Gravity. Objects with a sufficient mass will exert a gravitational force. In your example, the globe has water on it and you're expecting it to fall down off the globe. Cool, what is down? I have a feeling you are imagining a ball and pouring water on it and the water is falling off. In this scenario, down is towards your feet, which would be towards the center of the planet. Pretend you are no longer on Earth, you are in space, what specifically is down and what would cause it? Also, why are all other large celestial bodies, that we can easily observe, spherical? The moon has phases which cast very obvious shadows which indicate the shape. Why is earth the only flat object?As the earth is seen from the moon or anywhere else in the solar system as roundish or global, why doesn't the 70% water fall off the planet into a black hole or somewhere else ? Thanks.
-
If you are having trouble changng your password please click here for help.
Flat Earth
- Thread starter Proximal
- Start date
If you could get to space and it was real, like in Star Trek, down wouldn't be a point of direction. It would be your perspective from/and/of orientation. There would be no right side up.
Earth isn't a planet or a luminary(a natural light giving body) its the center of creation, non-movable
No one knows whats beneath your feet, what is the farthest depth reached into the earth?
Again, after all the flights to the moon and all the drones sent to far away places, a hubble telescope and another on a plane, not one person can actually show a authentic photo of a round earth
The earth is unmoving and no amount of mental gymnastics can change the fact. You can hypothesize about what you see through a lens but that's all it is because you can't get there.
The globe is the conspiracy, trust in what you see instead of man.
In Elementary School we would go to Fernbank Planetarium, we live on Fernbank. 😃
In High School, I didn't believe we went to the Moon. Me looking into the Bible years later just fortified my belief.
In the movie “The Gods Must Be Crazy” The aboriginal was taking the coke bottle to throw it off the edge of the earth. Maybe their tribe knows something we don’t.
This belief is not NOT backed up by the Bible, and is innaccurrate at best. Galileo Galilei observed the movement of the planets with one of the first telescopes. By tracking the movements of Mars and Venus over time he was able to prove that they fit the heliocentric model and not an geocentric model. I believe the Earth to be the "center of the Universe" as far as God is concerned; however, it orbits the Sun, not the other way around. Why would Galileo and Newton lie?
The Kola Superdeep Borehole is the deepest manmade hole on Earth and deepest artificial point on Earth. It is 40,230 ft deep, or 7.62miles. Since the Earth's diameter is about 7,900 miles at the poles, that Kola Superdeep is almost 0.1% through.
The Hubble Telescope couldn't take a picture of the Earth; first off, it's too close, like trying to focus on your front sight through your 10X scope. Secondly, it's pointed in the wrong direction. I will show a picture of the Earth, probably the most famous of all, just so you can respond "that one is fake":
Prove to me that Washington DC exists; I mean, I've never been there, and I won't accept that it exists, and any pictures or videos of it are easily faked. I trust in what I see, not in man. The Bible never names Washington DC, or the Internet, or someone online that goes by "AmbiEncE", and I've never seen this character, so I don't believe he exists, either.
In addition to all the witness testimony, the videos, the photos, and the laser reflector that we can bounce lasers off of on the moon TODAY, there is one over-riding reason that I believe we went to the Moon: We were racing Godless commies, who wanted to prove that atheistic communism was better than Christian freedom, and they never argued that we won.
Please explain what I'm seeing here.
This may be the smartest thing you've said so far.
Source? And, before you say it, no, the bible isn't a source for scientific observations.
Wrong. Inge Lehmann is credited as having the most significant discovery (building on Richard Dixon Oldham's work) on this topic. Feel free to download and read her paper here.
Astronauts have social media.
Don Pettit: Nasa, X, Petapixel
Specific missions
STS-41B
First untethered space walk
How about a perspective from the Command & Service Module in lunar orbit awaiting the arrival of the Landing Module?
And before you start screeching "WhEre ArE tHe StaRS?!?!". When you are taking pictures of brightly lit objects you have to have your camera settings correctly set for that. This means an aperture setting between f/5.6 and f/11 (which is a narrow aperture which intentionally limits light), low ISO (which reduces noise and also decreases light sensitivity, i.e. dimly lit objects), And a relatively fast shutter speed to limit motion blur. Photography is a whole can of worms that is fascinating and worth understanding. As a person who enjoys the challenge of armature photography, I can tell you from first hand experience it can be a huge pain in the ass to get the settings right depending on what you're wanting to shoot.
It isn't mental gymnastics, infact, you're entering into self aware wolf territory with a statement like that. You're essentially telling me not to believe my lying eyes. Sir, this is all observable, go grab a telescope. Now, again, if you'd like to take the position that the perception of motion is relative, you'd have a fun argument, but that wouldn't change the fact that our solar system does in fact revolve around the sun.
See the above video of a Space-X launch.
Conduct one experiemnt that proves hundreds of other experiements, that were all independently verified, wrong. Then publish your findings and include your methodology. Then prepare yourself to be the most talked about scientist of all time.
I don't know what the **** this means, but ok.
This is called confirmation bias. You should probably work on that.
I've tried. Not only is he dismissing an enormous body of science (astrophysics), but he's also ignoring basic physics and chemistry. Atomic forces, gravity, light. There are so many fundamental physical laws that tie the nature and behavior of physical objects, including planets, to the most basic elements of the universe.
