[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Atmospheric refraction just doesnt add up sorry. All these photo examples sure they are a bit misty because where looking a long distance through a lot of air.. but theres no refraction going on at that altitude and no mirages or any kind of Atmospheric refraction.. its just not believable, light doesnt bend uniformly through air in this manner. It just doesnt. Im not a flat earther, im not a heliocentric believer either.
I simply see way too much evidence that tells me that we are been lied to about a lot of things. Apollo landings were obviously faked. We have astronauts falling over and then pretending to be helped up by another astronaught where its clearly obvious the guys on a wire and his buddy has done nothing to help him get up.. just one example.. clearly a lot of NASA imagery is faked. We can see this. So the question is why, and why are they still faking stuff on the ISS?
Im not gona debate any of this because its pointless. No one can convince anyone else of anything on this forum. Because people will believe whatever they want to believe. Thats historical fact. Im just here to say im certain we are been lied to about the curvature of the earth, the size of the earth and moon and sun and also the distance of the sun from the earth.. ive seen myself sun rays bursting through clouds not perpendicular, clearly spreading outwards from a sun close to the earth.
These are just my opinions. I dont care what anyone else thinks. You can debunk me if you want but it wont change my mind unless its really compelling.. saying stuff like its Atmospheric refraction isnt compelling at all to me.
Nicholson Morley and many other have shown that earth is stationary. Gravity is seriously misunderstood. I mean christ the idea that the earth can somehow cause everything on it to "gravitate" to it just because its really big is just plain ridiculous. Never been proven. All theory, no empirical evidence of gravity doing this.. cant be reproduced in any model or laboratory.

Just commenting to let you know you're not alone and you're not wrong for questioning the status quo. These people here will try to convince you that you, the one who is going against the crowd and popular opinion, are the one confirmation bias. In my opinion it is a spiritual block for some who can't see the lies right in front of their faces. Jesus spoke in parables to allow those who are become awakened to grasp the deeper meanings while those who are superficial well not see even though their eyes are open, or comprehend even though they hear.

It is entirely a waste of time to debate on this forum. Those who are open to your ideas and share your skepticism will be gravitated towards you.

Speaking of gravity, if the earth is many many different layers of various materials, compounds and elements, where exactly does stuff gravitate to? Can the earth be considered a "whole?" If gravitation is the direct magnetic-like force between any two molecules, then why should any molecule travel downward torwards the core of the globe? Are we drawn to the center of the mass as gravity says? How do you determine the center of an amalgamation of matter? If they say gravity is the attraction to the sum of the matter beneath our feet, i.e. the other side of the globe included, that concept would be destroyed by any understanding of fluid dynamics.

[geckothegeek]

And to add to the question:

If Round Earth "Theory" is so far out because it would imply an unrealistic amount of stuff happening "by chance"; If all celestial bodies are in fact discs but every single one of them is facing us, wouldn't that also be an unrealistic amount of stuff happening "by chance" ?

"Round Earth Theory" really doesn't  fall into the category of "Theory ". It's really  "Flat Earth Ideas "  of "This is how things would have to be IF the earth was flat."
The flat earth idea of the horizon is an example and it's so ridiculous it's...well ridiculous.  Anyone call see how false it is, especially where you can see a definite line where sea and sky meet and not "some indistinct blur that fades away at an infinite distance" according to the flat earth definition of the horizon.

[Round fact]

...ether scalar wave (sometimes going beyond the speed of light): it... /quote]

Sure he did.

Care to post the math involved that would back this up?

[Rounder]

If they say gravity is the attraction to the sum of the matter beneath our feet, i.e. the other side of the globe included, that concept would be destroyed by any understanding of fluid dynamics.

I'm curious about this statement.  Would you care to start a new thread which elaborates on this topic (rather than divert this one)?

[rabinoz]

Speaking of gravity, if the earth is many many different layers of various materials, compounds and elements, where exactly does stuff gravitate to? Can the earth be considered a "whole?"

While the earth is made up of a number of layers, they are arranged reasonably concentrically.
And yes, to precisely calculate the gravitational attraction between two objects, the sum of the attractions between each element of one and each each element of the other needs to be computed. In the general case that is quite a complicated integral. But a point outside any object with "spherical symmetry" we can lump all of its mass at its centre, hence my "reasonably concentrically" note above.

So to a very good approximation all the mass of the earth can be taken at its "centre of mass".

For complicated objects (that are not too large) on the earth (like people etc) the distance from the parts of the object to the "centre of mass" of the earth varies so little that we can take the force as applying from their "centre of mass".

So put simply for most applications "the earth" can "be considered a whole". There are exceptions to this when very precise gravimetric measurements are being done, for example in the search for minerals found in massive deposits.

If gravitation is the direct magnetic-like force between any two molecules, then why should any molecule travel downward torwards the core of the globe? Are we drawn to the center of the mass as gravity says? How do you determine the center of an amalgamation of matter?

The only extra I could add here is that while "any molecule" might be attracted towards the "centre of mass" of the earth, it can't necessarity "travel" there because there are things in the way. The ground is solid enough to stop us moving down, even though gravitation is "pulling us".
Remember that gravitation has been measured between relatively small (compared to the earth) objects numerous times from Cavendish on, and with quite consistent results. Also we see the expected variation with altitude, latitude and the proximity to massive objects.
Any other explanation needs to explain these variations - the "Flat Earth UA" does not!

If they say gravity is the attraction to the sum of the matter beneath our feet, i.e. the other side of the globe included, that concept would be destroyed by any understanding of fluid dynamics.

I don't see where "fluid dynamics" comes into it. If you mean that the oceans sould be attracted too - well they are, and the surface of the ocean does conform to the expected shape. They can't "fall further" because there is the solid ocean floor below them. Some water probably does "leak". If from lakes and rivers this forms our "ground water" (springs, wells and bores) and in general ends up coming back up as steam from volcanoes and geysers.

Maybe you need to expand more on what you meant here.

[Veeni]

THE BLACK SUN, 2003 ANTARCTICA PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY FRED BRUENJES

Excuse me guys, I just red a lot of this subject, and I just noticed on this picture, the earth has a negative curve, so maybe the earth IS a sphere but this time we are on the inside of it. So anything we can observe from the universe is just what's in the sphere. But wait no earth is flat I believe you, how could you be wrong? I think we are on the inside of a flat sphere. I think 3rd dimension is an illusion and everything is flat. We don't see everything flat because our eyes are curved(yes they also are flat spheres like the earth) so they make us believe the world is 3D. And by extension, I think there is only one dimension(or maybe none or a negative number, depending on the original eye multidimensionnal line shape).

Also you shouldn't use picture showing the earth NOT curving as this site doesn't accept pictures as proofs, you are not serving the cause doing this. Round earth defenders will respond using their own (fake of course this time) pictures.

[sandokhan]

Also you shouldn't use picture showing the earth NOT curving as this site doesn't accept pictures as proofs, you are not serving the cause doing this. Round earth defenders will respond using their own (fake of course this time) pictures.


Those are the UAFE's rules.

I was the first to systematically use precise photographs and videos in order to prove that there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth.

The reason they initially wanted to dismiss any other photographs was because they did not have at their disposal the precise visual obstacle formulas, or the arguments to demolish any RE "image".

[andruszkow]

Also you shouldn't use picture showing the earth NOT curving as this site doesn't accept pictures as proofs, you are not serving the cause doing this. Round earth defenders will respond using their own (fake of course this time) pictures.


Those are the UAFE's rules.

I was the first to systematically use precise photographs and videos in order to prove that there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth.

The reason they initially wanted to dismiss any other photographs was because they did not have at their disposal the precise visual obstacle formulas, or the arguments to demolish any RE "image".

Material of which you produced none.

People do produce pictures of the earth with curvature, like myself. All it takes is a balloon, knowledge of electronics and optics, and some coding skills.

In before claims of CGI/lens aberration.