Solving a big conspiracy?

[Donald J Trump]

It's okay, I believe you. :hugg:

Ahhhh My Eyes. Stop it. White Knight! He is trying to get virtual Possi.

 

[Aimee Sky]

Oh no. Trust me. You would be more thankful If I really gave you the tip.

Mhmm, you keep telling yourself that.

 

[Gerkak]

So it's just something flat in space? Or it's just that there's nothing under and the universe is above?

I cannot speak for all the flat earth proponents but based on the model I am aware of it is believed that the physical universe consists of just the flat earth, sun, moon, fixed stars and wondering stars(the classic planets). What is beneath the earth is more earth but it isn't very thick and there exists a hollowed out region. What is above is encased in a dome called the firmament.

It proposes that the heavenly bodies are a lot closer than the standard model says they are.

This is their theory.

 

[Multiply]

Ahhhh My Eyes. Stop it. White Knight! He is trying to get virtual Possi.

Aw no, you caught me bruv. :bdpf:

 

[Donald J Trump]

Mhmm, you keep telling yourself that.

So whipped w: w:

 

[Aimee Sky]

So whipped w: w:

XD Don't know whether that's a good thing or a bad thing....
But I'm in the mood for hugs sooooo
:hugg::hugg::hugg::hugg::hugg::hugg::hugg::hugg::hugg::hugg::hugg:
yay? XD XD XD

 

[Donald J Trump]

XD Don't know whether that's a good thing or a bad thing....
But I'm in the mood for hugs sooooo
:hugg::hugg::hugg::hugg::hugg::hugg::hugg::hugg::hugg::hugg::hugg:
yay? XD XD XD

Hehehe hugs hu-no.

I am so cute give me more attention.Next.

 

[FreakensteinAG]

I cannot speak for all the flat earth proponents but based on the model I am aware of it is believed that the physical universe consists of just the flat earth, sun, moon, fixed stars and wondering stars(the classic planets). What is beneath the earth is more earth but it isn't very thick and there exists a hollowed out region. What is above is encased in a dome called the firmament.

It proposes that the heavenly bodies are a lot closer than the standard model says they are.

This is their theory.

The obvious problem with this conjecture (let's be real, they aren't performing experiments to challenge their observations, so we can't call this a theory) is that there are no fixed stars--we have observed stars becoming incrementally farther apart from us (red-shifting) each year. We know how fast stars travel based on parallax and their wavelengths emitted.

I should hope the Flat-Earthers believe there's something inside that hollowed-out region--the iron core of our planet protects UVa and UVb radiation from literally fragmenting DNA and killing off life.

They should ask some entertainment companies how their satellites break from the "firmament" when they allow us to watch TV channels, use the internet, etc.

If the stars were much closer than they were, they would be more luminous in appearance, some even shining through cloud cover.

 

[Multiply]

The obvious problem with this conjecture (let's be real, they aren't performing experiments to challenge their observations, so we can't call this a theory) is that there are no fixed stars--we have observed stars becoming incrementally farther apart from us (red-shifting) each year. We know how fast stars travel based on parallax and their wavelengths emitted.

I should hope the Flat-Earthers believe there's something inside that hollowed-out region--the iron core of our planet protects UVa and UVb radiation from literally fragmenting DNA and killing off life.

They should ask some entertainment companies how their satellites break from the "firmament" when they allow us to watch TV channels, use the internet, etc.

If the stars were much closer than they were, they would be more luminous in appearance, some even shining through cloud cover.

Here's a good read:

You must be registered for see links

 

[Aimee Sky]

Hehehe hugs hu-no.

I am so cute give me more attention.Next.

Yeeeeeeeeaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh XD

 

[Shuuya]

I can't believe there are people who think this way in this day and age lmao

 

[demon of the leaf]

Funny enough they cut off Antarctica from the globe of the world which shows their incompentence

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

So what would be the benefit of having us believe the world isn't flat? Would it be to contradict the bible or is this something even more elaborate?

 

[Multiply]

Funny enough they cut off Antarctica from the globe of the world which shows their incompentence

No they didn't... Look at the map again.

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

So what would be the benefit of having us believe the world isn't flat? Would it be to contradict the bible or is this something even more elaborate?

They think the government is hiding God from us.

 

[Gerkak]

The obvious problem with this conjecture (let's be real, they aren't performing experiments to challenge their observations, so we can't call this a theory) is that there are no fixed stars--we have observed stars becoming incrementally farther apart from us (red-shifting) each year. We know how fast stars travel based on parallax and their wavelengths emitted.

Well not that I am pro flat earth or anything but red shift is not a proven phenomena it is an assumption made to support the big bang hypothesis which is again another assumption, a highly flawed one at that. Ofcourse so as not to waste time let me jus direct you to sites which perfectly explain and counter the assumptions made by the standard model. You can also take a look at the thunderbolts team who through scientific method have disproved many standard model assumptions from stars to comets etc.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

Big bang is an assumption there isn't any proof for it either really.

I should hope the Flat-Earthers believe there's something inside that hollowed-out region--the iron core of our planet protects UVa and UVb radiation from literally fragmenting DNA and killing off life.

The proponents of this theory don't believe the sun is the way we've learnt in class and to my knowledge believe the sun is at most 3000 KM above the earth's surface and between 30-40 miles across. The thermonuclear explanations for how the sun works in the standard model mean nothing to them. Perhaps they believe the small size of the sun in their model and the its low energy emissions make sure that higher frequency EMR like UV aren't capable of doing as much damage as if produced by a body 93 million miles across, who knows, like I said I can only say what I've learnt from their writings thus far, this part is blank.

They should ask some entertainment companies how their satellites break from the "firmament" when they allow us to watch TV channels, use the internet, etc.

If the stars were much closer than they were, they would be more luminous in appearance, some even shining through cloud cover.

Hmm it is believed by them that things like GPS work form ground towers or low altitude aircraft. According to some of them, prior to the creation of GPS or the launching of any satellite, the US military used a positioning system that relied on ground control and was very accurate. They believe that the same technology is at work today and that man never launched any satellites to space or went to the moon. Their belief is the large amount of CGI images NASA produces year after year and the lack of real time video clips of released by nasa is a sign that man hasn't gone to space and that the videos nasa does release are nothing more than green screen productions, that are inferior to their Hollywood counterparts.

As for the stars, they believe that the stars are very small too and some of them(the majority) are fixed luminous bodies devoid of any substantial physical form, to them this explains how weird they look from earth

Remember I am just stating what they say, I am not a proponent of the theory. Only my first response is my opinion.

So what would be the benefit of having us believe the world isn't flat? Would it be to contradict the bible or is this something even more elaborate?

Well flat earthers believe the earth is the center of the universe and that humans are special creatures, saying the earth is one of many spherical(pear shaped according to Neil Degrass) bodies drifting in a sizable universe makes us nothing. To them this was done to support evolution, the big bang and other things that lower human importance in the grand scheme of things ultimately an Atheistic view

 

[FreakensteinAG]

Well not that I am pro flat earth or anything but red shift is not a proven phenomena it is an assumption made to support the big bang hypothesis which is again another assumption, a highly flawed one at that. Ofcourse so as not to waste time let me jus direct you to sites which perfectly explain and counter the assumptions made by the standard model. You can also take a look at the thunderbolts team who through scientific method have disproved many standard model assumptions from stars to comets etc.

There is no assumption, this is an EMPIRICAL observation found when studying distances of stars. We did not guess that stars are emitting wider wavelengths of light, we've found that over the years the wavelengths of light are getting longer than they were in the past. So we can infer that in the past, we and the stars have been closer together than now. We take the current wavelengths of light in a star, any star. If that star later in time produces a longer wavelength, it is red-shifting from us, getting farther away. If it's producing a smaller wavelength, it is blue-shifting, or getting closer. Obviously radiation travels a certain speed, and if that distance is changed, the wavelength does too. It's an obvious mathematical proportion.

You must be registered for see images

There is no reason to discount empirical properties of the universe unless you are unwilling to learn.

(I've looked up Thunderbolt team and only found the name relevant in comics and alpine racing?)

Well flat earthers believe the earth is the center of the universe and that humans are special creatures, saying the earth is one of many spherical(pear shaped according to Neil Degrass) bodies drifting in a sizable universe makes us nothing. To them this was done to support evolution, the big bang and other things that lower human importance in the grand scheme of things ultimately an Atheistic view.

This is yet another problem. We know empirically that the Earth is not the center of the universe. The ancient Greeks were one of the first civilizations to know this wasn't the case through studying the circular path of lunar eclipses, the waxing and waning of the moon, and watching the path of shadows on a sundial, and their technology was vastly more primitive than our current technology. There is no excuse.

 

[demon of the leaf]

No they didn't... Look at the map again.

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

They think the government is hiding God from us.

No one is hiding god no human made thing could ever hope to hide god my guess is that he is observing us silently. funny enough the bible neither states the earth is round or flat so these morons are only making religious people who truely believe in god look bad humanity may be special since we are intelligent but that also comes with responsibility to care for the planet among others

 

[Gerkak]

There is no assumption, this is an EMPIRICAL observation found when studying distances of stars. We did not guess that stars are emitting wider wavelengths of light, we've found that over the years the wavelengths of light are getting longer than they were in the past. So we can infer that in the past, we and the stars have been closer together than now. We take the current wavelengths of light in a star, any star. If that star later in time produces a longer wavelength, it is red-shifting from us, getting farther away. If it's producing a smaller wavelength, it is blue-shifting, or getting closer. Obviously radiation travels a certain speed, and if that distance is changed, the wavelength does too. It's an obvious mathematical proportion.


Did you check the links I posted?

You must be registered for see images

There is no reason to discount empirical properties of the universe unless you are unwilling to learn.

(I've looked up Thunderbolt team and only found the name relevant in comics and alpine racing?)

You must be registered for see links

(the smaller of the two has a redshift 10 times greater than the larger one) are connected but show differing redshift. There is no denying that they are connected meaning they are at the same place. There is no such thing as exceptions in science if something is scientific fact it must be accurate in every single way, every single time. There can be no gaps and once inferences and assumptions start to appear(without experimental proof) then it can never be more than a theory, not fact.

As for the

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

, unlike proponents of the standard model have shown evidence backed by laboratory experiments on the nature of the sun. You should check it out don't hold on to only one view.

This is yet another problem. We know empirically that the Earth is not the center of the universe. The ancient Greeks were one of the first civilizations to know this wasn't the case through studying the circular path of lunar eclipses, the waxing and waning of the moon, and watching the path of shadows on a sundial, and their technology was vastly more primitive than our current technology. There is no excuse.

Their view is that there is no way for the average man to prove the earth is a sphere or a pear shape as Degrass seems to suggest. It is their idea that NASA and other agencies are hiding the truth. If an average man can't verify it how does he know it is true. As for the Greeks, the flat earther's have their own explanations for solar and lunar eclipses just look up a guy whose channel is called Flat water on youtube and search for his explanation of lunar and solar eclipses. This is their view.

Also using the Greeks as an example doesn't help anything since they merely made suppositions based on their observations they never proved anything. Facts in science must be backed by clear repeatable observations and physical evidence like real photographs

 

[demon of the leaf]

There is no assumption, this is an EMPIRICAL observation found when studying distances of stars. We did not guess that stars are emitting wider wavelengths of light, we've found that over the years the wavelengths of light are getting longer than they were in the past. So we can infer that in the past, we and the stars have been closer together than now. We take the current wavelengths of light in a star, any star. If that star later in time produces a longer wavelength, it is red-shifting from us, getting farther away. If it's producing a smaller wavelength, it is blue-shifting, or getting closer. Obviously radiation travels a certain speed, and if that distance is changed, the wavelength does too. It's an obvious mathematical proportion.

You must be registered for see images

There is no reason to discount empirical properties of the universe unless you are unwilling to learn.

(I've looked up Thunderbolt team and only found the name relevant in comics and alpine racing?)



This is yet another problem. We know empirically that the Earth is not the center of the universe. The ancient Greeks were one of the first civilizations to know this wasn't the case through studying the circular path of lunar eclipses, the waxing and waning of the moon, and watching the path of shadows on a sundial, and their technology was vastly more primitive than our current technology. There is no excuse.

I agree there is no excuse and i think this needs to be solved sooner rather then later ignorance like this cannot be allowed to fester or it can be determental to all

 

[Gerkak]

I agree there is no excuse and i think this needs to be solved sooner rather then later ignorance like this cannot be allowed to fester or it can be determental to all

How do you explain two galaxies in the same place with vastly differing redshifts. There are obviously too many unknowns and contradictions in our current model of physics it needs to be revised and some things need to be thrown away.

My main problem with modern scientists is that they find it difficult to just say they don't understand enough about what they say they understand Newton for example merely described Gravity he didn't say he knew exactly what it was and now people are trying to say gravity is mediated by particles, to explain pull using particles they create fictional unproven phenomenom like negative momentum. Sad.