1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why?

« on: November 13, 2016, 08:38:32 PM »

I didn't expect to get any real answers but what youse have said is even below my expectations!  I don't make my decisions based on the Internet, I make them based on common sense and intelligence.  You people are obviously happy to believe that you live on some kind of magic spinning ball, I just hope that one day you will wake up and open your eyes.  I really do.  It's so very sad to see people who are obviously intelligent and articulate believe something so ludicrous

2

Flat Earth Theory / Why?

« on: November 10, 2016, 10:12:02 PM »

Why does the 'shard' and every other landmark 'Eiffel tower', 'Empire State building' etc look perfectly vertical no matter how far away its viewed from?  Never leaning to the left or right. 

Why does water only have the ability to bend in the ocean?  Is it down to the 'no laws at sea scenario'?  Maybe the laws of physics don't apply at sea?  Maybe it's magic water when way out in the middle of the ocean?

Why don't airplanes have to constantly fly at downward angle to avoid flying out into 'space'?  That magic place we call space hahaha.  Sorry, it does make me chuckle. 

If I dug vertically down through the 'magic ball (lol)', and descended through it very very slowly, when would I start to turn upside down to join my southern 'hemisphere' cousin?

If the shortest route between 2 points is a straight line, why do 'space ships' turn horizontal?  Isn't that a waste of precious 'magic space fuel'?

Why can I see parts of London from the top of Alexandra palace (also standing perfectly perpendicular to my position, so obviously not to their position) that should be out of sight?  Or at least leaning even a minimal amount to one side?

Why does a ship that 'vanishes over curvature' become visible again through a telescope?

Why isn't the 'curvature of the earth' taken into account in surveying and architecture?

Why isn't the 'spin of the earth' felt?

Why isn't the 'trajectory of the earth through the so called universe' felt?

I feel so sorry for you people who believe what you're told on tv, I really do.  I pity you.  If you questioned things with an open mind and trusted your own god-given senses would you REALLY believe that?  I don't think so.  If (God forbid) you had an accident of some kind that left you with amnesia, and for 2 years you couldn't leave your hospital bed and had no recollection of life previous to your accident whatsoever.....  I wonder what you would believe if I told you my outlook of the world?  If I nursed you through the next 2 years.  Then you came out of hospital and everyone was telling you the world is round.  It's spinning.  I know you can't feel it but it really is.  It's also hurtling through the 'universe' at 60000 mph and people in Australia are the other way up.  Also, the oceans are curved.  Would you believe that, or would you tell them to get a grip and stop talking such nonsense?

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ISS nonsense

« on: September 02, 2016, 10:51:47 PM »

That's a video of a launch is it?  If I didn't know better I'd say that could have been filmed anywhere.  I'm not saying it is mind you, I don't know.  But the point is, nor do you.  It didn't look too violent, and I'm sure that someone somewhere has the time to aim a camera out the window.  I mean lets be fair, I'm pretty sure it's mainly computer controlled like an airliner.  I can't imagine there's much steering to be done between 40,000-godnoshowmany ft.  In fact, with the media such an enormous market, they would have a dedicated film crew.  They would have a tv channel dedicated to all things cosmic.  You know I'm right in what I'm saying.  I don't know if the earth is flat or if it's round.  I don't know if we go to the ISS or we don't.  I don't know if we ever went to the moon.  But I'm an educated and intelligent person, and over the last 2 or 3 years I've started to research the subjects... Objectively.  I don't just look for reasons to believe in one thing or another, I look at all arguments.  And I just say, FE takes some beating in my mind.  There's too many questions that challenge the basic mathematics of a spinning ball that no one can seem to answer logically.  So for me, I can't at the moment believe that we live on a spinning ball with the information that we can research.  It just seems that everywhere I turn, nothing is concrete enough.  For instance, NASA admit that their images of the blue marble are composite.  Why?  Why couldn't the Hubble telescope take a quick pic or video of the earth spinning?  Why does it have to be composite images thrown together?

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ISS nonsense

« on: September 02, 2016, 10:30:51 PM »

No mate that's not an on board video.  That doesn't show astronauts in a vessel leaving earth and docking at the ISS.  What you've posted could be created by my 9 year old in a matter of hours.  I'm talking about someone who's supposedly doing what very few humans have done and flown away from Earth.  Someone who should be extra excited and want to share and document their once in a lifetime experience with the rest of the world.  If I was sent to space I would make sure I had a plethora of cameras recording my journey, wouldn't you?  Sorry mate but NASA videos are not the answer here.  We need real recordings showing real people and their reactions.  The absolute awe that it must give to look down on the spinning globe in all its glory!  I for one, would not pass the opportunity up to film such a sight.  Come on mate, search harder.  YouTube must be full of them, considering the ISS is 'never unmanned'.  Surely one of them has snuck a cheeky video online?

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moving dots in the sky

« on: September 02, 2016, 10:14:15 PM »

I'll try and get a video tonight if it clears up.  You just have seen them, they look like stars but move in a steady and straight motion across the sky.  Not planes.  When I was RE I thought they were satellites.  Now my SKY APP says they're rocket parts which I don't believe.  I put them down to surveillance drones, I've tried getting them in a telescope but they're too fast at that magnification.  Have a look on a clear night.  Take 10-20mins to look at the sky and I'll be amazed if you don't see what I'm talking about.  I'll try and get a video on my phone but don't know if they'll be visible enough.  I will try tho because I've looked for a while now on here and just on google in general and can't see them mentioned here or mainstream.  Very strange

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ISS nonsense

« on: September 02, 2016, 10:10:20 PM »

You don't go into orbit by simply flying up


Is that a fact!?  Surely the quickest and most efficient way out of a magic ball is straight up???  Anyway, my question regarding video feeds was aimed at why they don't have on board cameras NOT a video from ground level of a 'rocket' docking at ISS.  That would be a bit difficult in terms of zoom etc.  Wouldn't it be brilliant to have for instance Tim Peake just simply pointing his iPhone out the window from take off to docking and put an end to idiots like me disputing everything.  It would be very easy to do and would answer a lot of questions that you ANDRUSZKOW can't seem to answer.  Please reply with a simple and logical explanation of why there is no recorded footage of a space ship leaving earths atmosphere.  That's all I need answering.  That question must be niggling your own mind now that you're thinking about it?  It's such an easy thing to do and it would completely debunk and close down this website and the entire FE thinking everywhere.  1 video!  Come on, you can't tell me you don't think they must have something to hide??  If you say you don't think it's a valid question then you're a liar mate

7

Flat Earth Theory / ISS nonsense

« on: September 01, 2016, 08:56:00 PM »

I'd just like to ask any round earthers the following. 

If the ISS is what they tell us, why would they not show a live video of Tim Peake from take off to docking.  Including what must be the marvellous image of his craft leaving earths atmosphere and entering space.  Why don't the rockets that launch satellites do the same.  Why is there not one single frame of footage of a flight from Earth to space?  Surely that could make its own tv channel?  Or am I being stupid?  Why can't it be done?  We see a rocket take off, fly horizontal (for some reason) and the next video is of a man floating around in what looks exactly like an airliner

8

Flat Earth Theory / Moving dots in the sky

« on: September 01, 2016, 08:49:43 PM »

Hi all, hope you're all well. 

Let me start by saying that I'm a convinced flat earther.  Nothing anyone can say will convince me that we live on some 'magic spinning ball' lol 

But I want to know flat earther's views on the moving dots in the sky.  Where I live in Essex I see them every night and have done so all my life.  My 'sky guide' app tells me they're rocket parts in orbit at around 12 metres in length.  Yeah right.  Anyone know what they really are?

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Aeroplanes

« on: January 15, 2016, 06:56:32 PM »

You are the right the chalk line would not move.  Only because I would not be in the air long enough to lose speed.  If I could hover I would appear to move towards the back of the train as I slowly and steadily lost the momentum built up from being propelled by the FLOOR of the train.  If what you say is correct, that the air around the earth is spinning with it, what do you propose is propelling the air?  It must be a very clever force, one that can move heavy dense matter such as concrete, iron and rock and at the same time, light gaseous material at exactly the same rate whilst applying the same uniform force?  Physics denies you my friend

If you knew anything about physics, you'd know this is completely wrong. Have you ever seen a fly in your car as you drive? Flies don't care if they're in a stationary room or in a car travelling at a constant 60 mph. They'll do the same thing in either case. Similarly, if you were in a train moving at a constant speed and hovered in the air over a chalk circle, you would stay over that chalk circle. The air in the train is moving along with the train (which is why, when the windows are closed, you shouldnt feel any wind), and you're stationary with respect to that air.

What's propelling the air is the Earth. It's dragging its atmosphere along with it. Really, the logical consequence of your line of reasoning is that there would be constant 1000-mph winds (at the equator; they would be less strong as you get farther away and it would be calm at the poles). And yes, if that were the case, maybe you'd be able to make a glider that can just ride the wind from one place to another. But if you don't live near the poles and you look outside and there's any trace of civilization, that means there aren't supersonic winds, and your plane idea won't work.

There are tons of other answers to this question online, if you look. Most of them are by people who know much more physics than you do. If you want to prove the Earth is flat, this isn't the way to do it.

I have no bias in this discussion, I've always said that I KNOW nothing.  I only base my opinions on what I perceive within my own environment.  I do not for one moment profess to have the answers.  And I have the dignity to admit that your "fly example" has got me a little stumped.  I can see your point of view with regards to the environment moving with the 'object'.  But I'm not sure the inside of a car and the earth can be compared.  But I will again admit that you've given me food for thought there.  I will think about it and get back to you my friend.  And when I say think I don't mean look for a way out of it, I will do what I always do and look at both sides with an open mind

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Aeroplanes

« on: January 15, 2016, 04:26:06 PM »

Its not a "rapidly falling earth" in the sence that earth is huge, but of course its a factor. 


Your almost thinking right, regarding the train. Do the experiment again, but this time you jump INSIDE the train. Now, you jump of the floor of the train, if you did that in the middle aisle the doors to the next traincart would hit you quite quick and hard, if things weren't relative. You could hoover for as long as you want inside the train, but you would still be in the same place inside the train (asuming the train is keeping a constant speed).

As a second example: The train is moving at 50mph, you start running along (from say the last cart to the locomotive, for a sense of direction) the train at 10mph, relative to anyone inside the train, you'd run past them at 10mph right? But anyone watching you from the outside would see you run past them at 60mph. 


Now to translate that to the airplanes, they are all inside the train. To leave the train and "jump outside/on the roof of the train" like you suggest in your example, you would have to leave the earth's atmosphere, aka go out in space. And simply, planes don't fly that high/far out, so they're all still inside the train.

Sorry but it would exactly the same inside the train.  This can be felt as the train moves off and comes to a stop.  If you time a jump right (I've actually done this when no ones looking obviously lol) just as the train starts to move, you land a foot or so behind where you started.  If you could hover, you are no longer being propelled by the floor of the train and you will constantly lose speed and end up being pulled along by the inside of the door of the last carriage.

Did you simply ignore my line were it says "(asuming the train is keeping a constant speed)" ?   This would be the proper way to compare it, as the earth is spinning at a constant speed.

If you want to add in acceleration or deceleration in the mix, when trying this I'm sure you felt that when the train is accelerating you get pushed back in your seat, and when its decelerating you lean forward in your seat. Its even more evident in a car that can accelerate and stop at a faster rate then most trains. When accelerating, the train is accelerating up to speed, but you also need to start accelerate, and the seat your sitting in is pushing you forward brining you (along witht the train) up to speed, say the 50mph we talked about before. Now once up to speed, you will no longer feel pushed back in you seat, I asume you've experienced this as well? If not on a train so in a car. Whenever the speed is kept constant you don't feel any force pulling you forward or pushing you back in the seat, try it out for yourself.

Now stand in the aisle of the train again, and make chalk outline around your feet. If you jump in the aisle in the train now during the acceleration, when it start moving forward. The chalk outline would move. As when you jump, the only thing pushing you forward is the air inside the cart, and its not dense enough to accelerate/push you forward at the same acceleration as the train itself. You woulld actually accelerate even if you just hoverd in the aisle thanks to the air, but the traincart would have to be extremly long to bring you up to the same speed as the train. This you said you've tried yourself so I asume it makes sense.

But now try the same thing when the train has come up to speed and is moving at a constant and steady speed. The chalk outline will not move, you will be at the same place.

By this you can then see that the chalk outline is only moving when the train is accelerating or decelerating, and as the earth is not doing that (earth's speed is constant) you can't just take off up in the air and wait for the earth below you to move. The air you are up in, is spinning at the very same rate, same as the air inside the traincart (WHEN THE TRAIN IS AT A CONSTANT SPEED).

You are the right the chalk line would not move.  Only because I would not be in the air long enough to lose speed.  If I could hover I would appear to move towards the back of the train as I slowly and steadily lost the momentum built up from being propelled by the FLOOR of the train.  If what you say is correct, that the air around the earth is spinning with it, what do you propose is propelling the air?  It must be a very clever force, one that can move heavy dense matter such as concrete, iron and rock and at the same time, light gaseous material at exactly the same rate whilst applying the same uniform force?  Physics denies you my friend

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Aeroplanes

« on: January 15, 2016, 12:57:10 PM »

The earth doesn't stop spinning though, so it doesn't make sense to use an analogy where there train stops moving. You're just displaying your own ignorance of basic physics now.

Exactly, you've proved my point!  The earth apparently doesn't stop spinning, so the plane should be able to hover and wait for the country to magically appear below it.  Thanks for agreeing. 

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Aeroplanes

« on: January 15, 2016, 08:11:30 AM »

....

Are you saying that a moderate breeze is more of a factor than curvature?  I can't believe that I'm afraid, curvature should have a constant affect on an airplanes journey.  At 500mph, the nose would have to be in a constant downward angle to keep up with the rapidly 'falling earth'. 

You speak of relativity.  I can imagine it like this.  If I'm standing atop a moving train travelling at 50mph, I too am travelling at 50mph.  If I was able to lift off from the roof of the train and hover, my speed would steadily decrease from 50mph from the moment my feet left the roof of the train.  If I hovered for several minutes, it's safe to say that when I returned to the ground the train would be long gone, but I can also say with some confidence that even if I stayed in hover for a year, I would still land in the same spot with regards to geography on the earth. 

Unfortunately, relativity does not work in this example, and I fail to see how a plane leaving a spinning runway is any different to me leaving a moving train

Its not a "rapidly falling earth" in the sence that earth is huge, but of course its a factor. 


Your almost thinking right, regarding the train. Do the experiment again, but this time you jump INSIDE the train. Now, you jump of the floor of the train, if you did that in the middle aisle the doors to the next traincart would hit you quite quick and hard, if things weren't relative. You could hoover for as long as you want inside the train, but you would still be in the same place inside the train (asuming the train is keeping a constant speed).

As a second example: The train is moving at 50mph, you start running along (from say the last cart to the locomotive, for a sense of direction) the train at 10mph, relative to anyone inside the train, you'd run past them at 10mph right? But anyone watching you from the outside would see you run past them at 60mph. 


Now to translate that to the airplanes, they are all inside the train. To leave the train and "jump outside/on the roof of the train" like you suggest in your example, you would have to leave the earth's atmosphere, aka go out in space. And simply, planes don't fly that high/far out, so they're all still inside the train.

Sorry but it would exactly the same inside the train.  This can be felt as the train moves off and comes to a stop.  If you time a jump right (I've actually done this when no ones looking obviously lol) just as the train starts to move, you land a foot or so behind where you started.  If you could hover, you are no longer being propelled by the floor of the train and you will constantly lose speed and end up being pulled along by the inside of the door of the last carriage. 

13

Flat Earth Theory / A question for all round earthers

« on: January 14, 2016, 10:49:09 PM »

I have a question for all round earthers who are so certain that I must be crazy.  If, for a minute, we could forget all about NASA and the school teachers we had indoctrinating us from the age of 5.  I mean forget about them for a minute, just try and block out that part of your minds.  Forget them and the media channels just while you're reading this.  Lets pretend that you've just woken up from a coma and have absolutely no idea where you are or what's happening.  You wake from a coma and are gradually nursed back to health by someone who happens to believe in flat earth.  So while you relearn most things about the world and life and what you do and do not have to do, the one thing you are taught differently is that the earth is flat and stationary.  Would you disbelieve it?  I reckon you wouldn't?  Would it be so hard to believe?  I don't think so.  Now imagine that after 10 or so years, someone tells you the earth is a ball!  Some people are walking around on the 'underside' of it, it's actually spinning at 1,000mph around it's own centre and hurtling through space at 60,000mph!  O, and that sun you see move above your head everyday is actually perfectly still and 93,000,000 miles away. 

Come on people, when you look at it like that, what one really sounds like the fairy tale?  Can you honestly put your hand on your heart, look yourself in the mirror and swear on a bible that the globe earth sounds more feasible?  Honestly?  And remember, you need to try and forget NASA and school books for this one.

When it comes down to it, all that anyone knows is what they are taught.  Unless we take 10 minutes to lie down and actually question what we're told.  I remember all my teachers taking an instant dislike to being questioned, and my sons teachers now seem to be the same.  I don't pretend to KNOW anything, but I know what I believe, I have a strong grasp on my perceptions and I trust my own senses over anything the ITV News can show me.

I know its hard to admit that you may have been fooled, but I think we have.  I was a round earther up to a few months ago.  I would have laughed at the suggestion of a flat earth.  But after looking at the arguments and 'evidence' from both sides, I can honestly say that I believe I was told one huge stinking lie about our world.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Aeroplanes

« on: January 14, 2016, 10:20:33 PM »

We all agree that the fabric of the earth at ground level is a different mass and density to the air surrounding it (where the plane is).  How can 2 objects of completely different mass (ground and air) move at the same speed when propelled by the same force?  It doesn't add up, it's impossible. 

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Aeroplanes

« on: January 14, 2016, 10:09:50 PM »

Short answer:

1. Yes, kind of.
2. Relativity
3. Relativity
4. Relativity

Long answer:

1. Planes constantly makes adjustments to the direction the plane is facing in order to maintain a constant altitude. A plane flying completely straight with no adjustments would indeed find itself climbing in altitude, but compared to the effect things like a moderate breeze might have on the altitude of the plane, the curvature of the Earth is simply not dramatic enough to have a significant impact on the altitude of the plane. It gets washed out by larger effects which require adjustments to maintain a constant altitude.

2. The plane sitting on the surface of the Earth has a certain inertia associated with it, due to the spinning of the planet. If you were for example to take a balloon up into the sky, you'd be moving at the same relative speed as the surface below you, so you can't just wait for your destination to slide underneath you.

3. Again, this is just another point about relativistic motion. If we were to take the center of the Earth as a reference frame, you would indeed be moving faster while traveling in one direction versus the other. The problem arises when you consider that the surface is also moving faster relative to the center, so that you have to be moving faster (relative to the center of the Earth) to "catch up" with the surface as it rotates.

4. Once again, relativity. You can land on a north facing runway because both you and the runway are moving at a relative speed of 1000 mph in the same direction (relative to the center of the Earth). As a result, it appears that the runway isn't moving at all. Imagine two boats side by side on the ocean, moving at the same speed to each other. It's not difficult at all for me to take a step perpendicular to their motion from one boat to another, because we're all moving at the same relative speed. The same case applies to the airplane.

Are you saying that a moderate breeze is more of a factor than curvature?  I can't believe that I'm afraid, curvature should have a constant affect on an airplanes journey.  At 500mph, the nose would have to be in a constant downward angle to keep up with the rapidly 'falling earth'. 

You speak of relativity.  I can imagine it like this.  If I'm standing atop a moving train travelling at 50mph, I too am travelling at 50mph.  If I was able to lift off from the roof of the train and hover, my speed would steadily decrease from 50mph from the moment my feet left the roof of the train.  If I hovered for several minutes, it's safe to say that when I returned to the ground the train would be long gone, but I can also say with some confidence that even if I stayed in hover for a year, I would still land in the same spot with regards to geography on the earth. 

Unfortunately, relativity does not work in this example, and I fail to see how a plane leaving a spinning runway is any different to me leaving a moving train

16

Flat Earth Community / Deleted videos

« on: January 14, 2016, 08:36:08 PM »

I could be paranoid, but has anyone noticed over the last couple of days that a lot of Pro FE videos have become unplayable on YouTube?  I've tried to watch several today and yesterday and get the frowning face with playback error below it!  Just seems strange to me as some of them I've watched before

17

Flat Earth Theory / Aeroplanes

« on: January 14, 2016, 11:57:57 AM »

Do planes have to continually dip their noses in order to prevent them flying straight out the side door into space?

Why can't they just go up and wait for the earth to move and come back down?  That would surely be more economical. 

Why don't the flight times change drastically between East-west flights and vice versa?

How can a plane land on a runway that could potentially be moving at 1000mph at 90 degree angles to the fuselage?

18

Flat Earth Community / Re: If the sun was 93,000,000 miles away lol!

« on: January 14, 2016, 07:53:25 AM »

If the sun was 93,000,000 miles from Earth, how is that at times - such as sunset - it appears sometimes 4-5 times larger than usual?  Are we 4-5 times closer at those times?  This is simple common sense that the sun is not as far away as we're told it is.  Use your eyes non believers.

Nice proof of a globe earth,  it's a refractive effect caused by the curvature of the earth's atmosphere.   On a flat earth the sun would get smaller as it approached the horizon.   

That's the cue for the bendy light brigade to ride to the rescue.

Use your eyes indeed.

No sorry, if the sun was that far away, so so far away, it would always look the same.  Our minuscule position across a vastness of 93,000,000 miles could never affect the visual appearance of the sun.  It's pure common sense.  However, on a flat earth, taking into account our perspective vision, it makes perfect sense that it appears larger at the horizon

19

Flat Earth Community / Re: If the sun was 93,000,000 miles away lol!

« on: January 13, 2016, 04:24:53 PM »

Same goes for the moon too

20

Flat Earth Community / If the sun was 93,000,000 miles away lol!

« on: January 13, 2016, 04:14:32 PM »

If the sun was 93,000,000 miles from Earth, how is that at times - such as sunset - it appears sometimes 4-5 times larger than usual?  Are we 4-5 times closer at those times?  This is simple common sense that the sun is not as far away as we're told it is.  Use your eyes non believers.