• 6 hour flat earth documentary
    218 replies, posted
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50925122]But then you run into the issue of the constellations being constant and traceable in a way that doesn't at all line up with accelerating towards them[/QUOTE] Yeah, shouldn't the light emitted by outside sources bend in some way approaching the speed of light? Blue-shifting or something?
[QUOTE=Teddybeer;50923111]Doesn't work for all the theories out there. [t]http://i.imgur.com/QlboBkn.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] That looks nice but creates a whole bigger bunch of problems with the convex part. Gravity wouldn't be one-directional and you could see way too far from the far edge.
[QUOTE=gudman;50925159]Yeah, shouldn't the light emitted by outside sources bend in some way approaching the speed of light? Blue-shifting or something?[/QUOTE] It would be affected by something akin to the Doppler effect, due to how the speed of light is constant for every reference frame. Like, the stars would see the light going away from them and towards us at the speed of light AND earth coming towards them at near the speed of light, while we would see the light from the star approaching us at the speed of light and the star that emitted the light moving towards us at near the speed of light at the same time. It's sick. One of Einstein's postulates is literally that there is no way to tell the difference between a system affected by gravity and a constantly accelerated system, so within the realms of relativity their explanation absolutely checks out. I'm not entirely clear on the maths at a deeper level, but I have a feeling that lenght contraction would make our percieved acceleration stay constant while an outside observer would see our acceleration decreasing as we approach the speed of light. The maths and their explanation on that particular point completely checks out. It's just relativity being how it is. If you travel with a constant acceleration, you approach, but never reach, the speed of light. This happens without your acceleration ever decreasing [I]in your own frame of reference[/I]. [editline]21st August 2016[/editline] :johnnymo1:
[QUOTE=Mikenopa;50919608]Kansas. He also doesn't believe in evolution.[/QUOTE] Politicians in Bible Belt states are "special".
[QUOTE=Teddybeer;50923111]Doesn't work for all the theories out there. [t]http://i.imgur.com/QlboBkn.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] But that's an objectively stupid theory. Gee, I wonder why I can't see South America curving overhead and taking up half the sky. For all the effort that genius went to to draw that thing, did they not think about it for even a second?
[QUOTE=Teddybeer;50923111]Doesn't work for all the theories out there. [t]http://i.imgur.com/QlboBkn.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] I think the point of this is that all the land is equidistant from the orbit that the sun takes.
[QUOTE=Ott;50925400]I think the point of this is that all the land is equidistant from the orbit that the sun takes.[/QUOTE] A lot of mental gymnastics to attempt to explain what science already has in an infinitely simpler manner. I wonder what they're so afraid of.
I'm slightly curious how they explain the day-night cycle with both happening simultaneously in different parts of their flat disk. Like, following their model, there should be either day or night everywhere. [editline]22nd August 2016[/editline] Oh nevermind, the picture literally two posts above explains it i guess:v:
One of the Arabic language teachers that taught me at school believed that the earth is flat and that scientists are evil people who want to destroy religion. :what:
[QUOTE=A Noobcake;50925234]It would be affected by something akin to the Doppler effect, due to how the speed of light is constant for every reference frame. Like, the stars would see the light going away from them and towards us at the speed of light AND earth coming towards them at near the speed of light, while we would see the light from the star approaching us at the speed of light and the star that emitted the light moving towards us at near the speed of light at the same time. It's sick. One of Einstein's postulates is literally that there is no way to tell the difference between a system affected by gravity and a constantly accelerated system, so within the realms of relativity their explanation absolutely checks out. I'm not entirely clear on the maths at a deeper level, but I have a feeling that lenght contraction would make our percieved acceleration stay constant while an outside observer would see our acceleration decreasing as we approach the speed of light. The maths and their explanation on that particular point completely checks out. It's just relativity being how it is. If you travel with a constant acceleration, you approach, but never reach, the speed of light. This happens without your acceleration ever decreasing [I]in your own frame of reference[/I]. [editline]21st August 2016[/editline] :johnnymo1:[/QUOTE] Pretty good explanation by some guy on some forum, using a spaceship accelerating at 1g (I didn't check the maths because that would take effort but it looks like it checks out): [QUOTE]Observed from the spaceship, accelerating at 1g would reach 0.77c after 1 year. Observed from Earth, it would take 1.19 years, and would have travelled 0.56 light years. After two years on the ship at 1g, you would reach 0.97c, however 3.75 years would have elapsed on Earth and you would have covered 2.90 light years. Viewed from the Earth, your mass would have increased 4x, and you would be a quarter of your size! After five years on the ship, you would reach 0.99993c. 83.7 years would have elapsed on Earth, and you would have covered 82.7 lightyears. You would stand about an inch high, and have a mass of about 6 tons as seen from Earth, though you would not notice any difference. After 8 years, you would reach 0.9999998c. 1,840 years would have elapsed on Earth. Great, you are far from what was your home. 400 US presidents came and went. What is more, you are now 1mm high and have a mass of 140 tons. Nothing to lose now, lets go on, still at 1g... After 12 years, you would be travelling 0.99999999996 c. By now you would have crossed the galaxy and be 113,000 light years from home. Time is now running 117,000 times more slowly for you than on Earth. You stand 15 microns tall, and your mass is about 9000 tons. So, in fact you have travelled "faster than light" by covering 113,000 light years in 12 of your years, but well and truly burnt your bridges in doing so. You have also become a very significant problem for any destination, and would require 12 years too to slow down at 1g, assuming you have survived the deadly blueshifted light and cosmic radiation. [/QUOTE] For the maths and explanations on the forum wiki (they hold out I think, I haven't analysed it) they pretty much just shift the goal-post, they prove something that's already been known for a fucking long time (cant reach light speed). Then when they go back to how they can get enough force to propel something to 0.99999999c or whatever it would be after this amount of time, they say 1. Dark Energy, which is bullshit because after enough time even that wouldn't be enough energy or 2. Davis plane, some shit about infinite exotic matter disk below Earth, easily falsifiable by [i] digging a fucking hole [/i], but then they'd say you got mind controlled to say there is no disk so there's no winning an argument.
On Terminal Velocity: [QUOTE]In the Round Earth model, terminal velocity happens when the acceleration due to gravity is equal to the acceleration due to drag. In the Flat Earth model, however, there are no balanced forces: terminal velocity happens when the upward acceleration of the person is equal to the upward acceleration of the Earth. Q: If gravity does not exist, how does terminal velocity work? A: When the acceleration of the person is equal to the acceleration of the Earth, the person has reached terminal velocity. [/QUOTE] They didn't even NEED to explain this...
So if gravity is not real, what makes the sun and moon circle around the earth in a flat model? Have any flat earthers explained that yet?
[QUOTE=haloguy234;50925999]So if gravity is not real, what makes the sun and moon circle around the earth in a flat model? Have any flat earthers explained that yet?[/QUOTE] to add to that, why do we not have burning hot sun bits falling down on our heads all the time, what holds it together?
Obviously, it's a creation from the Illuminati Lizard shadow government. The chemtrails that they spray every day are for not only controlling the weather, but for keeping the fake sun in a ball shape.
the problem with flat earth is that it creates more problem than it solves [editline]21st August 2016[/editline] And then when you try to solve THOSE problems it creates even MORE problems
i wish a flat earth theorist would come onto this thread. that would be fun.
apparently there are also people who believe in a concave earth (?????) [IMG]http://www.missteribabylonestar.com/wpimages/wpff6575c8_06.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://welcome-to-concave-earth-forum.70389.x6.nabble.com/file/n385/wp83923691_06.png[/IMG]
I've always wondered about groups for stuff like flat earthers and other similar conspiracies in terms of them being filled with deep holes like a block of cheese, are they serious or japing, or is it a bit of both in Poe's law?
I love how every time someone talks about Illuminate, NWO, or Cabal they immediately blame the freemasons. Everytime someone finds out my Fathers one they're like "Oh... So your dad knows about the aliens then, right?" :v:
honestly tho if the earth was flat and you took a plane that literally took off from Eastern Australia, technically we shouldn't be able to make it to Western America Or we take a plane leaving Tasmania and go to Madagascar, the plane should hypothetically leave the Earth
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;50927335]honestly tho if the earth was flat and you took a plane that literally took off from Eastern Australia, technically we shouldn't be able to make it to Western America Or we take a plane leaving Tasmania and go to Madagascar, the plane should hypothetically leave the Earth[/QUOTE] Well the issue with that is that those plane routes don't exist, they're made up
[QUOTE=Teddybeer;50923111]Doesn't work for all the theories out there. [t]http://i.imgur.com/QlboBkn.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] I just realized, [t]http://i.imgur.com/OTEnXoG.png[/t] these landmasses would be able to permanently see the sun and moon as it circles around the sun Australia would be always sunny ignoring the fact that you'd see landmasses from other land masses this theory is still fucking insane In an attempt to come up with an explanation they created so many questions that cannot be reasonably answered [QUOTE=haloguy234;50925999]So if gravity is not real, what makes the sun and moon circle around the earth in a flat model? Have any flat earthers explained that yet?[/QUOTE] I assume the sun/moon are not moving and instead the rotation of the earth is what is causing it? like, the Earth is a giant pizza, spinning eternally
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;50923123]Nothing will ever beat the Nazi hollow Earth theory [t]http://www.sheepletv.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/467775_378212992224054_1803274648_o.jpg[/t] "Inside the centre of the Earth lies a legendary city populated by pure blood Nordic Aryans"[/QUOTE] Apparently some Nazi u-boat made it there too and said fuck it and decided not to return.
[QUOTE=kr1f333;50926923]apparently there are also people who believe in a concave earth (?????) [IMG]http://www.missteribabylonestar.com/wpimages/wpff6575c8_06.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://welcome-to-concave-earth-forum.70389.x6.nabble.com/file/n385/wp83923691_06.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] Lord Steven Christ makes a better and more interesting argument than the flat earth believers.
[QUOTE=haloguy234;50925999]So if gravity is not real, what makes the sun and moon circle around the earth in a flat model? Have any flat earthers explained that yet?[/QUOTE] man, you're asking a lot from a group of very stupid people :v:
If the "Inverted Earth" model was true, then what is outside of earth :v:
what i dont get is what would the earth being flat actually prove that the government lies to us? wow, big shock, water is wet. that science as we know it is wrong? physics would change a lot if proven right but physics overall has been pretty solid with our explanations so far. we haven't hit any brick walls in terms of physics yet so i don't see why it would affect what we're working on now. more importantly, why would the government lie to us? because not only are private citizens getting closer and closer to space with literal cameras, balloons, and even ships, which would foil their plans easily, but us not knowing the earth is flat would do nothing for the government other than [I]maybe[/I] losing trust from it's people. but even then, the US government has come out several times and shit on itself because of mistakes made in the past, and one of those would definitely have been the space program or round earth stuff if it were actually false. it'd be the dumbest fucking lie ever because it hides nothing lmao.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;50923913]Would make for a pretty awesome fictive world though. Imagine sailing from Japan to Australia on that map: You'd be able to see the [I]entirety[/I] of Australia, Indonesia, the Philippines, New Zealand and the entire ocean you're about to cross, [I]from the port[/I].[/QUOTE] Thankfully, there's no need to imagine: Halo 3 already did something like it: [T]http://u.cubeupload.com/FlandersNed/Construct.jpg[/T]
[QUOTE=paul simon;50927481]Well the issue with that is that those plane routes don't exist, they're made up[/QUOTE] That would mean that Airplanes would actually have a much higher max speed that they travel at when taking the fake route so that the flight time makes sense.
[QUOTE=Gamerman12;50930907]what i dont get is what would the earth being flat actually prove that the government lies to us? wow, big shock, water is wet. that science as we know it is wrong? physics would change a lot if proven right but physics overall has been pretty solid with our explanations so far. we haven't hit any brick walls in terms of physics yet so i don't see why it would affect what we're working on now. more importantly, why would the government lie to us? because not only are private citizens getting closer and closer to space with literal cameras, balloons, and even ships, which would foil their plans easily, but us not knowing the earth is flat would do nothing for the government other than [I]maybe[/I] losing trust from it's people. but even then, the US government has come out several times and shit on itself because of mistakes made in the past, and one of those would definitely have been the space program or round earth stuff if it were actually false. it'd be the dumbest fucking lie ever because it hides nothing lmao.[/QUOTE] not only that, but considering how actually terrible the government is at keeping secrets theres no fucking way they could literally keep [B]the entire planets shape[/B] a secret it would be a secret of no value that would require literally limitless resources to hide and wouldn't even make sense in terms of like... what the fuck is the point? controlling people? how does it control people? it's logic that stumbles around needlessly.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.