EMILO2STAY:

..

wait. If your Bible or Qur'an didn't mention flat earth, would you be trying hard to go against an established scientific fact? Be honest with your response.

And by the way, can you please send me links of scientific papers in a well established journals that claim flat earth and non factual nature of gravity.

EMILO2STAY:

i Don't think you understand the configuration of a ball compared to a flat plane. It is a well known and testable, observable and repeatable fact that the horizon on a sphere surface slopes down 360° from the observer.why because this is the physical characteristics of a sphere. On a sphere the horizon goes below the eye level and the observer would have to look down at the horizon not straight forward to it because a sphere slopes down and falls on all sides no matter your standing position and height on it. if the earth is a sphere then he highest point on the ball earth would be beneath you and you would have to look down towards it not straight. But the opposite is the case in our reality, the horizon in our reality stays at eye level no matter you height. Consider the graphic image of the horizon of a ball earth compared to a flat plane below. You will see how the horizon slopes below the eye level on the ball earth configuration

I made my own 3d model.
The radius of the earth at the equator is said to be 6378.1km which I used for the size of the sphere relative to the height of the average human 1.75m tall.
So I scaled things to a ratio of 6378100m:1.75m = 3,644,628:1

I set the human model on the surface of the sphere and the camera to the eye level of the character.
Used a checker texture on the sphere and a sky hdri to for lighting.
And this is what I got.

I will post the Google drive Link to the 3D file once I do a night plan. The software is blender 2.79.

This concurs with reality.

Here is the link https://drive.google.com/file/d/18n7lminZSb1ZDwwKZsgt3Cbz7OFSdDwB/view?usp=drivesdk

EMILO2STAY:
keep fooling yourself big fool. I expect more of your stupidity.

abi am i dumb?

EMILO2STAY:


no civil engineer accounts for any curvature when building this is a well known fact. The primary instrument surveyors use such as level, theodolite, periscope cannot work on a ball earth configuration. If the earth is curved 8inches /m^2 the n buildings which are miles apart should show noticable curvature from one end to the other but this is not the case in reality as wall of building stand perfectly parrallel to each other.

Dude, you're not going to tell me about my field of study (survey).
I've been out in the field, used the instruments, and done the calculations.
If a land is under 1km, the error due to curvature is negligible, but any distance exciding 1km it's common practice to adjust for curvature of the earth in your calculations.
This is basic geodetic survey.

this is nothing new its all over youtube i dont have data now to upload one. When i have i will do so or you can do it yourself.

So far I can't find it.

exactly my point. Ships get smaller and smaller as they go away from your view and over the horizon. This is due to perspective and not obstruction.

this has been done and it proves the flat earth.
And I never said anything about refraction.

Exactly my point. The ship should only be getting continuously smaller and not sink under the horizon.

honestly i don't get you here. If gravity is acting on the plane in any way then that plane should not be able to fly at all in the first place because a force is holding it down. But the fact remains that if air plane are curving down to account for curvature in the real world then this would be observable and testable. What you just said has no application in the real world. There is no evidence that anything called gravity course corrects the flight of an aircraft it is pure fallacy.
If the earth were a sphere 25,000miles in Circumference and curveting 8inches /m^2 a pilot wishing to maintain their altitude at a cruising speed of 500m/h would have to dip their nose down wards and descend 2,777ft( over half a mile) every single minute other wise without compensation the pilot would find themselves about 166,:000 ft higher than they expected because the earth curves downwards beneath them.
The federation aviation administration assumes a flat non rotating earth when training pilots using their target generation facility Which simulates aircraft flight.

I'm guessing your impression is that if the plane flys in a straight line it would somehow over come gravity and fly into space.
To overcome the the constantly acting gravity you need to be traveling at escape velocity, which most planes can't.
Your inability to comprehend how it works is not my problem now.

https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2019/03/flat-earthers-accidentally-prove-earth-is-round/

And the discussion about gyros. An ideal gyro should able to maintain it's artificial horizon regardless of the horizon on the spherical earth ^ those guys proved it.

object fall to the ground due to density and buoyancy. In the natural world object heavier than the medium surrounding them fall while objects lighter than the medium around them float up. This is why object like a stone fall to the ground because they are heavier than air and helium balloons float up because it is lighter than air.

The video you posted demonstrating gravity a false video because the second part which is supposed to demonstrate gravity was played in slow motion. An evidence of that Can be seen as both objects hit the floor violently instead of landing slowly as should be the case in a vacuum. But they the ball landed violently and shattered the object below it proving that it landed with a force and then the video was put in slow motion

Why do the objects with higher density go downwards, why not sideways or upwards?

Why do things in a vacuum chamber still fall downwards when there is no air to displace them due to buoyancy as you claim.

What makes you assume things would/should fall slowly in a vacuum?

The ball hit the ground more violently because it had more mass. Which is still in accordance with the study of gravity.

newton theory of gravity was started when he saw apple fall from a three as of no one has seen an object fall. Till this day gravity remains a theory with no proven fact.

Search up the meaning of a 'scientific theory' and the difference between it and the layman's meaning of the word theory.

if the earth is an open system spinning next to a vacuum and also a tiny spec of dust in space then it follows that it is insignificant and the atmosphere of it should even be more insignificant and as such gaseous element would quickly move from a region of higher concentration to a region of lower concentration and by so doing cannot sustain life. So the saying that the earth is loosing its atmosphere to space os false and cannot be proven.

See previous reply.

their is no evidence that living things on earth is under pressure by the surrounding atmosphere. If gravity is strong enough to keep the large volumes of ocean water then if follows if that same force necessary for keeping that large body of ocean water on a spinning ball is exerted on the atmosphere then that atmosphere would be under such a great pressure that ot would crush any thing under it this is common sense

Your inability to comprehend is your problem at this point.
Like guy there is an instrument called barometer, it's used to literally measure atmospheric pressure i.e. the weight of the air.
The human body and other terrestrial creatures are designed and adapted for the atmospheric pressure on the surface of the earth and so it's the normal, and like my previous example with the deep sea creatures, to them the crushing pressure of the water is the normal and if you try to bring them to the surface some of them die.

I recommended you should look up what happens to the body when exposed to a near vacuum, when outside our adapted atmospheric pressure.

According to heliocentric model, The force of gravity at the equator is perfectly balanced against the centrifugal force of the spinning earth. All persons and objects are supposedly perfectly balanced through gravity by their mass against the centrifugal force of the spinning earth to remain attached to the earth. 
The problem with gravity is that according to that 
Theory, the gravitational attraction to the earth by all persons and objects remains the same at all places on the earth. Now if the earth is spinning as alleged. That is because the centrifugal force decreases every mile towards the north pole, where the centrifugal force is ultimately reduced to zero, because the north pole is the axis of the supposedly spinning earth. As you travel north the speed of the earths rotation at the more northern and southern latitudes from the equator would be slower than its speed of spin at the equator. 
For example, at the 45° degree north latitude, the earth's spin should be approximately 700m/h. 100ft from the north pole, the earth spin should be reduced to one quarter mile per hour ( 1, 308 feet per hour). 

As the speed of the spin is reduced, so also is the correlative centrifugal force. there would be a 4000 fold reduction( 1000mph vs 1/4mph) in centrifugal force from the equator to a point 100ft of the north pole. 

That means assuming as is required by the theory of gravity that the force of gravity remains constant over the entire surface of the earth, a 175 pound man would weigh 7000 pounds if he traveled to within 100ft of the north pole.

Assuming the earth is spinning, the decrease in centrifugal force as one approaches the north pole means that a person would be crushed by the force of gravity before he ever reached the north pole. So the statement that we evolved under gravity and atmospheric pressure is false.

If you're point is that gravity should be lesser at the equator due to the centrifugal force of the spin, then answer is, yes it is, however the outward pull of the centrifugal force is significantly miniscule to the downward pull of gravity. The difference is like 9.8mps to 9.78mps.

first of all there is no evidence that the earth is spinning because we continually see the same stars which are said to be light years afar off. If the earth os spinning then we should not be able to see the same stars two nights in a row this is why the zodiacs made out of them constellation can still be seen today and also sailors have been using the same constellation for centuries to navigate the ocean.

Man the earth only spins at a rate of 360° per 24hours, your assumption of seeing the Stars set and rise twice at night is terribly wrong.

And you can see this spin, if you look up time lapse footage of the night sky, especially those that focus on the North Star.

Now according to the theory of gravity, objects are with smaller mass are attracted to massive objects. If this is true then it follows that the sun which several times bigger than the earth should by virtue of its mass caused the earth to be attracted and crashed into it instead of making float around.

Again if the earths gravity is greater than the moon. The it should have caused the moon to be attracted to it and crashed into the earth. Why would the moons gravity cause tides on the earth when the earths gravitional pull is greater than it?

Every thing about about the ball earth are theories not fact. The tides are not cause by the moons gravitational pull ad there is no evidence supporting such.

Do you understand what orbits are?
Orbits are just basically free falls towards gravity, however at an angle and velocity that causes the free fall object to consistently always miss the object it's orbiting.
The planets orbit the sun because it has the largest mass. The moon orbits the earth because it's closer to earth, so gravitational influence of the earth is large on moon than the sun's would be on the moon.
geodesy.

Look up spring tides and neap tides and how the moon influences them.
hydrography.

if you dont know what the coriolis effect has to do with this then you dont know what your talking about. if the force of inertia is lowed down by air resistance then the constant rotating earth at1000 miles /h is still no match for the speed of the aircraft as the engines can only propel it 500m/h. Also the jetstreams(moving air) can only propel a commercial aircraft about 700miles/h give or take and this is still no match for the rotating earth under it thereby making it impossible for the aircraft to reach its destination. But this is not the case with reality so the assertion is false.

See previous replies.

50 minutes difference is inconsequential as that can be attributed to anything but the rotation of the earth. On the contrary flight times world wide is same for every destination anybody who flies frequently knows this for sure. This can also be confirmed by travel maths a website for flight time world wide. Picture below.

50 minutes, nearly an hour. That's not inconsequential at all. How would you explain this according to the EF.
And that site just averages out the time of travel to and from.

again this is due to perspective. A binocular can easily bring back that ship into full view thereby proving that the ship did not go down a curve. large body of water do not curve, if your talking about true physics then you should know that the natural physical properties of water is that it stays flat and level at the surface just like your swimming pool. Try pouring water on top of a ball and see how it reacts. water does not curve no matter the situation gravity or not water cannot curve around a ball not to talk of a 1000m/h spinning ball. There is absolutely no way this can be proven through observable testable and repeatable experiment. So it is clearly false as this cannot be replicated in any way in The physical world. The satellite image of the earth from space is a CGI composite. A fact admitted by robert simons who works for nasa and is the man behind the popular image of the earth from space. If the earth os a ball then we should be seeing images of ships sailing upside down just like the image below.

I'm waiting on the video of someone bringing back a ship that's gone over the horizon by zooming.

Something being computer processed doesn't make it CGI. My 3D model that's CGI, because everything is generated by the computer.

The picture your phone takes, that's not CGI just because the CPU processes the data from the light sensors and gives you a visual output and that's what satellite images are. A photographer color correcting pictures in a computer software, that's not CGI.

like i said before even the scientific community admits that gravity still remains a theory and not a science fact. Of gravity is holding the large body of ocean water to the earth then how come that same gravity is not strong enough to hd down a mosquito?

I'd like to see a published scientific paper that doesn't treat gravity as a fact. The explanation of what causes gravity is what remains a scientific theory.

Do you even know how flight works and what wings or airplane engines do?

As I previously said, Flat earthers lack a comprehension of physics. If I can't understand it then it's not real, without even being humble enough to admit they just don't understand. Combined with religious belief and paranoia, because you believe that someone is out there trying to control you and they have something to gain by making you believe the earth is a sphere enough to get all the world's professionals, governments, Telecom industry, educators and much more in on the conspiracy.

Xmuslim:
wait. If your Bible or Qur'an didn't mention flat earth, would you be trying hard to go against an established scientific fact? Be honest with your response.

And by the way, can you please send me links of scientific papers in a well established journals that claim flat earth and non factual nature of gravity.

of you were not taught that the earth is round and spinning would you be would you it is? Gravity is not an established scientific fact, the spin of the earth cannot be measured or detected in any way so it is not a scientific fact.

EMILO2STAY:
of you were not taught that the earth is round and spinning would you be would you it is? Gravity is not an established scientific fact, the spin of the earth cannot be measured or detected in any way so it is not a scientific fact.

can you substantiate your claims with evidence? Probably a scientific research published in a well established journals. Your claims are

1. Earth is flat

2. Gravity is not a scientific fact

IMAliyu:

Dude, you're not going to tell me about my field of study (survey).
I've been out in the field, used the instruments, and done the calculations.
If a land is under 1km, the error due to curvature is negligible, but any distance exciding 1km it's common practice to adjust for curvature of the earth in your calculations.
This is basic geodetic survey.

i dont think your know what your talking about here. Now for example the longest bridge is the danyang kushan grand bridge in china spanning 102miles. With support columns that are parallel to each other. If the earth was a ball there is absolutely no way the support columns would parallel for a whole 102miles.

Almost all building have 90° vertical walls. The fact that levels are used to construct all buildings that are designed with walls that are 90°vertical to the ground, and the use of levels results in the opposing walls being perfectly parallel to the other can only mean one thing : the earth is flat



So far I can't find it.

IMAliyu:
Exactly my point. The ship should only be getting continuously smaller and not sink under the horizon.

yes they get continuously smaller as the go across the horizon.

IMAliyu:
I'm guessing your impression is that if the plane flys in a straight line it would somehow over come gravity and fly into space.
To overcome the the constantly acting gravity you need to be traveling at escape velocity, which most planes can't.
Your inability to comprehend how it works is not my problem now.

your not making sense here. If you truly understand the configuration of a sphere compared to a plane, then you will know that object have to go side ways and upside down to go around that sphere. This is common sense. If the earth is a sphere then an aircraft flying from south america to australia would first have to fly some what vertically and as ot get to the north pole it would have to make adjustment so as not to fly straight up so in other to compensate for the curvature at the north pole it would have to change its angle of flight to a vertical angle. And as it goes south again towards australia it would have to dip its nose down and fly vertically down wards. Now if an aircraft pilot fails to make these adjustment he would fly the plane into space escape velocity or not. The fact that an aircraft can take off and fly in the air it has already defeated gravity and that is if there is any such thing as that Because there is no way planes should fly in the air when gravity which is pressing down the oceans is also pressing down on it.

IMAliyu:
https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2019/03/flat-earthers-accidentally-prove-earth-is-round/

gyroscopes in aircraft is For checking and maintaining a flat horizon and has nothing to do with the spin of the earth so the link you posted has nothing to do with maintaining a flat horizon on an aircraft and as such cannot be used as evidence that gyroscopes work on a ball earth. Gyroscopes Can only work on a at earth.

Every military and commercial aircraft has onboard an instrument that can only work on flat earth and that is the attitude indicator. Which is also known as the artificial horizon. That artificial horizon has a display that shows the pilot the attitude of the plane to the actual horizon, even if he cannot see the horizon because it is obscured by the weather or darkness. The pilot can determine if he is flying level and also the pitch of the aircraft ( that is if he is dipping his nose down or upwards ) this attitude indicator works by means of a spinning gyroscope mounted on a gimbal . The problem with the spherical earth model is that a plane with the attitude indicator showing straight and level flight will cause the plane to fly off into the upper atmosphere as the curve of the globe falls away from the aircraft . The only way that a pilot on an aircraft can fly straight on level path using this attitude indicator is on a flat earth.

IMAliyu:
And the discussion about gyros. An ideal gyro should able to maintain it's artificial horizon regardless of the horizon on the spherical earth ^ those guy proved it.

this is false. Attitude indicator controlled by the gyroscope which tell the pilot when the planes nose is going down or upwards would not work if your statement is true. The fact that attitude indicator is used to maintain a flat horizon proves your statement false.

IMAliyu:
Why do the objects with higher density go downwards, why not sideways or upwards?

why side ways? They are heavier than air and as such drop vertically to the ground now why would they go side ways.? Your not making sense

IMAliyu:
Why do things in a vacuum chamber still fall downwards when there is no air to displace them due to buoyancy as you claim.

Lol. Like I said that video is false. If things in vacuum chambers fall down then the iss and satellites that are said to be in the vacuum of space should have fallen down. Why are they floating in space?

IMAliyu:
What makes you assume things would /should fall slowly in a vacuum?

is it not a vacuum with no atmosphere? I assume so because that is what we were made to believe. Based on the fake videos of the moon landing and the fake space mission videos.

IMAliyu:
The ball hit the ground more violently because it had more mass. Which is still in accordance with the study of gravity.

this is common sense mass or no mass as long as it falls down gently to the ground it should not shatter that object beneath it. The feather also fell down and bounced off violently which is an indication that the video was played back in slow motion.

IMAliyu:
Search up the meaning of a 'scientific theory' and the difference between it and the layman's meaning of the word theory.

there is no difference. Albert einstein made up the theory of relativity when he did not conduct any experiment nor did he go into space to measure or detect , confirm what he theorised about relativity. Yet it is taught today as science fact when it lacks proof.


See previous reply.

IMAliyu:
Your inability to comprehend is your problem at this point.
Like guy there is an instrument called barometer, it's used to literally measure atmospheric pressure i.e. the weight of the air.
The human body and other terrestrial creatures are designed and adapted for the atmospheric pressure on the surface of the earth and so it's the normal, and like my previous example with the deep sea creatures, to them the crushing pressure of the water is the normal and if you try to bring them to the surface some of the die.
recommended you should look up what happens to the body when exposed to a near vacuum, when outside our adapted atmospheric pressure.

if we are adapted to the atmospheric pressure on the equator then it follows that any body who dare travels to the north pole would die die to the crushing pressure of the atmosphere as the spin of the earth is low in that area according to the spinning globe earth model, but is the case in the real world? The answer is an emphatic no. So this renders your claim null and void.

IMAliyu:
If you're point is that gravity should be lesser at the equator due to the centrifugal force of the spin, then answer is, yes it is, however the outward pull of the centrifugal force is significantly miniscule to the downward pull of gravity. The difference is like 9.8mps to 9.78mps.

this Is false if the speed of the earth at the equator is 1000m/h and nearly zero at the equator.

IMAliyu:
Man the earth only spins at a rate of 360° per 24hours, your assumption of seeing the Stars set and rise twice at night is terribly wrong.

you seem not to understand what am saying. Let me rephrase. Now if the earth is spinning in space around the sun and around its own axis, then it follows that the angle of a set of stars africa sees at night A should not be the same angle Africa sees in night B. That is to say that the continent of africa should be sewing different set of stars like two nights in row. On the contrary we see the same stars every single year century after century. If the earth is spinning around the sun and the sun is also moving with the solar system there os no way we should be seeing the same stars our fore father's used to navigate the oceans hundreds of years ago. Besides that the north star polaris does not move an inch.

IMAliyu:
And you can see this spin, if you look up time lapse footage of the night sky, especially those that focus on the North Star.

The earth is stationary, it is the constellations that move and nit the earth. Fact. The stars above us and other heavenly bodies move around the flat earth a well known tried and tested proven fact. Like i said if the earth is moving we should not be using the zodiacs.

IMAliyu:
Do you understand what orbits are?
Orbits are just basically free falls towards gravity, however at an angle and velocity that causes the free fall object to consistently always miss the object it's orbiting.
The planets orbit the sun because it has the largest mass. The moon orbits the earth because it's closer to earth, so gravitational influence of the earth is large on moon than the sun's would be on the moon.
geodesy.

if the sun has the largest mass and gravity is said to cause objects with large mass to attract other objects with low mass then it follows that the suns greater gravity should cause all other object with lesser mass to stick and be crushed in to it. There is absolute no way an object which is meant to attract other object to itself will cause instead of attracting will cause other lesser massive object to revolve around it. If the suns gravity causes other objects to instead orbit around it then the definition of gravity is flawed or there is no such thing as orbit around a sun. Common sense

IMAliyu:
Look up spring tides and neap tides and how the moon influences them.
hydrography.

there is no evidence that the moons gravity affects tides this was just made up by galileo with no proof at all. However ever the sun and moon are responsible for the tides but is has nothing to do with gravity but diamagnetism. A well known fact which can be proven unlike the unproven theory of gravity.


See previous replies.

IMAliyu:
50 minutes, nearly an hour. That's not inconsequential at all. How would you explain this according to the EF.
And that site just averages out the time of travel to and from.

flight times world wide is same this shouldn't even be an argument i already gave flight time of the longest distance on earth and they are exactly the same time. So the flight time you gave is inconsequential.

IMAliyu:
I'm waiting on the video of someone bringing back a ship that's gone over the horizon by zooming.

I will it no big deal

IMAliyu:
Something being computer processed doesn't make it CGI. My 3D model that's CGI, because everything is generated by the computer.

If an image is a cgi then ot is not genuine its a cartoon. Why should it be cgi if there is iss in space. Why do we not have a live footage of the rotation of the earth from the iss in real time. if the hubble telescope can see the sun 93miles away then why cant it take a genuine image of the earth?

IMAliyu:
The picture your phone takes, that's not CGI just because the CPU processes the data from the light sensors and gives you a visual output and that's what satellite images are. A photographer color correcting pictures in a computer software, that's not CGI.

now according to nasa s robert simons " the image of the earth we have today is photoshopped and it has to be"

If the image of the earth is photoshopped then that says a lot about the image of the earth beeing cgi cartoon. Q. E. D

IMAliyu:
I'd like to see a published scientific paper that doesn't treat gravity as a fact. The explanation of what causes gravity is what remains a scientific theory. No need foe that because there isn't any experiment proving gravity. Our reality and common sense tells is buoyancy and density makes object fall to the ground. You don't need a scientific journal to tell you what your common sense, every day experience and reality should be.

Do you even know how flight works and what wings or airplane engines do?

what are you talking about? No matter what, it doensnt change the fact that commercial aircraft fly at 500m/h give or take and by so doing can never get to its destination moving twice as fast.

IMAliyu:
As I previously said, Flat earthers lack a comprehension of physics. If I can't understand it then it's not real, without even being humble enough to admit they just don't understand. Combined with religious belief and paranoia, because you believe that someone is out there trying to control you and they have something to gain by making you believe the earth is a sphere enough to get all the world's professionals, governments, Telecom industry, educators and much more in on the conspiracy.

like I said before what is physics? It is dealing with the physical, something we can see feel and touch, something our common sense everyday experience and reality can attest. All what I said can be observable, testable and repeatable and so they qualify as science. But all you have been presenting has no bases in the physical natural world and cannot be observable, testable and Repeatable and so do not qualify as science but pseudo science. Now you be the judge and say which is true physics

EMILO2STAY:
..

seems you are finding pleasure in this argument. Give us published sound scientific research that support your claims and save both of us the stress

Xmuslim:
seems you are finding pleasure in this argument. Give us published sound scientific research that support your claims and save both of us the stress

zetetic astrology "earth not a globe" by Samuel rowbotham.


Zetetic cosmogeny by thomas winship.




Besides you don't need s journal to tell you what you reality common sense and every day experience already tells you.

EMILO2STAY:


Lol. Like I said that video is false. If things in vacuum chambers fall down then the iss and satellites that are said to be in the vacuum of space should have fallen down. Why are they floating in space?


is it not a vacuum with no atmosphere? I assume so because that is what we were made to believe. Based on the fake videos of the moon landing and the fake space mission videos.

Nawa o.
You think vacuums make things fall slower. There are multiple videos of vacuum experiments on YouTube, you may want to look that up. The fact that you think what made objects fell at a slower rate on the moon footage is due to the vacuum shows me the limits of your knowledge.

Anyway, I've already made my points and continuing to reply you will bear no fruit at this point.

Didn't intend on changing your mind, but to post rebuttals and explanations to your claims, so that anyone could judge for themselves what is real.
I even made a near 1 to 1 model of the earth and a human to demonstrate that at the size of the earth what a human would see, it's downloadable and anyone could play around with it themselves.

My previous list of questions still stands, However have a nice day.

Xmuslim sorry for derailing your thread.

Xmuslim:
wait. If your Bible or Qur'an didn't mention flat earth, would you be trying hard to go against an established scientific fact? Be honest with your response.

And by the way, can you please send me links of scientific papers in a well established journals that claim flat earth and non factual nature of gravity.

IMAliyu:

Interesting how you only accept physics that proves FE, but reject physics that contradicts it like gravity which is a well understood force, at least as well understood as electromagnetism.

It shouts of dishonesty, if you ask me, and an attempt to deceive for reasons I can not phantom, or just willful intentional ignorance and an unwillingness to cure it by learning.

Either ways, I'm amazed, and as much as I oppose Xmuslim and his thread, this proves the need for it.

Xmuslim:
wait. If your Bible or Qur'an didn't mention flat earth, would you be trying hard to go against an established scientific fact? Be honest with your response.

I've asked you to kindly say it is my understanding that is stupidly ignorant, but for some reason you fail to make me responsible for my stupidity and insist that it is the book that misleads me. Can you not see how you are disregarding facts like Mr flat earth emilostay is doing?

Kindly post what ever it is that makes you say the Bible or Quran mention flat earth please, after considering the following:

https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2018/does-the-bible-teach-a-flat-earth

https://reasons.org/explore/publications/questions-from-social-media/read/questions-from-social-media/2020/05/01/is-the-bible-a-flat-earth-book

IMAliyu:

Nawa o.
You think vacuums make things fall slower. There are multiple videos of vacuum experiments on YouTube, you may want to look that up. The fact that you think what made objects fell at a slower rate on the moon footage is due to the vacuum shows me the limits of your knowledge.

if i am wrong on why objects fall slowly in a vacuum then why do they do so in all the space videos we see? In the moon landing videos of 1969 we can clearly see how the astronauts move in slow motion. So you cant say i am wrong. The onus is on you to prove your point with fact.

IMAliyu:
Anyway, I've already made my points and continuing to reply you will bear no fruit at this point.

you did not present any observable, repeatable and testable fact that can be replicated in the world. All you presented were theories which have no experiment to prove them neither can they be detected or measured till sine the time they were invented till this day.

Didn't intend on changing your mind, but to post rebuttals and explanations to your claims, so that anyone could judge for themselves what is real.
I even made a near 1 to 1 model of the earth and a human to demonstrate that at the size of the earth what a human would see, it's downloadable and anyone could play around with it themselves.[/quote] if you where posting rebuttals then it is meant to convince me with factual observed evidence in the real world. This is the area you failed and that is why you cannot convince or rebut me.

My previous list of questions still stands, However have a nice day.[/quote] when i have time i will answer them.

Xmuslim sorry for derailing your thread.[/quotm

budaatum:

I've asked you to kindly say it is my understanding that is stupidly ignorant, but for some reason you fail to make me responsible for my stupidity and insist that it is the book that misleads me. Can you not see how you are disregarding facts like Mr flat earth emilostay is doing?

Kindly post what ever it is that makes you say the Bible or Quran mention flat earth please, after considering the following:

https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2018/does-the-bible-teach-a-flat-earth

https://reasons.org/explore/publications/questions-from-social-media/read/questions-from-social-media/2020/05/01/is-the-bible-a-flat-earth-book

silly troll how am I disregarding fact? The bible emphatically proves a flat earth blame your ignorance for not knowing that.

EMILO2STAY:
zetetic astrology "earth not a globe" by Samuel rowbotham.


Zetetic cosmogeny by thomas winship.




Besides you don't need s journal to tell you what you reality common sense and every day experience already tells you.

At least we see where you get your ability to counter every argument with ingenuity, wit and consummate skill" from.

Anyone willing to read Thomas Winship's Zetetic cosmogeny Cosmogony may download a copy here.

EMILO2STAY:
silly troll how am I disregarding fact? The bible emphatically proves a flat earth blame your ignorance for not knowing that.

The Bible proves nothing of the sort, and in fact doesn't even state that the earth is flat, though your own ignorance seems to make you think it does.

Hopefully, those presenting you with scientific evidence, as in evidence as verified with the use of the senses as opposed to your nonsense reading of the Bible, would see how ignorant you actually are.

wickedtuna:

Hope you noted the word "model" in that paper, and understand it's significance.

budaatum:

The Bible proves nothing of the sort, and in fact doesn't even state that the earth is flat, though your own ignorance seems to make you think it does.

Hopefully, those presenting you with scientific evidence, as in evidence as verified with the use of the senses as opposed to your nonsense reading of the Bible, would see how ignorant you actually are.

I shouldn't even be replying a fool like you. Did you see the image I posted? How can you see such and say the bible prove s nothing of sort.

Nobody here presented any scientific evidence because for anything to be qualified as science has to be provable observable and repeatable. No body here presented any such evidence that can be replicated in the real world.

I believe you purposely dragged me here because you think they can refute me but the opposite has been the case. You are simply obsessed with the fact that your world of delusion had been proven false.

budaatum:


At least we see where you get your ability to counter every argument with ingenuity, wit and consummate skill" from.

Anyone willing to read Thomas Winship's Zetetic cosmogeny Cosmogony may download a copy here.

you are obsessed with me go get a life.

EMILO2STAY:
you are obsessed with me go get a life.

You are rather insignificant and an example of ignorance. My obsession is with your lies.

EMILO2STAY:
I shouldn't even be replying a fool like you. Did you see the image I posted? How can you see such and say the bible prove s nothing of sort.

That must be how stupid you learn what to believe. Intelligent people don't just abandon their own brains and minds and stupidly accept images as proof. Intelligent people seek knowledge so they can know instead of just believe images.

budaatum:

You are rather insignificant and an example of ignorance. My obsession is with your lies.

lies that your senses can attest to and you cannot refute. It is you who's insignificant and ignorant because i keep ignoring you and you keep quoting and trolling me with nonsense instead of presenting factual evidence. Go get a life.

budaatum:

That must be how stupid you learn what to believe. Intelligent people don't just abandon their own brains and minds and stupidly accept images as proof. Intelligent people seek knowledge so they can know instead of just believe images.

if you have not abandoned your brain then prove to me how the earth is curved 8inche/m? , prove how water curves around a ball that spins? Prove with observable experiment how gravity curves an airplane?why do you believe the image of the earth from space? Have you been to space? Have you seen it from the perspective with your own eyes z. If you keep quoting saying nonsense I will ignore you.

Someone need to be straped on NASA space shuttle

I'm not proving anything to you Emilo. I'm just showing others how immune you are to any evidence that contradicts what you believe, and using you as an example of the ignorance Xmuslim unfortunately blames on the Books instead of on the ignorant individual that you insist on being.

https://www.nairaland.com/5508076/earth-flat-not-globe-part

https://www.nairaland.com/5458081/been-lied-earth-flat-not

EMILO2STAY:
if you have not abandoned your brain then prove to me how the earth is curved 8inche/m? , prove how water curves around a ball that spins? Prove with observable experiment how gravity curves an airplane?why do you believe the image of the earth from space? Have you been to space? Have you seen it from the perspective with your own eyes z. If you keep quoting saying nonsense I will ignore you.

Do ignore me. Intelligent sensible people would do the opposite.

EMILO2STAY:
lies that your senses can attest to and you cannot refute. It is you who's insignificant and ignorant because i keep ignoring you and you keep quoting and trolling me with nonsense instead of presenting factual evidence. Go get a life.

The above is evidence that you indeed do ignore me and that you have a life.

wickedtuna:

send link, not a scanned paper. Anyone can doctor such. In addition, this paper you sent (I didn't read it thoroughly though) is dated 1988. If you understand science, you will know that recent research is preferable because there could have been newer discoveries.

EMILO2STAY:
zetetic astrology "earth not a globe" by Samuel rowbotham.


Zetetic cosmogeny by thomas winship.




Besides you don't need s journal to tell you what you reality common sense and every day experience already tells you.

your last paragraph shows the limit of your knowledge in science world. I will look up the research works you mentioned though.

Updated

---

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=zetetic+astrology+%22earth+not+a+globe%22+by+Samuel+rowbotham.+&btnG=

By mere checking the work in the Google scholar shows that it is not a good research. Check for yourself. You may bring more works if you have.

Also, since you are so sure of your claim, it is an opportunity for you to win a Nobel price by publishing your research findings. Do yourself a favour by avoiding predatory journals.

Enough of derailing. May we continue with ex muslims quotes pls?

Xmuslim:
your last paragraph shows the limit of your knowledge in science world. I will look up the research works you mentioned though.

Updated

---

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=zetetic+astrology+%22earth+not+a+globe%22+by+Samuel+rowbotham.+&btnG=

By mere checking the work in the Google scholar shows that it is not a good research. Check for yourself. You may bring more works if you have.

Also, since you are so sure of your claim, it is an opportunity for you to win a Nobel price by publishing your research findings. Do yourself a favour by avoiding predatory journals.

how is it not a good research what claims of his did they counter?. if you can prove that water curves and sticks to a ball that spins then you can be able to prove me wrong when I said you don't need a journal to prove your own reality.

Let me tell you every one can be their own scientist, you don't necessarily need to rely on the works of others to believe a scientific fact. The evidence I presented can be conducted by the lay man and the results will be same as when a Nobel prize winning rocket scientist conducts his own.

Samuel rowbotham is hated and despised by the powers that be who foster and push down our throat the darwinian evolution and big bang spinning ball heliocentric theories for their agenda of hiding God so why would you think google scholar, owned and controlled by the same elite to approve of his works? I challenge you to look into any of his works and prove just any single one of them wrong.

The bed ford experiment is still till today one of his most popular proofs of the flat earth which can still be confirmed today. don't challenge my knowledge of science because I know what I talk about and these things can be attested by your own senses why; because true science is said to be observable, testable and repeatable, and all I have said here can be confirmed by the rules of science I mentioned above. The old world used to believe in a flat and stationary earth. But because history has been rewritten and we have been taught and programmed with movies of space and ball earth today we have been brain washed to believe the earth is a ball.

Xmuslim:
send link, not a scanned paper. Anyone can doctor such. In addition, this paper you sent (I didn't read it thoroughly though) is dated 1988. If you understand science, you will know that recent research is preferable because there could have been newer discoveries.

you are simply living in denial and just pretending. B