of experiments that can confirm that the earth is round. You can search it in google

[notbatman]

@canovan25 A "magnet" with unevenly distributed poles has no net field i.e. ordinary matter i.e. not a magnet.

Newtonian gravity was superseded by relativistic gravity in 1905 as a result of, the Michelson & Morley experiment (1887) falsifying the Copernican model. Relativistic gravity was then falsified and, a static aether confirmed by Prunier & Dufour's 1939 replication of the Sagnac effect (1913) that, accounted for rotating frames of reference.

Gravity is not an actual force, objects are pushed down to the negatively (-) charged ground by the medium they displace because they are more dense. If the object is less dense it gets pushed up towards the positively (+) charged firmament. The air (including the aether) is a fluid pushing on objects, it's a push not a pull.

If you want to double down and claim nonsense like the Cavendish experiment (1797-98) proves gravity I tell you now, he observed heavy balls in his garden shed through a hole drilled in the wall with a telescope. The nature of electrostatic forces completely invalidates the whole clap trap.

You've got a bunch of calculus for a force that's been experimentally falsified, you're the victim of globalist propaganda.

Also those cornholio experiments are nonsense under critical analysis. The theoretical motion of the earth was falsified by Michelson & Morley in 1887, this corroborates Airy's 1871 experiment that had already failed to detect any motion of the earth. The stationary nature of the earth can be objectively proven via experiment with a precision gyroscope that reacts to a 15 deg/hr rotation.

If you want to double down on MEMs and optical gyroscopes measuring the rotation of the earth then I'm sorry to tell you that the documented period is 23 hours 56 minutes, that's sidereal time bruh not a 24 hour day and, those are not gyroscopes they're ultra sensitive optical and micro-mechanic devices that measure the aetherial wake from the rotation of the stars. The The Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment (1925) confirms this aether drift of 23h 56m.

The opposite of your claim that "there are a lot of experiments that can confirm that the earth is round" is true. There's a preponderance of objective evidence that falsifies the globe, flat and stationary is the default.

[BADecker]

^^^ If you don't make the assumption that the sun is millions of miles away with parallel rays and, if a close small sun with divergent rays is taken into consideration then the math works out the same.

This answer is often met by the globalist doubling down and claiming that, by adding a 3rd angle the globe is proven but, this is nonsense. They disregard the atmosphere and hijack the effect refraction causes falsely claiming that the earth curves.

The fact the surface of the earth is a stationary extended plain also agrees with earth's magnetic field just fine.

So that at the north pole we have a perpendicular position to the magnetic near the earth’s field, but not at another latitude, the center of the magnetic field source should be exactly under the north pole. And I get a rather strange and simple question - the question of weight. This is measured as m (macca) * g (currently). g = G * M / R ^ 2, where G is the constant constant, M is the body weight, which attracts (Earth's body), and R is the period of the whole and whole
According to this form, what we can get is yours to be reduced with close to linear dependence. To the north, you’ll need to enter one number, and about the equator - completely different, less than one. If you do not understand why, you can paint.

But on a flat Earth, the whole idea of magnetism and the earth changes. The center of notbatman's flat Earth is approximately the North Pole. The compass, also, points toward this NP, no matter where on Earth we hold the compass.

On this FE, the other end of the compass points to the ring of ice, no matter where we are on the earth. This means that the south magnetic pole is something that surrounds the earth. It also means that FE polar magnetism is something that is quite different than a simple globe type of magnetism. Or is it that we don't understand magnetism at all, and only FE people are coming close to understanding?

When the compass is at the magnetic north pole, it will try to point down, the needle standing on end. It's the same (but the other end) with the needle at the magnetic south pole. There isn't any corresponding FE magnetic operation that explains this without changing the whole physics of Earth magnetism.

At http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html, you will find loads of simple points about why the earth is flat. But many of them are simply wording that twists the mind of an average person by subtly lying about a situation and condition. I have explained several of these in previous posts. Flat Earth doesn't fit what exists.

^^^ If you don't make the assumption that the sun is millions of miles away with parallel rays and, if a close small sun with divergent rays is taken into consideration then the math works out the same.

This answer is often met by the globalist doubling down and claiming that, by adding a 3rd angle the globe is proven but, this is nonsense. They disregard the atmosphere and hijack the effect refraction causes falsely claiming that the earth curves.

The fact the surface of the earth is a stationary extended plain also agrees with earth's magnetic field just fine.

Except that when you use trig with the sun and several different equatorial stars, making the measurements 91 days apart, you find that the sun absolutely is in the range of dozens of millions of miles distant. Even you are familiar with the word "parallax." And I am talking about a backyard astronomer. Professionals can get it down close to the 93 million miles that we have determined, today.

The interesting thing is that you don't have to make some measurements and wait 91 days. Rather, you can make measurements everyday, and keep accurate records. Ninety-one days from each daily measurement confirms the 93 million miles almost to a tee. And professionals with professional, big, accurate telescopes can figure it even better.

Yes, all this is considered, but the argument in the style of "This is all a fraud" and further there is no point in developing this topic. There are more fundamental ways to confirm that the earth is an ellipsoid. I like the dilemma with the weight that arises from the hypothesis with a flat Earth, because we know that we weigh about the same throughout the Earth. This is the fundamental law of physics (the fact of the interaction between two bodies, as a result of which gives rise to
 attraction) and rejecting it, we reject too much that, even if desired, can not be manipulated.

Why would you think that I think that "there is no point in developing this topic?" Do I not further develop the topic (in an adverse direction, of course) on a reasonably regular basis? Look at my posts.

The important point in developing, is that there are many people who are brought to the point of doubt about globe Earth when they read the FE tricks. Development is simply teaching folks how FE not only is an impossibility, but also is easily shown to be false through reasonably common, simple methods.

Where, really, is notbatman in his thinking? Does he really think that he "knows" that the earth is flat? Or does he simply believe, and answer with technicalities that he gets from FE cohorts? Or is he the mouthpiece of an organization that is trying to propagandize anybody they can?

In the event that he is innocently a believer, perhaps we should teach him? In the even that he is a troll, and has a knowledgeable group working with him, maybe we should teach others.

[BADecker]

@BADecker if you actually bothered to read what you wrote, you'd realize you're engaged in Olympic tier mental gymnastics...

Huh? I had thought you are too far into this to even recognize the little that I use it. It's good to see that I can prove globe Earth to you this way.

[notbatman]

^^^ You say that like your paycheck depends on it.

[BADecker]

^^^ You say that like your paycheck depends on it.

They probably won't cut your paycheck to the funny farm, no matter what junk you promote on the Internet. You'll always have a place to live there, and food on the table... oh, and your meds.

However, if you push flat Earth strongly enough that the world starts to believe, the whole government might change, and no more Social Security for you.

[canovan25]

@canovan25 A "magnet" with unevenly distributed poles has no net field i.e. ordinary matter i.e. not a magnet.

Newtonian gravity was superseded by relativistic gravity in 1905 as a result of, the Michelson & Morley experiment (1887) falsifying the Copernican model. Relativistic gravity was then falsified and, a static aether confirmed by Prunier & Dufour's 1939 replication of the Sagnac effect (1913) that, accounted for rotating frames of reference.

Gravity is not an actual force, objects are pushed down to the negatively (-) charged ground by the medium they displace because they are more dense. If the object is less dense it gets pushed up towards the positively (+) charged firmament. The air (including the aether) is a fluid pushing on objects, it's a push not a pull.

If you want to double down and claim nonsense like the Cavendish experiment (1797-98) proves gravity I tell you now, he observed heavy balls in his garden shed through a hole drilled in the wall with a telescope. The nature of electrostatic forces completely invalidates the whole clap trap.

You've got a bunch of calculus for a force that's been experimentally falsified, you're the victim of globalist propaganda.

Also those cornholio experiments are nonsense under critical analysis. The theoretical motion of the earth was falsified by Michelson & Morley in 1887, this corroborates Airy's 1871 experiment that had already failed to detect any motion of the earth. The stationary nature of the earth can be objectively proven via experiment with a precision gyroscope that reacts to a 15 deg/hr rotation.

If you want to double down on MEMs and optical gyroscopes measuring the rotation of the earth then I'm sorry to tell you that the documented period is 23 hours 56 minutes, that's sidereal time bruh not a 24 hour day and, those are not gyroscopes they're ultra sensitive optical and micro-mechanic devices that measure the aetherial wake from the rotation of the stars. The The Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment (1925) confirms this aether drift of 23h 56m.

The opposite of your claim that "there are a lot of experiments that can confirm that the earth is round" is true. There's a preponderance of objective evidence that falsifies the globe, flat and stationary is the default.

You are talking about some obscure experiments, and I'm talking about the laws and forces that everyone uses - the Coriolis force - in the military body and aerodynamics, the strength of the normal reaction of the support - in construction. These are the ones that I mentioned earlier. And the experiments of individual scientists do not make sense until they are confirmed by hundreds of others. Standard experiments are confirmed hundreds of thousands of times a year, because they are conducted at universities in physics departments. You are off topic. Prove that the Coriolis force does not exist, and then refute the presence of a normal support reaction, then we can discuss some other experiments.

[exemplaar]

At least notbatman comes up with some sensible goofy pictures. You FE jokers must be scraping the bottom of the barrel to find proof of a FE.

Says low level sellout.

Let me present you badecker's employers - Evil wicked jesuits, heliocentric cultists, "inventors" of spinning ball earth:

https://planetruthblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/fe-jesuit-collage.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/600x315/39/b1/ee/39b1ee466b1554b8896d60cff234a316.jpg

Don't stay ignorant, falling for their evil wicked lies. You can defend yourself by researching Biblical Cosmology (AKA Flat Earth)!

https://miro.medium.com/max/460/1*yogJUzA1MK8722MqCXDKvw.jpeg

What's the matter? I busted your false religion, so what else can I expect, right?

I exposed you many times for all interested to see, here for example is the latest post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5222193.msg53798756#msg53798756

You're a sleazebag and The Word of The Lord will be your judge.