I have now decided : The Earth is actually FLAT...!

Post Reply New Topic

The solar system is supposed to be moving at 45,000 miles per hour but in 6000 years the stars have not changed position by even one degree due to this. The only change in the stars positions are due to precession (earth wobbling)

Steller distances are so great that moving that slowly (only 45 mph) makes little difference in the perspective on the landscape of the stars even after 6k years. The average distance between stars in the galaxy is about six light years. Light takes only an eighth of a second to move as fast at the earth moves in an hour.



Also the stars we can see in the night sky are usually our neighbors in the galaxy, and so are moving abreast of us at roughly the same velocity as we are any way because they are at roughly the same position relative to the galactic hub as we are.

Darn typo!

I meant to write "only 45Kmph". Even 45 thousand mph is slow in interstellar space.

That is true, but then why are you doubting that a basic orbit sync is possible? I assumed that it was because you thought that it conflicted with the currently known and accepted mathematical model of how things work (AKA the standard model of physics), but that appears to not be the case now. If you are not basing your opinion on the mathematical model then what are you basing it off of? What compels you to confidently assert that it's impossible with 1960's technology? I am very confused.


It's not about how realistic-looking they are, you need to check the source of the images. Your first image in the list has the word "screenshots" in the URL indicating that it was in a folder with that name in the web server, you clearly didn't check that. On the real ones I could tell you which probe took each one and when, and I could show evidence of NASA saying that they are real if I wanted to. Google image search has a convenient "Go to page" button next to the image, just use that.


True, but in all seriousness I would start seriously suspecting that NASA is doing something fishy and lying. In that image the lighting is inconsistent, there is no shadow on the rings, apparent exposure time is inconsistent, and countless other things.

It would be like if you were in the market for a house and someone sent you this totally genuine photo of their house for sale that they swear is real:


You would probably start seriously questioning their credibility after that, or at least stop taking them seriously. That image you posted was about as obviously fake as that house image.


Everything is reflective to some extent, although most object diffuse the light and only reflect certain colors. A flat surface is required for a clear image to be reflected, but it doesn't have to be a clear image to be considered reflection. Right now for example I can see my keyboard even though it has no lights on it. Eyes need light to see things so this is only possible if there is light coming from the keyboard, and that is happening because light from the lights in the room is hitting the keyboard are reflecting/diffusing off of it into my eyes. It is possible for diffused light like that to cast shadows and light can bounce off of multiple things (which is why I can still see the parts of my keyboard that are in the shadow of my hands, those parts are illuminated by light diffusing off the walls). As far as reflection goes, the Moon doesn't do anything that an ordinary rock can't do.


I'm confused, are you saying that math is useless because it always agrees with everything? It should be noted that physics equations are experimentally tested a lot before they are accepted and chances are your car was tested in a simulation using mathematical models before it was ever built. Math applies to reality in a lot of ways.


I have some great ideas from my time on the Flat Earth Society forum. One will require both of us and it involves Moon observation from two distant locations at the same time to measure parallax, and the other is aimed at measuring the horizon dropping as you gain altitude (or the lack thereof) which requires a tall structure or a mountain that you can stand on top of. I am equipped to do either of these and I am thinking that we can both do the same one at the same time so we can compare results. Do you have a telescope or access to something tall?


Seems like it would require a lot of expensive equipment. When has anyone ever seen a ship from hundreds of miles away though?


Twice today I have been in my (stationary) car and looked to my side to see another car moving, I thought that that car was stationary and both times I was startled because for a brief moment I thought I was the one moving. My point is that moving past something and having that thing move past you looks (and feels) the same. I mean, how would it look any different? I don't get your logic here.

This video illustrates my point:



Here is another idea. Take a piece of parer and draw stars (or anything else for that matter) on it and then take a video camera and take two videos. In the first video rotate the paper clockwise, and in the second video rotate the camera at the same speed counter-clockwise. Make sure the paper takes up the camera's whole field of view so that the background is not visible. Then watch the videos and try to figure out which one is which by whatever you think would be different in them.


Two things. First of all, it's not like all the other stars are perfectly stationary. They have to orbit the galaxy too. Also, they _do_ slowly change over time although it's not enough to notice within one human lifetime. If you look at the star charts of ancient civilizations then it can be seen that the stars were in a slightly different configuration back then.

I am just going to respond to one part at a time as to not trigger that are-you-a-robot paranoid-check.

Questioning Orbit-Models has more to do with being unsure as to whether Outer-Space is as we are told or better-represented by a different model-of-reality. The standard model of physics also does not cover absolutely all or every different types of phenomenon that people experience (example: results of Double-Slit Experiment). Whilst they may 'accurately' predict a lot, they also do not predict everything, like in the example of the maneuvers of cars in a simulation versus performing stunts in a real-world car (I have personally experienced notable differences). Perhaps I was not clear enough... what I did in the real-world was clearly different than the simulators (even if the rest of the simulation was mostly accurate).

So are you saying that the "evidence" that the Moon landing should be questioned is that space travel doesn't work how we are told therefore orbit syncs are probably impossible therefore space travel doesn't work how we are told? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems an awful lot like circular reasoning.

Driving involves the use of more laws of physics then orbital mechanics. When driving a car you have to model friction, air resistance (which is super hard to simulate), and it must be controlled with a completely different interface then a real car. Orbital mechanics simulation only needs gravity and inertia, you don't have to play with friction coefficients to get it to work. It's easy enough that I myself have created a program to do it and the calculations can even be done by hand. They are hardly comparable.

Wait, wait, I haven't even gotten to responding to the other quotes yet. Anyway, yes, I question Outer-Space Physics, mainly because the existence of the ISS has been put to question with points that I have yet to find convincing answers for. Here is a clip of a former Globe-Earther who even shows his math...

This is only one of several people I have come across who have said that they were former globe-earthers. Anyway, simulators will work to a certain extent, but they do not cover 100% of everything we have known/encountered/tested/experienced in reality, such as has been demonstrated with the Double-Slit Experiment. I should probably just focus on answering/responding to your experiment-related dialogue for now since that is actually more pertinent and easier for us to design and measure results for ourselves...

I can probably find/locate somebody with a telescope to let me borrow and I live in an area with lots of hills and other areas of high-points (cliffs/hills/mountains but I would probably need to travel out-of-town to reach those locations).

What did you have in mind and lol what were you doing on the Flat Earth Society forums ? I had learned that the FES Forums is some form of a "controlled opposition" psy-operation so I chose to dialogue/research about this movement elsewhere.

Here are my ideas:

Experiment one: I call this the horizon level experiment. The idea is to test the popular flat earther claim that the horizon is always at "eye level". On a round earth this would of course not being expected, and using math and I have determined that on top of a rather tall hill or structure with the horizon not being obscured it should be noticeably below eye level but only if you had something marking where eye level is to compare it to. I made some drawings a while ago to demonstrate my plan.

Here is how the experiment is set up:



Here is what we would see on a flat Earth from the camera's perspective:



Here is what we would see on a round Earth from the camera's perspective:



It would be ideal to do this facing an ocean, but relatively flat ground would work too. We would need to repeat this in as many locations as possible.

Experiment two: this is a variation of a sunspot observation experiment I did a while back. I will need to have a general idea of what part of the world you live on because the idea is that we will both take photos of the Moon at the exact same time and the further apart we are the better. The aim is to measure parallax and get an idea of how far away the Moon is. The telescope is to help get a close up image, which would be much better because it would have more detail. Once we have the images I will analyze them, tell you every step of the process, try to measure the distance to the Moon, and let you do whatever you want with the data too.


I was there as one of the "government shills" defending round Earth because I was bored and it related to my special interest.

I will respond to your other message later.

Wouldn't it be easier to have each of you plant a few-foot tall stick in the ground, exactly vertical & the same height above ground, and then at the same time of day, both take a photo of the stick, it's shadow, and a ruler? Assuming you are at different longitudes, the shadows will be different lengths.

(This works even better if you can skype it as you can watch the shadows shorten, disappear and then lengthen again *out of sync*, thus eliminating any confusion about time zones and the like.)

the problem with that is that round earthers and flat earthers don't agree on the relative orientation of the two participants. That would only work if there were 3 or more participants and a lot of math was involved.

I want everyone who denies science to be denied the benefit of the science in question. Creationists shouldn't get modern antibiotics; flat-earthers shouldn't use GPS, velcro, or anything else derived from the space program; or take any commercial flights over the pole.

Ah ha!, you're falling for it too!.

The same thing Pythagoras (or whoever that Greek guy in Egypt was) who did that stick trick fell for.

you're assuming that the difference in shadow lengths at different latitudes is caused by the Earth being curved.

Its really caused by the differing distances of the latitudes on the flat earth from the small close sun.

The Sun is about the size of a Goodyear blimp. It flies around at only a few thousand feet up, and it only flies around in the sky in the tropics near the equator. So thats why shadows are longer at the high latitudes. Also thats way that Malaysian airliner disappeared. Like Icarus it melted from getting to close to the sun (same thing happened to Amelia Earhardt).

Jeeze! Everyone knows THAT!

Speaking of not taking everything into account, that guy got a few things wrong. Simulations may not be fool proof, but ordinary calculations and logic can just as easily be wrong. I only watched the first 7 minutes of the video, tell me if I missed something important but I think I got the gist of it. He was saying that hot goes to cold and the thermosphere is hot so therefore satellites should be super hot and shouldn't work. He forgot to take some important things into account though.

1): Conduction is not the only way heat is transferred, there is also radiation (and convection which in this case is irrelevant). Heat can radiate away in the form of light (usually at invisible frequencies) which is why light bulbs work.

2): Space has a temperature, although it's only about 3 degrees above absolute zero. But space has nothing in it to be hot you say? Incorrect, it has light which as you (hopefully) know can heat things up, and I am not talking about stars. Cosmic background radiation can heat things up and if you leave something in the deepest depths of space then it will radiate away it's heat until it's at about 3 degrees Kelvin at which point it will radiate away the same amount of heat that it absorbs and it will be in thermal equilibrium with the space around it. Since space is so cold, anything above 3 degrees Kelvin will start cooling off by radiating heat into it. I can cite my sources if you want, I'm not making any of this up.

So you have the very hot thermosphere which conducts heat to a space ship and then that space ship radiates it's heat into space because it's well above 3 degrees Kelvin. As he said, thermometers can't measure the temperature of the thermosphere and the reason for this is because said thermometers are also radiating any heat they obtain out into space. Just this alone proves that satellites would be just fine orbiting through the thermosphere.

Believe it or not I used to be a big conspiracy nut myself a few years ago. If I had heard about flat Earth then then I might have seriously considered it, I believed that 9/11 was an inside job, I didn't believe in climate change, and I even listened to Alex Jones. I have since learned a lot about how to be unbiased and see both sides of the story. Now I actually plan to work for NASA in some way and I even plan on applying to be an astronaut. If it turns out to be a conspiracy then I'll let you know.

This ain't good, man, for I expect more out of researchers to be meticulously thorough.

And you most-certainly did miss important parts as a result. You can't have it both ways, saying that it's in a part of space that is considered to be upwards of 2000°C, whilst simutaneously also being at deep-freeze temperatures, too. From another thread on another forums, one claim was made that weather-balloons were sent up to measure the temperatures to prove that the atmosphere got up to 2000°C, but if a thermometer cannot measure said temperature that is absent of an atmosphere, then the only means of measurement would have been through spectroscopy.

Back to Brian Mulllin, this guy teaches physics as a professor if I heard correctly from another source, and his issue is that the ISS is said to have reflective-material to bounce of radiation to keep it from over-heating. However, the solar-panels are connected to the ISS, according to the CGI-images depicting the ISS, and those are made of metals. That was where he started to find errors/contradictions in the mainstream explanations. Metals will become super-heated when exposed to high temperatures, meaning that for it to cool, the heat would need to dissipate into somewhere, and if that atmosphere of which the ISS is genuinely 2000°C as is shown in that altitude-temperature-chart, then his question is exactly where is the heat dissipating to for the ISS to be able to remain at room-temperature ? Remember, when you heat up an oven, all of the tin-foil/aluminum-shielding doesn't do anything to keep the chicken from getting cooked, even if set to broil-mode where heat is only coming from one direction.

For him, a physics-graduate, that did not make any sense to him, and for one like myself, I still have not encountered any good explanations for how a particular space can be both simultaneously upwards of 2000°C and also at freezing temperatures. Either it is hot or it is cold... claiming that it is both forces me to question the validity of the science. Also, you need not cite sources, because I am only interested in doing some damn good experiments. Additionally, even if you start working for NASA, many organisations are highly compartmentalised, such that you don't necessarily know what the people in the next room are doing or that there may even be another room that is hidden from your access (therefore it is pointless for you to try to find any conspiracies if your disposition towards a paradigm is to view it as being full of nut whilst simultaneously only listening to 7 minutes whilst skipping the remaining 25+ minutes [that is considered to be sloppy like judging a book by its cover]).

When I want to remove the sliver out of another's eye, I make sure to be thorough, looking at the entire paradigm in question, and that is why I am only really interested in very well-designed experiments at the moment. You wanted to test for eye-level horizon, and have mentioned that flat-earthers claim that the horizon is always at eye-level, but I am in agreement that eye-level horizon seems to defy mathematical-geometry. I am willing to do the experiment using a telescope & level just to double-check (because experimentation is how I prefer to do science rather than just book-reading). I will need some time to be able to find someone with a decent telescope who's willing to help me out with this so that I don't have to fork out huge sums to buy one unless binoculars would suffice. The other experiment I need to do is to time-lapse video-record ships leaving a dock out to sea. The results will at least let me know if the ships really still remain visible at hundreds of miles away or if those videos used as flat-earth proof were just created by CGI or manipulated from some other camera-trick to give the appearance of ship-visibility from hundreds of miles of distance.

The ship one I cannot do for another couple of months or so since I am far from the coastal-regions. I might get an opportunity to film/test/experiment/record the procedure starting from possibly within a couple of months from now though when I might be re-visiting the West-Coast (Pacific-Ocean side of America from Puget-Sound region). I will come back to the other points as time permits (also because these forums seem to be funky and occassionally give me errors when I try to post at certain times of the day).

As for your point about how something can be two temperatures at the same time, the best examples/experiments I can think of is sitting by a fire on a cold night or standing in the Sun in the early morning. In both cases the air is cold, but you are still warm because of radiative heat transfer from the fire or the Sun.

It should also be noted that the ISS has large radiator panels which can be used to get rid of excess heat.

I will address more later.