Topic: Flat Earth - page 57. (Read 1095196 times)
i still believe that Hitler still exist on the Hidden Moon base
Flat earth is not a theory but reality, your points are irrelevant to these facts.
Water is never flat.
The water from the Atlantic connects to the water from the Pacific around the bottom of South America. Yet the Pacific water is notably higher than the Atlantic water at Panama.
Seems like your density is getting just about as massive as your weight.
What the hell 
Why is this such a popular topic??
The Earth is not flat :S :S
Why is this such a popular topic??
The Earth is not flat :S :S
rofl .. i think the same when it comes up ..
everyone knows that the earth isnt flat...
thats proved by the Hidden Nazi base on the dark
side of the moon ..
and just for your info .. only the germans
while 2ww was on the moon ..
these American Moon Landing is a Hoax .
trust me
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of the altitude.
1. "appears" doesn't mean "is". Scale and distance are also factors.
2. You dismiss the legitimacy of any picture of the earth from an altitude at which you might see any curvature, so you really don't know if it is actually "regardless of altitude".
Quote
In this first shot, the moon is observably in the distance.
In this shot, the moon is clearly and evidently local due to the increase in size.
In this shot, the moon is clearly and evidently local due to the increase in size.
Don't be stupid. Those images are different in scale or focal length. Flat earth or not, the size of the moon hardly changes as it moves around the earth. Flat earth theory attributes the constant size to atmospheric refraction.
Flat earth is not a theory but reality, your points are irrelevant to these facts.
Members of the Flat Earth Society claim to believe the Earth is flat, and, it seems, they're serious.
The Flat Earth Society is "controlled opposition" and the information they provide is complete garbage.
What the hell
Why is this such a popular topic??
The Earth is not flat :S :S
Why is this such a popular topic??
The Earth is not flat :S :S
Only this would be the #1 topic in Off-Topic. Just sayin'
That's really cool
Members of the Flat Earth Society claim to believe the Earth is flat, and, it seems, they're serious.
Yes. It's their religion.
Members of the Flat Earth Society claim to believe the Earth is flat, and, it seems, they're serious.
If you're in the middle of an ocean, what do you see?
If you're at the summit of Mount Everest, what do you see?
If we were on the moon, what do we see? Must we trust what we see behind the lens of our eyes or should we trust behind another lens from the camera?
If you're at the summit of Mount Everest, what do you see?
If we were on the moon, what do we see? Must we trust what we see behind the lens of our eyes or should we trust behind another lens from the camera?
Like this:
and this:
or even this:
Notice that your zoomed in moon is the same size as when it isn't zoomed in. This alone proves that it is so far distant that the little zooming in doesn't make any appreciable difference.
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of the altitude.
1. "appears" doesn't mean "is". Scale and distance are also factors.
2. You dismiss the legitimacy of any picture of the earth from an altitude at which you might see any curvature, so you really don't know if it is actually "regardless of altitude".
Quote
In this first shot, the moon is observably in the distance.
In this shot, the moon is clearly and evidently local due to the increase in size.
In this shot, the moon is clearly and evidently local due to the increase in size.
Don't be stupid. Those images are different in scale or focal length. Flat earth or not, the size of the moon hardly changes as it moves around the earth. Flat earth theory attributes the constant size to atmospheric refraction.
Only this would be the #1 topic in Off-Topic. Just sayin'
If you're in the middle of an ocean, what do you see?
If you're at the summit of Mount Everest, what do you see?
If we were on the moon, what do we see? Must we trust what we see behind the lens of our eyes or should we trust behind another lens from the camera?
If you're at the summit of Mount Everest, what do you see?
If we were on the moon, what do we see? Must we trust what we see behind the lens of our eyes or should we trust behind another lens from the camera?
Like this:
and this:
or even this:
If you're in the middle of an ocean, what do you see?
If you're at the summit of Mount Everest, what do you see?
If we were on the moon, what do we see? Must we trust what we see behind the lens of our eyes or should we trust behind another lens from the camera?
If you're at the summit of Mount Everest, what do you see?
If we were on the moon, what do we see? Must we trust what we see behind the lens of our eyes or should we trust behind another lens from the camera?
^^^ Exactly!
What scientists have done is to take loads of things we see, and add to them loads of practical findings (math and physics), and put them all together. The result is the standard understanding of globe earth and the way the universe exists in their general descriptions.
Flat earth science is incomplete, and has contradictions that are far greater than the few seeming contradictions in standard science. Much of what the FE people talk about doesn't have anything to do with FE. In addition, their magnification of certain anomalies in standard math and science is extremely outweighed by anomalies and contradictions in FE science.
To maintain the idea of flat earth, FE people simply use focus in an unfair and incorrect way, to make it seem like FE is the way things exist. Why? Three basic reasons:
1. Limited thinking ability;
2. Religious-like zealousness;
3. Trolling;
... 4. Any combination of the above 3.
If you're in the middle of an ocean, what do you see?
If you're at the summit of Mount Everest, what do you see?
If we were on the moon, what do we see? Must we trust what we see behind the lens of our eyes or should we trust behind another lens from the camera?
If you're at the summit of Mount Everest, what do you see?
If we were on the moon, what do we see? Must we trust what we see behind the lens of our eyes or should we trust behind another lens from the camera?
Guys, how I adore you. 
Already 15563 comments in this thread. I have not visited this topic for almost 2 years and thought that the disputes regarding this issue have already been resolved, but I see that the conflict regarding the shape of our planet or the plane of the Earth does grow more and more. I heard that recently China announced new programs about building a new settlement on the moon. I think this news is like a nuclear bomb. By the way, North Koreans seriously think that their cores are born in space.
Already 15563 comments in this thread. I have not visited this topic for almost 2 years and thought that the disputes regarding this issue have already been resolved, but I see that the conflict regarding the shape of our planet or the plane of the Earth does grow more and more. I heard that recently China announced new programs about building a new settlement on the moon. I think this news is like a nuclear bomb. By the way, North Koreans seriously think that their cores are born in space.Maybe you should visit this important topic more frequently...
+bonus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKHTOw6UeNk
^^^ You're a fucking liar, a sextant can measure the Sun when it's directly above you at 90 degrees, the fucking scale has 120 degrees on it. YOU FUCKING LIAR!
Fuck off with your strawman argument, there's a radio horizon on a plain.
Go curl up in a gas oven if you don't have point to make.
Did I mention that you should go crawl into a gas oven?
Image source: Fading Correlation Analysis in MIMO-OFDM Troposcatter Communications: Space, Frequency, Angle and Space-Frequency Diversity | https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7000551
So you think you can explain that^^ is a way that you will understand, eh.
^^^ Modern "satellite" dishes use what's called troposcatter technology developed by the US military; a signal is transmitted from radio towers then bounced off of the troposphereic plane and received by the dish antenna.
"Moon bounce" (Moon not actually required) is when a signal (usually laser light) is bounced off of the dome (firmament).
"Moon bounce" (Moon not actually required) is when a signal (usually laser light) is bounced off of the dome (firmament).
Except that there is no need for troposcatter on a FE. It was developed to get around the curvature.
Fuck off with your strawman argument, there's a radio horizon on a plain.
Mommy set the table for supper, so the earth is flat?
Troposcatter doesn't have anything to do with the shape of the earth.
That's where you're wrong, the radio signal is bounced off of the troposphereic plane; plane trigonometry doesn't do spheres.
Image source: Fading Correlation Analysis in MIMO-OFDM Troposcatter Communications: Space, Frequency, Angle and Space-Frequency Diversity | https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7000551
edit:
The atmospheric planes, with the troposhphere being one plane in a multitude of planes, a plane being, in both a mathematical and physical sense that which goes over a plain, it forms a refractive layer and that layer, a plane surface together with the multitude of planes form a hemesphere above the plain. Think of a bubble sticking to a surface full of layers of different coloured gasses.
Some planes have the property of being a liquid crystal and display the Sun, Moon and stars. An electromagnetic signal is projected off of the mirrored nickel-iron oxide exterior (micro) of the firmament's concave surface (macro) to achieve this plasma effect.
edit2:
The rain falls mostly on the plain in Spain.
^^^ Modern "satellite" dishes use what's called troposcatter technology developed by the US military; a signal is transmitted from radio towers then bounced off of the troposphereic plane and received by the dish antenna.
"Moon bounce" (Moon not actually required) is when a signal (usually laser light) is bounced off of the dome (firmament).
"Moon bounce" (Moon not actually required) is when a signal (usually laser light) is bounced off of the dome (firmament).
Except that there is no need for troposcatter on a FE. It was developed to get around the curvature.
Fuck off with your strawman argument, there's a radio horizon on a plain.
....
I never picked up the Bible once in my life except to toss a copy in the trash. ....
...The Bible describes the construction of a dome (firmament) over Earth by giants (Titans). Science has lead me to God.
...
...
Jeezus dude, if ya gonna be a lying sack of shit, at least try to cover your tracks a little better...
You've got two quotes with no context other that it relates to the bible all while screaming I'm a liar. Go curl up in a gas oven if you don't have point to make.
"... I never picked up the Bible once in my life except to toss a copy in the trash. This was before I discovered the firmament (dome) and the inconsolable fact that somebody had to have built it. ..."
See once what I said is put into the context it was written in, you look like the "lying sack of shit". Did I mention that you should go crawl into a gas oven?
'' Did I mention that you should go crawl into a gas oven?'' Yes you did mention that several times which is kind of weird considering your god said not to kill people, with those words you are going to hell my friend.
Jump to: