NASA and Facebook tricked you

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,427
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
I copied, edited, and paste these things. Such points can be found by any looking to any sites relating to this topic.

The belief that the Earth is flat has been described as the ultimate conspiracy theory. According to the Flat Earth Society's leadership, its ranks have grown by 200 people (mostly Americans and Britons) per year since 2009.

If you had bothered to read earlier in this thread, you'd find the opinion expressed that most flat earther's know that the Flat Earth Society is little more than poison-the-well organization, started by a globularist (globe believer) to mix real flat earth beliefs with absolute nonsense, like the earth "accelerating up" to account for "gravity".
While writing off buckets of concrete evidence that Earth is spherical, they readily accept a laundry list of propositions that some would call ludicrous. The leading flat-earther theory holds that Earth is a disc with the Arctic Circle in the center and Antarctica, a 150-foot-tall wall of ice, around the rim. NASA employees, they say, guard this ice wall to prevent people from climbing over to the edge of the disc. (In keeping with their skepticism of NASA, known flat-earther conspiracy theorist Nathan Thompson recently approached a man he said was a NASA employee in a Starbucks in mid-May 2017. In a YouTube video of the exchange, Thompson, founder of the Official Flat Earth and Globe Discussion page, shouted that he had proof the Earth is flat — apparently saying an astronaut drowning was that proof — and that NASA is "lying.")

Earth's day and night cycle is explained by positing that the sun and moon are spheres measuring 32 miles (51 kilometers) that move in circles 3,000 miles (4,828 km) above the plane of the Earth. (Stars, they say, move in a plane 3,100 miles up.) Like spotlights, these celestial spheres illuminate different portions of the planet in a 24-hour cycle. Flat-earthers believe there must also be an invisible "antimoon" that obscures the moon during lunar eclipses.

Not all flat eather's believe in the circular model. I was convinced that model was false by flat earthers, who still maintain that the earth is flat but that the popular model is provably false, a notion I agree with.
Furthermore, Earth's gravity is an illusion, they say. Objects do not accelerate downward; instead, the disc of Earth accelerates upward at 32 feet per second squared (9.8 meters per second squared), driven up by a mysterious force called dark energy. Currently, there is disagreement among flat-Earthers about whether or not Einstein's theory of relativity permits Earth to accelerate upward indefinitely without the planet eventually surpassing the speed of light. (Einstein's laws apparently still hold in this alternate version of reality.)

As for what lies underneath the disc of Earth, this is unknown, but most flat-earthers believe it is composed of "rocks."

Yes, flat earth proponents do not believe in gravity, rather explaining the up or down motions of objects as a feature of their density relative to the medium they are in. A helium balloon will rise, because it is lighter than air. An air bubble will rise in water, because it is lighter than that medium. A rock will fall, because it is denser than air - but it will rise in the air if it's density is changed by attaching it to many helium balloons, or a hot air balloon.

Flat earthers do not believe nonsense like the earth accelerates upwards, rather they believe in the properties of density and buoyancy, which is by far a greater explanation of why objects rise, fall, or stay in place.
Then, there's the conspiracy theory: Flat-earthers believe photos of the globe are photoshopped; GPS devices are rigged to make airplane pilots think they are flying in straight lines around a sphere when they are actually flying in circles above a disc. The motive for world governments' concealment of the true shape of the Earth has not been ascertained, but flat-earthers believe it is probably financial. "In a nutshell, it would logically cost much less to fake a space program than to actually have one, so those in on the Conspiracy profit from the funding NASA and other space agencies receive from the government," the flat-earther website explains.

The "photos" of the earth are actually *admittedly* photoshopped, by the admission of a NASA employee. You can read this for yourself or see it here:


Some believers have gotten creative in their quest to prove a flat planet: Conspiracy theorist D. Marble posted on YouTube that he brought a spirit level aboard a flight from Charlotte, North Carolina to Seattle, Washington, to see whether the plane's nose would dip to "compensate for curvature" of the Earth, he said. On the video, he said: "I recorded a 23 minute and 45 second time-lapse, which by those measurements means the plane travelled a little over 203 miles. According to Spherical Trigonometry given to explain the Heliocentric model, this should have resulted in the compensation of 5 miles of curvature. As you'll see there was no measurable compensation for curvature." (The air bubble in his level remained centered, which he said proves the Earth is flat.)

The theory follows from a mode of thought called the "Zetetic Method," an alternative to the scientific method, developed by a 19th-century flat-earther, in which sensory observations reign supreme. "Broadly, the method places a lot of emphasis on reconciling empiricism and rationalism, and making logical deductions based on empirical data," Flat Earth Society vice president Michael Wilmore, an Irishman, told Life's Little Mysteries. In Zetetic astronomy, the perception that Earth is flat leads to the deduction that it must actually be flat; the antimoon, NASA conspiracy and all the rest of it are just rationalizations for how that might work in practice.

Karen Douglas, a psychologist at the University of Kent in the United Kingdom who studies the psychology of conspiracy theories, says flat-earthers' beliefs cohere with those of other conspiracy theorists she has studied.

Douglas said all conspiracy theories share a basic thrust: They present an alternative theory about an important issue or event, and construct an often vague explanation for why someone is covering up that "true" version of events. "One of the major points of appeal is that they explain a big event but often without going into details," she said. "A lot of the power lies in the fact that they are vague."

The self-assured way in which conspiracy theorists stick to their story imbues that story with special appeal. After all, flat-earthers are more adamant that the Earth is flat than most people are that the Earth is round (probably because the rest of us feel we have nothing to prove). "If you're faced with a minority viewpoint that is put forth in an intelligent, seemingly well-informed way, and when the proponents don't deviate from these strong opinions they have, they can be very influential. We call that minority influence," Douglas said.

In a study published online March 5, 2014, in the American Journal of Political Science, Eric Oliver and Tom Wood, political scientists at the University of Chicago, found that about half of Americans endorse at least one conspiracy theory, from the notion that 9/11 was an inside job to the JFK conspiracy. "Many people are willing to believe many ideas that are directly in contradiction to a dominant cultural narrative," Oliver said. He says conspiratorial belief stems from a human tendency to perceive unseen forces at work, known as magical thinking.

Ah....lol. Go back to watching television, mate. Never question anything it says, nor what the government says, because you know the only reason people do so is to beeeee speeeecial.
 

FredVB

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
272
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
If you had bothered to read earlier in this thread, you'd find the opinion expressed that most flat earther's know that the Flat Earth Society is little more than poison-the-well organization, started by a globularist (globe believer) to mix real flat earth beliefs with absolute nonsense, like the earth "accelerating up" to account for "gravity".

So you do say, but it is seemingly rather arbitrary. Why believe anything over anything else? What is there with more support or evidence to endorse, or believe in, in place of what you say you don't?

And why do I need anything to explain gravity? Gravity is explaining enough of other things, so many other things.

Not all flat eather's believe in the circular model. I was convinced that model was false by flat earthers, who still maintain that the earth is flat but that the popular model is provably false, a notion I agree with.

But is there anything in place of that? I don't see anything suggested for that. So what is proven?

Yes, flat earth proponents do not believe in gravity, rather explaining the up or down motions of objects as a feature of their density relative to the medium they are in. A helium balloon will rise, because it is lighter than air. An air bubble will rise in water, because it is lighter than that medium. A rock will fall, because it is denser than air - but it will rise in the air if it's density is changed by attaching it to many helium balloons, or a hot air balloon.

Flat earthers do not believe nonsense like the earth accelerates upwards, rather they believe in the properties of density and buoyancy, which is by far a greater explanation of why objects rise, fall, or stay in place.

How does buoyancy work? I don't see it should work at all, it would really be arbitrary, without gravity. Why should "heavier" things go down displacing anything not as "heavy" without gravity? Gravity is involved in why things are heavy. Without it, things are just more massive than other things. Falling down has no actual explanation, to reject an understandable explanation, in this case gravity. What proves there is no gravity?

The "photos" of the earth are actually *admittedly* photoshopped, by the admission of a NASA employee. You can read this for yourself or see it here:



Easy to call things photoshopped. Why should I and others reject understood things over images claimed to be photoshopped?

Ah....lol. Go back to watching television, mate. Never question anything it says, nor what the government says, because you know the only reason people do so is to beeeee speeeecial.

Easy dismissiveness in the end. There is no special loyalty to government from me. You certainly have no idea how much television I am watching, but it would be irrelevant. Nothing in this is reason to reject things known from science for what I haven't seen great reason for. If you have seen such great reason great, but I have not seen it shown.
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,427
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
How does buoyancy work? I don't see it should work at all, it would really be arbitrary, without gravity. Why should "heavier" things go down displacing anything not as "heavy" without gravity? Gravity is involved in why things are heavy. Without it, things are just more massive than other things. Falling down has no actual explanation, to reject an understandable explanation, in this case gravity. What proves there is no gravity?

You think your heaviness accounts for you being stuck to the ground. Well, does your "heaviness" change when you are submersed under water, where you can go up or down?

Does your heaviness change when you and 2 other people step into a hot air balloon and soar into the air? The combined heaviness of you and 2 others should keep all of you even more pinned to the ground, shouldn't it?

Flat earthers explain the up or down tendency (outside of force, such as a rocket pushing upward), as merely the relationship between one density and another. The hot air balloon is much less dense (more buoyant) than air, so it rises and will carry people in it up into the air. Similarly, the air in your lungs won't make you float up into the sky when you are on land, but since it is less dense than water it will cause your "heavy" body to rise if you are underwater.

There is no magical force of "gravity" needed to explain this. There is no "bias" for things to go down when on the ground any more than there is "bias" for air bubbles to rise underwater.
Easy to call things photoshopped. Why should I and others reject understood things over images claimed to be photoshopped?

"Understood things" sounds like the logical fallacy called "bandwagon fallacy" or "appeal to authority". Someone in "authority" (a school teacher, a professor, a government talking head) says "this is true" and because most people just believe it without question (the bandwagon), you as an individual decide the combination of authority and majority makes it true. Tell me I'm wrong and you actually think for yourself.
 

FredVB

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
272
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
So you do say, but it is seemingly rather arbitrary. Why believe anything over anything else? What is there with more support or evidence to endorse, or believe in, in place of what you say you don't?

And why do I need anything to explain gravity? Gravity is explaining enough of other things, so many other things.

But is there anything in place of that? I don't see anything suggested for that. So what is proven?

How does buoyancy work? I don't see it should work at all, it would really be arbitrary, without gravity. Why should "heavier" things go down displacing anything not as "heavy" without gravity? Gravity is involved in why things are heavy. Without it, things are just more massive than other things. Falling down has no actual explanation, to reject an understandable explanation, in this case gravity. What proves there is no gravity?

Easy to call things photoshopped. Why should I and others reject understood things over images claimed to be photoshopped?

Easy dismissiveness in the end. There is no special loyalty to government from me. You certainly have no idea how much television I am watching, but it would be irrelevant. Nothing in this is reason to reject things known from science for what I haven't seen great reason for. If you have seen such great reason great, but I have not seen it shown.

You think your heaviness accounts for you being stuck to the ground. Well, does your "heaviness" change when you are submersed under water, where you can go up or down?

Does your heaviness change when you and 2 other people step into a hot air balloon and soar into the air? The combined heaviness of you and 2 others should keep all of you even more pinned to the ground, shouldn't it?

Flat earthers explain the up or down tendency (outside of force, such as a rocket pushing upward), as merely the relationship between one density and another. The hot air balloon is much less dense (more buoyant) than air, so it rises and will carry people in it up into the air. Similarly, the air in your lungs won't make you float up into the sky when you are on land, but since it is less dense than water it will cause your "heavy" body to rise if you are underwater.

There is no magical force of "gravity" needed to explain this. There is no "bias" for things to go down when on the ground any more than there is "bias" for air bubbles to rise underwater.

The heaviness in the place of the same gravity does not change, there is the same attraction working on us downward when we would be submersed underwater. We both understand displacement, the same volume of water where we would be submersed is heavier, having more mass, and that will displace us, with the attraction it has, and all the rest of the water, downward in the same direction, which corresponds to the direction toward the center of the mass of the basically spherical earth, that is the effect known as buoyancy. I have never gone up in a hot air balloon. It is the same thing, displacement, not just that of the people riding the hot air balloon, but they and the hot air balloon together with all that volume is not as heavy from the gravity as the same volume of air that is displaced, which will fall under the hot air balloon with the people riding it. The people in it to ride it will fall back to the ground, or maybe never leave it, if there is nothing adequately secure for what they stand on while they will ride the hot air balloon, gravity never stops during all that. Buoyancy only works with gravity. Buoyancy will demonstrably not work when anything is submersed in water away from the gravity of earth or any other body with significant gravity.

It is all about densities of entire systems that hold together, it is a body displacing what medium it is in, not just the lungs in the body.

Calling anything magical, yourself, does not invalidate something, any more than others calling creation from God magical, which I have seen them do. There is logical explanation in either case which is not about magic, which is about what has no explanation. Like buoyancy without gravity. There is still no explanation for how things work as they do and there can be the claim there is no gravity.

Displacement only works for the effects with gravity, it is not explained another way.

"Understood things" sounds like the logical fallacy called "bandwagon fallacy" or "appeal to authority". Someone in "authority" (a school teacher, a professor, a government talking head) says "this is true" and because most people just believe it without question (the bandwagon), you as an individual decide the combination of authority and majority makes it true. Tell me I'm wrong and you actually think for yourself.

Your accusation that things are believed just because someone said something is not just true. That is the case many times, you can't say that didn't happen with you. But you can't say that about everything I think, while you do not even know what I think. I question many things, and have changed my mind about things, it is a tendency I can notice all my life. You do not know anything about it being otherwise. I could change my mind to believe the earth is flat, too, if there was anything of real evidence that would be persuasive. I have not seen anything for that, and I hear gravity, which is effective on everything there is, around us and among heavenly bodies, the movement of which explained perfectly with gravity, being claimed to not exist, yet without any evidence or adequate explanation for that dismissal. That is not a good way to convince me to change my mind to what is claimed. I do not think I would have a way to change your mind.

There are observable things I have seen, like Foucault's pendulum, that really are convincing and can't be explained away with the flat earth position.

Demonstration of things is more convincing than things being claimed by others. That applies to those who teach, as well.
 
Top Bottom