- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Glad you only asked for one because I don’t like repeating myself over and over.
Boats being brought back into view is a proof you offer of no beyond the curve. However, I posted a video where a person did exactly the same thing as that video you posted as evidence, but his video had an important difference. Further to the right was a huge tanker. So this person brought the smaller boat back into view like the video you posted and as suggested was merely beyond the naked eye to see. However, the tanker was indeed behind the curve and doing the same with a zoom lens changed nothing. In short, the smaller boat was never behind the curve to begin with, it was just too small to see with the naked eye and on the near side of the curve. It was a clever trick though I will say that, but wasn’t good because it was deception.
Did you know that 14.7 psi equals 10 tons of force per square meter (760 tor).
And yet can be held in by a simple car tyre.
And all the opposite experiments you quote a disingenuous. I imagine that it is much easier to collapse a small can with little PSI compared to the surrounding atmosphere, than a car tyre with higher pressure than the atmosphere. Try to stick to examples like the latter. I am not clued up with everything science, but at least make the examples similar. I will not just accept opposite examples wholesale and cannot be bothered investigating if they can be used in a genuine way. Takes too long. Keep it simple.
That vacuum cleaner is not the way to think of a vacuum as they don’t suck. It’s just that higher pressure will flow into lower pressure naturally like water into an empty container. That leads me to this point which I have already said, but this might be easier to understand.
Water will flow into an attached empty container from a full one if they are connected at the right place. Likewise if an empty container is inside a body of water, then if there is a breach, it will flow into the container. The container could also be crushed if the water pressure was high enough.
Now think about this point. You cannot equate these two examples I give in this post can you.The empty container surrounded by an ocean has far more pressure on it than a container of water trying to get out and flow into an empty container.
You guys always give examples of the higher pressure on the outside which is usually way more bigger in area than the higher pressure inside example.
Your examples look like another deceptive trick. It relies on the hearer not noticing that the higher pressure is on the outside and is vast in area.
T8: Boats being brought back into view is a proof you offer of no beyond the curve.
Remind me again how you “debunked” it?
T8: …this person brought the smaller boat back into view…
Yes… that’s what zoom lenses do.
T8: However, the tanker was indeed behind the curve and doing the same with a zoom lens changed nothing.
And how exactly did you determine it was “behind the curve”… thereby “debunking” our point that ships don’t disappear behind a curve?
(I’d add a photo, but the option to do so seems to be missing for now.)
T8: And yet can be held in by a simple car tyre.
T8, why does NASA’s vacuum chamber need 8 foot thick concrete and steel walls?
T8, you’re not getting the logic of this simple demonstration. A car tire is only twice the pressure of the outside pressure. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? Yes or no?
Can the pressure within anything, let’s say a lunar lander, be greater than that of the outside pressure? (Here’s a hint, YES It can! – just like the car tire!)
Could it maintain its containment if the pressure was greater than twice? Probably. Four times? Perhaps. A hundred times? Very doubtful but with a massive amount of reinforcement maybe – just maybe. But forget a hundred, or a thousand or even a million times greater, we are talking about multiple billions of times greater than the outside pressure.
Could a tire withstand a pressure more than double the outside pressure? Of course, that is what it is doing now. But could it withstand quadruple the pressure? Probably not. In fact it would probably blow out at that point.
But what about a thousand times that pressure? Or a million times that pressure? Or even a billion times that pressure?
I hope you can see where this leads.
I’m only using NASA’s numbers here. So if you are defending their position then you need to use their numbers. If you do then you will see there is no way we have built anything that would withstand the vacuum of space. We can’t even build a chamber on earth that will come close to the vacuum of space – according to Neil deGrass Tyson.
Here’s the simple point t8, we cannot match the vacuum of space but what we can do is create a vacuum that requires an 8’ thick concrete wall with steel reinforcement.
Here’s the question: How could the very thin walls of the lunar lander withhold the “vacuum of space” when a lesser vacuum on earth requires 8’ thick concrete wall with steel reinforcement?
Hey Mike, big thumbs up on your last video!
Hope that other videos will reveal the same “lunar lurch”. What will they say?
Hi Mike.
Looks like you have done your homework well! I discovered all this a couple of years ago and it shook my world. It did not truly connect for me at first until I remembered the book of Enoch – on the parts I didn’t understand…. and then wolla! It was as clear as day. He was describing the flat earth! Now it makes sense. Most don’t believe that the book of Enoch is inspired, but I believe the account that God gave him with all my heart. Wakeup was against it at first trying to find everything from the scriptures to prove it wrong, and then after about 3 months he saw it too. This was an amazing revelation. To us it is old news now, and debates about it can go on forever. It gets tiring but their theory about the earth’s curvature has been proven to be wrong and no-one can deny that, and that’s just for starters. Nothing can get through that firmament. Hillary Clinton also said “One day we are going to crack through that glass ceiling”. She slipped. They know they have lied to us, and they are laughing at us. God is revealing this to some of us but not all.
Praise the Lord he has revealed this to you also.
Thanks D4T! I’ve already got two of them ready for my “rebuttal” video to answer the naysayers – and I’m still looking for the third one I’ve seen. We’re not the only ones who have caught this. We’re just the first to realize what we had! I’ll bet there are dozens of videos already on YouTube with this rotation, but just like with my lunar eclipse, nobody has ever looked for it until we caught ours.
Also, Rich and I have come to the conclusion that field rotation is complete hokum. I shot the moon from rise to set yesterday/today, and it set with the Sea of Crises parallel to the ground. BUT… it doesn’t RISE that way. For it to be field rotation, SoC would have to rise at the 9:00 position (parallel to the east horizon), rotate to the 12:00 position at zenith (moon’s highest point where it passes your meridian), and set with SoC at 3:00 (parallel to the west horizon). But it rose last night (and tonight – I’m shooting it right now) with SoC very near 12:00, but sets with SoC at 3:00.
Plus, what reason is there for field rotation anyway? Imagine standing in an empty Walmart parking lot and a car with a red flag on top is circling you at a mile’s distance. Would you ever see the red flag (or the roof of the car for that matter) on it’s side? Of course not. Dude, I’ve just become convinced that the moon itself rotates as it passes overhead, and field rotation is just another game like gravity, refraction, big bang, evolution, etc. It is a rescue device because how would they explain a moon that rotates willy nilly in their model? You can’t have the moon rotating in two different directions, right? If you say it rotates at the same speed it orbits so we always see the same face, then you can’t very well have it spinning around like a wheel at the same time! What do you think?
journey, long time! I’m happy you spoke up. I believe that out of any given group of 100, 25 are flat earthers, but only 2 are willing to speak up about it. 😁 You are right they are laughing at us. I mean, look at the Disney dog Pluto on the “planet” Pluto! They’re throwing in our faces, and laughing at all those people like Gene and T8 who they’ve so successfully indoctrinated that they’re running around fighting the battles for these lying thieves – and not really knowing the first thing about any of it. They can only parrot what they’ve been told. But who knows, maybe they’ll eventually come around like Wakeup did. (Hi Wakeup!) D4T was my instigator. He sent me an email saying, “Don’t think I’m crazy, but you really need to look at this”, and it was a link to Eric Dubay’s 200 proofs. The next day I did what T8 has been doing all along – I found a YouTube video that claimed to debunk every flat earther claim, and sent it to him. He said, “Okay then”, and that was it. But I kept reading the 200 proofs and watching real flat earth videos, and although the indoctrination was battling back very hard, I was on board in about 10 days. All anybody really has to do is look. For me it wasn’t just the Chicago skyline photo, for example, but more the way the mainstream tried to explain it away. When you hear their just-so stories and recognize them for the grasping-at-straws-rescuing-devices that they are, then that becomes as powerful as the observational evidence itself. Likewise this current move to censor anything to do with flat earth. This comes down FROM our own “freedom of speech” government. THEY are the ones pushing YouTube, Facebook and Twitter to shove flat earth posts and videos to the back burner, and promote any “flat earth debunked” material on the front page. But that is backfiring on them too – since the very knowledge that they are trying to quash us is making a lot of people who wouldn’t have given it a second thought wonder what’s so damning about it that the government is trying to silence us. What if we were talking about magical fairies that live in our plaster? We could have a million followers and nobody would bat an eye. So what exactly is it about flat earth that has them so scared they have to censor us? Hmm…
Anyway, I was thrilled to see your post today. You guys were way ahead of me, and I’m glad. I also believe Enoch along with the Bible – and they are both clearly flat earth books. Anyway, you guys take care, and feel free to share any great points/proofs that you’ve come across on your journey.
(See what I did there? Started and ended with you. 🤓)
Hi Mike. I have made so many enemies from this subject it’s not funny. Even my husband thinks the flat earth is absurd! I’m not that interested with debating or conforming anyone else because their minds are already made up, but to speak to another flat earther Christian is rare and always welcoming. For me, it all started with the fake moon landings and then I stumbled onto this topic. I must of watched video’s for two weeks non stop just looking at evidence and hearing debates. It was all making sense to me, and it was all coming out in the open for us to make up our own minds by weighing out this new information. That evidence blew me away. Then I started going through all the scriptures searching for clues and there was nothing indicating that the earth was spinning, or that there was a “universe”, or other galaxies created. One thing for sure is that there is a firmament fixed over the earth, and I never fully understood what the firmament was until this subject came up. Now it’s clear and God said he put the sun, moon and stars inside the firmament (not outside), hence the fake moon landings. And that is the evidence that stands out the most to me. The edge of the firmament is not the edge of the universe, but earth only, because there is no universe. The heavens are our skies, and beyond the clouds are filled with trillions of stars all inside the firmament. What we call planets are only stars, different from the other stars, but still stars and they are all lights – not solid. Nothing that man has created can get out of this firmament, for it’s fixed, solid. layers and layers of ice, which would look like crystal glass. God’s domain is above that firmament. Man’s domain is inside it.
1 Corinthians 15:41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
One thing about this subject is that Christians can get very angry if they don’t agree. I’ve had so many posts on this subject deleted on another other forum. Once they know you believe in the flat earth, they don’t take anything else you say seriously. This has been another let down for me with forums. What’s there to hide? Let everything be out in the open for a testimony whether we be right or wrong, but to keep things hidden, is to show that we are not allowed to think for ourselves. Anyway that’s my rant for now. I only came on here because someone messaged me from this forum, and I couldn’t even remember my password, but here I am talking again. Nice to speak to you after so long.
My name should be Journey50 now! Time has flown.
T8, you’re not getting the logic of this simple demonstration. A car tire is only twice the pressure of the outside pressure. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? Yes or no?
Okay, thank you for putting it in a simple way. It means I can address this simply and we can all benefit from making progress as a result.
imagine I have a 15 kg concrete bucket holding 15 kg of water. What you are saying is that a 15 kg bucket holding no water needs to be many more times stronger because the percentage of 15 kg compared to nothing is a lot more versus the same bucket holding its own weight again which is only two times. But even you do not believe that the bucket holding nothing but air needs to be many more times stronger. Just because space at around zero PSI and the Space Station at around 15 PSI has a bigger percentage disparity than a car tyre and the atmosphere at ground level, doesn’t mean the Space Station has to be thousands, millions, or billions of times stronger. It simply doesn’t work like that.
I will put it another way. A car starting at 0 km / h to 15 km / h is not going to consume thousand, millions, or billions of times more petrol than a car doing 15 km /h and accelerating to 30 km /h or doubling its speed. Even you know this without having to do an experiment or run it through a calculator.
I’m putting this one down as another total debunking.
T8: Boats being brought back into view is a proof you offer of no beyond the curve.
Remind me again how you “debunked” it?T8: …this person brought the smaller boat back into view…
Yes… that’s what zoom lenses do.T8: However, the tanker was indeed behind the curve and doing the same with a zoom lens changed nothing.
And how exactly did you determine it was “behind the curve”… thereby “debunking” our point that ships don’t disappear behind a curve?(I’d add a photo, but the option to do so seems to be missing for now.)
First off, you can embed images already uploaded by still using the ‘Add Media button just like before. But now you can also upload new images by using the last button on the toolbar. It is a more direct way compared with before.
Yes, I posted a video in this topic but cannot find it now as the topic is quite big. But it answered your question about boats disappearing over the horizon for sure. The video matched the videos you post proving no curvature of the Earth by bring back a boat that has disappeared, but in the same shot it then pans left to an ocean liner that is indeed dipping below the horizon and dips further and further as it sails away. So yes it showed the same thing as your video but only because the smaller boat was never over the horizon to begin with, but then demonstrates aptly a bigger boat which cannot disappear by reason of its sheer size slowly dip out of view as a round earth would require.
It sort of made me angry at the deception of the video you showed because it is designed to suck people into a lie and we all know where lies come from. Anyway, as I said, I cannot find that video to re-post, but I did find this video which shows a huge ship going over the curve. Not as good as the other video, but still a good video of a boat disappearing due to curvature.
Finally, I know that you are not interested in learning anything new in this subject. You have decided to believe in a Flat Earth despite evidence, but my goal is not to convince you otherwise, although that might happen, rather it is to debunk this lie so that people who actually seek truth can find it.
T8, I’m not even sure what you’re talking about with the buckets. There is nothing rational about your comparisons.
A bucket that is non-sealed is not subjected to pressure differentials. If the bucket is sealed then we can make some comparisons.
Let’s say that a sealed bucket has 35 psi on the inside and while at sea level the outside pressure is only 14.7 psi. You should notice that this is the exact same example as the car tire!
So what have you debunked? Absolutly nothing. However you have demonstrated that you cannot think through this delima that you have. AND you have not answered the question that both Mike and I have ask you repeatedly.
If your bucket example was even remotely plausible or coherent you still haven’t explained why a vacuum which is much less than the vacuum of space requires an 8′ thick concrete wall with steel reinforcement. Why didn’t they just make it out of the same plastic that a bucket is made out of? You’re not being logical here.
But please come up with another “explanation”, I’m starting to enjoy the creativity.
Mike, if you reach a perfect vaccum it would crush all matter , the concrete could be a mile thick and would still crushed by it.
Here something simple for you and Dig4truth , if I were to give you a billion dollars to find a way to “draw” water over 33 feet could you do it?, remember I said “draw” like in a vaccum.
As FAR as the thickness of the skin of a space ship, it only has to be strong enough to support 14.7 psi plus space vaccum of aprox 33 psi, or around 47.7 psi, total which is easely obtainable by many materials.
Space is not a “perfect” vaccum.
I believe no matter can survive a perfect vaccum. YEARS ago when I took a physic class, we took a vaccum bell jar, and placed a dish full of water in it and hooked up a vaccum pump and started drawing a vacuum, as it got to 32. 8 i believe the ice begain to “boil”, and slowly turned to ice, we released the vacuum and took the bell jar off and all the water was turned to ice. That is what happens in space to our blood, if we are not protected by a suite , which can withstand that vaccum and also maintain a 14 psi of pressure in it.
So you ideas of nothing can survive spaces vaccum is wrong , we can easely handle it, with materials readily available and we do that. Our space crafts can go anywhere in space just as they are built.
Peace and love to you and yours. ………gene
A bucket that is non-sealed is not subjected to pressure differentials. If the bucket is sealed then we can make some comparisons.
Because you missed the point. It is not about sealing anything, it was simply an example of how percentage works. You seem to be making the argument that 15 is much more than 0 compared to 30 and 15 which is only 2 times. That is all I am saying. You say there is a big difference, but I say there isn’t at all.
For example, a car moving from 0 to 15 km /h doesn’t use up millions of times as much petrol as one that is already cruising at 15 km /h and accelerates to 30 km /h (being twice the speed only compared to 0 to 15 which is much greater than twice).
Hopefully you grasped it now. There is enough said now that you can apply this to your argument about why space and the ISS is not millions or billions of times greater pressure than a car tyre at seal level.
To my mind, this is another total debunk to another Flat Earth argument. To your mind it is not, but I care little about that. As long as the truth is present, then readers can make up their own minds.
Two points debunked
- While I have already debunked the Flat Earth idea that boats do not go over the curve because there isn’t one, here is another video that clearly debunks that notion It debunks Rob Skiba in particular.
- Another Flat Earth argument states that planes do not fly over Antarctica because we would find out that the Earth was flat if we did. Well we would hit the side of the dome so we would die. However, that is not the reason of course. The video points out why in general, planes do not fly over the frozen continent.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
