Questions About the Flat Earth

Schpankme wrote:

FR wrote:
objects in free fall always move in exact right angle to the ground?

There is no evidence showing objects in free fall moving at right angles to the ground.  This is called BALLTARDISM.

Just to clarify
right angle to the ground = vertical, perpendicular

FR wrote:
right angle to the ground = vertical, perpendicular

You are correct, objects fall perpendicular to the flat Earth.  This is caused by the ocean of air (fluid) that we breath exerting pressure, 14.7 psi at Sea-Level, in equal amounts on all sides.  Objects seek equilibrium based on the resistance of their surrounding medium, all unsupported objects heavier than air have a natural tendency to fall by their own weight.



My surprise with your question was due to "a Balltard" in YouTube comments trying to claim that it was, the Hypotenuse of the right triangle, that objects in free fall follow due to Gravity puling to the center of Spaceball Earth.  I immediately thought that you had arrived to try and push such nonsense.  My apologies for the confusion, I am sorry and stand corrected.

Schpankme wrote:

FR wrote:
right angle to the ground = vertical, perpendicular

You are correct, objects fall perpendicular to the flat Earth.  This is caused by the ocean of air (fluid) that we breath exerting pressure, 14.7 psi at Sea-Level, in equal amounts on all sides.  Objects seek equilibrium based on the resistance of their surrounding medium, all unsupported objects heavier than air have a natural tendency to fall by their own weight.

Thanks.
so in other words: in the ocean of air in which we live and under free fall conditions falling objects take the way of least resistance and that is the perpendicular movement to flat Earth....for any other angle than perpendicular it would require additional external force and then it wouldn't be definied as free fall anymore.



so my opening question should rather this:
Where does the information come from that above is above and below is below?

And another question:
Where does the information come from that all objects act relatively to the air as they do?

I would say definition is substantial in science...


So again the well-known cluelessness...
--> The last explanation for everything can only be god and not science  

Schpankme wrote:My apologies for the confusion, I am sorry and stand corrected.

No problem, I immediately knew then, that "right angle to the ground" was mistakable.

FR wrote:
definition is substantial in science...
The last explanation for everything can only be god and not science

How could "definition be substantial in science" when Science depends on faith or theory (pretend) to prove they live on a spinning Spaceball?

The same organizational structure that successfully promoted the HE God in Heaven, has also successfully promoted the Heavenly Spheres in Space.
The following are inventions of Judaeo-Freemasonry, Theory Based Science (pretend):

• Theory Heliocentricism
  
• Theory of Gravity
  
• Theory Atomic Energy
  
• Theory Transmutation of Species
  
• Theory of Evolution
  
• Theory of Relativity
  
• Theory Missing Link
  
• Theory Big Bang
  

I was wondering about the flat earth perspective relating to Pangaea.

c0m1c5tr1p5 wrote:
flat earth
Pangaea  

The Judaeo-Freemasonry Vatican (Jesuits) invented and published the Theory of Heliocentricism in 1534 (Heavenly Spheres), they made no mention of swimming Continents; however, this theory called Continental Drift was invented by Alfred Wegener in 1912, he too was indoctrinated as a child to believe that he lived on a spinning, Heavenly Sphere.

Theory Based Science (pretend):

• Theory Heliocentricism
  
• Theory of Gravity
  
• Theory Atomic Energy
  
• Theory Transmutation of Species
  
• Theory of Evolution
  
• Theory of Relativity
  
• Theory Missing Link
  
• Theory Continental Drift
  
• Theory Plate Tectonics
  
• Theory Big Bang
  

Pangaea or the 'Theory of Plate Tectonics' is real because Africa and South America look to fit together like puzzle pieces. ~ Balltardism 180

What's the highest we've been able to send an amateur rocket?

I seem to remember a youtube video that showed a rocket with a camera going up but I haven't been able to find it again.

jz00 wrote:
What's the highest we've been able to send an amateur rocket

25 miles (132,000 ft / 40234 m) above sea level is the absolute limit and this is being very generous; higher elevations are all man-made constructs.

Pressure: Definition
The ocean of air that we breath has density and pressure (weight), this pressure becomes "the force" (per unit area) exerted in all directions, which is erroneously called the atmosPhere.  This weight is measured with an instrument called the Barometer, which is nothing more then an open end of a glass tube placed in an open dish of mercury.  "The force" causes the mercury to rise up the tube. At sea level, the column of mercury will rise (on average) to a height of 29.92 inches or 760 millimeters, 14.70 pounds per square inch.

The table illustrates the relationship between altitude and pressure using the default values for pressure and temperature at sea level.

1643 - Evangelista Torricelli invents the Mercury Barometer, "a device that measures air pressure".

1687 - Judaeo-Freemason, Sir Isaac Newton invents the Theory of Gravity (pretend), "an invisible force that pulls objects toward each other; an attraction that exists between any two objects".

1905 - Judaeo-Freemason, Albert Einstein invents the Theory of Relativity (pretend), "where Gravity arises from the warping of space and time, which violates Newton's theory, and allowing light to bend."  It should be noted that the Fiber Optic cable uses mirrors to reflect light down it's length, owning to the fact that light does not bend it can only change directions.

It is "the force" of air pressure that falsifies Gravity and without Gravity there is nothing called Space.

Is there any evidence or hint, that there maybe other physical planes, like earth in existence?

We are told of higher planes (spiritual) ones out there, each on a different level.

Possibly no-one here knows for sure, but surely would be fascinating to know for sure, whether there are other created physical earth-like planes.

notdownunder wrote:Is there any evidence or hint, that there maybe other physical planes, like earth in existence?

We are told of higher planes (spiritual) ones out there, each on a different level.

Possibly no-one here knows for sure, but surely would be fascinating to know for sure, whether there are other created physical earth-like planes.

Hint, yes (Admiral E. Byrd + 'Buddhist Temple map' + some stories + logically, why wouldn't that be the case?).

Evidence, no (if there is, it isn't publically available).

Yes, we would all love to know for sure.

notdownunder wrote:Is there any evidence...

Different states of consciousness can be said to coexist as widely collected in Spiritual Science book, but our physical plane of existence is the only one we can collect physical evidence about so that's a non-rationally-researchable subject.

No-one here knows or will be able to know although I guess it won't be difficult to find some mathemaGical development or cartoons alleging their existence.

Operation Fishbowl Research Directions

I've come across a fair amount of information regarding Operation Fishbowl, usually pertaining to the peculiar name given and the idea that these high altitude nuclear tests could have been an attempt to break through the firmament; however, I noticed something else interesting that I had not seen mentioned in any of my FE readings.

I noticed that one of the main research objectives of Operation Fishbowl was to investigate why, when a high altitude nuclear weapon was detonated, a bright aurora would be seen simultaneously, far away in the complete opposite hemisphere. (this can be found on the Operation Fishbowl Wikipedia page, oddly enough)

While this may seem puzzling in a ball-earth model, it would seem to me that this would likely occur in a FE w/ dome model.

Doing a quick experiment, I shined a laser into a bowl. While there was a very precise dot where the laser initially hit, there was a light hitting the exact opposite side as well, naturally, but it was not a precise dot but rather a blurry streak, almost aurora-like.

Found this tidbit worth mentioning since I hadn't seen it anywhere previously. Does it seem plausible?

Samuelanderson wrote:
Operation Fishbowl Research Directions
when high altitude nuclear weapon was detonated
a bright aurora seen simultaneously in the opposite hemisphere
this would likely occur in a FE w/ dome model

There are no Nukes.

Holy Roman Empire, Judaeo-Freemasonry Vatican (Jesuits) invent:
1763 - Theory Atomic Energy
1809 - Theory Transmutation of Species

Also see invented by Judaeo-Freemasonry NAtional ZIonists (NAZI, NASA)
1923 - Theory Missing Link
1931 - Theory Big Bang

Samuelanderson,

I agree with Schpankme.

But remember that any conventional kaboom explosion would probably create a bright flash of light. Your own bowl & laser observation showed a unique travel pattern of light. It is reasonable to consider that a bright flash of light, high above the flat earth, would have its own unique travel pattern. There is plenty of replicable evidence to show that the travel pattern of light can be manipulated in many ways.



There is no evidence that the earth is a ball. Thank you for the post.

Oliver_Bestfall wrote:
I agree with Schpankme
There is plenty of replicable evidence to show that the travel pattern of light can be manipulated in many ways.  

That's interesting Oliver, the video provided and titled "Fiber Optics" is yet another example of Balltards trying to claim, that a laser shinned on the reflective surface of the water is bending, when in fact the laser is NOT entering the flow of water at the top and exiting at the bottom.  The light is not Bending, the water is acting as a reflective surface; owing to the fact that Light does not bend; this is why Fiber Optic Cables use mirrors to reflect the light down it's length.

Ha! Yes, indeed. I stand by my statement, "I agree with Schpankme."

So I have a globe earther trying to tell me that this is "evidence of the curvature of the earth".

Highlighted reply
Burnt Toast
47 minutes ago
@Tired VeteranHere's something that debunks the flat earth, is not Photoshopped, and can be observed with the naked eye: https://www.google.com/search?q=lake+pontchartrain+power+lines&oq=lake+pontchartrain+power+lines&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l2.1454j0j7&client=ms-android-cricket-us-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Any thoughts on this?

Remember, the nature of all liquids is to seek and remain level. It is a physical impossibility for water or any liquid to form to the exterior of any shape and this applies to Lake Pontchartrain. The power lines appear this way as a result of perspective. Globers also say you have to be higher than 30,000 feet to begin seeing curvature which contradicts their "proof" here with supposed curvature from the ground. I hope this helps

Also, make sure you've read the rules about posting threads based on questions if you don't want to get banned

Thanks for the help man that of course makes a lot of sense. I will check out the rules because i certainly do not want to get banned. I am here for the same reasons everyone else here is.

Eric will be deleating this new thread which disregards the forum rules.
Peace

NOLA SEALEVEL TO SEALEVEL PHOTO 27m FROM CBD

ZERO IMAGINARY CURVE
CAUSEWAY 23.87 m FLAT STEEL, PROOF OF NO CURVE

This vid has been debunked. Soundly is BS.

I  have been taking movies and photos over a three year period of the Golden Gate Bridge and Fort Point from a distance of 10.1 miles away and a measured height of an average of 12 feet above the water of the bay. I want to base an argument of the earth being flat on the simple fact that the Horizon simply extends for too far from the viewing height chosen for the earth to have the claimed radius by NASA and others. However I expect to be told by the believers in the globe that reason I am seeing a horizon that is more than twice the distance it should be is due to a refractive effect called "looming". So to debunk the looming argument in advance of them making it I want to also show that the density of the air was too much the same from one side of the bay to the other for the "looming" excuse to be valid. I have run into a problem however in that I can not find historical data that show the dew point or humidity that I need for past dates in order to calculate the air density. My question is how can I obtain historical data from different weather stations of dew point or humidity? So far I have only found a way to find this information for present dates.

Golden Gate Bridge is built parallel to a body of water with a flat surface. My architect brother has a technical plane of it at home and i usually ask him about the missing curvature in both the water and the bridge. He'll admit bridge construction doesn't account for curvature, he'll admit distance between water and bridge is the same in any given point of it, he'll even admit water under the bridge is leveled but he'll keep believing he lives on a spinning ball.

No need for visual phenomena explanations when physics and common sense say it all. No need to debate what "matter" cartoons are made of.

Ive been staring at the sky and i had a few questions i wanted to bounce off you guys.

1. Shooting stars
I believe 100% the earth is flat and we live in some kind of enclosed environment.
That would mean shooting stars are BOGUS. So are they really UFOs flying through the sky
and shooting stars are a cover up?

2. Clouds
I've never seen on video or with my own eyes a cloud form in an empty sky. Clouds always float in from
out of view. Those same clouds / storm clouds travel from state to state. A lot of clouds look like explosions
to me. And they also look exactly like the clouds nasa produces with their cloud maker. Theres videos on youtube of that.