My bad dude I responded to the wrong comment. I was quite drunk last night. I actually walked into a frozen pond on the way home from the bar. That could have something to do with my incoherent response.
And I'm aware. It achieved a negative result for the existence of the aether because it failed to detect the movement of the earth which was already assumed to be true.
The movement of Earth is not "assumed to be true" it is provable, and indeed has been proven. Go to your local natural history museum and the odds are that you will see a "Focault Pendulum." That's one of the best tools for both demonstrating and measuring the rotation of the earth.
So now that we have proven that the Earth is moving, we can say that Michelson-Morley, Lorentz, and Hammar's experiments conclusively disprove the existence of "Luminous Aether."
Motherfuckers tried to prove the existence of this ether for literally decades, but none were successful.
tldr: It did not "fail to detect the movement of the earth which was already assumed to be true." It failed to detect "ether."
Looks like most of the evidence you're referring to came in the 50s. More modern experiments in the early 2000s found a similar phenomenon on a few occasions, but nothing conclusive.
It's worth noting that the anomalies are sometimes but not always detected, even using much more sensitive equipment than the pendulum. Looks like this one is still up for debate, but this so-called "Allais effect" may be proven or dis-proven next year when a big ol eclipse cuts across the USA.
Either way, this anomaly in no way affects the observed rotation of the earth. You asked to be "proved wrong" in your statement that earth does not move. I think I've done that.
Are you ready to accept that earth does, in fact, rotate?
About how the Michelson-Morley experiment disproved the existence of "aether?" Sure. In fact I think the ether theory, although wrong, was ahead of its time in suggesting something like the "quantum foam" which I understand is all the rage among physicists now.
If you wanna talk "concave earth" I'm gonna need actual proven physics phenomena, and not youtube videos though. Nothing from wildheretic either.
I looked at the site. None of the evidence is reputable. The experiments are too vague to be reproduced. Can you not provide evidence outside of that one shady source?
Also Socrates says the earth seen from above is like a ball. He says we are not "inside" of the ball, he says we are living in the cracks, or "hollows." He says space is the true heaven.
Wait a minute... There's no way you can believe an argument like this with no credible evidence...
Either way you haven't seen any of either theory for yourself and are being "punkd," smart ass.
Not seeing such theories willingly and openly discussed in public lends them credibility for me.
You don't even want to touch the "concave" maps being the only way to correctly represent the geographical geometry of the Earth, used by Hitler, our military, etc?
Again, I'm asking for sources, and all I'm getting are vague allusions to weak arguments housed on one website.
Show me legitimate evidence or provable physical phenomenon and I'm on board.
Creative interpretations of old maps is not evidence. Creative reading of ancient philosophical texts is not evidence. Creative reading of failed experiments from the 50s is not evidence.
I'm open, you just have to bring me some actual factual evidence. Surely if we lived on the interior wall of gigantic sphere, which contained not only the sun and moon, but the stars, galaxies, and meteors that we see in the sky then there would be some super basic ways to demonstrate it right?
And again, when you are bringing forth evidence of the nature of our physical world, please do not source wildheretic.
Again I'm telling you that your arguments are no more solid than these. Just depends on who you decide to trust; people on the edge of the last remaining (for now...) bastion of free speech, or our government.
You know the super high sky dive that was sponsored by red bull recently?
When Felix Baumgartner was up there, he stated that all he saw of the sky was entirely pitch black. Apparently stars are only visible from the lower atmosphere. Because science.
If you choose to actually place your trust in our "government" and its related institutions, especially in this day and age, that is your own foolish loss.
Go find your own evidence of the nature of our physical world, I shouldn't have to do that job for you.
Felix Baumgartner is exactly right. Read a book about the SR-71 test flights, or really any experimental high-altitude flying in the 60s and 70s, the pilots say the same thing: you can't see stars from the edge of space.
Also, Baumgartner's video clearly shows a round earth before he jumps!! If you're going to cherry pick quotes, you should use sources that don't directly contradict this "concave earth" business.
Look here, none of the arguments or evidence I have presented come from the "government." They come from papers published by scientists in peer-reviewed journals whose results have been summarized and detailed in open-source websites like wiki-leaks and google scholar.
The US government has zero to do with Focault's Pendulum, zero to do the Michelson-Morely experiments, zero to do with private satellite-imagery providers.
My evidence of the nature of the planet is literally thousands of books, photographs, experiments, and videos from airplanes, satellites, balloons, and rockets that consistently demonstrate the reality of our physical planet. My evidence also includes going to a beach and watching ships disappear of the horizon, watching the sun set, and observing the accurate models used too demonstrate moon phases and seasonality.
Many pictures from space are not owned by the government. No body of space-censoring officials form the CIA approves every single photograph of our round planet taken from a private satellite or GoPro strapped to a model rocket.
My evidence is massive, widespread, and comes from quite literally thousands of sources. Your evidence is one website which specializes in old and mistranslated documents as well as "experiments" preformed by completely anonymous and unverifiable sources.
The burden of proof is on you bud. And so far you've come up with nothing.
I'm amazed. How do flatheads pull the most asinine conclusions out of the most irrelevant or misunderstood experiments. I mean... Damn.
Let's take a 130 year old experiment that was supposed to assess the interaction between light and aether. We'll twist it around, and come up with some completely irrelevant gibberish that has nothing to do with the experiment, which was already outdated, obsolete, and irrelevant. Conclusion?:. The earth is flat and doesn't move!! Derp!!
I addressed my typo in my comment immediately after posting.
I'm glad you mentioned the mantle. Do you have any empirical data that supports the existence of the mantle? Did you know we as humans are incapable of digging deep enough to actually observe this mantle?
Ah I see. Yes I know that we can't dig to the mantel, and it's totally possible it doesn't exist exactly in the form we predict it to. If you're asking me for a picture of the mantel or a fresh sample, I can't produce one just like no one else can.
Plate tectonics is a theory rather than a law (i.e. it is an explanation of observations, rather than an observation itself) but it is a theory which very well explains a number of phenomena including:
1) The creation of volcanoes and why the exist where they do. For example, the crust sometimes moves over mantel "hotspots" which periodically become active, creating chains of volcanic islands which predictably go from "new" to "old" in the direction of plate movement. An example is Hawaii.
2) The creation of mountains and why the exist where they do, i.e. at boundaries between converging continental plates.
3) "sea floor spreading", i.e. the manner in which the ocean floor regenerates itself at boundaries between divergent oceanic plates. This also explains why the magnetic polarity of the sea floor is an alternating striped pattern: the earth's magnetic field reverses from time to time so each stripe is generated at the current polarity.
4) Earthquakes also occur at plate boundaries, when plates rub side by side against each other.
5) Similarities in the fossil records on continents which were previously attached (e.g. South America and Africa).
etc.
So unless your "doesn't move" theory better explains those or some other phenomenon, I'm not buying it.
I was quite drunk last night and I lost my phone or else I would have responded sooner.
IMO it supports the Concave Earth theory, although I didn't intend to speak about that in this thread, I am simply stating that the surface of the earth does not move. You can draw your own conclusion.
I don't know. To think that we don't live on a globe seems insane. It's one of the most fundamental beliefs we have as humans.
But, there's experimental evidence that shows we actually live on a flat plain.
It's perhaps the ultimate conspiracy theory.
Because if these real-world experiments are to be believed, then it means that everything we've been taught is a lie. That the world map we know is incorrect. That the Antarctic is a wall of ice encircling the land masses. That the Sun and the Moon are not where or as described. That the stars, galaxies, universe are not as described.
And so on and so forth..
It's the proverbial Alice in Wonderland rabbit hole. That the Jesuits/Masons/Satanists have created a global deception for the last 500 years in an attempt to convince us that the earth is a speck of dust in a vast unknown of space instead of the only thing there is. That evolution is real. That there is no God et cetera...
I don't know what to believe anymore.
I used to be an arrogant atheist. I had faith in science and didn't believe anything that couldn't be proven.
And in my arrogance I just accepted the same common assumptions as everyone else does.
But there are some very troubling proofs that should not be possible if we live on a globe as we all assume we do.
Some very simple experiments provide evidence that directly contradict a globe earth.
And, once cognitive bias is overcome, it just opens a Pandora's Box of questions.
So, I don't know. There's so much purposeful disinformation out there that it's very difficult to be sure of anything.
I think therefore I am.
But then again, we almost certainly live in a simulated holographic matrix universe.
The simulated idea is an interesting one for sure. Thanks for your response, I'll take a peak at that info.
Quick question. What could be done to prove that idea? I think of all the videos I've seen of astronauts in space and all the video there, how or what would show that to be false or manipulated?
Would the Russians withhold that information as well? Like, if they have their own space program and they found something different, what would keep them from spilling the beans?
I think the fake NASA spacewalks are known to pretty much all governments. Hell, China recently broadcast their own ones.
View them in context of 9/11 in the US, 7/7 in the UK or the Russian apartment bombings et cetera.
Every major nation is guilty of false flag operations.
They all have crimes they don't want exposed.
If any of them calls another out for their lies, their own lies will be exposed.
Such is the nature of international politics.
It appears to be a flat plane but that is because of the nature of light. It bends upwards towards the source. The surface of the earth is actually concave.
Your sub is by far the worst I've ever seen on reddit. You ban everybody asking questions or answering them with real scientific facts. Sooner or later you will be the only one able to post or comment on your dumb sub because you banned everybody.
Check out /r/theworldisflat for flat earth info if anyone is interested.
Yeah guys, you can check it out, but if you want to ask questions or if you are sceptical, you better visit one of the other FE subs
It's actually been growing steadily and we get new people asking to be submitters on a regular basis. It's not for questions or for skeptics - did you read the sidebar? But thanks for your thoughts :)
Then you should post a new sticky called something like "THIS SUB IS NOT FOR ASKING QUESTIONS OR ANSWERING THEM!!1" instead of suggesting your sub to people who clearly are new to the subject.
did you read the sidebar?
No, I only use reddit on my mobile phone, and there's no such thing.
I was quite drunk last night and I lost my phone or else I would have responded sooner.
IMO it supports the Concave Earth theory, although I didn't intend to speak about that in this thread, I am simply stating that the surface of the earth does not move. You can draw your own conclusion.
Then you should post a new sticky called something like "THIS SUB IS NOT FOR ASKING QUESTIONS OR ANSWERING THEM!!1" instead of suggesting your sub to people who clearly are new to the subject.
did you read the sidebar?
No, I only use reddit on my mobile phone, and there's no such thing.
50 comments
10 KnightBeforeTomorrow 2016-12-17
Tectonic plates.
1 DirtyBird9889 2016-12-17
That's not the type of movement this experiment was attempting to detect.
Sure the surface moves due to tectonic plates, although simply stating "tectonic plates" isn't really proof of anything.
I am talking about the notion that we are hurling and rotating through space at millions of miles per hour.
3 KnightBeforeTomorrow 2016-12-17
Compared to what?
Scientific American says about 1000 miles per hour.
Nothing at all is standing still anywhere.
10 silkchoad 2016-12-17
This experiment disproved the existence of "aether" not the immobility of earth.
2 DirtyBird9889 2016-12-17
My bad dude I responded to the wrong comment. I was quite drunk last night. I actually walked into a frozen pond on the way home from the bar. That could have something to do with my incoherent response.
And I'm aware. It achieved a negative result for the existence of the aether because it failed to detect the movement of the earth which was already assumed to be true.
3 silkchoad 2016-12-17
The movement of Earth is not "assumed to be true" it is provable, and indeed has been proven. Go to your local natural history museum and the odds are that you will see a "Focault Pendulum." That's one of the best tools for both demonstrating and measuring the rotation of the earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum
So now that we have proven that the Earth is moving, we can say that Michelson-Morley, Lorentz, and Hammar's experiments conclusively disprove the existence of "Luminous Aether."
Motherfuckers tried to prove the existence of this ether for literally decades, but none were successful.
tldr: It did not "fail to detect the movement of the earth which was already assumed to be true." It failed to detect "ether."
1 DirtyBird9889 2016-12-17
The focault pendulum shows anomalies during eclipses. Any idea why that happens?
4 silkchoad 2016-12-17
Interesting, I hadn't heard of that before.
Looks like most of the evidence you're referring to came in the 50s. More modern experiments in the early 2000s found a similar phenomenon on a few occasions, but nothing conclusive.
It's worth noting that the anomalies are sometimes but not always detected, even using much more sensitive equipment than the pendulum. Looks like this one is still up for debate, but this so-called "Allais effect" may be proven or dis-proven next year when a big ol eclipse cuts across the USA.
https://briankoberlein.com/2015/03/22/the-pendulum-of-truth/
Either way, this anomaly in no way affects the observed rotation of the earth. You asked to be "proved wrong" in your statement that earth does not move. I think I've done that.
Are you ready to accept that earth does, in fact, rotate?
-5 DirtyBird9889 2016-12-17
Concave earth theory, thanks man. Can we talk about it?
15 silkchoad 2016-12-17
About how the Michelson-Morley experiment disproved the existence of "aether?" Sure. In fact I think the ether theory, although wrong, was ahead of its time in suggesting something like the "quantum foam" which I understand is all the rage among physicists now.
If you wanna talk "concave earth" I'm gonna need actual proven physics phenomena, and not youtube videos though. Nothing from wildheretic either.
1 igweyliogsuh 2016-12-17
Literally the first google result: http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-earth-theory/
Just found this theory myself; undeniably very, very intriguing. Thank you DirtyBird.
Read what Socrates had to say... http://www.bartleby.com/2/1/37.html
2 silkchoad 2016-12-17
Nothing from wild heretic please.
I looked at the site. None of the evidence is reputable. The experiments are too vague to be reproduced. Can you not provide evidence outside of that one shady source?
Also Socrates says the earth seen from above is like a ball. He says we are not "inside" of the ball, he says we are living in the cracks, or "hollows." He says space is the true heaven.
Wait a minute... There's no way you can believe an argument like this with no credible evidence...
Is this a troll job? Have I been punkd?
1 igweyliogsuh 2016-12-17
Either way you haven't seen any of either theory for yourself and are being "punkd," smart ass.
Not seeing such theories willingly and openly discussed in public lends them credibility for me.
You don't even want to touch the "concave" maps being the only way to correctly represent the geographical geometry of the Earth, used by Hitler, our military, etc?
4 silkchoad 2016-12-17
Again, I'm asking for sources, and all I'm getting are vague allusions to weak arguments housed on one website.
Show me legitimate evidence or provable physical phenomenon and I'm on board.
Creative interpretations of old maps is not evidence. Creative reading of ancient philosophical texts is not evidence. Creative reading of failed experiments from the 50s is not evidence.
I'm open, you just have to bring me some actual factual evidence. Surely if we lived on the interior wall of gigantic sphere, which contained not only the sun and moon, but the stars, galaxies, and meteors that we see in the sky then there would be some super basic ways to demonstrate it right?
And again, when you are bringing forth evidence of the nature of our physical world, please do not source wildheretic.
1 igweyliogsuh 2016-12-17
Again I'm telling you that your arguments are no more solid than these. Just depends on who you decide to trust; people on the edge of the last remaining (for now...) bastion of free speech, or our government.
You know the super high sky dive that was sponsored by red bull recently?
When Felix Baumgartner was up there, he stated that all he saw of the sky was entirely pitch black. Apparently stars are only visible from the lower atmosphere. Because science.
If you choose to actually place your trust in our "government" and its related institutions, especially in this day and age, that is your own foolish loss.
Go find your own evidence of the nature of our physical world, I shouldn't have to do that job for you.
3 silkchoad 2016-12-17
Felix Baumgartner is exactly right. Read a book about the SR-71 test flights, or really any experimental high-altitude flying in the 60s and 70s, the pilots say the same thing: you can't see stars from the edge of space.
Also, Baumgartner's video clearly shows a round earth before he jumps!! If you're going to cherry pick quotes, you should use sources that don't directly contradict this "concave earth" business.
Look here, none of the arguments or evidence I have presented come from the "government." They come from papers published by scientists in peer-reviewed journals whose results have been summarized and detailed in open-source websites like wiki-leaks and google scholar.
The US government has zero to do with Focault's Pendulum, zero to do the Michelson-Morely experiments, zero to do with private satellite-imagery providers.
My evidence of the nature of the planet is literally thousands of books, photographs, experiments, and videos from airplanes, satellites, balloons, and rockets that consistently demonstrate the reality of our physical planet. My evidence also includes going to a beach and watching ships disappear of the horizon, watching the sun set, and observing the accurate models used too demonstrate moon phases and seasonality.
Many pictures from space are not owned by the government. No body of space-censoring officials form the CIA approves every single photograph of our round planet taken from a private satellite or GoPro strapped to a model rocket.
My evidence is massive, widespread, and comes from quite literally thousands of sources. Your evidence is one website which specializes in old and mistranslated documents as well as "experiments" preformed by completely anonymous and unverifiable sources.
The burden of proof is on you bud. And so far you've come up with nothing.
8 Awesomo3082 2016-12-17
I'm amazed. How do flatheads pull the most asinine conclusions out of the most irrelevant or misunderstood experiments. I mean... Damn.
Let's take a 130 year old experiment that was supposed to assess the interaction between light and aether. We'll twist it around, and come up with some completely irrelevant gibberish that has nothing to do with the experiment, which was already outdated, obsolete, and irrelevant. Conclusion?:. The earth is flat and doesn't move!! Derp!!
Dear lord, how do they do it?!
2 DirtyBird9889 2016-12-17
I'm not a flathead, my friend. The surface of the earth is concave.
2 theoccurrence 2016-12-17
What? That's even more retarded! I've heard of it but I was sure it had to be an unfunny joke
6 powerhighfive 2016-12-17
Does the Earty bird get the wormhole?
1 DirtyBird9889 2016-12-17
You have to pay the troll toll to get into the wormhole.
3 DickWoodReddit 2016-12-17
These are completely unrelated. You smug dbag.
0 DirtyBird9889 2016-12-17
FTFY
3 epiphyte1001 2016-12-17
Michelson and Morely are rolling over in their graves right now. Under the surface of the earth. Which moves (relative to the mantle and the sun).
And it's spelled "earth".
1 DirtyBird9889 2016-12-17
I addressed my typo in my comment immediately after posting.
I'm glad you mentioned the mantle. Do you have any empirical data that supports the existence of the mantle? Did you know we as humans are incapable of digging deep enough to actually observe this mantle?
3 epiphyte1001 2016-12-17
Ah I see. Yes I know that we can't dig to the mantel, and it's totally possible it doesn't exist exactly in the form we predict it to. If you're asking me for a picture of the mantel or a fresh sample, I can't produce one just like no one else can.
Plate tectonics is a theory rather than a law (i.e. it is an explanation of observations, rather than an observation itself) but it is a theory which very well explains a number of phenomena including:
1) The creation of volcanoes and why the exist where they do. For example, the crust sometimes moves over mantel "hotspots" which periodically become active, creating chains of volcanic islands which predictably go from "new" to "old" in the direction of plate movement. An example is Hawaii.
2) The creation of mountains and why the exist where they do, i.e. at boundaries between converging continental plates.
3) "sea floor spreading", i.e. the manner in which the ocean floor regenerates itself at boundaries between divergent oceanic plates. This also explains why the magnetic polarity of the sea floor is an alternating striped pattern: the earth's magnetic field reverses from time to time so each stripe is generated at the current polarity.
4) Earthquakes also occur at plate boundaries, when plates rub side by side against each other.
5) Similarities in the fossil records on continents which were previously attached (e.g. South America and Africa).
etc.
So unless your "doesn't move" theory better explains those or some other phenomenon, I'm not buying it.
2 powerhighfive 2016-12-17
And also yes it does, Bill Nye says so, And he wears a bow tie.
2 powerhighfive 2016-12-17
Ritchie eat yer crust
2 trumphairinthewind 2016-12-17
The earth has oil for 2 billion mor eyeats
2 fyrefox45 2016-12-17
Foucaults pendelum proves the earth moves
1 DirtyBird9889 2016-12-17
Then why does it show anomalies during eclipses?
1 bittermanscolon 2016-12-17
So if this is all correct, this would support what theory?
1 DirtyBird9889 2016-12-17
I was quite drunk last night and I lost my phone or else I would have responded sooner.
IMO it supports the Concave Earth theory, although I didn't intend to speak about that in this thread, I am simply stating that the surface of the earth does not move. You can draw your own conclusion.
2 bittermanscolon 2016-12-17
Thanks for your replies.
-1 scramtek 2016-12-17
That the ground we stand upon is not moving.
In other words, not a rotating globe.
2 bittermanscolon 2016-12-17
So the sun is revolving around us, and thus we get to the flat earth idea?
2 scramtek 2016-12-17
I don't know. To think that we don't live on a globe seems insane. It's one of the most fundamental beliefs we have as humans.
But, there's experimental evidence that shows we actually live on a flat plain.
It's perhaps the ultimate conspiracy theory.
Because if these real-world experiments are to be believed, then it means that everything we've been taught is a lie. That the world map we know is incorrect. That the Antarctic is a wall of ice encircling the land masses. That the Sun and the Moon are not where or as described. That the stars, galaxies, universe are not as described.
And so on and so forth..
It's the proverbial Alice in Wonderland rabbit hole. That the Jesuits/Masons/Satanists have created a global deception for the last 500 years in an attempt to convince us that the earth is a speck of dust in a vast unknown of space instead of the only thing there is. That evolution is real. That there is no God et cetera...
I don't know what to believe anymore.
I used to be an arrogant atheist. I had faith in science and didn't believe anything that couldn't be proven.
And in my arrogance I just accepted the same common assumptions as everyone else does.
But there are some very troubling proofs that should not be possible if we live on a globe as we all assume we do.
Some very simple experiments provide evidence that directly contradict a globe earth.
And, once cognitive bias is overcome, it just opens a Pandora's Box of questions.
So, I don't know. There's so much purposeful disinformation out there that it's very difficult to be sure of anything.
I think therefore I am.
But then again, we almost certainly live in a simulated holographic matrix universe.
2 bittermanscolon 2016-12-17
The simulated idea is an interesting one for sure. Thanks for your response, I'll take a peak at that info.
Quick question. What could be done to prove that idea? I think of all the videos I've seen of astronauts in space and all the video there, how or what would show that to be false or manipulated?
Would the Russians withhold that information as well? Like, if they have their own space program and they found something different, what would keep them from spilling the beans?
1 scramtek 2016-12-17
I think the fake NASA spacewalks are known to pretty much all governments. Hell, China recently broadcast their own ones.
View them in context of 9/11 in the US, 7/7 in the UK or the Russian apartment bombings et cetera.
Every major nation is guilty of false flag operations.
They all have crimes they don't want exposed.
If any of them calls another out for their lies, their own lies will be exposed.
Such is the nature of international politics.
1 DirtyBird9889 2016-12-17
It appears to be a flat plane but that is because of the nature of light. It bends upwards towards the source. The surface of the earth is actually concave.
1 DirtyBird9889 2016-12-17
No, sun revolves around the celestial sphere within the earth. The entire universe exists inside an area the size of the earth you know.
1 DirtyBird9889 2016-12-17
Can you please tell me the difference?
1 natavism 2016-12-17
Post karma zeroed out? yep
Trolls descending on the topic without discussing it? yep
Science brought up - everyone scoffing without discussing science? yep
Must be someone trying to make a flat earth thread on /r/conspiracy. Check out /r/theworldisflat for flat earth info if anyone is interested.
2 theoccurrence 2016-12-17
Your sub is by far the worst I've ever seen on reddit. You ban everybody asking questions or answering them with real scientific facts. Sooner or later you will be the only one able to post or comment on your dumb sub because you banned everybody.
Yeah guys, you can check it out, but if you want to ask questions or if you are sceptical, you better visit one of the other FE subs
1 natavism 2016-12-17
It's actually been growing steadily and we get new people asking to be submitters on a regular basis. It's not for questions or for skeptics - did you read the sidebar? But thanks for your thoughts :)
Also, sceptical? skeptical :)
2 theoccurrence 2016-12-17
Then you should post a new sticky called something like "THIS SUB IS NOT FOR ASKING QUESTIONS OR ANSWERING THEM!!1" instead of suggesting your sub to people who clearly are new to the subject.
No, I only use reddit on my mobile phone, and there's no such thing.
Look at me, english is my mother tongue
1 natavism 2016-12-17
Ok. Have a good one!
1 Poobyrd 2016-12-17
Here ya go friend. Proof that the ground we stand on does move.
https://youtu.be/sWDi-Xk3rgw
https://youtu.be/iqpV1236_Q0
0 DirtyBird9889 2016-12-17
By Earty of course I mean Earth.
0 Flat_Earth-Fat_Girth 2016-12-17
Just chiming in to say hi and you're right :)
2 powerhighfive 2016-12-17
Ritchie eat yer crust
-1 scramtek 2016-12-17
That the ground we stand upon is not moving.
In other words, not a rotating globe.
2 bittermanscolon 2016-12-17
So the sun is revolving around us, and thus we get to the flat earth idea?
1 DirtyBird9889 2016-12-17
I was quite drunk last night and I lost my phone or else I would have responded sooner.
IMO it supports the Concave Earth theory, although I didn't intend to speak about that in this thread, I am simply stating that the surface of the earth does not move. You can draw your own conclusion.
2 theoccurrence 2016-12-17
Then you should post a new sticky called something like "THIS SUB IS NOT FOR ASKING QUESTIONS OR ANSWERING THEM!!1" instead of suggesting your sub to people who clearly are new to the subject.
No, I only use reddit on my mobile phone, and there's no such thing.
Look at me, english is my mother tongue