See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball
Source:
[None]
URL Source: https://youtu.be/-Ax_YpQsy88
Published: Dec 29, 2019
Author: Eric Dubay
Post Date: 2019-12-29 19:57:38 by wudidiz
Keywords: None
Views: 26788
Comments: 351
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 55.
#3. To: wudidiz (#0)
They are not "proofs". They are arguments, and all I've considered are, to various degrees, easily dismissed.
Actually, what's advance here is more like "evidences." ...All I've considered are, to various degrees, easily dismissed. Not only are NONE are "easily dismissed," but to various degrees IMPOSSIBLE to dismiss. Period. (Please let go of your single objection regarding the flight from Chile to NZ and focus instead on some OTHER points/objections.) Yes, we've indeed belabored this subject ad nauseum, but with "200 Proofs" to consider debunking, I seriously doubt you or most folks are going to watch and consider all 200 proofs of this vid for one and a half hours (if you do, chances are you will seriously question this realm.) And then there are the countless YT vids to seriously consider that fully expose and destroy the lies while illuminating the truth. Many are extremely convincing. Either one is compelled to learn the truth on the matter or finds it irrelevant or "settled science" by the very same "Science Communitah," Academia, and Political Institutions that blatantly lie about Gender, Climate Change, Vaccines, Chemtrails, Illuminati/Luciferians/Satanists, Tesla, Natural Healing, NASA hoaxing, Politics, "Education," etc, etc. FWIW... The same "Modern" astronomy, cosmology, archaeology, and the "laws of sciences" which we've all been taught/indoctrinated in public schools as "gospel-science" have actually been nothing but...HYPOTHESES, which have been PURPOSELY WRONG, SLOPPY, and SHAM. Ping, I've recently read 5 books on the subject from contemporaries of Darwin and Einstein published between 1865-1922; basically contemporaries of all those who steamrolled their respective hypotheses of "Gravity" (Newton), Evolution (Darwin), Heliocentrism (Copernicus), Relativity (Einstein), Nebularism, aka "Sphere-ism" (Kant). Guess what? These foundations of "modern science" wind up as unproveable theoretical BS back then; And still unprovable theory NOW. That means "they've"knowingly been deceiving the world with layers of lies. For those like you who may eschew scriptural support on the subject of "Flat" or Plane Earthly realm, one particular book addresses all of the above, based only examining actual observable science: 'Kings Dethroned' Author: Gerrard Hickson https://www.amazon.com/Kings-Dethroned-History-Evolution-Astronomy/dp/1407691384 Einstein's "Relativism" is especially interesting in that his theory (yes, even HE admitted it could NOT be proven) was cooked up specifically to disprove the Michelson-Morley experiment which proved the earth is NOT SPINNING (look it up.) So...If the earth is not actually spinning, it destroys all the other theories on sphere-earth, geocentricism, gravity, a "Light Years" universe etal. Again -- THE definitive RECOMMENDED BOOK ON THIS ENTIRE SUBJECT: 'Kings Dethroned' Author: Gerrard Hickson Other highly recommended books (written and published back when knowledge wasn't censored or controlled by the PTB). To Believers: These book WILL ALSO consider Biblical/Divine authority and reference as to the shape and description of our Eealm and Firmament: Zetetic Astronomy -- Earth is Not a Globe Samuel Birley Rowbotham Terra Firma: the Earth Not a Planet, Proved from Scripture, Reason, and Fact David Wardlaw Scott The Greatest Lie on Earth: Proof That Our World Is Not a Moving Globe Edward Hendrie I found it amazing that Science and scientists were already so well in tune and familiar with and to natural earthly "laws" and our realm. Moreover -- unbeknownst to us today -- at the time (1880-1920) a very large battle waged over ALL these theories and whether or not they should be considered true and "Science." (The PTB at the time won that battle, obviously.) Einstein's sham 'Theory of Relativity' save the day for Fake Science. ***FINAL NOTE The 'Flat Earth Society' is CONTROLLED OPPOSITION, so dismiss it fully.
That's fine, as long as it's understood that evidence is not proof. Finding a footprint of a unique shoe belonging to someone is evidence the person was there, but not proof. I'll take the first one in the video: The horizon always appears flat regardless of altitude. This is a subjective, non-quantifiable assertion. Counter arguments say curvature IS observable at airline altitude provided weather conditions allow sufficient view. Maybe it is not easy to dismiss but if so, it's because of the subjective nature of the "proof", which in this case I wouldn't even call evidence. It's an argument only, and easily dismissed as a flat earth evidence because it is a subjective claim. When a video titled "200 proofs" starts off with an argument that is of such low grade subjectiveness, it really lowers one's expectations as to the other 199, and sitting through them tries one's patience. Any other of the 200 that are similarly subjective can be easily dismissed for the same reason, but if you want, pick out 2 or 3 you think are the most compelling and I'll address them. Well, I like that one in part because it's not in the least subjective. It's completely 100% quantifiable and doesn't rely on anything NASA says or does or has done. It does not rely on any pictures, videos that may have been edited or allegedly edited, or disputed observations or witnesses that may or may not be telling the truth. There are no models of the sun and moon moving around in circles over a flat earth to maybe explain it. The flat earth argument needs to counter this by saying the flights are either fake, airlines are capable of > 2x the speed of sound, or some space worm hole exists that air traffic flies through en route. I see it as "checkmate" evidence against flat earth. Sorry, but I don't have time or patience to acquire & read whole books on an idea that doesn't even get to first base as there are no shortage of ideas that fail to do that. Let me see it get to first or second base.
Here on earth, two pillars of Verazano bridge are perpendicular. Two pillars are inch and half further apart at top than base's. Curvature of earth measured.
I trust the calculations, but it doesn't work well as a counter to flat earth. Reason: Have you verified this difference? Do you know anyone who has? Can those claims be trusted? Maybe the difference is due to construction anomalies and not earth curvature? E.g. are these pillars the same width at the bottom as they are at the top? Are they perfectly vertical? Lots of room for counter arguments.
I would trust they had good Engineers who knew what they were doing. Remember too that they told Christopher Columbus if he sailed west he would fall off the end of the Earth. No such thing happened. But when they sited land and stepped foot on it, they called it San Salvadore. We know exactly where that island is in the Caribbean today. ;)
I trust Ping is funning us. Thousands of years ago, the builders of the Great Pyramids were well aware of earth curvature. Something the engineers that built the Verazano bridge drew on their ORIGINAL plans. The inch or two was present AT CONCEPT.
Not at all. If a flat earther claimed the columns of this bridge were, in fact, parallel thus proving the earth is flat, all the points I raised could/would be claimed to rebut the claim. Even if the columns were perfectly parallel, none of us round-earthers would accept it as proof the earth is flat, so I would expect flat earthers to similarly discount claims about these columns NOT being parallel as evidence the earth is round. I've no doubt earth curvature was taken into account by the bridge designers when drawing up the plans. Longer bridges in the world have done the same. But it doesn't mean a 1.5 inch margin of error for construction of a bridge that size would be outside acceptable tolerances. I don't know. For all we know, considering the foundation, the columns could be leaning slightly one way or the other by that tiny amount. If you want to give a flat-earther something they have a hard time challenging, you have to do better than presenting this bridge as evidence.
Absolutely true. 1.5" in the context of a 50,000 inch-long bridge can easily be accounted for as matter of being far within an acceptable tolerance of engineering accuracy. The waters on one side of the narrows from the other of course are the same: Level.
There are no replies to Comment # 55. End Trace Mode for Comment # 55.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball
#26. To: Pinguinite, wudidiz, ALL (#3)
(Edited)
They are not "proofs". They are arguments, and all I've considered are, to various degrees, easily dismissed.
It is devastatingly effective and convincing.
#28. To: Liberator (#26)
Actually, what's advance here is more like "evidences."
Not only are NONE are "easily dismissed," but to various degrees IMPOSSIBLE to dismiss. Period. (Please let go of your single objection regarding the flight from Chile to NZ and focus instead on some OTHER points/objections.)
(Please let go of your single objection regarding the flight from Chile to NZ and focus instead on some OTHER points/objections.)
#29. To: Pinguinite (#28)
#31. To: Cynicom (#29)
Here on earth, two pillars of Verazano bridge are perpendicular.
Two pillars are inch and half further apart at top than base's.
Curvature of earth measured.
#32. To: Pinguinite (#31)
Maybe the difference is due to construction anomalies and not earth curvature? E.g. are these pillars the same width at the bottom as they are at the top? Are they perfectly vertical?
#33. To: BTP Holdings, Pingunite, All (#32)
I trust the calculations, but it doesn't work well as a counter to flat earth. Reason: Have you verified this difference? Do you know anyone who has? Can those claims be trusted? Maybe the difference is due to construction anomalies and not earth curvature? E.g. are these pillars the same width at the bottom as they are at the top? Are they perfectly vertical? Lots of room for counter arguments.
#34. To: Cynicom (#33)
I trust Ping is funning us.
#55. To: Pinguinite, Cynicom (#34)
It doesn't mean a 1.5 inch margin of error for construction of a bridge that size would be outside acceptable tolerances.
Replies to Comment # 55.