WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

[Park Life 71]

Just now, Kevin Carr's Gloves said:

 

 

So the stars are reflections of something under the earth?

You're seeing mirrored reflections off the ice dome you dopey fuck.

[wolfy 12]

Just now, Kevin Carr's Gloves said:

 

 

So the stars are reflections of something under the earth?

No. They are reflections of most probably inner Earth crystal...at a guess.

[Park Life 71]

Just now, Rayvin said:

Ok but...

 

Wolfy, you're now saying something that we can see with our own eyes isn't real and is a distortion of the light as it hits our eyes. That's a level up from 'everyone is lying to us' - you're now saying we can't even trust our own senses.

 

On that basis, surely if you did go to space, and did observe the earth as a sphere, couldn't you just argue that it remained a trick of the light?

The eyes work with light waves not 'realtiy'. I feel sorry for Wolfy having to explain the basics to idiots. Read a book.

[Rayvin 5186]

Also, what if you can clearly see the point at which the disappearing ship meets the sea (which you can)? Surely that means that a whole section of the horizon has not only been omitted, but that the rest of the picture has 'shifted down' to accomodate this loss?

[wolfy 12]

7 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

Ok but...

 

Wolfy, you're now saying something that we can see with our own eyes isn't real and is a distortion of the light as it hits our eyes. That's a level up from 'everyone is lying to us' - you're now saying we can't even trust our own senses.

 

On that basis, surely if you did go to space, and did observe the earth as a sphere, couldn't you just argue that it remained a trick of the light?

There's lots of things that trick our eyes.

There'll be many things that I get wrong.

We are all easily duped in many circumstances.

We are basically creatures of habit. Mimicking is the name of the game with us.

 

The thing is, it's not just basic visual fooling with all this stuff. Some of it is basic natural verifiable science on everyone's part that can only be scuppered by people who choose to tell us that magic defeats our own normal logical sense.

 

Now, don't get me wrong. If you choose to go with everything on that part, as we were all schooled into, then fine. I really have no issues with any of it, because like I said...I was exactly the same and had to go over stuff enough times to start to see how ridiculous some of the stuff we've been taught, is.

 

[wolfy 12]

7 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

Also, what if you can clearly see the point at which the disappearing ship meets the sea (which you can)? Surely that means that a whole section of the horizon has not only been omitted, but that the rest of the picture has 'shifted down' to accomodate this loss?

Your horizon is always at eye level, no matter how high or low you go, as long as you are looking horizontally level.

The sky meets water or the sky meets land.

 

Now picture a ship below that horizon line. It's naturally going to lose light to the bottom of the hull whilst the mast is going to sit closer to your horizon line and obviously higher towards more reflected light.

Your eyes naturally take in this light but omit the darkest part which you now view as a sinking ship, or basically a ship supposedly going down a curve or Earth.

Have you ever wondered why people mention ships going down a curve that are starboard or port facing to that person.

What happens here?

Because surely a ship doesn't move away from your view, sideways.

See what I'm saying?

[Rayvin 5186]

3 minutes ago, wolfy said:

There's lots of things that trick our eyes.

There'll be many things that I get wrong.

We are all easily duped in many circumstances.

We are basically creatures of habit. Mimicking is the name of the game with us.

 

The thing is, it's not just basic visual fooling with all this stuff. Some of it is basic natural verifiable science on everyone's part that can only be scuppered by people who choose to tell us that magic defeats our own normal logical sense.

 

Now, don't get me wrong. If you choose to go with everything on that part, as we were all schooled into, then fine. I really have no issues with any of it, because like I said...I was exactly the same and had to go over stuff enough times to start to see how ridiculous some of the stuff we've been taught, is.

 

 

I don't think many people on here would consider me to be someone who follows the standard school of thought tbf. I seem to spend half my forum posting time arguing with people about the wider failings of Western civilisation. It's why no one likes me anymore

 

But even I'm struggling with your position here. There is clear evidence refuting your theory, and no "non-theoretical" evidence in support of it - and the only basis upon which to challenge that is to question the legitimacy of absolutely every aspect of our society, and indeed I would argue, every person you meet. That's such a big jump that for it to make any rational sense, surely, you would have to have actual physical evidence of the claim. That's for you to be satisfied by it as a position, as someone with a skeptical mind, I would argue.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3859]

23 minutes ago, wolfy said:

No. They are reflections of most probably inner Earth crystal...at a guess.

 

 

Where is inner earth crystal found?

[Meenzer 15432]

Can someone explain to me how this ship is HOVERING IN MID-AIR

 

[Alex 34913]

[wolfy 12]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

 

I don't think many people on here would consider me to be someone who follows the standard school of thought tbf. I seem to spend half my forum posting time arguing with people about the wider failings of Western civilisation. It's why no one likes me anymore

 

But even I'm struggling with your position here. There is clear evidence refuting your theory, and no "non-theoretical" evidence in support of it - and the only basis upon which to challenge that is to question the legitimacy of absolutely every aspect of our society, and indeed I would argue, every person you meet. That's such a big jump that for it to make any rational sense, surely, you would have to have actual physical evidence of the claim. That's for you to be satisfied by it as a position, as someone with a skeptical mind, I would argue.

Anything I say will always be met by the words "prove it."

I can prove it but my proof would never stand up to peer review, because it's a simple proof that we all know.

Water level.

Gravity being atmospheric pressure.

 

The problem is, they will always be rendered as not realistic and cannot work, when clearly it does work.

It gets thrown aside in favour of curved water and also gravity, with simple un-provable explanations cited.

 

You mention things as basic as you can...something like, well how come a helicopter can hover and yet the ground does not move from under it?

The usual answer is, " oh, because the Earth spins so fast that it drags the atmosphere with it and everything else within it, whether it's on the floor or in the air."

Most people's logic tells them that this does not make any real sense.

 

It really doesn't but we get told that the Earth has been spinning for millions of years and has managed to drag the atmosphere along with it and that's why if you jump up you just follow the rotation.

Then when you say, "hey, how come we don't get flung off this Es that the Earth takes 24 hours to make one revolution so it's going so slow relative to someone in space looking at it.

There's always an answer to the nonsense and people swallow it because it's "official" yet hid behind the comfort blanket of a "scientific theory"...etc

 

[Rayvin 5186]

6 minutes ago, wolfy said:

Anything I say will always be met by the words "prove it."

I can prove it but my proof would never stand up to peer review, because it's a simple proof that we all know.

Water level.

Gravity being atmospheric pressure.

 

The problem is, they will always be rendered as not realistic and cannot work, when clearly it does work.

It gets thrown aside in favour of curved water and also gravity, with simple un-provable explanations cited.

 

You mention things as basic as you can...something like, well how come a helicopter can hover and yet the ground does not move from under it?

The usual answer is, " oh, because the Earth spins so fast that it drags the atmosphere with it and everything else within it, whether it's on the floor or in the air."

Most people's logic tells them that this does not make any real sense.

 

It really doesn't but we get told that the Earth has been spinning for millions of years and has managed to drag the atmosphere along with it and that's why if you jump up you just follow the rotation.

Then when you say, "hey, how come we don't get flung off this Es that the Earth takes 24 hours to make one revolution so it's going so slow relative to someone in space looking at it.

There's always an answer to the nonsense and people swallow it because it's "official" yet hid behind the comfort blanket of a "scientific theory"...etc

 

 

I think with the helicopter, it's not so much that the earth pulls it along with it, it's that the helicopter itself was already moving horizontally at the same speed as the earth - and nothing is acting against it to slow it down. Thus, conservation of momentum would apply.

 

The atmosphere is also matching this speed, so doesn't act on the helicopter (assuming no wind).

Edited May 17, 2017 by Rayvin

[wolfy 12]

12 minutes ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said:

 

 

Where is inner earth crystal found?

To be fair, I'm playing a best guess scenario based on my thoughts about Earth.

I haven't been to the centre of Earth, so anything I do say is based on hypothesis or musing to be fair.

 

Have a think about gold and silver and platinum, plus diamond and all the many so called precious stones.

Hard to find, right?

That may be true to an extent but how abundant could they be and how big could they be if it all originates from the centre?

A big energy emit from the centre and a channel of veins carrying all kinds of minerals throughout this cell.

 

To give you an idea. Take a look at your own eye ball. Look at the set up of it all. Look at how everything is channelled around and through it.

Now see a black centre.

 

What's to say that Earth isn't something that resembles this type of working.

I know, I know, I'll be told by some that I think the Earth is an eye ball ...but on a more serious note, we only know what we are trained to abide by and taught to regurgitate.

We are certainly not taught to actually think and question what is set out for us, in truth.

 

I know people will argue that scientists have to think, otherwise how do things get advanced.

I say, there'll be plenty of scientists out there looking for answers to all kids of stuff.

The issue is, what stuff is allowed to be made genuine public legitimate reality?

 

Like I said, I don't know all the answers or even a small portion of them. All I can do is put my thoughts out and basically question.

[Rayvin 5186]

1 minute ago, wolfy said:

To be fair, I'm playing a best guess scenario based on my thoughts about Earth.

I haven't been to the centre of Earth, so anything I do say is based on hypothesis or musing to be fair.

 

Have a think about gold and silver and platinum, plus diamond and all the many so called precious stones.

Hard to find, right?

That may be true to an extent but how abundant could they be and how big could they be if it all originates from the centre?

A big energy emit from the centre and a channel of veins carrying all kinds of minerals throughout this cell.

 

To give you an idea. Take a look at your own eye ball. Look at the set up of it all. Look at how everything is channelled around and through it.

Now see a black centre.

 

What's to say that Earth isn't something that resembles this type of working.

I know, I know, I'll be told by some that I think the Earth is an eye ball ...but on a more serious note, we only know what we are trained to abide by and taught to regurgitate.

We are certainly not taught to actually think and question what is set out for us, in truth.

 

I know people will argue that scientists have to think, otherwise how do things get advanced.

I say, there'll be plenty of scientists out there looking for answers to all kids of stuff.

The issue is, what stuff is allowed to be made genuine public legitimate reality?

 

Like I said, I don't know all the answers or even a small portion of them. All I can do is put my thoughts out and basically question.

 

I work in academic publishing in STM, and can absolutely confirm that the government does not pre-vet any of our publications for anything, let alone specifically for information concerning whether or not the earth is flat. So again, this would have to be such a thorough conspiracy that those responsible couldn't be reliant upon it self perpetuating - they'd have to be actively distorting how everyone sees the world.

 

I thought of something else though - I'm guessing you don't believe it's possible to circumnavigate the globe? That would be testable - you could do it by plane if you really wanted to.

[wolfy 12]

6 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I think with the helicopter, it's not so much that the earth pulls it along with it, it's that the helicopter itself was already moving horizontally at the same speed as the earth - and nothing is acting against it to slow it down. Thus, conservation of momentum would apply.

 

The atmosphere is also matching this speed, so doesn't act on the helicopter (assuming no wind).

Yep, that's generally the answer.

Now  on a serious note. Do you honestly believe that the atmosphere could carry a helicopter along at the same speed of the Earth if it hovered for 1 hour and that helicopter not losing any momentum.

Basically just being dragged along by the atmosphere for 1 hour without any reduction by friction of drag?

 

 

Added to that...did you watch the Felix Baumgartner 23 mile high jump from what we were told was basically a vacuum?

Is he going to be dragged along with the atmosphere even in a supposed near vacuum?

He was supposedly up there for over an hour and yet finished up landing just 73 miles or so away from his start point.

The trouble with that is, if the Earth rotates at around 1000 mph or 800 mph to give a smaller estimate for Mexico, then shouldn't he end up around 800 miles from his starting point?

 

You see, we're asked to just accept this and it literally does not make any rational sense.

 

 

[Park Life 71]

Here he is.   (Sceptimatic)

 

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61337.0

 

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67582.0

Edited May 17, 2017 by Park Life

[wolfy 12]

5 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I work in academic publishing in STM, and can absolutely confirm that the government does not pre-vet any of our publications for anything, let alone specifically for information concerning whether or not the earth is flat. So again, this would have to be such a thorough conspiracy that those responsible couldn't be reliant upon it self perpetuating - they'd have to be actively distorting how everyone sees the world.

 

I thought of something else though - I'm guessing you don't believe it's possible to circumnavigate the globe? That would be testable - you could do it by plane if you really wanted to.

You can circumnavigate a circle.

 

[Rayvin 5186]

2 minutes ago, wolfy said:

Yep, that's generally the answer.

Now  on a serious note. Do you honestly believe that the atmosphere could carry a helicopter along at the same speed of the Earth if it hovered for 1 hour and that helicopter not losing any momentum.

Basically just being dragged along by the atmosphere for 1 hour without any reduction by friction of drag?

 

 

Added to that...did you watch the Felix Baumgartner 23 mile high jump from what we were told was basically a vacuum?

Is he going to be dragged along with the atmosphere even in a supposed near vacuum?

He was supposedly up there for over an hour and yet finished up landing just 73 miles or so away from his start point.

The trouble with that is, if the Earth rotates at around 1000 mph or 800 mph to give a smaller estimate for Mexico, then shouldn't he end up around 800 miles from his starting point?

 

You see, we're asked to just accept this and it literally does not make any rational sense.

 

 

 

They're not being dragged along by atmosphere though. Atmosphere isn't acting on the helicopter in this scenario. Both the atmosphere and the helicopter have sideways momentum already. Once the helicopter lifts, it keeps this sideways momentum because there is no force acting against it (because the atmosphere is going in the same direction, at the same speed). The only way it slows down is if the wind or some other force works against it. And obviously in a live test that would happen - but assuming absolutely no wind, the atmosphere would have no impact at all - because it's matching the helicopter's speed.

 

Which is presumably why it doesn't matter whether or not this happens in a vacuum. Because the atmosphere and all components involved in the process, travel at the same speed. Thus they don't act upon each other.

 

Same for Baumgartner. Whatever he jumped from was in orbit at the same sideways speed it had when it departed. Thus he retained that sideways speed also. As he fell, then wind currents will have come into play and pushed him off course. But as you say, not by that much - because actually, he's moving at the same sideways speed as the earth more or less throughout.

[Rayvin 5186]

9 minutes ago, wolfy said:

You can circumnavigate a circle.

 

 

I suppose you can, but for that to stack up...

 

Ok better question, what do you think the earth looks like?

[wolfy 12]

5 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

They're not being dragged along by atmosphere though. Atmosphere isn't acting on the helicopter in this scenario. Both the atmosphere and the helicopter have sideways momentum already. Once the helicopter lifts, it keeps this sideways momentum because there is no force acting against it (because the atmosphere is going in the same direction, at the same speed). The only way it slows down is if the wind or some other force works against it. And obviously in a live test that would happen - but assuming absolutely no wind, the atmosphere would have no impact at all - because it's matching the helicopter's speed.

 

Which is presumably why it doesn't matter whether or not this happens in a vacuum. Because the atmosphere and all components involved in the process, travel at the same speed. Thus they don't act upon each other.

 

Same for Baumgartner. Whatever he jumped from was in orbit at the same sideways speed it had when it departed. Thus he retained that sideways speed also. As he fell, then wind currents will have come into play and pushed him off course. But as you say, not by that much - because actually, he's moving at the same sideways speed as the earth more or less throughout.

Yep, I understand exactly what you're saying, but the reality is that the helicopter lifting up from the ground would not keep an exact motion with a solid Earth for 1 hour. This is what I'm getting at.

Imagine being on a spinning roundabout. You're attached to the roundabout by your feet by the friction of them and your body mass.

If you jumped up, you would be flung off, but assuming the roundabout was absolutely huge and you jumped up...the roundabout would have moved a fair distance away in terms of the point from which you jumped from.

Now judging by your vacuum mindset and saying no friction, then we can apply that to the scenario and come to the same conclusion that the roundabout moves away from the point of the jumper.

 

A rotating Earth at over 1000 mph would follow the same scenario, if Earth was a rotating globe, which I do not believe for one second.

[wolfy 12]

15 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I suppose you can, but for that to stack up...

 

Ok better question, what do you think the earth looks like?

A cell among cells.

If we could view it from outside, which obviously we can't, then I would liken it to one of an infinite cells, just like we would be looking at something like, frog spawn or even a boat load of poached eggs with Earth being one yolk among the infinite yolks, or cells.

 

I don't really like to make analogies like this because I just know someone will make out that I think the Earth is a poached egg. 

Edited May 17, 2017 by wolfy

[The Fish 10779]

5 minutes ago, wolfy said:

Yep, I understand exactly what you're saying, but the reality is that the helicopter lifting up from the ground would not keep an exact motion with a solid Earth for 1 hour. This is what I'm getting at.

Imagine being on a spinning roundabout. You're attached to the roundabout by your feet by the friction of them and your body mass.

If you jumped up, you would be flung off, but assuming the roundabout was absolutely huge and you jumped up...the roundabout would have moved a fair distance away in terms of the point from which you jumped from.

Now judging by your vacuum mindset and saying no friction, then we can apply that to the scenario and come to the same conclusion that the roundabout moves away from the point of the jumper.

 

A rotating Earth at over 1000 mph would follow the same scenario, if Earth was a rotating globe, which I do not believe for one second.

 

So you believe if a passenger jumped up in a plane (s)he would lurch back towards the rear of the plane. It's travelling at hundreds of miles an hour, after all.

[Park Life 71]

7 minutes ago, wolfy said:

Yep, I understand exactly what you're saying, but the reality is that the helicopter lifting up from the ground would not keep an exact motion with a solid Earth for 1 hour. This is what I'm getting at.

Imagine being on a spinning roundabout. You're attached to the roundabout by your feet by the friction of them and your body mass.

If you jumped up, you would be flung off, but assuming the roundabout was absolutely huge and you jumped up...the roundabout would have moved a fair distance away in terms of the point from which you jumped from.

Now judging by your vacuum mindset and saying no friction, then we can apply that to the scenario and come to the same conclusion that the roundabout moves away from the point of the jumper.

 

A rotating Earth at over 1000 mph would follow the same scenario, if Earth was a rotating globe, which I do not believe for one second.

http://www.physicscentral.com/experiment/askaphysicist/physics-answer.cfm?uid=20110218025229

[wolfy 12]

1 minute ago, The Fish said:

 

So you believe if a passenger jumped up in a plane (s)he would lurch back towards the rear of the plane. It's travelling at hundreds of miles an hour, after all.

No, but then again Earth wouldn't resemble that. This is one thing given out to supposedly prove a spinning globe. It doesn't even follow the globe process as an answer. It's a cheat answer.

[Park Life 71]

2 minutes ago, wolfy said:

No, but then again Earth wouldn't resemble that. This is one thing given out to supposedly prove a spinning globe. It doesn't even follow the globe process as an answer. It's a cheat answer.

It's because the passenger was traveling at the same speed as the plane when he jumped. And the helicopter was traveling at the same speed as the earth when it took off.

 

 

http://www.physicscentral.com/experiment/askaphysicist/physics-answer.cfm?uid=20110218025229