Questions About the Flat Earth

[quote="tycho_brahe"]

Tree wrote:.

I am surprised how they get away with explaining gravity using gravity. Why Mass will bend the space at the first place ? Unless mass bends space (in the video it happened due to gravity), the other lighter objects will not fall towards the bigger object, means no gravity.

I guess specifically, suppose you have a ball on a ramp. What is the force making it roll down the ramp? Could this be explained through density and buoyancy? I guess the edges of the ball are displacing lighter medium (air)? And this rolls it down the hill? And does this work with math equations For predicting how objects will roll on the ground, or fly through the air?

Btw, personally I’m fine with there not being an explaination for this. Accepting I don’t know would still make more sense to me than the “curving of the fabric of space-time” theory.. I’m just wondering if we do currently have an explanation for this movement with the theory of buoyancy and density.

Thanks!

Tree wrote:I guess specifically, suppose you have a ball on a ramp. What is the force making it roll down the ramp? Could this be explained through density and buoyancy? I guess the edges of the ball are displacing lighter medium (air)? And this rolls it down the hill? And does this work with math equations For predicting how objects will roll on the ground, or fly through the air?

Btw, personally I’m fine with there not being an explaination for this. Accepting I don’t know would still make more sense to me than the “curving of the fabric of space-time” theory.. I’m just wondering if we do currently have an explanation for this movement with the theory of buoyancy and density.

Thanks!

I would imagine it's still denser than the air, and based on its shape, it's working like water. Finding the lowest point in the medium based on its density in it. The ball will clearly roll down a ramp just as a human would roll down a ramp or hill if we balled/positioned ourselves in a manner that allowed it. As Eric has stated in videos before, we are only stopping on the ground surface because there's something there to stop us [the ground]. If the ground disappeared, we would continue to fall until our bodies met a level that we could stop falling and essentially float at (possibly when meeting with the "waters below" where the medium changes and becomes water instead of air?).

So a ball on a ramp is following the same rules of density and buoyancy in my eyes - and since the ball is rounded (shapes of objects play a role in natural movement capabilities), it's able to continue falling through the obstacle course of a "ramp" that guides it in a different direction until it finds a straight path again. I don't think "obstacles" in the medium have to be accounted for when calculating the base foundation of what's happening.

The best example is going back to helium balloons again. Helium balloons will continue to find its way upward, even if you put an upside down ramp above it. It will slow down, gradually "roll" or bounce itself upward/diagonally until the ramp is cleared and then continue going upward to where it wants to rest in the helium layer of the sky.

The fact that the item or object is still finding its way to where it wants to be based on the entire density/buoyancy of mass, liquids, and gases is staying consistent. I think.

Tree wrote:I guess specifically, suppose you have a ball on a ramp. What is the force making it roll down the ramp? Could this be explained through density and buoyancy? I guess the edges of the ball are displacing lighter medium (air)? And this rolls it down the hill? And does this work with math equations For predicting how objects will roll on the ground, or fly through the air?

Btw, personally I’m fine with there not being an explaination for this. Accepting I don’t know would still make more sense to me than the “curving of the fabric of space-time” theory.. I’m just wondering if we do currently have an explanation for this movement with the theory of buoyancy and density.

Thanks!

As I explained above. We already have laws that describe why things roll down. We agree with Newton’s Law or Motion. In this case the rolling object law is Inertia. Newton’s Law of Motion can be proven in any lab or classroom and they’re repeatable. Inertia describes perfectly a rolling object. It’s not gravity. Here’s an example. Here’s a fact on inertia. The friction coefficient is completely independent of mass. If I take 2 flat bins, one empty and the other with 400 grams inside, and place them on a flat incline as I increase the angle upwards both bins will begin to slide at the very same time. Now gravity would say the heavier bin should slide first. Gravity should overcome the friction coefficient. I’ve seen experiments with rolling objects that roll up an incline from a resting state based on their center of mass. Inertia explains it all. Again we agree with the Laws of Motion and Thermodynamics. Just not Newton’s Law on Gravity.

Hi, everyone,

First off, thank you for reading my post.

Alright, so they describe the earth as an "oblate spheroid" or "pear shaped." And, yet, the curvature formulas supposedly works exactly the same no matter where you are on the ball.

Wouldn't the curve have a greater slope towards the equator and less so the more you move away?

Like that pilot who woke up and said "I never noticed this in 25 years of flying. It just goes to show how indoctrinated we are." I, too, cannot believe it took me so long to realize this.

If we're "pear shaped," then the curvature should have gradients from the poles to the equator.

The lies we believe without even thinking it through are astounding.

Let me know what you think about this. Does it make sense or am I totally off my rocker?

Cheers,
Brian

How does Flat Earth explain asteroids? I'm a Flat Earther and I can't think of an explanation that happened in a debate today.

If we're in a dome like structure, cannot go to space etc... How do we get asteroids?

Alsumu wrote:How does Flat Earth explain asteroids? I'm a Flat Earther and I can't think of an explanation that happened in a debate today.

If we're in a dome like structure, cannot go to space etc... How do we get asteroids?

The below video:

https://youtu.be/3SJ45QYY99A

was shared on The Sun, Moon, Stars Prove the Flat Earth.

It’s in Russian with English subtitles. It’s does a great job explaining comets and meteorites as well as asteroids. Asteroids don’t exist. Keep in mind the video assumes meteorites as fallen pieces of the dome or firmament. There is no conclusive proof of a dome.

Personally I think no one knows what asteroids are, all we know for sure is it's flat as a pancake and that's all we need to know to prove and trust our senses.

Jadepurplelover wrote:Personally I think no one knows what asteroids are, all we know for sure is it's flat as a pancake and that's all we need to know to prove and trust our senses.

This is a research forum not a personal opinion forum.
Bring your proofs to this forum not your inappropriate opinions.

My opinions aren't inappropriate, your attitude is.
Now go drink some bleach and stop breeding, that would be my opinion.

Jadepurplelover wrote:My opinions aren't inappropriate, your attitude is.
Now go drink some bleach and stop breeding, that would be my opinion.

Your ad hominem remarks are of no value in this research forum.
Perhaps you should read the forum rules and comply.

Tree wrote:I guess specifically, suppose you have a ball on a ramp. What is the force making it roll down the ramp? Could this be explained through density and buoyancy? I guess the edges of the ball are displacing lighter medium (air)? And this rolls it down the hill? And does this work with math equations For predicting how objects will roll on the ground, or fly through the air?

Btw, personally I’m fine with there not being an explaination for this. Accepting I don’t know would still make more sense to me than the “curving of the fabric of space-time” theory.. I’m just wondering if we do currently have an explanation for this movement with the theory of buoyancy and density.

Thanks!

I put together a small visio pic of my understanding of forces at play. the image is simplistic in the sense it does not show air pressure getting applied on the surface of the ball at each angle, this air pressure will resolve to net upward buoyant force. Its interesting to see even buoyant force has gravitational constant.

I do agree with Eric that in the observable nature around us, things do settle based on their relative density but the force experienced by an object which is out of this density equilibrium is proportional to the gravitation constant. We can chose to not call it gravity, but the underlying mechanism which achieves this density equilibrium is still not clear.

Thanks Naiveharry.
However I believe your image is not loading properly. Or atleast the link will not work for me.

Check it out. The video is pretty clear. Is this a recent rocket hitting the dome? Seems like they are trying to hide it in the mainstream news. Only a few articles discuss it.

They called it a "jellyfish in the sky."

https://nypost.com/2021/08/26/unidentified-flying-jellyfish-video-is-freaking-people-out/

I don't have the background to comment, but on another forum it was suggested that sailors could not use a sextant on a flat earth... it only works on a globe earth rotating around a fixed sun. Any information appreciated.

Brian Johnston wrote:I don't have the background to comment, but on another forum it was suggested that sailors could not use a sextant on a flat earth... it only works on a globe earth rotating around a fixed sun. Any information appreciated.

I had never heard that, so I quickly searched online How-To use a Sextant and some other generalized keywords searches. Every single result shows the Sextant using a perfectly flat, horizontal horizon as the reference Zero angle.

Sailors can and do use a sextant on Flat Earth, but please, search for yourself. If you find any How-To use a Sextant showing a rounded horizon, please share with this forum.

Oliver_Bestfall wrote:

Brian Johnston wrote:I don't have the background to comment, but on another forum it was suggested that sailors could not use a sextant on a flat earth... it only works on a globe earth rotating around a fixed sun. Any information appreciated.

I had never heard that, so I quickly searched online How-To use a Sextant and some other generalized keywords searches.  Every single result shows the Sextant using a perfectly flat, horizontal horizon as the reference Zero angle.

Sailors can and do use a sextant on Flat Earth, but please, search for yourself.  If you find any How-To use a Sextant showing a rounded horizon, please share with this forum.

OK, that was my point. Someone else (on a different forum, found in a search on how to use it) indicated that it's impossible on a flat earth. I was looking for an explanation why, but it was riddled with math and geometry, etc. Nothing plain (plane) and simple.

Here is some of the discussion:
https://www.quora.com/On-a-flat-Earth-how-exactly-would-the-navigator-on-a-ship-in-say-the-middle-of-the-Pacific-determine-latitude-and-longitude-Specifically-how-would-the-sextant-be-used?share=1

Fascinating. So, what do you think?

They seem to be bashing on flat earth, but at the same time, the sextant needs a perfectly straight, flat horizon to align with their object, moon, sun or star.

Read through the Wikipedia stuff on sextant. Don't worry, just notice how straight and flat the horizon is in their How-To diagram.

With only a few months of investigating flat earth stuff (99% via Dubay), I'm convinced. I suppose I needed a simple explanation, and the previous poster did that, of how that instrument worked. Speaking of the horizon (horizonTAL), one person, on a different forum, spoke about the purpose of a crow's nest on a ship, to see past the horizon. I retorted: what is there to see beyond the horizon when anything that exists ahead would be on the horizon. No one can see past the horizon, due to perspective, but if the world were globular with an 8-inch drop per mile, then you likely wouldn't see anything anyway... it's BELOW the horizon.

I've been curious about this since I was awakened to the flat Earth in 2016. How are we able to see the sun/moon 3,000 miles away? Wouldn't 3,000 miles extend beyond our seeing capabilities? To create a distance comparison, it's the approximate distance of the US from the West to East coast (obviously upwards without obstacles).

I haven't personally done the math in reference to the sun/moon rotating around the plane, but I'm assuming that the 3,000 miles is the distance necessary for the sun/moon to cover the areas of the plane in the time frames they do, but if that's the case, I struggle with the concept of being able to see them so clearly if they are indeed 3,000 miles away. Could there be another explanation? Could the distances be significantly closer? or is there a visual concept that I'm not grasping?

zherot wrote:Hi, first of all I would say that at first I was pretty skeptical about this flat earth theory, have known the topic for years but never really "believed" in it BUT I have always distrusted NASA, no way people went to the moon, no one will ever convince me of that and most things NASA produces always look fake, I just can't trust them.

So I saw some videos because my cousin was mocking "flat earthers" and I saw a video on Bitchute on the page I was browsing, I wasn't looking for flat earth videos or anything and I didn't even knew the video was about flat earth either, so I started watching and... can you believe that after many years of knowing flat earth theories I never actually knew you guys were never talking about an "edge"? I mean, I didn't really understood fully what you guys were saying this whole years because all the crap that mainstream media and other sources put in you guys mouths, the amount of strawmans really prevent people from even understanding your positions and arguments....

Anyways, I have 2 questions that still don't make sense to me:

1. When I was younger I remember I did an experiment that was about letting 2 objects fall (a feather and an iron ball) in a vaccum environment, menaing no air etc and the purpose was to proove that both objects reach the bottom at the same time without any resistance. The old explanation was gravity of course but in a vacuum on a flat earth that has no gravity, what makes this objects fall at the same time?
   
   
2. The images we get from the sun that guys like Ben Davidson (Suspicious Observers Jewtube channel) use to "predict" possible quake activities on earth etc. Are also fake?, so, sunspots, solar flares etc it's all fake?
   

Another thing that gave more credibility to Eric IMO is that he is denouncing the Jews, honestly that is one HUGE point in your favor and why? because everyone that has done a bit of research into conspiracies and never stops in any of the "honeypots" will eventually reach the conclusion that is the fucking Jews... that was some HUGE red pill I swallowed a few years ago and I became an admirer of Hitler and the NS party, yet this days I am even aware of saying that, maybe I have the wrong idea about that too, who knows, but what I know is the Jews are a big problem.

Anyway I hope someone can answer my two questions and explain to me those.

Thanks for accepting my membership petition.

Eric made two videos that helped me understand my first question about gravity and the experiment of objects in a vaccum, here are this videos if you like me have this question:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbCGrG0c2gI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbHcxmz-97I&t=914s

Do you think it's possible for the 3000 miles sun/moon distance on a flat earth model to be incorrect? Is the human eye capable of seeing 3000 miles upwards? Does the 3000 distance model adequately explain the drastic size fluctuations of the sun/moon at given times? I'm familiar with the dryness/humidity smog/clearness creating fluctuations, particularly when it comes to sun/moon setting, but I've seen instances where the moon has taken up 1/8th of the sky, when approximately at 40 degrees in the sky.

I'm not creating this question for the sake of getting a point acrossed in the form of a question. I'm asking because I genuinely want to know because this has bugged the shit out of me since I became a flat earther in January of 2016. Is there a concept that i don't know or haven't grasped in terms of sun/moon upward visibility? This obviously doesn't change the flat Earth truth... it would just change the manner in which we believe the sun/moon rotates and/or is projected above us.

I realize for the sun/moon to only be something like 50 to 100 miles away would require some unusual explanations/possibilities... right? Something like there being multiple suns/moons? These are created energy systems after all. Who knows what the actual technology is? Could these images/energy/plasma systems be projected outwards from an above/central location or multiple locations from above projected downwards? Some type of Plasma projections perhaps that either create energy and or, serve some other purpose, or even a decoy purpose, etc? The only purpose of these loose speculations, is to show additional possibilities if in the event the 3000 mile distance became the accepted model based on that being believed to be the only explanation for the sun/moon to cover the ground that it does. Or maybe the actual explanation is so far out there that it's not going to win any hearts and minds when it comes to bringing people to the flat earth truth so it's just kept as being 3000 miles away, since whatever flaw such measurements have on a flat earth model are astronomically increased on the round earth model? Or maybe we can see 3000 miles away and all is as currently defined?

Rapsher wrote:Do you think it's possible for the 3000 miles sun/moon distance on a flat earth model to be incorrect? Is the human eye capable of seeing 3000 miles upwards? Does the 3000 distance model adequately explain the drastic size fluctuations of the sun/moon at given times? I'm familiar with the dryness/humidity smog/clearness creating fluctuations, particularly when it comes to sun/moon setting, but I've seen instances where the moon has taken up 1/8th of the sky, when approximately at 40 degrees in the sky.

I'm not creating this question for the sake of getting a point acrossed in the form of a question. I'm asking because I genuinely want to know because this has bugged the shit out of me since I became a flat earther in January of 2016. Is there a concept that i don't know or haven't grasped in terms of sun/moon upward visibility? This obviously doesn't change the flat Earth truth... it would just change the manner in which we believe the sun/moon rotates and/or is projected above us.

I realize for the sun/moon to only be something like 50 to 100 miles away would require some unusual explanations/possibilities... right? Something like there being multiple suns/moons? These are created energy systems after all. Who knows what the actual technology is? Could these images/energy/plasma systems be projected outwards from an above/central location or multiple locations from above projected downwards? Some type of Plasma projections perhaps that either create energy and or, serve some other purpose, or even a decoy purpose, etc? The only purpose of these loose speculations, is to show additional possibilities if in the event the 3000 mile distance became the accepted model based on that being believed to be the only explanation for the sun/moon to cover the ground that it does. Or maybe the actual explanation is so far out there that it's not going to win any hearts and minds when it comes to bringing people to the flat earth truth so it's just kept as being 3000 miles away, since whatever flaw such measurements have on a flat earth model are astronomically increased on the round earth model? Or maybe we can see 3000 miles away and all is as currently defined?

Consider what you have been told your entire life, that the Sun is 93 million miles away. This is the central idea, if I may, with the heliocentric model, that the Sun is the center of the solar system and the comparatively teeny-tiny round ball of earth rotates around a humongous sun.

This video shows a viable dispute to the heliocentric model, that the sun is only 3,000 miles away, and flies above the earth in a circular orbit.

With a little bit of right angular / triangulation calculations, based on the timezones and demonstrated geographic, linear mileages with the United States Eastern timezone at 3:00 pm the sun is viewable with 45-degree angle and Pacific US west coast, sees the sun at high noon with 90-degree angle, straight overhead.

The narrator makes some geometric/trigonometric calculations to provide evidence to the possibility that the Sun is only 3,000 miles away.





To answer some of your questions, regardless of its location or if it is a plasma projection, we do see the sun. Is it possible that the 3,000 mile sun distance estimate is incorrect?

Yes. It is possible that the 3,000 mile estimate is incorrect. However, we can clearly demonstrate the mileage between Seattle and New York City; we can clearly observe the angle of the sun above the horizon in both locations.

But there exists no reasonable angular measurement that can demonstrate the 93 million mile distance inherent to the heliocentric model.

I obviously know that the sun isn't 93 million miles away. Hopefully it didn't come across like that was my point? The idiocracy of such a notion has been one of my favorite flat Earth corner stone points since I became a flat earther.

This question is directed at other flat Earthers (in reference to space ballers it has no place), since I'm curious if there are potential fallacies with the 3000 mile estimation on a flat earth model, because 3000 miles away seems pretty extreme for our eyes to see as well by a long shot. To put it in perspective 3000 miles is the approximate distance from the West Coast to the East Coast of the US (upwards without any obstacles). Are there visual concepts that I don't understand that someone can explain to me? Is there some other technological process going on that allows the sun/moon to remain visible at that distance or could the sun/moon be much closer somehow?