The earth is a flat, non spinning realm, not a planet in an infinite universe
- Thread starter Bushy Bill
- Start date
- Status
I don't claim to be a scientist or anything close to it. I've read through the thread and have been amused for the most part and found a lot of points interesting. But is this claiming Jupiter Is fake? I've seen it through a telescope before and while it's not super high quality like the picture it's pretty much the gist of it. Astrophotography isn't hard to do with the proper camera and telescope. There are a lot of pictures of it and other planets taken by average schmoes like me, not just NASA.
"Jupiter" is real, it's just not a "planet". You can see all kinds of heavenly bodies through telescopes/cameras but the CGI bs that NASA puts out is just a fabrication to further the deception.
Any of you science fetishists have an answer for these two arguments against a globe earth?
The first one is an easy answer. Learn how density works. Dense (like your head) gases settle down low, while less dense sits on top. Same principle as to why a helium balloon rises. This is grade school level stuff you are failing to grasp here.
I'm not a "science fetishist", but I know the answer to all your FE failures in scientific reasoning.
1. Molecules in the atmosphere are in a constant motion, bumping in to each other and translating velocity/energy/temperature to one another. An individual molecule escapes the atmosphere when it reaches escape velocity without losing it by bumping it into another molecule. Until then it is held by gravity.
2. There is no up or down on the globe or in space. Gravity attracts all mass to the center of mass, which can always be thought of a single point and which is basically the very center of the globe.
1. Molecules in the atmosphere are in a constant motion, bumping in to each other and translating velocity/energy/temperature to one another. An individual molecule escapes the atmosphere when it reaches escape velocity without losing it by bumping it into another molecule. Until then it is held by gravity.
2. There is no up or down on the globe or in space. Gravity attracts all mass to the center of mass, which can always be thought of a single point and which is basically the very center of the globe.
1. This is a very reasonable answer and yet given enough time shouldn't everything, gases, clouds, that is suspended above the earth be pulled down and stacked as close to the surface of the earth as possible?
2. Exactly, so think about how the earth would look if it were an oblate spheroid with the equator being some 21 kilometers further from the center of mass than the poles. Now think of how ridiculously slanted the entirety of it's path from Minnesota would have to be in relation to the center of mass for it to flow towards a higher point in Louisiana than at is beginning in Minnesota.
Last edited:
No. Matter going close to escape velocity is going fast enough to stay suspended in air, yet be held within the high atmosphere because it can't escape it due to still being affected by Earth's gravity. Again, we are talking grade school level science here.
21 kilometers is around 10 miles. That distance is minuscule on such a large scale. The term oblate spheroid is used in the loosest of terms possible. That little bit of difference, there is going to be little effect to the flow of the river.
However, if flat Earth exists, and there is no such thing as gravity, how does water even flow at all?
Why are you still here? I thought you had gone full blown cowardly SJW and are trying to silence me through censorship. Disengage and go call a mod and check on the status of my permaban.
Well, as your track record has shown in this thread, that's what you get for thinking.
The sun constantly supplies energy to those molecules through heat and other forms of solar radiation which can keep them suspended indefinitely. If the earth was much farther from the sun, and receiving far less energy, the atmosphere would become a lot more dense.
There is no such thing as up or down. That is a human concept based on our inner ear. Anytime a force is pulling from our head to our feet, we think that we are right side up. Fighter pilots doing negative G maneuvers never experience the feeling that they are upside down. I have ridden in bywing planes at air shows that performed vertical loops. I never experienced a feeling of upside down at the top of the loop. Rivers always flow from higher elevations to lower elevations, even if the lower elevation is at the equator.
There is no such thing as up or down. That is a human concept based on our inner ear. Anytime a force is pulling from our head to our feet, we think that we are right side up. Fighter pilots doing negative G maneuvers never experience the feeling that they are upside down. I have ridden in bywing planes at air shows that performed vertical loops. I never experienced a feeling of upside down at the top of the loop. Rivers always flow from higher elevations to lower elevations, even if the lower elevation is at the equator.
In space they're all spinners.
This makes sense except for your last sentence. The equator is 21 KM further from the center of the earth than the poles. Now I understand that land masses vary in distance to the center of the earth and create a 'downhill' flow path, but the slant that would be required for the Mississippi to run 2300 miles to drain into the Gulf of Mexico is ridiculous when you consider it.
A very thought out and creative one trying to manipulate "facts" to make bullshit into "proof".
Let's see why:
In ericdubay's "200 proofs" list he claims that rivers such as the Nile, the Paraná, the Congo, the Paraguay, and the Mississippi "flow uphill". The rationale behind it seems to be that rivers which flow from north to south or south to north, and therefore towards the bulge at the equator, will potentially flow into mouths which are further from the center of the earth than their sources.
For example:
4) Rivers run down to sea-level finding the easiest course, North, South, East, West and all other intermediary directions over the Earth at the same time. If Earth were truly a spinning ball then many of these rivers would be impossibly flowing uphill, for example the Mississippi in its 3000 miles would have to ascend 11 miles before reaching the Gulf of Mexico.
As with most all of Dubay's (and B(r)ushy's) 'proofs', no explanation or evidence is offered, and it appears he is merely quoting from one of the Victorian 'first-wave' flat earth texts. In this case, rather than Rowbotham, he uses 'Terra Firma: The Earth not a Planet', a scripture-inspired book written in 1901 by David Wardlaw Scott.
Whoever heard of a river in any part of its course flowing uphill? Yet this it would require to do were the Earth a Globe. Rivers, like the Mississippi, which flow from the North southwards towards the Equator, would need, according to Modern Astronomic theory, to run upwards, as the Earth at the Equator is said to bulge out considerably more, or, in other words, is higher than at any other part. Thus the Mississippi, in its immense course of over 3,000 miles, would have to ascend 11 miles before it reached the Gulf of Mexico!
How he arrives at the figure of 11 miles he doesn't say, though he does reference an 'Imperial Gazetteer' article, so it's possible he took it from this. In any case, I think we can assume that he did a rough calculation that went something along the lines of:
1. Earth's radius is 13.5 miles larger at equator than at poles
2. Length of Mississippi @3000 miles is 48% of the distance from the north pole to the equator (6215 miles)
3. Radius to mouth - radius to source = approximately 48% of 13.5
4. Answer is that the mouth is 6.24 miles 'higher' than the source (after subtracting 1,475 feet for the elevation at source)
5. Write down 11 miles, cause reasons.
Now, in actual fact the Mississippi is 2,320 miles long, while its 'as the crow flies' distance between source and mouth is 1,288 miles, and the distance between the lines of latitude at its source and mouth 1,248 miles. Using the above technique, this would make the mouth 2.44 miles 'higher' (further from the centre of the earth) than its source.
That's just a rough figure, of course, but one I would have expected a Victorian flat earth 'scientist' to have arrived at. And using more modern methods, such as a geoid height calculator, I find a figure of 3.72 miles.
So there you go! The mouth of the Mississippi is not 11 miles higher than its source, it's a little under 4. Which is not an explanation of how this is possible, but another example of how Dubay (and B(r)ushy) repeats incorrect information without ever checking it, and yet presents it as fact.
The explanation is a little more straightforward than the labored 'background check' above:
The Mississippi River (or any river flowing toward the equator) actually flows uphill. The Earth is not a perfect sphere. There is an equatorial ring about 13.5 miles deep. In other words “sea level” is not constant. It is higher at the equator than it is at the poles.
In the case of the Mississippi the difference is 4.12 miles. The source of the Mississippi, Lake Itasca, is 1400 feet above sea level, and the mouth is, by definition, zero feet above sea level. So we think of all of that water flowing downhill 1400 feet. But it is actually flowing against the force of gravity, going four miles uphill. The force that keeps the water flowing is actually the centrifugal force of the earth’s rotation.
If we did measurements of the flow of the water, only the effect of gravity would be observable. But that’s only because we’re using “sea level” as our reference in the first place. And the difference in sea level is itself caused by that same centrifugal force. So its effect is cancelled out in the measurements that we make.
Counter-intuitively, the gravitational force is much smaller than the centrifugal force. This is demonstrated by the fact that the centrifugal force lifts not only the water, but also the entire crust of the Earth, more than 13 miles at the equator.
Why my calculation was 0.4 miles different to theirs, I'm not sure. But similar enough to debunk the "11 mile" claim. And whatever the figure, the explanation is still the same.
Last edited:
'Til the battle is won*
*Or this thread gets locked/OP gets banned. I'll take either, I'm not picky.
So, we're back to it only works on a spinning ball where centrifugal forces can help overcome the changes in elevation and the effects of "gravity". You still haven't proven that we are on a spinning ball though. ![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
PS, it sounds like I need to check out that Dubay guy more thoroughly, his name keeps popping up when I research this stuff and I watched/posted a few of his videos but I haven't looked through all 200 proofs yet.
PS, it sounds like I need to check out that Dubay guy more thoroughly, his name keeps popping up when I research this stuff and I watched/posted a few of his videos but I haven't looked through all 200 proofs yet.
Last edited:
![[cheers]](https://ct.yimg.com/mr/uploads/891/5628.gif "Cheers [cheers]")
So, let's just disregard that your claim is completely f***ing wrong and make a circular argument. If not on a spinning ball, water doesn't flow because water doesn't flow on flat surfaces. So, the next step would be for you to say, "But you idiot, it explains things just fine. Water flows from high elevation to lower with least resistance.". Ok, so what happens when that water runs out? Is there magic water that is being replenished by truly running uphill to get back to their source? I mean, since you believe in a space wizard, I am sure this explains it. The space wizard commands it, so water truly runs uphill so it can flow.
Meanwhile, in the real world, we can use these wonderful things called math and science to show how a river flow behaves as it does. I'll take data I can examine and see how it works over space wizard, that guy who did math wrong said so, and muh holee buhk.
Meanwhile, in the real world, we can use these wonderful things called math and science to show how a river flow behaves as it does. I'll take data I can examine and see how it works over space wizard, that guy who did math wrong said so, and muh holee buhk.
You haven't proven anything wrong, yet again. You're still working from the assumption of a sphericalish earth spinning on an axis hurdling through space, yet you have yet to provide any experimental or independently observable evidence to back up your assertions.
Are you lying about what I've claimed or have you forgot? Maybe you just don't understand the conversation (which would explain a lot actually).
This might be the dumbest thing you've posted in here.
In a thread where I have been asked a lot of dumb questions, this one is absolutely by far the dumbest.
Sometimes SJWs triple down.
It isn't a question you idiot. Respond to the issue or STFU.
Watch out folk the SJW has been triggered and is trying to assert his dominance, kinda like Cartman.
Unless you were home schooled, you should have learned about this in an elementary or middle school science class.
Because he has no idea about gravity, he doesn't know what a gravity turn is. Again, I have to ask him and wonder:
I think that it's hilarious that the SJW ask a stupid question and expects me to answer something that I've dealt with, oh I don't know a dozen times or more already, and then asks the mods to silence me. TEXTBOOK sjw material right there folks.
- Status
Latest posts
-
Brakefield for Ole Miss appears to be mentslly challenged.- Latest: the nail at the foul line
-
-
-
-
