Is Our Earth FLAT and Motionless, Not a Spinning Globe?

[gsjackson]

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?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Gx1vD1CRE[/youtube]

Spatial relations have never been my thing, and I understand neither the globalists' argument nor this guy's counter to it. But it seems obvious (in the real world) that when something is moving away from you eventually you won't be able to see it.

One thing the sun's trajectory and time lapsed in one revolution around a flat earth seems to refute is the speculation that there may be vast unexplored lands out beyond the antarctic rim. Unless they exist without benefit of the sun.

[Winston]

To droid or anyone else who has answers to these:

Can you answer the following questions?

1. If the moon is a sphere then how does the whole surface facing us get lit up evenly on the whole surface? A sphere cannot reflect light evenly all over its surface right? Especially when theres only one light source like the sun.

2. Where does the moon get its light from? The suns light is yellow and warm. The moon light is white and cold. So the moon cannot be reflecting sunlight right?

3. How come when rockets go up into space they never go directly straight up? They always fly sideways around the earth and then allegedly go into space from there. Why not straight up? Isnt that suspicious? It means that maybe the rockets arent going into space at all right? It leaves open the possibility that they are a hoax right?

4. You said the vacuum of space can be adjacent to the non-vacuum of earth without a barrier seal. Why? When you open a coke can, doesnt the vacuum inside normalize with the pressure outside? Why doesnt the vacuum of space suck up earths atmosphere and take it away?

5. If there are 20,000 satellites orbiting the earth, why cant you ever see even one that moves across the moon? If people can see them moving across the moon then how come no one has a video of it?

6. Why cant anyone see the apollo artifacts on the moon with a telescope? Why cant the hubble telescope be pointed at the moon to find them?

7. If NASA can land probes and moving robot devices on Mars and take pictures of the surface of mars, then why doesnt it do the same with the moon and land probes or rovers on the moon so it can take real photos of the moons surface? And especially show the big earth from the moon, not a small earth like in the apollo photos.

Thanks.

[gsjackson]

To droid or anyone else who has answers to these:

Can you answer the following questions?

1. If the moon is a sphere then how does the whole surface facing us get lit up evenly on the whole surface? A sphere cannot reflect light evenly all over its surface right? Especially when theres only one light source like the sun.

2. Where does the moon get its light from? The suns light is yellow and warm. The moon light is white and cold. So the moon cannot be reflecting sunlight right?

3. How come when rockets go up into space they never go directly straight up? They always fly sideways around the earth and then allegedly go into space from there. Why not straight up? Isnt that suspicious? It means that maybe the rockets arent going into space at all right? It leaves open the possibility that they are a hoax right?

4. You said the vacuum of space can be adjacent to the non-vacuum of earth without a barrier seal. Why? When you open a coke can, doesnt the vacuum inside normalize with the pressure outside? Why doesnt the vacuum of space suck up earths atmosphere and take it away?

5. If there are 20,000 satellites orbiting the earth, why cant you ever see even one that moves across the moon? If people can see them moving across the moon then how come no one has a video of it?

6. Why cant anyone see the apollo artifacts on the moon with a telescope? Why cant the hubble telescope be pointed at the moon to find them?

7. If NASA can land probes and moving robot devices on Mars and take pictures of the surface of mars, then why doesnt it do the same with the moon and land probes or rovers on the moon so it can take real photos of the moons surface? And especially show the big earth from the moon, not a small earth like in the apollo photos.

Thanks.

Let me add a couple: Why don't airplanes and submarines have to account for the earth's curvature? A gyroscope shows that planes travel more or less straight ahead. We know that pilots don't adjust the plane downward constantly, so presumably globalists would respond that gravity is pulling the plane along with the atmosphere. So why wouldn't a gyroscope show this continual downward tilt caused by gravity? And the obvious question about plane flight: If the earth is spinning eastward at, say 500 mph in the upper northern hemisphere, and a plane is flying eastward at the same speed, how does the plane ever get to its destination?

Submarines maintain a precise measurement of their depth to a tenth of an inch. How come the measurements don't vary with earth's curvature as the sub goes straight ahead?

[Adama]

A Dutch TV show

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQRvfH7pwSc[/youtube]

[gsjackson]

A Dutch TV show

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQRvfH7pwSc[/youtube]

Interesting. The American media would build an impenetrable fortress around NASA and all other substantial financial interests, such that guys like this would never get mainstream public exposure.

[Winston]

Let me add a couple: Why don't airplanes and submarines have to account for the earth's curvature? A gyroscope shows that planes travel more or less straight ahead. We know that pilots don't adjust the plane downward constantly, so presumably globalists would respond that gravity is pulling the plane along with the atmosphere. So why wouldn't a gyroscope show this continual downward tilt caused by gravity? And the obvious question about plane flight: If the earth is spinning eastward at, say 500 mph in the upper northern hemisphere, and a plane is flying eastward at the same speed, how does the plane ever get to its destination?

Submarines maintain a precise measurement of their depth to a tenth of an inch. How come the measurements don't vary with earth's curvature as the sub goes straight ahead?

Well some of those can be explained away. Maybe pilots dont have to dip down over the curve of the earth because its so slight that they dont notice it. All they have to do is maintain a certain altitude. Maybe they use automatic controls to stay level?

As to the plane moving east and west, the official explanation is that the atmosphere moves with the earth. This is plausible in theory, because for example if you were in a train, the speed of the train would not affect movement inside the train. For instance if we were inside a moving train, we could throw a ball back and forth between us and see that the movement of the train will not affect the speed of the ball we are playing with. So that can be explained that way.

However there are unanswered questions on both sides that dont make sense. We could ask a lot of critical questions that flat earthers could not answer either. It goes both ways. Thats why this debate is so interesting.

[gsjackson]

Let me add a couple: Why don't airplanes and submarines have to account for the earth's curvature? A gyroscope shows that planes travel more or less straight ahead. We know that pilots don't adjust the plane downward constantly, so presumably globalists would respond that gravity is pulling the plane along with the atmosphere. So why wouldn't a gyroscope show this continual downward tilt caused by gravity? And the obvious question about plane flight: If the earth is spinning eastward at, say 500 mph in the upper northern hemisphere, and a plane is flying eastward at the same speed, how does the plane ever get to its destination?

Submarines maintain a precise measurement of their depth to a tenth of an inch. How come the measurements don't vary with earth's curvature as the sub goes straight ahead?

Well some of those can be explained away. Maybe pilots dont have to dip down over the curve of the earth because its so slight that they dont notice it. All they have to do is maintain a certain altitude. Maybe they use automatic controls to stay level?

As to the plane moving east and west, the official explanation is that the atmosphere moves with the earth. This is plausible in theory, because for example if you were in a train, the speed of the train would not affect movement inside the train. For instance if we were inside a moving train, we could throw a ball back and forth between us and see that the movement of the train will not affect the speed of the ball we are playing with. So that can be explained that way.

However there are unanswered questions on both sides that dont make sense. We could ask a lot of critical questions that flat earthers could not answer either. It goes both ways. Thats why this debate is so interesting.

So you're saying planes reach a certain altitude and the atmosphere just holds them at that distance from the earth? Otherwise, of course, they would just fly off into space without constant downward adjustment.

And you're saying that the plane going eastward is really flying 1,000 miles an hour -- the earth's rotation plus the plane's speed? Can planes structurally withstand such speed? So what about the plane traveling westward? In theory it could just ascend into the air, like a helicopter, and wait for its destination to arrive. Yet journeys east and west take the same amount of time, adjusting for tailwinds.

And why do planes landing never have to take account of the earth's speed? Wouldn't that runway be running away from or toward them?

These standard answers don't pass the smell test.

[Adama]

Everything becomes a moving variable. Yet with our eyes, year after year, they don't recognize that the star constellations are the same. The earth cannot be moving 60,000 mph and still have all the stars stay in the same constellations, because those stars in those constellations are also supposed to be moving at great speeds in their own individual directions. Yet for thousands of years, the stars are the same. If a person can't understand such things, they are blinded.

That's right that also the runways would be constantly moving away from the plane in some direction. It would make take offs and landings nearly impossible considering calculations and adjustments which would need to be made just to land in the right place. The landing strips aren't moving targets, but they would be under current model.

And the cost of fuel to oppose the rotation of the earth would make flying prohibitive. They have to maintain flight at a low speed just to keep the cost of fuel down.

[droid]

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
...

You're so f*king dishonest lol.

From your own very source [yet again]:

https://www.higherpeak.com/altitudechart.html
"Use the tables below to see how the effective amount of oxygen in the air varies at different altitudes. Although air contains 20.9% oxygen at all altitudes, lower air pressure at high altitude makes it feel like there is a lower percentage of oxygen. The chart assumes a constant atmospheric temperature of 32 degrees Fahrenheit (0 Celsius), and normal 1 atmosphere pressure at sea level. See also: Altitude Training Schedule."


There is less nitrogen as you go up, same ratio of oxygen to nitrogen, keep trying.

http://www.vmeverest09.com/oxygen-at-altitude/
"Contrary to popular belief, the percentage of oxygen in the air doesn’t change significantly with altitude up to about 85km from the earth! At sea level, oxygen comprises approximately 23% the air by weight and on the summit of Mount Everest it still comprises 23% of the air. So what happens? Why do you feel out of breath when you are up high and why do almost all climbers need oxygen to climb Mount Everest?

The further away from sea level you are, the pressure of the entire atmosphere decreases so in effect, there is less air to breathe. Less air means less oxygen. So it’s true that there is less oxygen the higher up you go, but there is also less nitrogen, argon and other gasses that make up the air we breathe. Nothing changes to the proportions of the gasses in the air, however one breath will deliver less oxygen to your bloodstream, hence you will feel out of breath."

Are you going to come clean some day? Those coals extra hot for you, as I've told you

Do you believe there's an Ozone layer, Adama? how can there be a higher concentration of O3 at that altitude if it's heavier?
Or is that a hoax too?
Are birds a hoax?

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.

To simplify things for the scientists, the air at altitude is simply less dense, because the molecules, such as O2, being of higher density, are much closer to the ground, where they should be. This is why O2 needs to be brought with you if you go above a certain altitude. There is simply less dense molecules up there. The density of the molecules keeps them near the ground where they should be, not gravity. And this is an enclosed system. No air can escape. And because the molecules of higher density are very dense, they stay near the bottom. Not so crazy.

and then later...

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.

Keep up the good

[droid]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCfsLrLPVqs[/youtube]

[droid]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTBaOmJEQg0[/youtube]

[Winston]

My venetian friend Alex explained to me why the Earth cannot be flat. See his comments and video below.

[9/21, 11:15 PM] Alex From Venice: I'm sure I've already sent you the link to this video one year ago and you didn't watch it because you don't give a f**k of what I tell you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexZbunD7Jg

[9/21, 11:17 PM] Alex From Venice: that video it's exactly the perfect simulation of what I keep telling you about the sun in the sky on flat earth theory model that doesn't match everyone everyday common observation
[9/21, 11:20 PM] Alex From Venice: Having used 3D modeling and animation software for years I can tell you that the above 3D flat earth simulation it's perfectly correct (the sun spot light can have a more sharp borders thought but that isn't related to what it's seen on the sky from ground)
[9/21, 11:26 PM] Alex From Venice: I could make the same simulation myself using software like Lightwave 3D, SketchUp, Blender but it's long time I don't use such programs and I'm rusty and it would take maybe ten to twenty hours of work just to make a basic simulation that, on its fundamentals, would be looking the same as the already available video I've given you the link above (once again)

[Adama]

Droid doesn't understand that air is harder to breathe at elevation, yet he considers himself to be wise. There's no reason to talk to anyone who doesn't understand the basics.

Droid, this is not a debate. You should simply exit this discussion or make your own anti Flat Earth thread.

[Winston]

So you're saying planes reach a certain altitude and the atmosphere just holds them at that distance from the earth? Otherwise, of course, they would just fly off into space without constant downward adjustment.

And you're saying that the plane going eastward is really flying 1,000 miles an hour -- the earth's rotation plus the plane's speed? Can planes structurally withstand such speed? So what about the plane traveling westward? In theory it could just ascend into the air, like a helicopter, and wait for its destination to arrive. Yet journeys east and west take the same amount of time, adjusting for tailwinds.

And why do planes landing never have to take account of the earth's speed? Wouldn't that runway be running away from or toward them?

These standard answers don't pass the smell test.

No the plane is kept at its altitude because of flight. Horizontal movement keeps it going. Its just aerodynamics. They say you cant see curvature until you reach 40,000 ft. If so then you wouldnt notice curvature while flying. All you would do is maintain a certain altitude and youd never notice the curvature because its so slight.

I already explained earlier, if the atmosphere moves with the earths rotation then the plane would move with it both ways and you wouldnt notice. Like if you are inside a train or bus, and you throw a ball while its moving, the ball will be the same speed both ways, and the movement of the vehicle will not be added to it. Kind of like that. You can try it. Its a simple experiment. You can do this in a moving car too. So it does add up. You gotta come up with a better argument.

You can also try this. In a moving train or subway, try walking up the aisle and back down the aisle at the same pace. You will notice that your speed does not increase or decrease in either direction from the movement of the train. Haven't you experienced this? Anyone who has been on a train or subway should remember this.

[gsjackson]

So you're saying planes reach a certain altitude and the atmosphere just holds them at that distance from the earth? Otherwise, of course, they would just fly off into space without constant downward adjustment.

And you're saying that the plane going eastward is really flying 1,000 miles an hour -- the earth's rotation plus the plane's speed? Can planes structurally withstand such speed? So what about the plane traveling westward? In theory it could just ascend into the air, like a helicopter, and wait for its destination to arrive. Yet journeys east and west take the same amount of time, adjusting for tailwinds.

And why do planes landing never have to take account of the earth's speed? Wouldn't that runway be running away from or toward them?

These standard answers don't pass the smell test.

No the plane is kept at its altitude because of flight. Horizontal movement keeps it going. Its just aerodynamics. They say you cant see curvature until you reach 40,000 ft. If so then you wouldnt notice curvature while flying. All you would do is maintain a certain altitude and youd never notice the curvature because its so slight.

I already explained earlier, if the atmosphere moves with the earths rotation then the plane would move with it both ways and you wouldnt notice. Like if you are inside a train or bus, and you throw a ball while its moving, the ball will be the same speed both ways, and the movement of the vehicle will not be added to it. Kind of like that. You can try it. Its a simple experiment. You can do this in a moving car too. So it does add up. You gotta come up with a better argument.

You can also try this. In a moving train or subway, try walking up the aisle and back down the aisle at the same pace. You will notice that your speed does not increase or decrease in either direction from the movement of the train. Haven't you experienced this? Anyone who has been on a train or subway should remember this.

OK, then explain why flight times are roughly the same going with and against the earth's rotation. And why runways aren't a moving target.

And how much territory do you need to be able to see to notice curvature? From an overlook in the Sierras I looked out on an expanse of 120+ miles -- from Mount Lassen to Mount Shasta -- and didn't notice any.

And really -- back to the smell test. The argument is that these planes are being blown several hundred miles an hour by the "atmosphere," or against such a force -- generated by something in the earth -- in addition to the speed the planes generate? This obviously defies common sense. As does everything about the ball earth.