his analysis is very mainstream
No, it’s not. Tesla’s dream of free energy was just that, a dream. Deathraydesigner already noted that Tesla was wrong about the conductivity of the atmosphere.
Tesla was a genius, but geniuses are not infallible. Don’t let man-worship cloud your judgment. If you insist that free energy is a thing, then the burden is on you to prove that it exists and demonstrate how it works. Shrieking about govt coverups that you can’t prove exist is no different than flat earthers shrieking about faked moon landings that they can’t prove.
Edit: downvotes but no counters. That’s also something you have in common with flat earthers. Have fun being disappointed.
Tires and scuba tanks are poor models for the earths atmosphere. Neither generate the same gravitational attraction as earth because are far less massive, and both of your examples are sealed on all sides. A sealed container will have equal pressure throughout, but earths atmosphere is not sealed by solid matter. The earths atmosphere is a balancing act between gravity pulling down and pressure pushing up.
gravity is a theory because it cannot be proven.
Tell me you don’t know what theories are without telling me you don’t know what theories are.
spin me a ball at speeds that shred oak trees and steel buildings and magically the water is pulled down.
What speed the earth spins at depends on what reference frame you’re using. From the perspective of oak trees and steel buildings, the earth doesn’t rotate at all relative to them. Furthermore, tangential velocity (the spin speeds flat earthers usually cite) is not useful when analyzing rotating objects; the far more important figure is angular velocity, which is used to calculate centrifugal force. Earths centrifugal force due to its spin is 0.033 m/s^2, compared to 9.81 for acceleration due to gravity. Gravity is over 290 times stronger. And that is at the equator, so the centripetal force decreases closer to the poles.
Imagine someone pushes you on a merry go round at a rate of one revolution per day. Not a very exciting ride, is it? That’s why the earths “insane rotating speeds” don’t matter, the earth spins at the exact same speed as that merry go round.
A bullet fired West is not going to be slammed back into the shooter because the shooter, gun, and bullet are all not moving relative to the earth before the bullet is fired. It’s for this reason that a bullet fired forward from a moving car doesn’t slam back into the car; the bullet was already traveling at the same speed as the car before it was fired. This idea is referred to as an inertial frame of reference.
So Qanon is ridiculous but flat earth isn’t? That’s a first. If anything Q has a lot more evidence in his favor than any flerfer.
The Bible has zero indication of agreeing with a flat earth model. Every alleged proof consists of flerfers retroactively reinterpreting cherry picked verses.
her preaching
There’s your problem. There are no more prophets, only preachers, and none of them are women.
I keep trying to tell globe earthers that there is a reason why this movement isn’t going away, but instead keeps flipping more and more people every day
Because a lot of people think emotionally instead of logically, and are scientifically illiterate, allowing scammers to prey on them. Exactly what happened with the COVID jabs.
But the Internet is connecting people and opening minds and the censorship is backfiring.
The internet also allows con men and useful idiots to spew their irrational nonsense. Being open minded is not an inherently good quality, especially when you're so open minded that your brain falls out.
No, they don’t agree, because every single time I or someone else points out something wrong with something that a flat earther has said, another flerfer comes along saying “that’s not what flat earthers believe!” And proposes a variation of the flat earth model.
“If you [insert requirement here] you would agree with me” is a tacit admission that you don’t have an argument and a gratuitous display of narcissism. In other words, typical flerfer bloviating.
If an eternal, omnipotent God created the universe (which I believe is the case as a universe can’t cause itself into existence), then it would be trivially easy for such a being to simultaneously create a vast universe and a planet capable of sustaining life, no? It has nothing to do with luck and everything to do with God’s creative benevolence.
I think the city needs to be renamed to Los Diablos.
You joke, but that's most of the Q "proofs", "deltas", and "habbenings" here.
Better late than never, but gee it would have been nice if some of these people came forward sooner.
Every single pro flat earth argument in that link is based entirely on lies and ignorance.
GPS uses ground based towers? Then how come it works in the middle of the ocean with no line of sight to any tower?
No one has observed satellites? Even amateur astronomers have taken pictures of the ISS crossing the night sky. Some even capture it passing in front of the Moon, showing that it looks exactly how it is pictured in textbooks.
Zero G footage is faked? Please: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M01m3UUgoM
He claims that images of planets look different from ground-based amateur telescopes and recommends a very specific brand of camera. If you have to have a specific brand of camera to prove your theory, then it's not a good theory. Also, the view of planets from sufficiently powerful telescopes looks exactly as they are depicted in images from NASA, save that the latter are sharper and clearer.
He alleges that Foucault pendulums only work because the operator deliberately induces sideways motion, and that they don't rotate in the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere. Both of these allegations are patently false. These pendulums consistently precess at the precise rate required for each latitude that they are tested on and in the correct direction in each hemisphere.
EvErYtHiNg FrOm NaSa Is CgI!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rraWKQ4bPhI&t=1s
He asserts that all pilots are taught that the earth is flat, which is a patently false statement that anyone with Google can figure out.
Ditto for his assertion that artillery gunners are taught flat earth. Even back in the Napoleonic Wars artillery cannons had to take both the earth's curvature and the Coriolis effect into account.
[On the ionosphere's effects on radio transmissions] What, the ionosphere doesn't curve during the day?
No, it has different strength and shape due to the fact that the solar wind pushes on it during the day and not at night, because the night side of the earth is facing away from the sun and is shielded by the other half.
The Bible does not describe the firmament as a vaulted dome. Even if it did, the fact that the firmament is objectively not that means that the biblical description is metaphorical or poetic.
Copernicus, Newton, and Rockefeller were all Freemasons in cahoots with each other? That's awfully convenient, everyone the flerfers don't like are satanic Freemasons! And no, Rockefeller did not impose the globe earth model on public education, the globe earth model was organically adopted as the standard because it corresponds to reality. The globe earth model and orbital mechanics existed well before Rockefeller and exist independently of him.
If the sun travels above the earth in a plane parallel to the earth, then it would never ever be observed to set at all. Furthermore, for the portion of the year that the sun is above the equator, it would be closer to the North Pole than the "ice wall", yet its rays light up both. The situation would be equal and reversed for the other half of the year. How do the sun's light rays magically know to travel further in one direction than another?
There is no proof at all that the tides have anything to do with the moon.
Yea, except the fact that the tides wax and wane in sync with the moon's movement relative the surface of the earth. This is yet another exhibit in flerfers discounting evidence that clashes with their theory as nonexistant.
How does the light side of the moon following the sun have anything to do with what shape the earth is?
Because this only works in the orbital mechanics model, not the flat earth one.
The sun and moon are the same size and distance from the earth and the moon sometimes covers the sun.
If they were the same distance from the earth the moon would collide with the sun. The moon must be closer to the earth than the sun for solar eclipses to work, but in the flat earth model this means that we would never see the portion of the moon illuminated by the sun. Furthermore, the moon must also sometime be on the opposite side of the earth relative to the sun while still being visible from earth for lunar eclipses to work. Flerfers are such clowns they contradict themselves and can't keep their model straight!
Civilizations all around the world were able to predict perfectly the eclipses using a flat earth model.
No they weren't, see the contradictions pointed out above. Ancient civilizations knew the earth was round.
Gravity is an unproven theory. No one has ever proven that mass attracts mass.
Then throw yourself off the edge of the Grand Canyon. It's easy to say there's no evidence when you automatically dismiss any evidence presented to you.
Round is not spherical
Everyone seems to know what "round" means in the context of flat earth discussions except flat earthers themselves. They argue semantics because they don't have any real arguments.
There are lunar eclipses when the sun is still up
Those are partial lunar eclipses. And if the earth's shadow isn't causing lunar eclipses, then what else is?
Has this person been to space to see what it (solar eclipses) look like?
Probably not, but NASA has been kind enough to provide plenty of pictures for us. Even a video feed from the ISS showing an eclipse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwNc5aK3dBk
A disk makes a round shadow.
Only when light is cast on it perpendicular to the disk's plane. Any deviation creates an ellipse. Only a sphere can case a round shadow in any arbitrary direction.
Observe this quote from Rudolf Steiner [discrediting the accuracy of orbital mechanics]
A brief google search shows that this guy was a Mason. I thought Masons pushed globe earth and weren't trustworthy?
The stars are not trillions of miles away.
Parallax measurements and red shift beg to differ.
If you are in a large room, when you look up you will see different parts of the ceiling.
But you can still view the whole ceiling at once, and you can still see the center from the edges. This does not explain why one set of constellations is visible from the North, and a completely different set from the South.
Anyone who knows that how a compass works knows that the south pole has nothing to do with it.
Anyone who knows how magnetism works knows that no monopole has ever been observed. Every magnet has both a north and a south pole; that's how magnetic field lines work. Any college or even high-school level physics textbook will depict this.
If the compass points toward the north pole, shouldn't it point through the earth when you are in the southern hemisphere?
- it's being physically blocked by the casing of the compass, and 2) magnetic field lines do not point straight toward the poles at all times. Again, this person clearly has not cracked a physics textbook in years.
On to answer his own questions:
How can we see Mercury/Venus at night since they are closer to the sun than us?
Because you can't see them at midnight, only in the evening or morning, when the sun is close to but hasn't broken the horizon.
How is it that there are thousands of of photos of stuff from 100 miles plus away?
Show me one, and tell me the exact location and elevation of the camera.
Why does the Moon only illuminate clouds nearby and not the whole hemisphere?
Take a large sheet of paper and hold it up between you and a lightbulb. Note how the portion of paper directly between you and the lightbulb is more brightly lit than the edges. This is called diffusion.
Why do sunbeams not appear parallel?
For the same reason train tracks don't appear parallel.
Boom, I answered all his questions without once referencing refraction, just as he requested.
Anything else?
Most creation scientists are not flat earthers (because they’re actually intelligent). Globe models of the earth predate evolution and Big Bang models by centuries if not millennia.
Stop pretending that flat earth has a monopoly on creation science or religious thought.
I’ve debated flat earthers for years. I’ve watched every video and read every article that they’ve thrown at me, and it’s all chock full of ignorance and illiteracy. Their models do not match reality at all, and they can’t even agree on what their model actually is.
Earthquakes can be felt because that’s the only time the earth actually moves relative to you. Flat earthers complain all the time about how fast the earth spins and how fast it travels around the sun, claiming that we should be able to feel it. They fail to grasp the concept of relative motion, usually because they dismiss the concept of relativity outright.
As for why flat earth is still a theory, that’s because a lot of people think emotionally rather than logically. Outraged that the govt has lied about some things, they swing to the opposite extreme to distrust everything ever said by the govt. Then, when people point out that they are wrong, they develop a persecution complex, combined with a superiority complex that they know secret knowledge that everyone else is too stupid or brainwashed to comprehend. That’s why flat earth is still popular.
Dang, I'm impressed you found a 6 month old thread. Must have spent a long time searching for this, huh?
And you got an upvote already? Gee, that's not suspicious at all. /s
Those videos contain 1) mind-numbing scientific illiteracy, 2) utterly irrational arguments, 3) complete lack of understanding of how NASA creates and publishes space images and other material, and 4) scam artists.
EDIT: Just now figured out that catsfive reposted this thread to the top of GAW. My bad.
Further, youre the one that brought up the DSS as a way to validate that Christian thought has remained unchanged.
I should have been more clear here. The DSS validates the accurate transmission of OT through the centuries, which in turn validates a substantial portion of Christian thought as Christianity considers the OT to be divinely inspired. “The DSS doesn’t have anything to do with NT canon” is what I should have said.
Assuming that CNN is the RCC in your analogy, said analogy is highly flawed.
CNN has their own narrative and their own articles, but Fox (Eastern Orthodox Church) had their own writings (Byzantine Greek Texts), and these were never touched by CNN. Fox didn’t restrict access to their writings like CNN did, and eventually some of CNN’s staff caught onto the differences (Erasmus) and others found discrepancies even between CNN’s own material (Luther). They defected (Reformation) and made their own text (TR) based off Fox’s uncorrupted info.
The RCC never had a complete monopoly on all translations of Scripture. Their lies were found out; that’s why denominations other than the RCC exist.
I live less than an hour away from this mall and have frequented it multiple times. They have both a rule banning unaccompanied minors and a ban on carrying firearms (which I freely ignore).
Don’t like it? Don’t go there.
I wonder which American generals were there in the bunker. No great loss I’m sure, though I’m disappointed that Milley wasn’t there.
No, that’s not what that act did at all. Its sole effect was to provide a new local government to run Washington DC. Previously this had been one of Congress’s duties; this act simply let them offload it to a different organization.
The act refers to the US as a corporation, but the word has meanings other than the “incorporated business” meaning most commonly used today. Corporation can also mean “a group of people elected to govern” which is exactly what the US is.
Edit: the act doesn’t even mention Puerto Rico.
The Nag Hammadi library is not the DSS. The former was found in Egypt in 1945 and the latter near the Dead Sea in 1946. They don’t have any content in common with each other.
Once again, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Even if the DSS contained texts written by gnostics, that is not necessarily an endorsement of those texts or a testimony of their accuracy. The DSS was simply a library of texts that the Essenes had. Most of the texts are just copies of portions of the OT (which match the later Masoretic texts) and small portions of their own writings. That they were stored together does not mean the Essenes weighted them all with the same religious authority, much like how some Christians today read the Apocrypha or biblical commentaries despite not holding to them as inspired scripture.
So even if Gnostic texts were found with the DSS, it still doesn’t prove your point, as it still would not imply that said texts were viewed on the same level scripture, the texts still date before Christianity, and all of this still does not explain the obvious contradictions between Gnosticism and the plain teachings of Scripture.
Lack of adrenochrome probably.
I wonder how many in the Pentagon and 3-letter agencies have dual citizenship too…
It should be none. No one who has dual citizenship should ever be able to work for the government in any capacity. Divided loyalties do not make good public servants.
The DSS have nothing to do with Christianity, Gnostic or otherwise. They were all written at least a century before Christ.
How on earth does my endorsement of the Textus Receptus indicate support of the RCC? They don’t use the TR; they use the Vulgate. A brief examination of my comment history will reveal that I am not a Catholic and do not agree with their theology.
I am forced to conclude that you are ignorant of anything concerning Christianity.
WiFi is for sending information, not power. Most WiFi routers output 1 Watt of power, just enough to get the signal across.
Electrical power can be sent wirelessly, it just takes specialized equipment. Such transmission loses power exponentially with increased distance, as all EM radiation does.
You can send low power over long distances (radio), or high power over small distances (your phone’s inductance charger). High power over long distances falls into the above constraints.