Huge 7.5-7.8 Richter scale earthquake in SE Turkey and NW Syria, and someone posted this, yesterday?
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (91)
sorted by:
Thank you for specifying it's not a flat earther.
It's frustrating listening to them as an engineer. They make all kinds of claims about math that, if you check their math, they just guessed based on what they wanted and never picked up a calculator.
David Weiss is one of the worst. I checked his math and he was off by 90 orders of magnitude.
The margin he was wrong by was over 10^45 times larger than the difference in strength between gravity and magnetism.
I don't know how much more of an ignorant ass it's possible to be.
I don't understand how he can just sit there and insist "It's mathematically impossible!" When it's painfully obvious from any one who checks his work that he's mathematically illiterate.
Rant over. I'm mad at these people, they hurt our cause.
That’s interesting that you found out that information. And yes, I’m sorry I just don’t believe in the whole flat earth thing. The entire solar system, could not exist with the flat earth. It does it take the daughter of a rocket scientist to know that. Lol.
They don‘t believe that, re space. They see the Earth as an enclosed place. A bit like a large Truman Show. What we see as space is more like in the firmament.
I don‘t know much but the thing that really bugs me is how we often can see way further than we should, all over the place.
Username checks out!
Can you give an example of us being able to see further than we should?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lLmW5Y8BFw
Yeah, just pretend the rest of my comment is unwritten. Focus on the specific part that has nothing to do with anything.
I gave you a specific.
Want to know more details?
David Weiss said that stars would not be visible at astronomical distances because the light would not be strong enough to reach Earth.
This is an easy one to check on.
Just look at the luminosity of a candle and the distance a human can see it. Then you can use that plus the luminosity of the sun to determine how far it would be visible from.
I did that.
It will be of sufficient luminosity to activate a human eye with a direct line of sight from over 10^90 light years away.
David said 5 light years was too much and it would be invisible.
He said it was mathematical fact.
I'm an instrumentation and controls engineer. You can't tell me this lie, I engineer useful equipment that uses the theory he is wrong about.
I'm sorry.
Isn't it frustrating when random people on the internet think they know more about the field you've studied and worked in for years? Oops sorry that comment was meant for the climate scientist.. 😜
Come on you've gotta see the parallels lol
No. I engineer useful equipement that proves itself in industry.
I don't get the option to be wrong. I'm unemployable if I'm wrong because the science I rely on makes real products that are used by real people on an industrial scale.
The environmentalists make incorrect predictions and retroactively modifiy past observations to make it look like they were right all along.
It's not the same. Look at the rotoscopes that are always brought up by people like Tony Heller.
Like you can open an engineering textbook on how to design devices that demonstrably work and prove to them that they are wrong and they will still argue with you.
IDK what they said to you but I totally agree with you on this. If you or I can easily see the flaw in their logic they hurt our cause
You think your eyes can see 90 light years away, huh? Aw. Bless your heart. How many times have you watched Star Trek?
No, because I calculated the distance based on how far the light would travel through atmosphere at sea level.
Space has no atmosphere to refract, diffuse and absorb light.
The luminosity would be enough for much further in actuality.
I was being generous by including the atmosphere in my calculation and he was still off by 10^90.
That's not a little number to be off by.
He stated that due to the distance to and from stars as presented by the standard model that a star would not be bright enough to reach earth.
He insisted that it was a mathematical fact that the nearest star would not be visible at the distances that astronomers suggest.
So a human eye can see a candle from 1.6 miles away and a candle gives off ~12 lumens of light.
Luminosity is measured from 2 feet away and a mile is 5280 feet. 1.6 miles is 8448 feet. So a human can see a canle in the night from 8448 feet away through atmosphere at see level. At that distance the luminosity from the candle is 13^(1/log2(8448)) - 1 = 0.21 lumens
now the sun is 35,730,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 lumens according to astronomical estimations based on the amount of light hitting earth. So how far would the sun have to be in order to be an equvalent brightness to a candle, through atmosphere at sea level?
Let's do math, we can reverse the formula with the approprate variables 35,730,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,001^(1/log2(x))-1 = 0.021 x = 6.707 x 10^103 feet That's 1.27 x 10 ^ 100 miles
the speed of light is 1.86 x 10^5 miles per second (1 light second) or 5.88 x 10^9 miles per year (1 light year)
1.27 X 10^100 / 5.88 x 10^9 = 2.16 x 10^90
That means that the sun will be apparantly brighter than a candle out to a distance of 2.16 x 10^90 light years.
Modern cosmology says the nearest star is only 5 light years away Modern cosmology says the nearest galaxy is only 2.5 X 10^5 light years away Modern cosmology says the amount of universe we can see with our telescopes so far only reaches out to 4.86 X 10^10 light years.
The sun will be appear to be brighter than a candle for a distance greater than the total distance light could have travelled since it's birth.
The sun will be brighter than a candle for so long that 10 new stars will live and die using material from the sun before that light thins enough to be outdone by a candle.
David doesn't do math.
He insists and that's about it.
Every time you use a GPS, you rely on the understanding of the workings of the universe that also demonstrates that the earth is a spheroid. Flat Earth stuff is a literal psyop.
Maybe you are underestimating the capabilities of the towers and perhaps putting a little too much faith in the satellites. What makes you believe that there are hunks of metal spinning around the earth? Who or what convinced you of this theory?
I literally built a telescope and looked, I went sailing, I went up in a single-prop plane with my dad and looked. I also studied physics to the point where I could see how it formed a coherent, but incomplete whole, into which the modern astrophysical model fits without any strange or unlikely assumptions.
As to how flat-earth psyops benefit the people engaging in them, and the people funding them: the people promulgating them make nice salaries off of their followers, as well as getting problems taken care of by their handlers. The people funding them get to use obviously inane discussions to discredit "conspiracy theorists" (a term made up by the CIA to describe people who accurately saw that JFK was assassinated by the CIA).
Also, why the Flat Earth psyop? Are they just trying to make random people look crazy? What benefits does the ostracized flat earther gain? Now, imagine if the globe was the actual psyop...it's quite easy to see the possible gains for the government and NASA. 60 million a day sounds pretty nice. Hiding resources seems beneficial to the elites. Hiding extra land would keep the people imprisoned and controlled. Hiding the existence of a creator would definitely strengthen Satan's vice grip of the minds of earthlings.
None of us KNOW anything, we just have beliefs with varying degrees of certainty. It's the certainties that cause all our grief and conflict.
P.S. I've been researching flat earth for a while now, despite my serious doubts. I'm still not convinced by either theory, although flat earth is pretty intriguing once you go deep enough.
Some choose to believe the greatest lie ever told because they are conditioned to behave like self-indulgent assholes when confronted with alternative theories of our reality. It's part of the programming.
If one were to spout off about living in a computer simulation people here might be inclined to go "Hmm, anything is possible." But something about flat earth triggers folks.
Hmmm, anything IS possible.
All flat earthers have the same MO.
They all argue from a position of hostility and ad hominem. They're all completely oblivious to how ridiculous their argument sounds to what they consider "normies".
They all do the "trust the science" schtick of maskers while simultaneously ignoring all science.
And they all have no desire to follow forum rules. Their bullshit belongs on conspiracies.win, yet surprise surprise you can't find their posts there. Because their only purpose is to conflate their batshit crazy ideas with Q to contaminate Q by association and they can't pull that off by posting on conspiracies.win.
"All"? Are you certain?
I honestly believe that there is a ton of information out there and TGA.win is the perfect place to debate ideas that people are learning out there. No one who does even a cursory dive into flat earth comes away thinking that is bullshit. If we all come at all ideas with free and open minds then we can uncover everything our controls hide from us. They are killing us…how far is it to reach that they lied about the very world we walk on?
Like I said, completely oblivious.
All the same arguments, complete bullshit. You can't even get past first base of establishing why, if the earth was flat, why elites would care anyone knows about it as there is nothing to be gained by it.
For all we know, Antarctica has a massive colony of human trafficked individuals and their offspring, which are bred and used for human sacrifice to Satan, adrenochrome and sex slaves. One method elites use to hide this is wrapping Antarctica in mystique and deflection with "flat earth", driving conspiracy theories about the world being flat as a reason no one can go there, as opposed to the much worse reason of human trafficking.
You can't explain why elites wouldn't want the population knowing about the earth being flat, but it should be plainly obvious why they don't want people knowing about their trafficking.
Anyways, I've been far too generous chatting with a DARPA AI bot.
Flat earth theories seem to be nothing more than "Bro-science." Buuuuut brooooo
Sounds like you've done the deep dive on this subject. What have you learned about it? Or is it all stupid and not worth your time?
I wouldn't say its stupid, or not time worthy. Just pretty far out of reach to prove one way or another. Off topic on this board too. And Its usually responses like these that get a rise out of this community. They all sound the same, yours included.