FLAT EARTH

[pckts]

a globe model? My friend I basing this on how the universe works not a piece of plastic. If you cannot understand the basics of science and how the universe works then you should not be trying to prove a flat earth. ok take this for instance you have a flat piece of paper you know how heavy it feels if you lift in your hand right? now roll that paper into a tight ball and lift it in your hand do you feel any difference? the ball is slight more heavy right? now is that based on a plastic model or is that you telling the difference between the mass of a flat paper and a balled up one?

It doesn't matter what models we are talking about. You can NEVER apply parts of incompatible models to one another to disprove or prove the other. You have to consider the entire models separately in their entirety, with the facts and evidence present in reality.

Your little example has nothing to do with gravitational pulls. The reason for a "gravitational pull" isn't even understood, it's used to explain why we are pulled to the surface and it's necessary for other parts of the "outer space/globe model". On the flat model, density is the only explanation necessary for why we remain on the surface. Gravity wasn't necessary until after we switched to the globe to explain why we didn't fall of the surface rotating and hurling through "space".

At least you can't pull the age card on me.

 

[Blain]

Logic and reasoning is how we support all of our beliefs, whether biblical, conspiracy theories, or mainstream accepted facts. Logic and reasoning is how we navigate the world and do everything, if we put faith in something we use logic and reason to consider the source is something worth trusting and putting faith into when we don't fully understand the truth behind it.

I'm using logic and reason to stand behind what I subscribe to, even if it's contrary to what you believe.

I see how it may appear foolish when you spend your entire life believing it's a globe, are taught in grade school people use to think you would sail off the edge, and trust that authority is providing you the truth openly and honestly. It may seem foolish under the circumstances and conditions you are currently living under. I completely understand your viewpoint, I once believed it myself. The difference between flat earthers and globe earthers is that "we" understand your beliefs and why you believe them because we once did ourselves.



No, you don't need to honor me or put any faith in me at all (i actually want you to investigate what I say yourself, especially the video and images) and I'm not divine whatsoever. My brain is younger and healthier than yours, that's why.

ok i just wanted to comment on your last comment saying how your brain is younger and healthier than his. I honestly am not trying to be but I had to literally laugh out loud because that is the most ignorant thing I have heard anyone say in a long time. to assume yours is healthier is not just ignorant it's arrogant, have not ever heard that with age comes wisdom? this is not to say of course that this is always true but to assume your brain is healthier simply because your more young only shows you have a lot to learn my friend. and if he thought the same because he has more age on you then he in turn would also be ignorant and arrogant

 

[pckts]

Umm.....no not quite.....you just think you know it all. You're the one who is deceived into thinking the Earth is flat. You're a flat earther and you always will be. I work in this field every day. I know what's real and what is not. Some of my family are members who work for NASA here in Huntsville, Alabama, and they can flat out tell you that the Earth is round. You don't work in this field, you have NO knowledge of it whatsoever. You need to take your know it all, ignorant conspiracy loving attitude and take it somewhere where you can really deceive people, weak minded people such as yourself

You aren't specific at all, just state that I am wrong and declare yourself as being right. You support yourself with personal stories about employment and knowing family members like yourself.

I'm aware that people work in the "globe field", and they are capable of forming words to tell me I am wrong and that they believe in the globe just like you. My belief in the flat earth doesn't require or discount that people work for NASA, and that they disagree with me. You aren't telling me anything I do not know.

If you want to debate this issue with me you have to do more than say you "know a guy" and are employed by someone who purports the globe. I "know a guy" that is a flat earther, and employment options and situations doesn't factor into my decision on the matter.

 

[Tommy379]

How do they stay quiet about 9/11, WMD in Iraq, Kennedy Assassination (among many others), rigging elections, keeping us dependent on fossil fuels, the military industrial complex, the federal reserve, promoting homosexuality as a positive and true thing among many other liberal agendas, the corruption in the prison/justice system, corruption/funding of the education system, and the numerous false flag attacks to start wars or take guns?

Money, threats, and using people to participate morally bankrupt and loyal to money and afraid of threats. We also have a very controlled media that chooses which information to distribute and suppress.

Let me see if I can address all this:

9/11 attack- perpetrated by muslims after considerable planning.

WMD in Iraq- a combination of we know Iraq had previously used them, the U.S. gave it to Iraq during their war with Iran, and bad information from informants used by U.S. and U.K. intelligence agencies.

JFK assassination - Oswald acted alone, because he was a commie nutjob.

Rigging elections- known to happen, make a case, and prosecute

Petroleum - still the most efficient energy source, considering current technology.

Military industrial complex - been that way since warfare has existed.

The federal reserve- just another bad idea.

Homosexuality and the liberal agenda- just the cause of the day, it will be something else tomorrow.

Corruption - been around since time began

 

[pckts]

ok i just wanted to comment on your last comment saying how your brain is younger and healthier than his. I honestly am not trying to be but I had to literally laugh out loud because that is the most ignorant thing I have heard anyone say in a long time. to assume yours is healthier is not just ignorant it's arrogant, have not ever heard that with age comes wisdom? this is not to say of course that this is always true but to assume your brain is healthier simply because your more young only shows you have a lot to learn my friend. and if he thought the same because he has more age on you then he in turn would also be ignorant and arrogant

It was a joke because he pulled the age card on me earlier with his 4 years. You mistook my obvious joke for ignorance, a sign of your inability to grasp sarcasm. And issue you and I had earlier this year in your thread about September 25th being a cosmic event, unless I'm mistaken. There you also took my sarcasm seriously, and claimed it was hard to detect in writing on the internet for you. Glad you got a laugh out of it, even if you didn't get the joke, that was my intention.

 

[Blain]

It doesn't matter what models we are talking about. You can NEVER apply parts of incompatible models to one another to disprove or prove the other. You have to consider the entire models separately in their entirety, with the facts and evidence present in reality.

Your little example has nothing to do with gravitational pulls. The reason for a "gravitational pull" isn't even understood, it's used to explain why we are pulled to the surface and it's necessary for other parts of the "outer space/globe model". On the flat model, density is the only explanation necessary for why we remain on the surface. Gravity wasn't necessary until after we switched to the globe to explain why we didn't fall of the surface rotating and hurling through "space".

At least you can't pull the age card on me.

I was never using a model I was using logic and science and how the universe works. my example of the mass with paper was to make a point about how mass is different depending on the shape and form of something and that comes into play with gravitational pull, if something has less mass in it then it will pulled towards that pull first. And also as for you saying gravity wasn't necessary until we switched to globe model that is simply incorrect. gravity is a reality it has been here since the creation of the world if you drop a rock is it not gravity that makes it fall to the ground? Is gravity also not the reason we don't lift into the air flying upwards?
you can try to reason with models if you like however if you don't have a basic understanding of how the universe works then you cannot prove anything of sound logic. I have brain damage and I am a slow learner and even I understand this

 

[Blain]

It was a joke because he pulled the age card on me earlier with his 4 years. You mistook my obvious joke for ignorance, a sign of your inability to grasp sarcasm. And issue you and I had earlier this year in your thread about September 25th being a cosmic event, unless I'm mistaken. There you also took my sarcasm seriously, and claimed it was hard to detect in writing on the internet for you. Glad you got a laugh out of it, even if you didn't get the joke, that was my intention.

oh I see I apologize for the misunderstanding.

 

[pckts]

Let me see if I can address all this:

9/11 attack- perpetrated by muslims after considerable planning.

WMD in Iraq- a combination of we know Iraq had previously used them, the U.S. gave it to Iraq during their war with Iran, and bad information from informants used by U.S. and U.K. intelligence agencies.

JFK assassination - Oswald acted alone, because he was a commie nutjob.

Rigging elections- known to happen, make a case, and prosecute

Petroleum - still the most efficient energy source, considering current technology.

Military industrial complex - been that way since warfare has existed.

The federal reserve- just another bad idea.

Homosexuality and the liberal agenda- just the cause of the day, it will be something else tomorrow.

Corruption - been around since time began

Well in red you don't believe there is a conspiracy. The fossil fuel conspiracy isn't that it isn't the most efficient with current technology, it's that technology that surpasses it using other fuels are suppressed, purposely intentionally not explored/funded, and acts of sabotage and espionage occur to prevent them from surfacing. Don't want to get into that, might sound nuttier than claiming the earth is flat with that one.

Everything else you basically just say "it is what it is" (take it at face value). The masses do just that and are not aware of the issues and accept everything at face value. Claiming corruption can't be fought with specific knowledge and awareness of it because "it's been around since time began" is a defeated and simplistic attitude and is the reason it is allowed to exist and grow.

You wanted to know how a secret like that can be kept from the public, I gave examples of secrets and specific information kept from the public, and you told me there either wasn't a conspiracy or there was nothing that could be done about it because it's just the way things are.

I don't believe the federal reserve and militarily industrial complex is just the way things are and not a conspiracy. If most people were aware conceptually of what they were, and of what is occurring that allows them to exist and continue to feed on us, we would be able to end them. By being deceived and asleep to these issues they are allowed to exist, and this occurs because the people involved with them stay quiet about it and never alert the public, and the public doesn't want to be alerted because they are distracted and just accept everything as is.

 

[Seedz]

you know I have looked into it and I have offered a my finding to every flat earther I have met on here and none of them have even responded to it let alone be able to refute it.
Think of this, you are aware of how the sun has it's own gravitational pull right? well the sun has a much larger gravitational pull than the moon does but because of the moons mass it is not pulled into the fiery star mass is the reason it can do this and since it is an orb shape it has a good amount of mass and it's gravitational pull affects the tides of the ocean on earth.

Now if say the earth is flat then it have little to no mass compared to the moon and and the sun and thus would pulled directly into whatever has the greatest pull and that being the sun. yet the earth is exactly where it is neither to close nor to far away from the sun, if the earth were even a mile away from the sun it would be drastically colder here and vise versa if it was a mile closer to the sun in which we would all roast and fry.

Now let me ask you how do you explain this?

Whether you like it or not, "Gravity" as we know it is still a theory, just like "Relativity" is still a theory.

Meaning it has not be proved in a tangible, repeatable way.

 

[tourist]

Whether you like it or not, "Gravity" as we know it is still a theory, just like "Relativity" is still a theory.

Meaning it has not be proved in a tangible, repeatable way.

That's the gravity of this situation.

 

[Tommy379]

That's the gravity of this situation.

Gravity is what holds me down.

 

[MichaelOwen]

Gravity is what holds me down.

They don't believe in gravity, hence, they should float away.

 

[pckts]

I was never using a model I was using logic and science and how the universe works. my example of the mass with paper was to make a point about how mass is different depending on the shape and form of something and that comes into play with gravitational pull, if something has less mass in it then it will pulled towards that pull first. And also as for you saying gravity wasn't necessary until we switched to globe model that is simply incorrect. gravity is a reality it has been here since the creation of the world if you drop a rock is it not gravity that makes it fall to the ground? Is gravity also not the reason we don't lift into the air flying upwards?
you can try to reason with models if you like however if you don't have a basic understanding of how the universe works then you cannot prove anything of sound logic. I have brain damage and I am a slow learner and even I understand this

You are using logic and science of how the universe works on the globe model.

The force keeping things "down" has been here since the beginning of creation. This force being explained as "gravity" didn't come to be until after the globe model was adopted.

I'm not claiming the force to hold things down wasn't necessary until the globe model and prior to this magically things weren't held down. What I claim is that on the flat earth model you have a different explanation for what holds things "down", than you do on the globe model. On the globe model gravity needed to be theorized because an explanation was needed as to why things do not fall off or move as the earth rotates and hurls through space.

Not claiming the force that holds things down wasn't necessary prior to the globe, I'm claiming that explaining the force as gravity coming from the mass of the planet wasn't necessary until the globe model was adopted. I claim that prior to the globe, explaining why things didn't spin or fall off due to earth moving wasn't necessary, and a different explanation of the downward force was used.

 

[Seedz]

They don't believe in gravity, hence, they should float away.

We just don't believe in NASA's Gravity because its wack.

 

[Blain]

Whether you like it or not, "Gravity" as we know it is still a theory, just like "Relativity" is still a theory.

Meaning it has not be proved in a tangible, repeatable way.

I don't think dropping a rock on your foot is theory, the fact that if something has weight and it falls to the ground is not a theory and gravity is the name of the thing we call that makes it drop to the ground.
there is proof of gravity but if you simply don't want to accept it because it opposes and disproves your own beliefs then that is your choice

 

[Seedz]

I don't think dropping a rock on your foot is theory, the fact that if something has weight and it falls to the ground is not a theory and gravity is the name of the thing we call that makes it drop to the ground.
there is proof of gravity but if you simply don't want to accept it because it opposes and disproves your own beliefs then that is your choice

I'm talking about the mechanism of gravity. Not the fact that things fall when dropped.

NASA tells you that any object with mass can attract another object.

This fits their space model, and their galactic model.

I doubt my head has a gravitational field of its own.

 

[pckts]

I don't think dropping a rock on your foot is theory, the fact that if something has weight and it falls to the ground is not a theory and gravity is the name of the thing we call that makes it drop to the ground.
there is proof of gravity but if you simply don't want to accept it because it opposes and disproves your own beliefs then that is your choice

"gravity" is what you call it on the globe model. The force can be explained as something different on a different model. We aren't choosing to ignore or discount the force, we do not accept the explanation for this force provided by the globe model.

You don't have to believe in flat earth to understand that there can be different explanations for the same force on different models.

 

[Blain]

You are using logic and science of how the universe works on the globe model.

The force keeping things "down" has been here since the beginning of creation. This force being explained as "gravity" didn't come to be until after the globe model was adopted.

I'm not claiming the force to hold things down wasn't necessary until the globe model and prior to this magically things weren't held down. What I claim is that on the flat earth model you have a different explanation for what holds things "down", than you do on the globe model. On the globe model gravity needed to be theorized because an explanation was needed as to why things do not fall off or move as the earth rotates and hurls through space.

Not claiming the force that holds things down wasn't necessary prior to the globe, I'm claiming that explaining the force as gravity coming from the mass of the planet wasn't necessary until the globe model was adopted. I claim that prior to the globe, explaining why things didn't spin or fall off due to earth moving wasn't necessary, and a different explanation of the downward force was used.

it isn't that is wasn't necesary until then it is that it wasn't understood. gravity doesn't only pull down it also pulls towards and the mass of something depends on how fast it falls down and how fast it is pulled towards. and no matter how we reason or rationalize it the law of gravity remains the sames, if the earth is flat then it will have much less mass and the only way it wouldn't be pulled into the moon or sun is if the moon and sun was flat too but then you would have to assume everything in the universe was flat or else whatever is closest to the sun and moon would simply pull them and the earth towards it.

 

[Blain]

"gravity" is what you call it on the globe model. The force can be explained as something different on a different model. We aren't choosing to ignore or discount the force, we do not accept the explanation for this force provided by the globe model.

You don't have to believe in flat earth to understand that there can be different explanations for the same force on different models.

you can call it a different name but it is still the same thing and still functions the same way. I can call the mass of the earth pancakes and the gravitation pull of the sun apples but it still functions as it was designed. it doesn't matter what you call it or how you think it works the fact is if the earth is flat the we would be in the sun right now.

 

[Blain]

I'm talking about the mechanism of gravity. Not the fact that things fall when dropped.

NASA tells you that any object with mass can attract another object.

This fits their space model, and their galactic model.

I doubt my head has a gravitational field of its own.

no it isn't your head it's your body that has a gravitational pull but the human body does not have near of of a pull to do that and also nasa doesn't say that any object that has mass can attract another object that would defy logic entirely. the amount of weight required to have a gravitational pull like that is beyond gigantic