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

[Adama]

You assume that by the time they allow civilian tourism on a rocket ship it won't just be an elaborate VR simulation.

Yes, just another deception. Why not? War is peace. Ignorance is freedom, and all that.

[Ghost]

.

[Ghost]

.

[Moretorque]

You assume that by the time they allow civilian tourism on a rocket ship it won't just be an elaborate VR simulation.

Yes, just another deception. Why not? War is peace. Ignorance is freedom, and all that.

People like him give Christianity a bad name or good depending on how you look at it possibly from a simpletons point of view..

Simply put Adama should have lived thousands of years ago!

[Adama]

You assume that by the time they allow civilian tourism on a rocket ship it won't just be an elaborate VR simulation.

Yes, just another deception. Why not? War is peace. Ignorance is freedom, and all that.

People like him give Christianity a bad name or good depending on how you look at it possibly from a simpletons point of view..

Simply put Adama should have lived thousands of years ago!

Machiavelli was right. Most people lack the depth of penetration and are just surface level thinkers. They see the surface and that's what they judge by, and they seek to go no further. That's fine, but that is why they assume so much about others.

[Moretorque]

You assume that by the time they allow civilian tourism on a rocket ship it won't just be an elaborate VR simulation.

Yes, just another deception. Why not? War is peace. Ignorance is freedom, and all that.

People like him give Christianity a bad name or good depending on how you look at it possibly from a simpletons point of view..

Simply put Adama should have lived thousands of years ago!

Machiavelli was right. Most people lack the depth of penetration and are just surface level thinkers. They see the surface and that's what they judge by, and they seek to go no further. That's fine, but that is why they assume so much about others.

No Adama, your full of $hit as Ghost stated. Just like the christers have been for thousands of years. Fortunately some other individuals have had a higher level of thought so we could try and move out of the stone ages but others will take us right back, does that ring a bell at all.....?

[Adama]

You assume that by the time they allow civilian tourism on a rocket ship it won't just be an elaborate VR simulation.

Yes, just another deception. Why not? War is peace. Ignorance is freedom, and all that.

People like him give Christianity a bad name or good depending on how you look at it possibly from a simpletons point of view..

Simply put Adama should have lived thousands of years ago!

Machiavelli was right. Most people lack the depth of penetration and are just surface level thinkers. They see the surface and that's what they judge by, and they seek to go no further. That's fine, but that is why they assume so much about others.

No Adama, your full of $hit as Ghost stated. Just like the christers have been for thousands of years. Fortunately some other individuals have had a higher level of thought so we could try and move out of the stone ages but others will take us right back, does that ring a bell at all.....?

Well fine. Hey, believe what you want. That's what people do. They believe what they want to. Am I stopping you?? I only presented an alternate idea. You are not obligated to accept it. Don't you get that?

[Winston]

El_caudillo told me something interesting that may lay this whole issue to rest. He said that only Americans can fall for the flat earth theory whereas New Zealanders cannot. Because NZers travel a lot and have flown from New Zealand to the bottom of South America.

The thing is, on a flat earth model, NZ and South America are at opposite ends of the flat disc shaped earth model. So it would take a lot of time to fly between them. El_caudillo has flown from NZ to the lower part of South America before and it only took 14 hours he said, without any refueling stop. So he knows this first hand.

Now the thing is, when you fly from West coast America to East Asia, it also takes about 14 hours, plus or minus a few. That would be impossible on a flat earth model because America to Asia would be on a route arced along the INNER circle of the flat earth disc, while NZ to South America would be along the OUTER rim of the flat earth disc, thus traversing a much greater distance.

If you look at the flat earth map, you will see this. Even if you try to cut across the middle of the flat earth map, it would still take a lot longer than 14 hours to fly from NZ to South America on such a map.

Thus a flat earth model is technically impossible on this point alone, he says. That's why flat earth theory cannot fool New Zealanders, he says.

[Winston]

El_caudillo showed me some interesting new images of earth from a Russian satellite.

https://www.google.co.nz/amp/gizmodo.co ... id-samsung

It includes a new time lapse video of earth too.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6twFHqJ03_k[/youtube]

Interesting. Note that:

1. The Russian image of earth is a lot more colorful.
2. The time lapse video shows no rotation or earth whatsoever.
3. The Russian image shows earth having a slight oblate pear shape, in accordance with NASA's new announcement that earth is pear shaped, not a sphere. But in contrast, all of NASA's images of earth, including the 1972 photo, show a PERFECT SPHERE.

I was also gonna ask anyway, since NASA is a proven pathological liar and murderer - and I've given many examples - why do you give them any credibility? All the globe earthers dodge this question and wont touch it. Not even droid or ghost will touch that question.

[OutWest]

El_caudillo showed me some interesting new images of earth from a Russian satellite.

https://www.google.co.nz/amp/gizmodo.co ... id-samsung

It includes a new time lapse video of earth too.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6twFHqJ03_k[/youtube]

Interesting. Note that:

1. The Russian image of earth is a lot more colorful.
2. The time lapse video shows no rotation or earth whatsoever.
3. The Russian image shows earth having a slight oblate pear shape, in accordance with NASA's new announcement that earth is pear shaped, not a sphere. But in contrast, all of NASA's images of earth, including the 1972 photo, show a PERFECT SPHERE.

I was also gonna ask anyway, since NASA is a proven pathological liar and murderer - and I've given many examples - why do you give them any credibility? All the globe earthers dodge this question and wont touch it. Not even droid or ghost will touch that question.

Winston,

Have you ever heard of a geosynchronous orbit? Most satellites by far function this way. No, you will not see a rotating earth with this. This allows a fixed footprint when desired for stationary observation or to have a fixed zone for communications purposes

A photo of earth taken from an inclined orbit will look considerably different than from a satellite aligned wirh the equator. The "pear shaped earth" is not even sonething that is easily observable. It does not mean the earth is shaped like a bartlet pear.

We do not depend on NASA for confirmation of a global earth. Thousands of navigational calculations per day are based on the known proportions of the globe.There are actual extreme yacht races around Antarctica. Believe in a flat earth all you want, but next time you get on a jet, be thankfull the instrumention and navigational plan is oriented to the globe of the earth.

[Winston]

Outwest,
Sure thats the excuse. But how can a satellite orbit be so perfect as to show no movement at all? Anyone can say it is. But it doesn't make it true.

Furthermore wheres your proof that earth is rotating at all? Even albert einstein admitted it was impossible to prove the Earth's motion. And the michelson morley experiment showed a stationless earth based on ironclad physics. Lasers show this too. I posted tons of info about this before.

Also you didn't explain why the 1972 apollo photo of the whole earth, the one you see in textbooks, showed a perfect sphere?

And why do all earth photos show different sized continents? Including mythical continent sizes that are debunked?

Go look at mountains 30 miles in the distance and tell me if you can make out detail and color very well. If not then how can these photos of earth have so much detail from thousands of miles out in space?

Btw, fyi, ship navigators use a FLAT map to calculate their routes with trigonometry. They do not carry globes on their ships. Its been this way for hundreds of years. You can see it in movies too. Gotcha!

[El_Caudillo]

Go look at mountains 30 miles in the distance and tell me if you can make out detail and color very well. If not then how can these photos of earth have so much detail from thousands of miles out in space?

The point you make about a flat map and trigonometry is an interesting one Winston. I don't understand the point above though! What if I were to look at said mountain with a pair of binoculars?! Satélite video cameras have powerful lenses. Even if your don't believe in satellites or the Hubble telescope, surely you believe in telephoto lenses and the like?

As for Einstein...I think he said the earth was only in motion relative to other bodies, see below. I have to say it seems Outwest knows what he is taking about. You, Winston, I'm not so sure. That is not an attack on your intelligence, merely on your knowledge. For example I would believe and respect your opinion about the social scene in Russia, you know a lot more about it than me. However, as a good student of history and geography and a mediocre one at physics, I believe that holes in your knowledge and experience are leading you to believe this flat earth stuff.

From Einstein - about how motion is relative

THE BASAL principle, which was the pivot of all our previous considerations, was the special principle of relativity, i.e. the principle of the physical relativity of all uniform motion. Let us once more analyse its meaning carefully. 1
It was at all times clear that, from the point of view of the idea it conveys to us, every motion must only be considered as a relative motion. Returning to the illustration we have frequently used of the embankment and the railway carriage, we can express the fact of the motion here taking place in the following two forms, both of which are equally justifiable:
The carriage is in motion relative to the embankment.
The embankment is in motion relative to the carriage.
2
In (a) the embankment, in (b) the carriage, serves as the body of reference in our statement of the motion taking place. If it is simply a question of detecting or of describing the motion involved, it is in principle immaterial to what reference-body we refer the motion. As already mentioned, this is self-evident, but it must not be confused with the much more comprehensive statement called “the principle of relativity,” which we have taken as the basis of our investigations. 3
The principle we have made use of not only maintains that we may equally well choose the carriage or the embankment as our reference-body for the description of any event (for this, too, is self-evident). Our principle rather asserts what follows: If we formulate the general laws of nature as they are obtained from experience, by making use of
the embankment as reference-body,
the railway carriage as reference-body,
then these general laws of nature (e.g. the laws of mechanics or the law of the propagation of light in vacuo) have exactly the same form in both cases. This can also be expressed as follows: For the physical description of natural processes, neither of the reference-bodies K, K' is unique (lit. “specially marked out”) as compared with the other. Unlike the first, this latter statement need not of necessity hold a priori; it is not contained in the conceptions of “motion” and “referencebody” and derivable from them; only experience can decide as to its correctness or incorrectness. 4
Up to the present, however, we have by no means maintained the equivalence of all bodies of reference K in connection with the formulation of natural laws. Our course was more on the following lines. In the first place, we started out from the assumption that there exists a reference-body K, whose condition of motion is such that the Galileian law holds with respect to it: A particle left to itself and sufficiently far removed from all other particles moves uniformly in a straight line. With reference to K (Galileian reference-body) the laws of nature were to be as simple as possible. But in addition to K, all bodies of reference K' should be given preference in this sense, and they should be exactly equivalent to K for the formulation of natural laws, provided that they are in a state of uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion with respect to K; all these bodies of reference are to be regarded as Galileian reference-bodies. The validity of the principle of relativity was assumed only for these reference-bodies, but not for others (e.g. those possessing motion of a different kind). In this sense we speak of the special principle of relativity, or special theory of relativity. 5
In contrast to this we wish to understand by the “general principle of relativity” the following statement: All bodies of reference K, K', etc., are equivalent for the description of natural phenomena (formulation of the general laws of nature), whatever may be their state of motion. But before proceeding farther, it ought to be pointed out that this formulation must be replaced later by a more abstract one, for reasons which will become evident at a later stage. 6
Since the introduction of the special principle of relativity has been justified, every intellect which strives after generalisation must feel the temptation to venture the step towards the general principle of relativity. But a simple and apparently quite reliable consideration seems to suggest that, for the present at any rate, there is little hope of success in such an attempt. Let us imagine ourselves transferred to our old friend the railway carriage, which is travelling at a uniform rate. As long as it is moving uniformly, the occupant of the carriage is not sensible of its motion, and it is for this reason that he can un-reluctantly interpret the facts of the case as indicating that the carriage is at rest, but the embankment in motion. Moreover, according to the special principle of relativity, this interpretation is quite justified also from a physical point of view. 7
If the motion of the carriage is now changed into a non-uniform motion, as for instance by a powerful application of the brakes, then the occupant of the carriage experiences a correspondingly powerful jerk forwards. The retarded motion is manifested in the mechanical behaviour of bodies relative to the person in the railway carriage. The mechanical behaviour is different from that of the case previously considered, and for this reason it would appear to be impossible that the same mechanical laws hold relatively to the non-uniformly moving carriage, as hold with reference to the carriage when at rest or in uniform motion. At all events it is clear that the Galileian law does not hold with respect to the non-uniformly moving carriage. Because of this, we feel compelled at the present juncture to grant a kind of absolute physical reality to non-uniform motion, in opposition to the general principle of relativity. But in what follows we shall soon see that this conclusion cannot be maintained. 8

[OutWest]

Go look at mountains 30 miles in the distance and tell me if you can make out detail and color very well. If not then how can these photos of earth have so much detail from thousands of miles out in space?

The point you make about a flat map and trigonometry is an interesting one Winston. I don't understand the point above though! What if I were to look at said mountain with a pair of binoculars?! Satélite video cameras have powerful lenses. Even if your don't believe in satellites or the Hubble telescope, surely you believe in telephoto lenses and the like?

As for Einstein...I think he said the earth was only in motion relative to other bodies, see below. I have to say it seems Outwest knows what he is taking about. You, Winston, I'm not so sure. That is not an attack on your intelligence, merely on your knowledge. For example I would believe and respect your opinion about the social scene in Russia, you know a lot more about it than me. However, as a good student of history and geography and a mediocre one at physics, I believe that holes in your knowledge and experience are leading you to believe this flat earth stuff.

From Einstein - about how motion is relative

THE BASAL principle, which was the pivot of all our previous considerations, was the special principle of relativity, i.e. the principle of the physical relativity of all uniform motion. Let us once more analyse its meaning carefully. 1
It was at all times clear that, from the point of view of the idea it conveys to us, every motion must only be considered as a relative motion. Returning to the illustration we have frequently used of the embankment and the railway carriage, we can express the fact of the motion here taking place in the following two forms, both of which are equally justifiable:
The carriage is in motion relative to the embankment.
The embankment is in motion relative to the carriage.
2
In (a) the embankment, in (b) the carriage, serves as the body of reference in our statement of the motion taking place. If it is simply a question of detecting or of describing the motion involved, it is in principle immaterial to what reference-body we refer the motion. As already mentioned, this is self-evident, but it must not be confused with the much more comprehensive statement called “the principle of relativity,” which we have taken as the basis of our investigations. 3
The principle we have made use of not only maintains that we may equally well choose the carriage or the embankment as our reference-body for the description of any event (for this, too, is self-evident). Our principle rather asserts what follows: If we formulate the general laws of nature as they are obtained from experience, by making use of
the embankment as reference-body,
the railway carriage as reference-body,
then these general laws of nature (e.g. the laws of mechanics or the law of the propagation of light in vacuo) have exactly the same form in both cases. This can also be expressed as follows: For the physical description of natural processes, neither of the reference-bodies K, K' is unique (lit. “specially marked out”) as compared with the other. Unlike the first, this latter statement need not of necessity hold a priori; it is not contained in the conceptions of “motion” and “referencebody” and derivable from them; only experience can decide as to its correctness or incorrectness. 4
Up to the present, however, we have by no means maintained the equivalence of all bodies of reference K in connection with the formulation of natural laws. Our course was more on the following lines. In the first place, we started out from the assumption that there exists a reference-body K, whose condition of motion is such that the Galileian law holds with respect to it: A particle left to itself and sufficiently far removed from all other particles moves uniformly in a straight line. With reference to K (Galileian reference-body) the laws of nature were to be as simple as possible. But in addition to K, all bodies of reference K' should be given preference in this sense, and they should be exactly equivalent to K for the formulation of natural laws, provided that they are in a state of uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion with respect to K; all these bodies of reference are to be regarded as Galileian reference-bodies. The validity of the principle of relativity was assumed only for these reference-bodies, but not for others (e.g. those possessing motion of a different kind). In this sense we speak of the special principle of relativity, or special theory of relativity. 5
In contrast to this we wish to understand by the “general principle of relativity” the following statement: All bodies of reference K, K', etc., are equivalent for the description of natural phenomena (formulation of the general laws of nature), whatever may be their state of motion. But before proceeding farther, it ought to be pointed out that this formulation must be replaced later by a more abstract one, for reasons which will become evident at a later stage. 6
Since the introduction of the special principle of relativity has been justified, every intellect which strives after generalisation must feel the temptation to venture the step towards the general principle of relativity. But a simple and apparently quite reliable consideration seems to suggest that, for the present at any rate, there is little hope of success in such an attempt. Let us imagine ourselves transferred to our old friend the railway carriage, which is travelling at a uniform rate. As long as it is moving uniformly, the occupant of the carriage is not sensible of its motion, and it is for this reason that he can un-reluctantly interpret the facts of the case as indicating that the carriage is at rest, but the embankment in motion. Moreover, according to the special principle of relativity, this interpretation is quite justified also from a physical point of view. 7
If the motion of the carriage is now changed into a non-uniform motion, as for instance by a powerful application of the brakes, then the occupant of the carriage experiences a correspondingly powerful jerk forwards. The retarded motion is manifested in the mechanical behaviour of bodies relative to the person in the railway carriage. The mechanical behaviour is different from that of the case previously considered, and for this reason it would appear to be impossible that the same mechanical laws hold relatively to the non-uniformly moving carriage, as hold with reference to the carriage when at rest or in uniform motion. At all events it is clear that the Galileian law does not hold with respect to the non-uniformly moving carriage. Because of this, we feel compelled at the present juncture to grant a kind of absolute physical reality to non-uniform motion, in opposition to the general principle of relativity. But in what follows we shall soon see that this conclusion cannot be maintained. 8

As you pointed out, its not a productive discussion. I loved the "Gotcha" at the end...lol A certain level of knowledge is required in any subject to discuss it intelligently. The lack of distinction between flat maps and flat earth was especially telling. In general, science education in schools is pretty bad. and even basic reasoning skills are very poorly taught. Meanwhile, I think I should sell tickets to the adventure of a lifetime, like adventure tourism to the Great Ice Wall! The great 120,000 mile voyage! What I want to know is...on this giant spinning pizza dsic, who stole all the pepperoni?

[droid]

Go look at mountains 30 miles in the distance and tell me if you can make out detail and color very well. If not then how can these photos of earth have so much detail from thousands of miles out in space?

Obviously the atmosphere is only ten miles in thickness. It follows that actually seeing mountains 30 or 100 miles away horizontaly on earth won't be as clear as seeing them from space.

As for Einstein...I think he said the earth was only in motion relative to other bodies, see below. I have to say it seems Outwest knows what he is taking about. You, Winston, I'm not so sure. That is not an attack on your intelligence, merely on your knowledge. For example I would believe and respect your opinion about the social scene in Russia, you know a lot more about it than me. However, as a good student of history and geography and a mediocre one at physics, I believe that holes in your knowledge and experience are leading you to believe this flat earth stuff.

He's good at social issues but absolutely atrocious when it comes to physics and even the most basic geometry.
Now, thinking that a pear-shaped earth 'should' really look like a pear to the naked eye, i don't know.... I only take comfort in that he may be trolling for traffic.

I loved the "Gotcha" at the end...lol

[Moretorque]

Radar easily proves the earth is round but I just observed something today at this moment.

I AM VERTICAL straight down from D.C just a little over 800 miles south but it gets dark here in Fl at 6:30 vs 6 for Virginia. I was watching the inauguration of the Donald and it was dark at 6 there in D.C while it was clearly light here where I am in Fl on the same vertical line.

The tilt of the earth makes it get darker earlier up north in the winter compared to the equator which I am closer too....