Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.



View Active Topics       View Your Posts       Latest 100 Topics       FAQ Topics       Switch to Mobile


The Earth is FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe!

Discuss conspiracies, mysteries and paranormal phenomena.

Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

Re: The Earth is FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe!

Postby droid » September 13th, 2017, 9:04 am

Adama wrote:
droid wrote:Do you dispute the measurements stating the proportion of oxygen is evenly 21%, including up to, and well above any mountain?
Do you have a source?


A simple google search disproved this in moments.

How much oxygen is at 10000 feet?
Altitude (feet) Altitude (meters) Effective Oxygen %
10000 feet 3048 meters 14.3%
11000 feet 3353 meters 13.7%
12000 feet 3658 meters 13.2%
13000 feet 3962 meters 12.7%

As oxygen is 21% of dry air, the inspired oxygen pressure is 0.21×(100−6.3)=19.6 kPa at sea level. Atmospheric pressure and inspired oxygen pressure fall roughly linearly with altitude to be 50% of the sea level value at 5500 m and only 30% of the sea level value at 8900 m (the height of the summit of Everest).

Don't you science advocates know science?


From your same un-cited source, let's see the complete, non cropped information:

Oxygen availability and altitude
Although the percentage of oxygen in inspired air is constant at different altitudes, the fall in atmospheric pressure at higher altitude decreases the partial pressure of inspired oxygen and hence the driving pressure for gas exchange in the lungs. An ocean of air is present up to 9-10 000 m, where the troposphere ends and the stratosphere begins. The weight of air above us is responsible for the atmospheric pressure, which is normally about 100 kPa at sea level. This atmospheric pressure is the sum of the partial pressures of the constituent gases, oxygen and nitrogen, and also the partial pressure of water vapour (6.3 kPa at 37°C). As oxygen is 21% of dry air, the inspired oxygen pressure is 0.21×(100−6.3)=19.6 kPa at sea level.

Atmospheric pressure and inspired oxygen pressure fall roughly linearly with altitude to be 50% of the sea level value at 5500 m and only 30% of the sea level value at 8900 m (the height of the summit of Everest). A fall in inspired oxygen pressure reduces the driving pressure for gas exchange in the lungs and in turn produces a cascade of effects right down to the level of the mitochondria, the final destination of the oxygen.


Let's read that again, even though the sum of partial pressures changes with altitude, 'the percentage of oxygen in inspired air is constant at different altitudes'. So oxygen still does make 21% at different altitudes, Nitrogen still makes up 78%, as has been measured. Why would you not include that part?

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-composition-d_212.html
The composition of air is unchanged until elevation of approximately 10.000 m

http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/people/loic/chemistry.html
The bulk of dry air is made up of nitrogen (78% by volume) and oxygen (21% by volume).
Most constituents are distributed fairly evenly up to the mesopause, with the exception of water vapor, which is mostly confined to the troposphere, and ozone which is concentrated in the stratosphere


So your claim of "denser molecules are in the lower atmosphere" does not hold any 'ground' so to speak.

How do you then explain then different pressures at different altitudes?

Let me help you here, a sensible flat earther would say that due to the "down" of "density" itself, molecules pile on top of each other trying to go "down", resulting in a higher pressure at the bottom. That would be a decent standing, but being sensible is not a particular trait of FE's. And of course it would throw the "no-space", and magic-vacuum thesis out the window, so no surprises there.
Last edited by droid on September 13th, 2017, 10:46 am, edited 2 times in total.
1)Too much of one thing defeats the purpose.
2)Everybody is full of it. What's your hypocrisy?
User avatar
droid
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 7:38 am

Re: The Earth is FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe!

Postby OutWest » September 13th, 2017, 9:52 am

Cornfed wrote:
OutWest wrote:Of course, in real life navigation, physical conditions, jetstreams, ocean currents and wind, as well as things like steering errors make a successful navigation a series of corrections. My little autopilot is not totally accurate and the reaction of my rudder to the movements of the autopilot controls will not be 100% accurate. How do I know my position? Not by looking on a map! Lol

I determine my position in terms if the parallel and meridians and with that, I can determine if I have been blown off course or perhaps I let my teenager take the helm while I ate lunch. With my new position information, I can once again calculate the correct course and bearing to get to my destination.

How then would you really distinguish between FE and RE when you can just put any navigation problems down to variables? BTW, do you use plane trigonometry of spherical trigonometry to navigate? Beyond adjusting for curvature, major discrepancies would only occur a fair bit south of the equator. It is claimed that before modern navigation tools, following the RE model did indeed cause such discrepancies. This is what is alleged to have caused the many shipwrecks in places such as the coast of Namibia, since the navigators were sure they had put the Cape of Good Hope behind them.


The navigational errors I speak of are not of a high degree. Its not "whatever" as you imply, and it certainly is a significant deviation with FE by even 45 degrees south.
It has only to do with the execution in the real conditions. The computation stays the same, just the course to get there will change if wind or currents blow you off course.
The latitude and longitude position remains exactly the same.
Navigation problems are not dismissed as "variables" lol. The coordinates of a specific location remain fixed and accurate. The problems I spoke of have to do with weather, winds, currents or lack of precision in steering.
The latitude and longitude of destination are not a matter of opinion. The math and science behind it is exact and constant.
And yes, plane trig will get you in trouble for purposes of navigation. For most purposes, spherical trig is used in navigation. FE maps begin to distort as soon as they leave the pole and of course continue to do so as one heads south.
Last edited by OutWest on September 13th, 2017, 7:30 pm, edited 3 times in total.
OutWest
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2231
Joined: March 19th, 2011, 8:09 am
Location: Asia/USA

Re: The Earth is FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe!

Postby Adama » September 13th, 2017, 3:40 pm

Droid, for a scientist-lover, your mind surely has trouble grasping these concepts. How can you be an advocate of science and have so little understanding of it?
User avatar
Adama
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 5480
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 10:37 pm

Re: The Earth is FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe!

Postby droid » September 14th, 2017, 11:27 am

:D No answers? should I look in the bible?
Let us see you bear false witness again with the Oxygen thing. It's just entertaining to see you pull improvised

Image

out of you hat.
1)Too much of one thing defeats the purpose.
2)Everybody is full of it. What's your hypocrisy?
User avatar
droid
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 7:38 am

Re: The Earth is FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe!

Postby droid » September 14th, 2017, 11:35 am

OutWest wrote:The navigational errors I speak of are not of a high degree. Its not "whatever" as you imply, and it certainly is a significant deviation with FE by even 45 degrees south.
It has only to do with the execution in the real conditions. The computation stays the same, just the course to get there will change if wind or currents blow you off course.
The latitude and longitude position remains exactly the same.
Navigation problems are not dismissed as "variables" lol. The coordinates of a specific location remain fixed and accurate. The problems I spoke of have to do with weather, winds, currents or lack of precision in steering.
The latitude and longitude of destination are not a matter of opinion. The math and science behind it is exact and constant.
And yes, plane trig will get you in trouble for purposes of navigation. For most purposes, spherical trig is used in navigation. FE maps begin to distort as soon as they leave the pole and of course continue to do so as one heads south.


Not to mention you would see a completely different star arrangement depending on which part of the southern "ring" you are trying to sail. Of course some constellations would not be visible just due to perspeeectiiivvvvee.
The whole thing is so delusional at so many levels lol.
Last edited by droid on September 14th, 2017, 11:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
1)Too much of one thing defeats the purpose.
2)Everybody is full of it. What's your hypocrisy?
User avatar
droid
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 7:38 am

Re: The Earth is FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe!

Postby droid » September 14th, 2017, 11:42 am

Now here's an interesting aspect, this claims that the flat earth thing is only a relatively recent development, and that people in the middle ages supposedly following a flat-earth model is just a myth. I haven't looked fully into it though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth


During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. From at least the 14th century, belief in a flat Earth among the educated was almost nonexistent, despite fanciful depictions in art, such as the exterior of Hieronymus Bosch's famous triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights, in which a disc-shaped Earth is shown floating inside a transparent sphere.[3]

According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat Earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[4] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".[5]

Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat-Earth error flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over biological evolution. Russell claims "with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the Earth was flat", and ascribes popularization of the flat-Earth myth to histories by John William Draper, Andrew Dickson White, and Washington Irving.


https://creation.com/flat-earth-myth

Why did people oppose Columbus?

The above demonstrate that Columbus (1451–1506) was never opposed by flat earthers, simply because there were none to oppose him, among either church or political leaders. So what was the real issue?

Columbus was trying to reach India by sea, the ‘long way’ around the earth. But to do that, his ships had to carry enough provisions for the length of the journey. He had learned that the 9th-century Persian astronomer Alfraganus had estimated each degree of latitude spanned “56⅔ miles”. But Columbus thought Alfraganus meant the Roman mile (1,480 m, 4,856 ft), whereas he was using the Arabic mile (1,830 m, 6,004 ft). Thus Columbus thought that the earth’s circumference was only about ¾ of its actual length of about 40,000 km (25,000 miles). Columbus also greatly underestimated the distance between Japan and the Canary Islands as 3,000 Italian miles (3,700 km or 2,300 miles), whereas the distance by sea is more like 19,600 km (12,200 miles).

It was thus the size of the earth, not the shape, that was under dispute. His critics argued that ships of his day (1492) could not carry enough fresh water and food for such a huge journey. And they were right! Columbus was just lucky that an enormous continent was in the way. He knew nothing of previous Viking discoveries centuries earlier. And he still thought he had landed in the East Indies, the then-current name for the Indian subcontinent. The results of his mistake persist today, in the common name for the Native Americans—‘Indians’, a translation of Columbus’ Spanish term ‘indios’.


The rise of the Flat Earth lie

The above are the facts about Columbus. The much-parroted flat-earth myth about him comes not from history but from the tales of Washington Irving (1783–1859), The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828). Irving was probably America’s first genuine best-selling writer, but he admitted that he was “apt to indulge in the imagination.” Flat-earth belief was certainly a figment of his imagination.
1)Too much of one thing defeats the purpose.
2)Everybody is full of it. What's your hypocrisy?
User avatar
droid
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 7:38 am

Re: The Earth is FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe!

Postby Adama » September 14th, 2017, 4:14 pm

There's no need to waste time explaining things to someone who doesn't seek understanding, and who doesn't want to see the truth, and who is probably incapable of reaching true knowledge. Things have been thoroughly explained, yet they either refuse to understand or are incapable of understanding it. I would feel sorry for them, if they had not actively chosen to reject knowledge.
User avatar
Adama
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 5480
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 10:37 pm

Re: The Earth is FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe!

Postby OutWest » September 14th, 2017, 6:49 pm

Adama wrote:There's no need to waste time explaining things to someone who doesn't seek understanding, and who doesn't want to see the truth, and who is probably incapable of reaching true knowledge. Things have been thoroughly explained, yet they either refuse to understand or are incapable of understanding it. I would feel sorry for them, if they had not actively chosen to reject knowledge.



You explain nothing. You are simply poorly educated and incapable of reasoning. When your elementary school level scientific reasoning fails, you resort to " You will burn in hell for rejecting my profound insights."
I am thinking you are just another American public education victim.
The next time you get on a plane, you should thank God that all the people making it happen don't believe all the FE nonsense.
OutWest
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2231
Joined: March 19th, 2011, 8:09 am
Location: Asia/USA

Re: The Earth is FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe!

Postby Adama » September 14th, 2017, 7:53 pm

OutWest wrote:
Adama wrote:There's no need to waste time explaining things to someone who doesn't seek understanding, and who doesn't want to see the truth, and who is probably incapable of reaching true knowledge. Things have been thoroughly explained, yet they either refuse to understand or are incapable of understanding it. I would feel sorry for them, if they had not actively chosen to reject knowledge.



You explain nothing. You are simply poorly educated and incapable of reasoning. When your elementary school level scientific reasoning fails, you resort to " You will burn in hell for rejecting my profound insights."
I am thinking you are just another American public education victim.
The next time you get on a plane, you should thank God that all the people making it happen don't believe all the FE nonsense.


Your mouth is filled with railings, and I find your speech to be very condescending. I personally don't care if you like what I have to say or not, and I don't care what you think of me. But I do see, you have forsaken courtesy and mercy. Now go away and leave me be. You don't even need to read or post in this thread. Just like the anti-God people don't need to read up on religious topics, so the anti truth people can stay away from conspiracy. But as for the content of your words, you've only demonstrated that your speech is hateful. That's why I hardly acknowledge anything which you say.
User avatar
Adama
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 5480
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 10:37 pm

Re: The Earth is FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe!

Postby Adama » September 14th, 2017, 7:58 pm

droid wrote::D No answers? should I look in the bible?
Let us see you bear false witness again with the Oxygen thing. It's just entertaining to see you pull improvised

Image

out of you hat.


You should just leave this thread alone. Why would you talk to a bunch of people who you consider to be fools? Wouldn't that be a waste of time and energy? It's not like fools are worthy of salvation or your time and consideration.

Why would you post on this thread? Just like, why would an atheist go to a Biblical thread? Because they are antagonists looking for trouble. They don't seek knowledge. They seek conflict, to insult and belittle, and to engage in debate, war and competition for sport. The truth and knowledge are rejected by these people, and they can't even consider the truth could be true.

The rest of us who want to discover facts about the Flat Earth should be allowed to converse publicly in peace, without railings, insults, misdirection and lies.
User avatar
Adama
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 5480
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 10:37 pm

Re: The Earth is FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe!

Postby OutWest » September 14th, 2017, 9:46 pm

Adama wrote:
OutWest wrote:
Adama wrote:There's no need to waste time explaining things to someone who doesn't seek understanding, and who doesn't want to see the truth, and who is probably incapable of reaching true knowledge. Things have been thoroughly explained, yet they either refuse to understand or are incapable of understanding it. I would feel sorry for them, if they had not actively chosen to reject knowledge.



You explain nothing. You are simply poorly educated and incapable of reasoning. When your elementary school level scientific reasoning fails, you resort to " You will burn in hell for rejecting my profound insights."
I am thinking you are just another American public education victim.
The next time you get on a plane, you should thank God that all the people making it happen don't believe all the FE nonsense.


Your mouth is filled with railings, and I find your speech to be very condescending. I personally don't care if you like what I have to say or not, and I don't care what you think of me. But I do see, you have forsaken courtesy and mercy. Now go away and leave me be. You don't even need to read or post in this thread. Just like the anti-God people don't need to read up on religious topics, so the anti truth people can stay away from conspiracy. But as for the content of your words, you've only demonstrated that your speech is hateful. That's why I hardly acknowledge anything which you say.


So you are looking for your own safe space on this forum? Sorry sherlock, if you dont like commentary, dont post on forums. Your points of view are not very defensible, so maybe you want to educate yourself a bit. You sound like an ANTIFA snowflake.
OutWest
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2231
Joined: March 19th, 2011, 8:09 am
Location: Asia/USA

Re: The Earth is FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe!

Postby Adama » September 14th, 2017, 9:53 pm

https://www.higherpeak.com/altitudechart.html

Again, some people simply believe lies and not their own eyes.

If a person hikes to the top of mount Everest, is there a chance he may need to take oxygen with him? Why is that, because the air is thinner the higher you go. No, the composition of air is obviously not constant.

See, some people know absolutely nothing. They can't believe their own eyes. That's how blinded they are.

Altitude (feet)
Altitude (meters)
Effective Oxygen %
Altitude Category
Example
0
0
20.9
Low
Boston, MA
1000
305
20.1
Low

2000
610
19.4
Low

3000
914
18.6
Medium

4000
1219
17.9
Medium

5000
1524
17.3
Medium
Boulder, CO
6000
1829
16.6
Medium
Mt. Washington, NH
7000
2134
16.0
Medium

8000
2438
15.4
High
Aspen, CO
9000
2743
14.8
High

10000
3048
14.3
High

11000
3353
13.7
High

12000
3658
13.2
High

13000
3962
12.7
Very High

14000
4267
12.3
Very High
Pikes Peak
15000
4572
11.8
Very High

16000
4877
11.4
Very High
Mont Blanc
17000
5182
11.0
Very High

18000
5486
10.5
Extreme

19000
5791
10.1
Extreme
Kilimanjaro
20000
6096
9.7
Extreme
Denali (McKinley)
21000
6401
9.4
Extreme
LIMIT OF THE MAG-20
22000
6706
9.0
Extreme

23000
7010
8.7
Extreme
Aconcagua
24000
7315
8.4
Extreme

25000
7620
8.1
Extreme

26000
7925
7.8
Ultra

27000
8230
7.5
Ultra

28000
8534
7.2
Ultra
K2
29000
8839
6.9
Ultra
Everest
User avatar
Adama
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 5480
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 10:37 pm

Re: The Earth is FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe!

Postby Adama » September 14th, 2017, 10:02 pm

droid wrote:
Adama wrote:
droid wrote:Do you dispute the measurements stating the proportion of oxygen is evenly 21%, including up to, and well above any mountain?
Do you have a source?


A simple google search disproved this in moments.

How much oxygen is at 10000 feet?
Altitude (feet) Altitude (meters) Effective Oxygen %
10000 feet 3048 meters 14.3%
11000 feet 3353 meters 13.7%
12000 feet 3658 meters 13.2%
13000 feet 3962 meters 12.7%

As oxygen is 21% of dry air, the inspired oxygen pressure is 0.21×(100−6.3)=19.6 kPa at sea level. Atmospheric pressure and inspired oxygen pressure fall roughly linearly with altitude to be 50% of the sea level value at 5500 m and only 30% of the sea level value at 8900 m (the height of the summit of Everest).

Don't you science advocates know science?


From your same un-cited source, let's see the complete, non cropped information:

Oxygen availability and altitude
Although the percentage of oxygen in inspired air is constant at different altitudes, the fall in atmospheric pressure at higher altitude decreases the partial pressure of inspired oxygen and hence the driving pressure for gas exchange in the lungs. An ocean of air is present up to 9-10 000 m, where the troposphere ends and the stratosphere begins. The weight of air above us is responsible for the atmospheric pressure, which is normally about 100 kPa at sea level. This atmospheric pressure is the sum of the partial pressures of the constituent gases, oxygen and nitrogen, and also the partial pressure of water vapour (6.3 kPa at 37°C). As oxygen is 21% of dry air, the inspired oxygen pressure is 0.21×(100−6.3)=19.6 kPa at sea level.

Atmospheric pressure and inspired oxygen pressure fall roughly linearly with altitude to be 50% of the sea level value at 5500 m and only 30% of the sea level value at 8900 m (the height of the summit of Everest). A fall in inspired oxygen pressure reduces the driving pressure for gas exchange in the lungs and in turn produces a cascade of effects right down to the level of the mitochondria, the final destination of the oxygen.


Let's read that again, even though the sum of partial pressures changes with altitude, 'the percentage of oxygen in inspired air is constant at different altitudes'. So oxygen still does make 21% at different altitudes, Nitrogen still makes up 78%, as has been measured. Why would you not include that part?

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-composition-d_212.html
The composition of air is unchanged until elevation of approximately 10.000 m

http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/people/loic/chemistry.html
The bulk of dry air is made up of nitrogen (78% by volume) and oxygen (21% by volume).
Most constituents are distributed fairly evenly up to the mesopause, with the exception of water vapor, which is mostly confined to the troposphere, and ozone which is concentrated in the stratosphere


So your claim of "denser molecules are in the lower atmosphere" does not hold any 'ground' so to speak.

How do you then explain then different pressures at different altitudes?

Let me help you here, a sensible flat earther would say that due to the "down" of "density" itself, molecules pile on top of each other trying to go "down", resulting in a higher pressure at the bottom. That would be a decent standing, but being sensible is not a particular trait of FE's. And of course it would throw the "no-space", and magic-vacuum thesis out the window, so no surprises there.


Obviously this is simply not true. Otherwise oxygen would not be required at higher altitudes. And if a simple fact like this eludes you, and if you're deceived so easily, then there's no way that a conversation on the internet can help you.

That's why I say, it is a waste of time. See, your inability to grasp the concepts doesn't mean they're wrong. The problem is in the mind of the one who can't understand simple, ordinary things, because his foundation is destroyed.


There are cardiovascular athletes who train at higher elevation so they can increase their bodies' abilities to work with lack of oxygen. Why is this so? Because the higher you go, the less oxygen there is. Anyone should know this.

From Google:
The city of Denver sits at 5,280 feet above sea level, literally a mile high. For many of Denver's residence, being a mile high pales in comparison when your neighboring giant is the towering Rocky Mountains. Being a mile high, however, can take the body some time to adjust to the thin air and shorter oxygen supply.



droid wrote:Let's read that again, even though the sum of partial pressures changes with altitude, 'the percentage of oxygen in inspired air is constant at different altitudes'. So oxygen still does make 21% at different altitudes, Nitrogen still makes up 78%, as has been measured. Why would you not include that part?


This just demonstrates your lack of understanding here. The whole issue is that the pressures decrease at elevation. Now you've acknowledged that the pressure decreases and that the there are fewer molecules at elevation, just by quoting that. But you don't even know it. There is lower pressure at higher elevation.

And the percentage of O2 molecules in the air compared to the other molecular compounds is irrelevant. It is the number of molecules present IN THE AIR, not the number relative to other molecules, for goodness sake. It is the amount of molecules that decreases, not the ratio of oxygen to nitrogen. The ratio is irrelevant altogether. Every kind of molecule decreases RELATIVE TO THE AIR, making air thinner as elevation increases.

How many molecules of O2 are in the air at sea level versus at elevation? There are fewer molecules of O2. That is not saying that the ratio of O2 to N2 changes. It is saying the amount of O2 AND N2 in the air is less than at sea level. The ratio of N2 and O2 to each other doesn't matter. It is the amount of o2 in the air.

These are simple facts. Everyone should know them.

Now since we know there is lower pressure at elevation, we know that if we transport a "space ship" to "outer space" that the vacuum negative pressure of the lack of molecules in space should be so great that it crushes the "space ship." Just like if a ship went to the depth of the oceans it would be crushed due to pressure.

We also therefore realize that the vacuum negative pressure resulting from the lack of molecules in "space" should overwhelm the earth's positive pressure, to remove earth's atmosphere. So would have to be a dome in place that prevents the vacuum of "space".

As for why molecules congregate at the bottom, because the force thought of as gravity is simply density. Naturally like everything, there is a gradient for the distribution of molecules.

It's really simple, if your mind functions properly and you believe the truth of reality rather than the fiction of astrophysics.
User avatar
Adama
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 5480
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 10:37 pm

Re: The Earth is FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe!

Postby Adama » September 15th, 2017, 4:39 pm

It's certainly ironic to me, that a person who doesn't realize that air is thinner at elevation than at sea level is going to mock me and scorn me for being stupid, and even insulting the Bible.

Someone who doesn't even know that air is thinner at elevation is going to rail against me for writing the truth for all to see. Now that is ironic.

Some people just want to turn every discussion into a debate so they can win, yet they don't know the most basic things.
User avatar
Adama
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 5480
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 10:37 pm

Re: The Earth is FLAT and Motionless, Not A Spinning Globe!

Postby Winston » September 18th, 2017, 12:38 am

This video explains why you cant see the sun at night on a flat earth model, due to perspective. What do you think? Does it make sense?

Check out my video series Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Also see my HA Grand Ebook and Join Our Dating Sites to support us!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 25028
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies, Mysteries, Paranormal

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron