NASA Satellite stops on a dime!? WTF!!!

[Luther Blissett]

It can be a sphere if it's made out of code!

[dada]

"I'll leave y'all with the below article, as a reminder of that, after all, we are here because we are inspired by rigorous intuition -- within us, within those of us that visit this archaic board."

I get what you're saying, but I don't appreciate the implication that anyone who understands that the world is not flat is accepting something handed down from on high without questioning.

I don't merely accept that I can't know how the world works, and leave it up to scientists. I work hard to understand things. I struggle with the math. I make an effort. I'm trying not to be insulted, though. I know you didn't mean it. You just posted the article.

The difference between science, and something like this flat earth stuff, is that someone decides that the earth is flat, and works from the conclusion, bending over backwards looking for proof. If you assume nothing, you arrive at the conclusion that the earth is not flat.

So calling the search for proof of a flat earth 'science' is not accurate. And that article calling it 'art,' and making the case from there that everyone can make art, is a subjective thing. 'Art' is a value judgement. I mean if someone wants to call rothko's squares, or pollock's drizzles, or schwitters' trash collage 'art,' that's up to them. I like schwitters trash collage, myself.

I'm not here because I'm inspired by rigorous intuition. Personally, I see nothing rigorous in my intuition. I like some of the people here, though. Some smart people with a good sense of humor (some, I say). I get a genuine laugh out of some people's writing. That's pretty much why I'm here. I appreciate the sharp thinking, and the creativity that happens sometimes, too.

I'm not moved by that mystic symbolism, either. Just as well show a picture of an eagle and the word 'freedom,' as a picture of a sun and moon with a ladder. These symbols only have meaning that we put in them. The eagle with the word freedom can make a person swell up with pride, tears in their eyes, ready to die for god and country. But they invested that symbol with that power. These images are fetish objects, tribal, superstitious.

Someone was telling a story with that freemason symbol. If you figure it out, good for you. You're in the secret club, congratulations. But I can see whatever I like in that image. It could be Moe, Larry, and Curly climbing that ladder, going to fix the leaky roof. Throw coins, and read from the iching. It says, 'The bull is crossing the stream. Auspicious.' Could be interpreted a million different ways. The superstitious person sees it surrounded by a superstitious aura.

I was hoping this thread would fall off the edge of the earth. I tried to stay away. Now I guess I'm not helping. Ah, well.

[Blue]

By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.

So said Galileo.

[maco144]

The term edge implies something that one can go over. Using edge as parlance shows 0 understanding of a correct FE model and why I said there is no edge. We have no idea what lies beyond Antarctica. It could be an infinite plane. All we know is that a dome encases the Plane that we are on. Asking what is beyond that is moronic (and yet some keep asking...).

[maco144]

About ISS visible in the sky. The FE explanations to seeing ISS are that it is likely some sort of hologram technology (project blue beam). Reasons to be incredulous that you're actually seeing ISS are that it is moving 22x the speed of sound (it should be moving much faster and essentially on fire). Also, it is the size of a sports pitch. Claiming to see something that size at 200+ miles away means you have the vision an eagle would be envious of. Again, we can show that space walks and space station footage is being faked so it is hard to believe that theyre forging that but everything else is legitimate.

[DrEvil]

But you still haven't explained why.

[maco144]

I think I've mentioned this before on some thread here because I'm obsessed with the concept, but there exists only one spot from which a person can see both the (top of the) World Trade Center in New York City and the (top of the) Comcast Building, the tallest building in Philadelphia: the very apex of the Kingda Ka rollercoaster at Six Flags in New Jersey, where a person has only a split second to do it. There are rumors that both can be seen from a spot in the Delaware Water Gap (though I have trouble believing this), and further rumors that once the new (taller) Comcast Barad-dûr is built, one will be able to see the World Trade Center from the top (and vice versa).

If the earth were flat, wouldn't there be a broad band of land between both cities from which viewers could see both, even with the "law of perspective"? (Still open to holographic universe / simulation theory explanations)

I cant find the footage at the moment but when I first found FE one of the visuals I found very convincing was a view of the philadelphia skyline from a park in upstate NJ. At a distance of ~80 miles between the two there should be no way to see NYC/Philadelphia so there's another opportunity to prove FE. Kingda Ka is 45 stories, surely there must be an office building of that height somewhere in central NJ where that is possible to see Philly and NYC.

EDIT to add crappy low res picture.

This is the best I can find at the moment. IIRC it was something like 60 miles away.

[Burnt Hill]

There is no force that pulls down. This is extremely simple to understand. Even if you believe that gravity exists you must also recognize the downward pressure coming from the atmosphere stacked above. If you cannot acknowledge that no amount of words/images/videos will help.

If you drop an apple inside a vacuum chamber, will it fall towards the earth ?

Yes clearly, the medium cannot support it. Youre just changing variables and still not understanding that there is no force pulling downwards.

So, it isn't 'downward pressure' that makes a thing fall towards the earth then ? What is it that makes the apple fall downwards rather than staying at the position it was released at ? There is a force acting on the apple - it is either pulling it or pushing it towards the earth; what is the name of this force and where does it come from ?

There is nothing below the apple to support it therefor it falls being denser than nothing. The atmosphere that pushes us downwards us resisted by the fact that we stand atop a denser medium. This is elementary level simplicity and should you had not been indoctrinated into believing big G you could easily understand this.

So put an apple and a tennis ball in a vacuum,
the apple is denser,
according to your theory what should happen?

You could also use a hammer and a feather like they did on the moon,
from where they could see the round earth spinning as a sphere.

Both items fall at the same rate because a critical density has been reached in relation to the medium. Since they are directly proportional, the denser the medium the denser the object needed to fall through. Since in a vacuum the critical density is 0 objects fall at the same rate.

So the objects are falling through the vacuum- towards what? And why?

[maco144]

But you still haven't explained why.

In this thread there is objective proof of a flat earth and you keep asking about my subjective opinion of why a cabal would wish to do this....

[maco144]

Both items fall at the same rate because a critical density has been reached in relation to the medium. Since they are directly proportional, the denser the medium the denser the object needed to fall through. Since in a vacuum the critical density is 0 objects fall at the same rate.

So the objects are falling through the vacuum- towards what? And why?[/quote]

Up and down are cardinal directions. They fall down because nothing is supporting them beneath so they move until there is resistance. Do you think they should float? Do you suppose they should move up?

[Burnt Hill]

Both items fall at the same rate because a critical density has been reached in relation to the medium. Since they are directly proportional, the denser the medium the denser the object needed to fall through. Since in a vacuum the critical density is 0 objects fall at the same rate.

So the objects are falling through the vacuum- towards what? And why?

Up and down are cardinal directions. They fall down because nothing is supporting them beneath so they move until there is resistance. Do you think they should float? Do you suppose they should move up?

Up and down, as cardinal directions, based on what?
And then remember we are in a vacuum, so if there is no Gravity, sure, they would float, why not?

* Thanks for trimming that post!

[chump]

Our World is, at least, 4 dimensional... Any way our minds can imagine... I think

https://youtu.be/MM0BiOjd3hs



https://youtu.be/bBObeZ6Vj3A

[DrEvil]

But you still haven't explained why.

In this thread there is objective proof of a flat earth and you keep asking about my subjective opinion of why a cabal would wish to do this....

Yes! Exactly! Why would a cabal wish to do this? What's the friggin' point?

If you have no clue it's OK to admit it.

You also still haven't explained why an apple in a vacuum tube would fall down.
Some force must be deciding the direction the apple should fall. What is that force, and why down?

[82_28]

I'm watching the Broncos game live right now. Why is it dark one time zone over? It's still light here on on the west coast. Why?

[chump]

You also still haven't explained why an apple in a vacuum tube would fall down.
Some force must be deciding the direction the apple should fall. What is that force, and why down?

Density and Buoyancy?


https://youtu.be/p2QmEcDydzQ