^^^ The atmosphere is in layers, this is apparent looking at the bottoms of clouds. I described the process of separation of material into different density layers according to Coulomb's Law. You can't say that has no effect on pressure because density is directly proportional to pressure and indirectly proportional to temperature as per Gas Law.
Flat Earth is the default, the theory is that the surface of the flat Earth curves into a globe just beyond the limits of human vision. This claim that surface of the flat Earth curves is absolutely and completely debunked with modern optics like the Nikon P900.
Relativistic gravity was falsified in 1939, you've got absolutely nothing.
Topic: Flat Earth - page 13. (Read 1095196 times)
^^^ Since what you say has nothing to do with the fact that the atmosphere diminishes as we travel higher - you pointed to my post about this - but instead you are using it to distract from the point of atmospheric rarification, you have essentially defaulted to globe earth.
^^^ Relativistic gravity died in 1939 at the University of Paris. The chain of events set in motion by the 1887 M&M experiment ended in 1939 when Dufour and Prunier falsified Einstein's 1905 relativistic theory.
You've got no argument, you can't provide scientific proof for the existence of "outer space" and gravity has been debunked via experiment. A pressure gradient is not possible in a vacuum without a container!
Your argument is moot.
You've got no argument, you can't provide scientific proof for the existence of "outer space" and gravity has been debunked via experiment. A pressure gradient is not possible in a vacuum without a container!
Your argument is moot.
@Cryptotourist
Q: Can a pressure gradient exist next to a vacuum without a container?
(((A))):
"While gravity is most certainly a real thing, the answer to this question is not “because gravity is stronger”.
Vacuums never “suck” air. What they do is present an empty space and then air pressure forces the air into the vacuum."
If by gravity "they" mean Einstein's Relativity then I would say that it [relativistic gravity] has been falsified at the University of Paris in 1939 by Dufour and Prunier when they replicated Sagnac's experiment while taking into consideration a rotating frame of reference. If "they" mean Newtonian gravity then they're just shit out of luck.
When a theory is falsified by experiment then it's not real!
"The actual answer is that the vacuum of space does not exert any force on the atmosphere at all. It does not “suck” the air. We associate the word “suck” with “vacuums” but it’s a misnomer. That’s not what vacuums do."
Can "they" provide scientific proof "outer space" is real?
I definitely agree that a vacuum is not "pulling" on air, as higher pressure expands into an area of lower pressure; path of least resistance.
"Air pressure is not uniform throughout the atmosphere. The lower the altitude, the higher the air pressure; thus, as you move higher, the air pressure decreases. In fact, at the upper limits of the atmosphere, the air pressure reduces to basically nil.
And since there’s no real air pressure to speak of up there, then there is no force pushing the air into the empty space.'
How does the wind work? Nobody is arguing that the atmosphere is uniform, this is a dodgeball strawman attack.
Where is the experiment that demonstrates an air pressure gradient in a hard vacuum without a container?
"Now, this doesn’t mean gravity isn’t at work here. In fact, gravity is the reason we have air pressure in the first place. Gravity pulls on the atmosphere, compressing it, and creating pressure.
If we could magically turn off gravity then the atmosphere would be released from that compression and spring away from the Earth.
So, at the root of it, gravity is the thing that keeps the atmosphere near the surface. It just isn’t fighting the vacuum of space to do it."
I just turned it [gravity] off with an experiment from 1939.
There's a container that holds the atmosphere and it's called the firmament (an electrified, gold coloured, oxide layer mirrored, nickel-iron long-grain composite steel dome).
The atmosphere is a fluid medium and there's a coulomb force that acts between the ground (-) and the firmament (+). The least dense material i.e. electrons (-) flow to the anode (+) and they push on the air (+), they push it down to the cathode (-). This process acting on all materials leads to a separation into a density gradient with the most dense matter pushed to the bottom. In macroscopic terms this is also known as density and buoyancy, however the mechanism falsely attributed to gravity is in fact Coulomb's Law.
Q: Can a pressure gradient exist next to a vacuum without a container?
(((A))):
"While gravity is most certainly a real thing, the answer to this question is not “because gravity is stronger”.
Vacuums never “suck” air. What they do is present an empty space and then air pressure forces the air into the vacuum."
If by gravity "they" mean Einstein's Relativity then I would say that it [relativistic gravity] has been falsified at the University of Paris in 1939 by Dufour and Prunier when they replicated Sagnac's experiment while taking into consideration a rotating frame of reference. If "they" mean Newtonian gravity then they're just shit out of luck.
When a theory is falsified by experiment then it's not real!
"The actual answer is that the vacuum of space does not exert any force on the atmosphere at all. It does not “suck” the air. We associate the word “suck” with “vacuums” but it’s a misnomer. That’s not what vacuums do."
Can "they" provide scientific proof "outer space" is real?
I definitely agree that a vacuum is not "pulling" on air, as higher pressure expands into an area of lower pressure; path of least resistance.
"Air pressure is not uniform throughout the atmosphere. The lower the altitude, the higher the air pressure; thus, as you move higher, the air pressure decreases. In fact, at the upper limits of the atmosphere, the air pressure reduces to basically nil.
And since there’s no real air pressure to speak of up there, then there is no force pushing the air into the empty space.'
How does the wind work? Nobody is arguing that the atmosphere is uniform, this is a dodgeball strawman attack.
Where is the experiment that demonstrates an air pressure gradient in a hard vacuum without a container?
"Now, this doesn’t mean gravity isn’t at work here. In fact, gravity is the reason we have air pressure in the first place. Gravity pulls on the atmosphere, compressing it, and creating pressure.
If we could magically turn off gravity then the atmosphere would be released from that compression and spring away from the Earth.
So, at the root of it, gravity is the thing that keeps the atmosphere near the surface. It just isn’t fighting the vacuum of space to do it."
I just turned it [gravity] off with an experiment from 1939.
There's a container that holds the atmosphere and it's called the firmament (an electrified, gold coloured, oxide layer mirrored, nickel-iron long-grain composite steel dome).
The atmosphere is a fluid medium and there's a coulomb force that acts between the ground (-) and the firmament (+). The least dense material i.e. electrons (-) flow to the anode (+) and they push on the air (+), they push it down to the cathode (-). This process acting on all materials leads to a separation into a density gradient with the most dense matter pushed to the bottom. In macroscopic terms this is also known as density and buoyancy, however the mechanism falsely attributed to gravity is in fact Coulomb's Law.
You forget that it is the weight of the atmosphere on top of itself that forms the division between the near-vacuum and the air at, say, sea level. The 20-mile thick atmosphere combined with gravity is the container.
At roughly 20 miles up, the amount of air is negligible. But some of it is attracted in the direction of the earth by gravity. It's enough that it piles on top of itself to compress the lower regions of itself. The result is that there is about 20 miles of atmosphere for the amount of gravity that we have on earth.
@Cryptotourist
Q: Can a pressure gradient exist next to a vacuum without a container?
(((A))):
"While gravity is most certainly a real thing, the answer to this question is not “because gravity is stronger”.
Vacuums never “suck” air. What they do is present an empty space and then air pressure forces the air into the vacuum."
If by gravity "they" mean Einstein's Relativity then I would say that it [relativistic gravity] has been falsified at the University of Paris in 1939 by Dufour and Prunier when they replicated Sagnac's experiment while taking into consideration a rotating frame of reference. If "they" mean Newtonian gravity then they're just shit out of luck.
When a theory is falsified by experiment then it's not real!
"The actual answer is that the vacuum of space does not exert any force on the atmosphere at all. It does not “suck” the air. We associate the word “suck” with “vacuums” but it’s a misnomer. That’s not what vacuums do."
Can "they" provide scientific proof "outer space" is real?
I definitely agree that a vacuum is not "pulling" on air, as higher pressure expands into an area of lower pressure; path of least resistance.
"Air pressure is not uniform throughout the atmosphere. The lower the altitude, the higher the air pressure; thus, as you move higher, the air pressure decreases. In fact, at the upper limits of the atmosphere, the air pressure reduces to basically nil.
And since there’s no real air pressure to speak of up there, then there is no force pushing the air into the empty space.'
How does the wind work? Nobody is arguing that the atmosphere is uniform, this is a dodgeball strawman attack.
Where is the experiment that demonstrates an air pressure gradient in a hard vacuum without a container?
"Now, this doesn’t mean gravity isn’t at work here. In fact, gravity is the reason we have air pressure in the first place. Gravity pulls on the atmosphere, compressing it, and creating pressure.
If we could magically turn off gravity then the atmosphere would be released from that compression and spring away from the Earth.
So, at the root of it, gravity is the thing that keeps the atmosphere near the surface. It just isn’t fighting the vacuum of space to do it."
I just turned it [gravity] off with an experiment from 1939.
There's a container that holds the atmosphere and it's called the firmament (an electrified, gold coloured, oxide layer mirrored, nickel-iron long-grain composite steel dome).
The atmosphere is a fluid medium and there's a coulomb force that acts between the ground (-) and the firmament (+). The least dense material i.e. electrons (-) flow to the anode (+) and they push on the air (+), they push it down to the cathode (-). This process acting on all materials leads to a separation into a density gradient with the most dense matter pushed to the bottom. In macroscopic terms this is also known as density and buoyancy, however the mechanism falsely attributed to gravity is in fact Coulomb's Law.
Snakes on Mars!
Q: Can a pressure gradient exist next to a vacuum without a container?
(((A))):
"While gravity is most certainly a real thing, the answer to this question is not “because gravity is stronger”.
Vacuums never “suck” air. What they do is present an empty space and then air pressure forces the air into the vacuum."
If by gravity "they" mean Einstein's Relativity then I would say that it [relativistic gravity] has been falsified at the University of Paris in 1939 by Dufour and Prunier when they replicated Sagnac's experiment while taking into consideration a rotating frame of reference. If "they" mean Newtonian gravity then they're just shit out of luck.
When a theory is falsified by experiment then it's not real!
"The actual answer is that the vacuum of space does not exert any force on the atmosphere at all. It does not “suck” the air. We associate the word “suck” with “vacuums” but it’s a misnomer. That’s not what vacuums do."
Can "they" provide scientific proof "outer space" is real?
I definitely agree that a vacuum is not "pulling" on air, as higher pressure expands into an area of lower pressure; path of least resistance.
"Air pressure is not uniform throughout the atmosphere. The lower the altitude, the higher the air pressure; thus, as you move higher, the air pressure decreases. In fact, at the upper limits of the atmosphere, the air pressure reduces to basically nil.
And since there’s no real air pressure to speak of up there, then there is no force pushing the air into the empty space.'
How does the wind work? Nobody is arguing that the atmosphere is uniform, this is a dodgeball strawman attack.
Where is the experiment that demonstrates an air pressure gradient in a hard vacuum without a container?
"Now, this doesn’t mean gravity isn’t at work here. In fact, gravity is the reason we have air pressure in the first place. Gravity pulls on the atmosphere, compressing it, and creating pressure.
If we could magically turn off gravity then the atmosphere would be released from that compression and spring away from the Earth.
So, at the root of it, gravity is the thing that keeps the atmosphere near the surface. It just isn’t fighting the vacuum of space to do it."
I just turned it [gravity] off with an experiment from 1939.
There's a container that holds the atmosphere and it's called the firmament (an electrified, gold coloured, oxide layer mirrored, nickel-iron long-grain composite steel dome).
The atmosphere is a fluid medium and there's a coulomb force that acts between the ground (-) and the firmament (+). The least dense material i.e. electrons (-) flow to the anode (+) and they push on the air (+), they push it down to the cathode (-). This process acting on all materials leads to a separation into a density gradient with the most dense matter pushed to the bottom. In macroscopic terms this is also known as density and buoyancy, however the mechanism falsely attributed to gravity is in fact Coulomb's Law.
...
The perception of reality, is stronger than reality itself.
You seem to be quite a clinical case Batty, but I still believe that you're just trolling us to infinity. [REDACTED]
Don't believe anything, belief is the enemy of knowing.The perception of reality, is stronger than reality itself.
You seem to be quite a clinical case Batty, but I still believe that you're just trolling us to infinity. [REDACTED]
Snakes on Mars!
Oh Batty, such touching story.
The perception of reality, is stronger than reality itself.
You seem to be quite a clinical case Batty, but I still believe that you're just trolling us to infinity.
Quote
While gravity is most certainly a real thing, the answer to this question is not “because gravity is stronger”.
The actual answer is that the vacuum of space does not exert any force on the atmosphere at all. It does not “suck” the air. We associate the word “suck” with “vacuums” but it’s a misnomer. That’s not what vacuums do.
Vacuums never “suck” air. What they do is present an empty space and then air pressure forces the air into the vacuum.
Air pressure is not uniform throughout the atmosphere. The lower the altitude, the higher the air pressure; thus, as you move higher, the air pressure decreases. In fact, at the upper limits of the atmosphere, the air pressure reduces to basically nil.
And since there’s no real air pressure to speak of up there, then there is no force pushing the air into the empty space.
Now, this doesn’t mean gravity isn’t at work here. In fact, gravity is the reason we have air pressure in the first place. Gravity pulls on the atmosphere, compressing it, and creating pressure.
If we could magically turn off gravity then the atmosphere would be released from that compression and spring away from the Earth.
So, at the root of it, gravity is the thing that keeps the atmosphere near the surface. It just isn’t fighting the vacuum of space to do it.
The actual answer is that the vacuum of space does not exert any force on the atmosphere at all. It does not “suck” the air. We associate the word “suck” with “vacuums” but it’s a misnomer. That’s not what vacuums do.
Vacuums never “suck” air. What they do is present an empty space and then air pressure forces the air into the vacuum.
Air pressure is not uniform throughout the atmosphere. The lower the altitude, the higher the air pressure; thus, as you move higher, the air pressure decreases. In fact, at the upper limits of the atmosphere, the air pressure reduces to basically nil.
And since there’s no real air pressure to speak of up there, then there is no force pushing the air into the empty space.
Now, this doesn’t mean gravity isn’t at work here. In fact, gravity is the reason we have air pressure in the first place. Gravity pulls on the atmosphere, compressing it, and creating pressure.
If we could magically turn off gravity then the atmosphere would be released from that compression and spring away from the Earth.
So, at the root of it, gravity is the thing that keeps the atmosphere near the surface. It just isn’t fighting the vacuum of space to do it.
The perception of reality, is stronger than reality itself.
You seem to be quite a clinical case Batty, but I still believe that you're just trolling us to infinity.
There are several simple things that show that notbatman is off in his thinking somewhere.
He has said that the earth is 32 nautical miles wide. If this were so on a FE, a person looking straight up with the sun directly overhead would see the center of the sun. People looking straight up at points 16 nm away would see the edge of the sun. Since this isn't the case, and not even close, notbatman is off in his thinking somewhere.
Simple to see that he is wrong... or at least incomplete in his calc.
Oh Batty, such touching story.
The perception of reality, is stronger than reality itself.
You seem to be quite a clinical case Batty, but I still believe that you're just trolling us to infinity.
Quote
While gravity is most certainly a real thing, the answer to this question is not “because gravity is stronger”.
The actual answer is that the vacuum of space does not exert any force on the atmosphere at all. It does not “suck” the air. We associate the word “suck” with “vacuums” but it’s a misnomer. That’s not what vacuums do.
Vacuums never “suck” air. What they do is present an empty space and then air pressure forces the air into the vacuum.
Air pressure is not uniform throughout the atmosphere. The lower the altitude, the higher the air pressure; thus, as you move higher, the air pressure decreases. In fact, at the upper limits of the atmosphere, the air pressure reduces to basically nil.
And since there’s no real air pressure to speak of up there, then there is no force pushing the air into the empty space.
Now, this doesn’t mean gravity isn’t at work here. In fact, gravity is the reason we have air pressure in the first place. Gravity pulls on the atmosphere, compressing it, and creating pressure.
If we could magically turn off gravity then the atmosphere would be released from that compression and spring away from the Earth.
So, at the root of it, gravity is the thing that keeps the atmosphere near the surface. It just isn’t fighting the vacuum of space to do it.
The actual answer is that the vacuum of space does not exert any force on the atmosphere at all. It does not “suck” the air. We associate the word “suck” with “vacuums” but it’s a misnomer. That’s not what vacuums do.
Vacuums never “suck” air. What they do is present an empty space and then air pressure forces the air into the vacuum.
Air pressure is not uniform throughout the atmosphere. The lower the altitude, the higher the air pressure; thus, as you move higher, the air pressure decreases. In fact, at the upper limits of the atmosphere, the air pressure reduces to basically nil.
And since there’s no real air pressure to speak of up there, then there is no force pushing the air into the empty space.
Now, this doesn’t mean gravity isn’t at work here. In fact, gravity is the reason we have air pressure in the first place. Gravity pulls on the atmosphere, compressing it, and creating pressure.
If we could magically turn off gravity then the atmosphere would be released from that compression and spring away from the Earth.
So, at the root of it, gravity is the thing that keeps the atmosphere near the surface. It just isn’t fighting the vacuum of space to do it.
The perception of reality, is stronger than reality itself.
You seem to be quite a clinical case Batty, but I still believe that you're just trolling us to infinity.
notbatman,
At what point in your life did you conclude that the Earth was flat?
Did you ever believe otherwise?
At what point in your life did you conclude that the Earth was flat?
Did you ever believe otherwise?
I got close to figuring it out when I was ~10 years, I had serious issues with the cross-hairs in the Moon landing images and, my teachers could never explain how the vacuum of space could exist next to a pressurized atmosphere. I remember multiple sit-down sessions with extremely frustrated teachers, it's not my fault they couldn't explain it. Then there was this episode during a field trip on a ferry boat and the class got to see the bridge, I commented about the earth looking flat on the captain's AE map and the teacher snapped.
Unfortunately my teachers were literally part of (rejected candidates) the NASA challenger program, that combined with TV and movies, had me headed into a complete fantasy world. Eventually I completely succumbed to the globe propaganda, I think it was sci-fi that did the most damage.
Then it happened, first it was fraud (2013) from a company named after a UK rocket program and 2TH/s bitcoin miner named after a satellite that it launched into space. "why was this fraudulent company named after a space program?" I asked myself.
Then I thought about the Mars rover, the head guy NASA had on TV was a joke. I could tell the images shown were procedurally generated CGI, they accidentally used a texture with a lemming in it and the AI rendered a scene with one in it.
Then I reviewed the Moon landing hoax conspiracy, I watched videos like a funny thing happened on the way to the moon and Moonraker.
Then I ask myself "If they're faking Mars and they're faking the Moon then they must be faking the Earth, but how? I'm standing here, how can it be fake?".
BOOM! The Earth is probably flat.
I make the OP and it's not long before I know the Earth is flat as a pancake. Of course there are many other factors involved but those are a few major ones.
Devon Island Lemming I Choose You!
notbatman,
At what point in your life did you conclude that the Earth was flat?
Did you ever believe otherwise?
At what point in your life did you conclude that the Earth was flat?
Did you ever believe otherwise?
From FLAT EARTH to PLASMA MOON -- https://youtu.be/Glnw6oCNV2s (1:05:34)
"One hour video - documentary with many small music videos that explain the subjects:
a) No curvature, proofs from Greece with all the data. (00:00 - 13:16)
b) Sun, sun's motion, perspective. (13:17 - 16:25)
c) Daylight and night, sun's pilot plasma field. (16:26 - 32:00)
d) Moon, moons motion, always the same face and what a coinsidence. (32:01 - 41:39)
e) Plasma moon theory, Urbano Monte old map, no Antartica but hidden continents, map of flat earth from plasma moon includes hidden continents. (41:40 - 1:05:30)"
edit:
This video has an interesting theory on how the Moon's image is produced, it shows a hidden continent between South America and Australia:
If there's any credibility to this theory, then there's probably two, maybe three more suns (solar systems?) and a lot more land. The magnetic north pole could possibly be doing a loop in a very long cycle (with or without more suns). This would result in simultaneous ice ages and warming in a continuous cycle.
...
edit2:
If the mass in the lower middle is actually South America then the left one could be a hidden continent, right at ten (24h) o'clock, the 4th corner. Yes, it works, this guys Moon theory is crazy, but, uh... wow.
This guys filters have severely distorted the image, he's forced it to make the wrong part look like North & South America. Here's an image from, uh.. NASA, just ignore the stealth aircraft towing the tie-fighter banner.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/[REDACTED].jpg[/img]
Tab missing, google image search result missing...
It just vanished...
That's some kind of good parlour tricks, the image had some serious depth.
edit3:
This is not necessarily an endorsement but, here's my take on this X-ray Earth Moon theory:
"One hour video - documentary with many small music videos that explain the subjects:
a) No curvature, proofs from Greece with all the data. (00:00 - 13:16)
b) Sun, sun's motion, perspective. (13:17 - 16:25)
c) Daylight and night, sun's pilot plasma field. (16:26 - 32:00)
d) Moon, moons motion, always the same face and what a coinsidence. (32:01 - 41:39)
e) Plasma moon theory, Urbano Monte old map, no Antartica but hidden continents, map of flat earth from plasma moon includes hidden continents. (41:40 - 1:05:30)"
edit:
This video has an interesting theory on how the Moon's image is produced, it shows a hidden continent between South America and Australia:
If there's any credibility to this theory, then there's probably two, maybe three more suns (solar systems?) and a lot more land. The magnetic north pole could possibly be doing a loop in a very long cycle (with or without more suns). This would result in simultaneous ice ages and warming in a continuous cycle.
...
edit2:
If the mass in the lower middle is actually South America then the left one could be a hidden continent, right at ten (24h) o'clock, the 4th corner. Yes, it works, this guys Moon theory is crazy, but, uh... wow.
This guys filters have severely distorted the image, he's forced it to make the wrong part look like North & South America. Here's an image from, uh.. NASA, just ignore the stealth aircraft towing the tie-fighter banner.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/[REDACTED].jpg[/img]
Tab missing, google image search result missing...
It just vanished...
That's some kind of good parlour tricks, the image had some serious depth.
edit3:
This is not necessarily an endorsement but, here's my take on this X-ray Earth Moon theory:
notbatman is wrong. the earth is flat, but Los Angeles is the center of the earth, and thus the universe (Hollywood, more specifically).
the ocean spills into a circumferential receptacle not unlike an endless pool. it is heated up into vapor and redistributed around theglobe er flat earth in the form of rainfall. have you ever tried to cross the edge no i didnt think so case closed.
the ocean spills into a circumferential receptacle not unlike an endless pool. it is heated up into vapor and redistributed around the
If we are traveling to China, Russia or europe from Los Angeles, we must fly or sail east otherwise we will fall of the earth. That is why NO flights go west from LA. Sucks to be in australia or hawaii too... because everything is so far away from those peeps. They gotta head east to get anywhere ..Flat is beginning to make sense now in terms of understanding some of the advantages and limitations in some peoples of the world, especially the disadvantages of those closer to the edges.
First it was rabbits, then it was hallucinogenic toads, now it's camels. Woe to the native population of bats, snakes and spiders.
#
Are they Azimuthal Equidistant camels?
Aparently!
I don’t think the Earth is flat (because I have evidence), but even if you assume that you are right, then what next? What is this useful for? And yet, what, then, can each person do?
I don't argue that we are being deceived (not by governments, but by those who control us for their own benefit), and that many things are falsified (for example, history). But specifically about the Earth - I don't think that it is flat. And I don’t think that it is what we are told from childhood.
I don't argue that we are being deceived (not by governments, but by those who control us for their own benefit), and that many things are falsified (for example, history). But specifically about the Earth - I don't think that it is flat. And I don’t think that it is what we are told from childhood.
First it was rabbits, then it was hallucinogenic toads, now it's camels. Woe to the native population of bats, snakes and spiders.
What if I told that not only does Australia have camels, but Australia has the worlds largest population of camels?
Are they Azimuthal Equidistant camels?
Have you never watched Clash of the Titans (1981)?
They're all fictional stories, especially the ones told by academia.
What if I told that not only does Australia have camels, but Australia has the worlds largest population of camels?
They're all fictional stories, especially the ones told by academia.
What if I told that not only does Australia have camels, but Australia has the worlds largest population of camels?
So you're telling me it's just (((coincidence))) that Atlantis sank after losing a battle with Athens? You're over-reacting to my interpretation of Plato's bat-cave bullshit. Who really knows what kind of advanced weapons Greece had in the classical period?
So you are telling me, that Athens could have had advanced weapons that could sink islands in one day and night, and that it probably used them to sink Atlantis - right after they had already won btw - to kill all their great victorious warriors at the same time. Right.
F U C K Y O U B A T T Y
So you're telling me it's just (((coincidence))) that Atlantis sank after losing a battle with Athens? You're over-reacting to my interpretation of Plato's bat-cave bullshit. Who really knows what kind of advanced weapons Greece had in the classical period?
Everything I'm being told about history is a farce of fictional characters, dates, places and events as far as I'm concerned. My only interest in their lies is what they might be trying to cover up, "what are they trying to divert attention from?" I ask myself.
The earth is flat and there could be more land.
I'm twisting nothing, this is official narrative stuff:
https://youtu.be/ck1-JIgfqR4
The Tale
According to the Egyptians, or rather what Plato described Critias reporting what his grandfather was told by Solon who heard it from the Egyptians, once upon a time, there was a mighty power based on an island in the Atlantic Ocean. This empire was called Atlantis, and it ruled over several other islands and parts of the continents of Africa and Europe.
Atlantis was arranged in concentric rings of alternating water and land. The soil was rich, said Critias, the engineers technically accomplished, the architecture extravagant with baths, harbor installations, and barracks. The central plain outside the city had canals and a magnificent irrigation system. Atlantis had kings and a civil administration, as well as an organized military. Their rituals matched Athens for bull-baiting, sacrifice, and prayer.
But then it waged an unprovoked imperialistic war on the remainder of Asia and Europe. When Atlantis attacked, Athens showed its excellence as the leader of the Greeks, the much smaller city-state the only power to stand against Atlantis. Alone, Athens triumphed over the invading Atlantean forces, defeating the enemy, preventing the free from being enslaved, and freeing those who had been enslaved.
After the battle, there were violent earthquakes and floods, and Atlantis sank into the sea, and all the Athenian warriors were swallowed up by the earth.
According to the Egyptians, or rather what Plato described Critias reporting what his grandfather was told by Solon who heard it from the Egyptians, once upon a time, there was a mighty power based on an island in the Atlantic Ocean. This empire was called Atlantis, and it ruled over several other islands and parts of the continents of Africa and Europe.
Atlantis was arranged in concentric rings of alternating water and land. The soil was rich, said Critias, the engineers technically accomplished, the architecture extravagant with baths, harbor installations, and barracks. The central plain outside the city had canals and a magnificent irrigation system. Atlantis had kings and a civil administration, as well as an organized military. Their rituals matched Athens for bull-baiting, sacrifice, and prayer.
But then it waged an unprovoked imperialistic war on the remainder of Asia and Europe. When Atlantis attacked, Athens showed its excellence as the leader of the Greeks, the much smaller city-state the only power to stand against Atlantis. Alone, Athens triumphed over the invading Atlantean forces, defeating the enemy, preventing the free from being enslaved, and freeing those who had been enslaved.
After the battle, there were violent earthquakes and floods, and Atlantis sank into the sea, and all the Athenian warriors were swallowed up by the earth.
https://youtu.be/ck1-JIgfqR4
Hey twister, can you even fucking r e a d?
You're so full of shit Batty:
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html
Quote
And when the rest fell off from her, being compelled to stand alone, after having undergone the very extremity of danger, she defeated and triumphed over the invaders, and preserved from slavery those who were not yet subjugated, and generously liberated all the rest of us who dwell within the pillars. But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea. For which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island.
Where exactly does it say that ATHENS SUNK ATLATNIS?
It's my favorite bed time story cocksucker.
Why would Google Earth use an Azimuthal Equidistant map then project that onto a globe? Why isn't the AE map available for browsing?
WTF is an Azimuthal Equidistant map?
Stop using long words nobody understands to try and justify your flat Earth bullshit.
Even the dictionary definition of Azimuth is confusing.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/azimuth
Azimuth
Quote
horizontal direction expressed as the angular distance between the direction of a fixed point (such as the observer's heading) and the direction of the object
Jump to: