Tell me more about this flood.

Also the British royal family are part German because back in the days of monarchies they were a bunch of inbreds with marriage between families used to secure diplomatic relations.

Picture's aren't going to cut it. I asked you to explain the flood and it's effects.

If you can't explain something you don't understand it.

I always thought flatearthers didn't actually exist. You are joking, right!?....: Right?
Can you explain how aircraft can travel AROUND the globe to a destination in two opposite directions?

They think they are traveling around the world, when in fact the trajectory is a circle

Oh I don't know, gravity?

Why can't you?

A theory in science is a explanation for something backed by evidence.

Not to be mistaken by a 'theory' which is just your idea that the world is flat, backed by farts.

Sure you got the right link there?

... The one you posted ...

No you didn't.

Your link doesn't relate to gravity.

Still doesn't relate.

where is the edge of this flat earth? Why can't you find it?

Oh don't get me started on gravity.

Yeah it's a total downer.

It sucks.

It's funny because it is a joke that globe heads just say "Gravity" to explain everything, and here we see it in the real world.

Globe heads? Wow, you morons even have your own term for people who use their brain?!

Why hasn't a flat earther taken a photo of the edge of the earth? What's on the other side of the earth? Why haven't you jumped off the edge?

Are those supposed to be gotcha questions? They have easy answers!

1. Because no one is allowed to freely explore Antarctica

2. We don't know

3. See #1

Source for #1?

For real though, just the most basic science is enough to disprove flat earth. Your so set on believing that everything little thing in this world is a lie.while I agree that our government and nasa are hiding some pretty big things, but flat earth isn't one of them.they could probably offer to take you into space personally on the next mission and you'd be up there floating in space still saying" pssshhhh this is all fake“even though all the proof you need is right on front of you.Yaaa just gotta not be retarded

For real though, just the most basic science is enough to disprove flat earth. Your so set on believing that everything little thing in this world is a lie.while I agree that our government and nasa are hiding some pretty big things, but flat earth isn't one of them.they could probably offer to take you into space personally on the next mission and you'd be up there floating in space still saying" pssshhhh this is all fake“even though all the proof you need is right on front of you.Yaaa just gotta not be retarded

Dude humans knew about the earth being flat for thousands of years.go look up the Sumerians for crying out loud.your nothing but a shill trying to capitalize off false information and spread false hood to weak minded individuals like yourself.I can almost guarantee your just.some fat.neckbeard sitting at his computer in the dark who has done no actual scientific research or study and is basing this whole belief off of others clearly wrong ideas. Go to school and learn.not everything you see on the internet is true, no matter how good some tard made it sound

It always devolves into personal attacks. Interesting.

nasa hiding some pretty big things

So you know we didn't go to the moon then?

3 degree NOSE-UP pitch

The incidence angle of the aircraft at cruise altitude is based on the specific airfoil (wing profile), the fuselage profile, and the center of gravity of the aircraft in particular. It so happens that most airliners have a C.G./aerodynamics combination that require a positive fuselage incidence angle in order to stay level at cruise - resulting in a slightly nose up position at cruise. But this is not so with all aircraft - for instance, the CR7 usually cruises with the nose slightly down.

A 747 is also 3 degrees but thats fully loaded.

Planes pitch up because thats how lift is generated. When your car accelerates it pitches up, does that mean your car will eventually reach orbit because its pitched up?

Autopilots adjust pitch to stay at altitude.

The pitch up is generating just enough lift to keep a fully loaded plane in the air. If it were perfectly level it would drop in altitude. It also has to do with airspeed, you pitch down to go faster and pitch up to level off and maintain speed and altitude.

This is all entry level aeronautics. Check out a few flight subs for further info but it makes perfect sense if you spend a few minutes looking into flight theory.

You're a liar and you know NOTHING about aviation.

Okay, prove me wrong. You havent because what I said was factually accurate.

Youre the one asking entry level questions.

Yes I copy pasted that. I didnt think it mattered because its true.

Are you more upset Im right or that I copied it?

I used to fly airplanes a few years ago. Roughly speaking, we did use pitch to control airspeed and RPM to control altitude.

Throttle controlled the rotations-per-minute (RPM) of the propeller. If I wanted to gain altitude, I would increase throttle. If I wanted to go faster, I would pitch downward (though I would also probably increase throttle to maintain altitude).

I don't have experience flying airliners. As stated earlier, it may be that pitch is not as dominant a factor in altitude control as you may think.

It was a little over 10 hours in a Cessna 152 multiple years ago. I'd have to go back over the notes and manual for details, but the basics as I explained above are how we did things.

Why don't you get a pilots license and figure it out yourself

Have you ever been really high up on a plane on a clear day & looked at the horizon?

Do you realize how satellites work?

Also, if the earth was flat, why would the moon look like a circle in the sky? Certainly not because it is actually a huge ball circling around another huge ball.

I do not mean to be rude, I just don’t understand the flat earth thing. I think it’s part of the deception to make people who read between the lines look absolutely insane to discredit all conspiracy theories, or just a trend. I’ve seen real astronauts talk about space & Aliens even. I’ve also been in a lot of planes. There are things Nasa hides, yes. But the earth being flat isn’t one of them.

why would the moon look like a circle in the sky?

I don't see the issue here; the Moon and Earth can be disk shaped and they would appear to be circles from a distance.

Except if it was a disk & it moved or tilted or if it wasn’t exactly lined up with earth perfect all the time it would just look like a line in the sky or an oval. If they were both disks they would have to face each other 100% of the time at exactly the right angle. It doesn’t add up for me.

How could you have curved shadows on a disc?

Because if you see a big pink elephant in the distance, you are on a pink elephant.

Flat earth's are....fun

If you're actually asking honest questions out of curiosity, you must also understand you are asking questions that come up literally in every FE discussion. Of course I don't blame you for this, but allow me to link you to a video you should watch which addresses these questions and more and then see if you have any further questions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0xClWgidZU

How do satellites work?

They orbit a planet or a moon because of motion & gravity.

For example there are manmade Satellites that orbit the earth.

The moon is also a satellite, although not a man made one, by definition.

But why do the satellites neither fall down onto earth nor fly out into space?

Motion.

Can you elaborate a bit on that? I don't really see how that makes sense. If there was an orbit with a distance-to-earth of 'X' at which the force of gravity and outward-pulling force generated by the orbital-rotating-motion counteracted eachother perfectly, then that balance would be easily upset by the moon (which after all generates a gravitational pull strong enough to influence tides) and thus be kicked out of its fine balance. One the balance is broken the cumulative forces would have the satellite either fly out into space or fall towards earth. That's why I don't really understand how satellites work.

Orbit really means moving so fast that as you fall towards the planet you are moving so quickly that you never hit.

This is why things move so fast in orbit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmFHwQkCYlQ

Really short video on the subject.

I'm really sorry if this sounds krass, it don't mean for it to. But this is the typical shallow common facebook-repost IFLS wikipedia-copypaste science video that explains absolutely nothing but makes everyone that learned a little physics in high school nod in agreement and feel like they know stuff. It's terrible.

So you understand it you just dont accept it?

I did not understand it. The issue I mentioned earlier is still unresolved and I have trouble with the formulation of 'the curve falling away from the orbit'.

The issue I mentioned earlier is still unresolved and I have trouble with the formulation of 'the curve falling away from the orbit'.

?

What do you mean? If you go fast enough you still fall but will never hit the ground.

Gravity is still like 90% at a few hundred miles, the moon isnt pulling things away

Lets take the Hubble telescope for instance. You have two competing forces. Force 1 is gravity of earth, pulling the satellite towards it. Force 2 is the force of the motion of the satellite, which creates a vector working in the exact opposite direction of gravity. There is a very specific orbital distance, at which these two forces cancel out perfectly. This is the orbital distance at which Hubble can spin around the earth in a stable orbit. However if it leaves this speecific orbital distance, the force imbalance starts cumulating. If hubble is pushed slightly out of this careful-balance orbit, it starts closing down on earth as the force keeps cumulating, or falling away from earth as the opposite force starts cumulating. No?

Are you talking about Lagrange points?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point

Force 2 is the force of the motion of the satellite, which creates a vector working in the exact opposite direction of gravity.

Im also not fully understanding this sentence.

. There is a very specific orbital distance, at which these two forces cancel out perfectly. This is the orbital distance at which Hubble can spin around the earth in a stable orbit. However if it leaves this speecific orbital distance, the force imbalance starts cumulating.

Yeah which is expected by 2020 unless there is a mission to give it a boost. Hubble can also make very small corrections to its orbit. You are right though that the orbit has to be very specific. Thats why they call it rocket science :)

Yes I guess that's what I meant without knowing the term. My main point of skepticism is the fact that, now that we've established this whole thing with the orbit, the moon would repeatedly introduce a disruptive third force that would destabilise the orbit. And dramatically so, it's a massive object after all (relative to Hubble). It would drag Hubble out of its stable orbit every time they get close.

It would drag Hubble out of its stable orbit every time they get close.

No. Where the hubble satellite sits is still well within Earths gravity. The Earth is dramatically more powerful than the moon.

Orbits arent perfect either Hubble will come down eventually, around 2020 by estimates

I can't really tell if you already know satellites are a hoax (as well as all "outer space") and are attempting to socratically question indoctrinated people into thinking for themselves or you are really just starting to realize how ridiculous everything we are taught as truth related to this topic is. Either way, good luck dealing with the brainwashed masses.

Hehe, ty

If you want a more rigorous explanation, here it is. Have you ever been on one of those rides where you are spun really fast and you “stick” to the wall and then the floor drops out from beneath you? Or how about when you see skateboarders go through a loop-de-loop where, for a moment, they ride on the curling upside down? In both cases, you don’t fall despite being in the air. How does that work?

From Newton’s laws, we know that an object at rest will stay at rest unless acted on by an outside force. What that means, is that in every situation where you aren’t moving, it is because the forces on you are balanced. In the cases above, the gravitational force acting on you was balanced out by some other force.

In the cases above, this force is called the centripetal force. It’s the reason that you feel pulled to one side when you’re in a car that turns too quickly. Mathematically, this force is equal to mv^2/r. That is your mass Times your velocity squared over the radius of rotation.

So in the cases above, you didn’t fall because this centripetal force was equal to or greater than your weight (the gravitational force which pulls you to towards the center of the earth). Mathematically we would say mg (weight) = mv^2/r. This simplified to v = sqrt(gr). In other words, to not fall down you have to travel at a velocity greater than the square root of gr (the acceleration due to gravity Times the radius of rotation).

Satellites work on the exact same principle. There is some critical velocity at which the centripetal force acting on the satellite cancels out the gravitational force pulling the satellite down to earth, allowing the satellite to travel in an orbit around the earth. This is exactly the same as the skateboarder who briefly travels in an orbit around the center of the loop-de-loop or the carnival goer who travels in an orbit around the center of the spinning ride.

There is one complication in that satellites may be far enough from the earth that g can no longer be assumed to be the same as it is on earth. In this case you may need to use Newton’s law of gravitation in which the force due to gravity is no longer mg but is instead Gm1m2/r^2. But the math would work out pretty much the same

Yes that's all clear. The issue is that the moon is a disruptive element that would not allow Hubble to mantain its stable carefully balanced orbit. It has enough gravitational pull to influence tides on earth after all (which I think is bs, but that's what conformist mainstream science says so I'll use it against it). Without the moon the Hubbles stable orbit would be believable. But there is a moon, and it does orbit earth too. And it certainly does not orbit earth in any way that could be synchronised with Hubble in order to protect it's stable orbit. So their orbits are unsynced and this creates tremendous fluctuations to the aggregate forces competing aginst Hubbles orbital stability. It could simply not mantain its stable orbit with the moon getting away/closer to it all the time altering the gravity-centripetal ratio. And once its out of balance, the effect is cumulative causing Hubble to crash towards earth or fly off into space. That's the issue. That's why satellites don't work.

For this, we need to think about relative masses and relative distances. In terms of astronomy, Hubble and the ocean are basically equally far away from the moon. The difference is that the ocean is much much more massive than the telescope. Hubble is 11*10³ kg. The ocean is 1.4 *10²¹ kg.

We know that gravitational forces are dependent on mass and distance. Given the two factors above, the moons affect on the ocean will be millions of times greater than its effect on Hubble.

The interesting thing to note is that the gravitational forces on both objects are dominated by the earth. The ocean doesn’t get pulled into space, and Hubble maintains its orbit. But the ocean is massive enough that the moon will have some effect, which can be seen in the motion of the tides.

Don't bother, your wasting your time. /u/nuclearsprout can't even put on his own pants let alone understand the inverse square law or orbital and gravitational dynamics.

Lol?? 'Don't bother /u/chocolatemeowcats can't even tie his own shoes let alone understand quantum superpositional hypogravitational clustering in oscillating non-riemannian supra-patterns' ... 'But I do because I watched a 2 minute IFLS video on it on facebook and copy paste wikipedia soundbites'

If you can't explain, you don't know it mate.

"quantum" "superposition" "gravitational"

LOL stringing various unrelated science words together makes you look like a fucking idiot. Thanks for the laughs mate.

Was obviously meant to be funny. Just trying to make point, hope that didn't fly over your head.

Okay but you're not really addressing my point. Let me illustrate https://imgur.com/a/dCm55

I hope this makes it clear, I really don't think I can explain it any better than this.

Okay, so let’s do some math. Hubble orbits earth with a radius of 560 kilometers. The moon orbits at 384,000 kilometers. Meanwhile the earth has a mass of 5.97 * 10²⁴ kg. The moon has a mass of 7.34 * 10²² kg.

The force of gravity is equal to Gm1m2/r^2. Just doing some back of the envelope math, the earth is 100 times more massive and ~ 76 times closer then the moon. Putting both of those things into the equation, we can see that the force exerted by the earth will be roughly 550,000 times stronger than the force of the moon. That means that, frankly, the effect of the moon is negligible.

Even if Hubble were motionless, the earth’s effect would dominate so much that the moon could be ignored entirely. But, on top of that, Hubble’s orbital velocity will help it maintain its orbit for the reasons that I laid out above. If Hubble can stay in orbit under the effects of earth’s gravity, the moon isn’t going to change anything.

You don't understand the argument. The issue is with the balance of forces (gravity of earth - orbital velocity) being upset by the irregular distance to the moon. Are you misinterpreting what I say on purpose? I can't put it any clearer.

And you aren’t understanding that the effect of the moon is so small that it could just not be there and the system would be completely unchanged. The variable distance changes the moon’s effect from “doesn’t to anything” to “still doesn’t do anything.”

I don't think that's possible. I don't think it's possible for the moons effect to be negligible considering the fact that it influences tides on earth. Obviously if it influences tides on earth it also influences the orbiting Hubble, if only ever-so-slightly. Perhaps I'm wrong, I'll dig into it and see if I can convince myself otherwise. Maybe there is a range within which Hubbles orbit can fluctuate but 'recalibrate' itself. It seems like that might be possible, in you're right about the gravity-pull of earth being dramatically disproportional to that of the moon (in any distance-constellation). I'll look into it. Thanks for being patient with me though lol.

That’s what I was getting at above with the difference between Hubble’s mass and the mass of the ocean. Gravity has that really weird quality that it has more of an effect on bigger things. We take that for granted on earth but on a cosmic scale it seems weird. How can the moon have more of an effect on the ocean than on a tiny telescope? But it’s the exact same reason that a mountain weighs a million tons and a fly weighs nothing.

they do work. and they are affected by the moon. heres a good explanation https://www.quora.com/Is-the-ISS-and-all-other-satellites-affected-by-the-gravitational-pull-of-the-moon

When I took intro physics long ago I had it described as this: imagine you throw a baseball which follows a parabolic path until it reaches the ground. Now stand atop a ladder and throw it harder. Ask a professional baseball player to throw it from a tall building. Still follows a parabolic trajectory. Fire it from a cannon atop a scraper. Now imagine your in space, fire it at 10000km/h. It still is "falling" and following a parabolic path however it is moving fast enough that the parabolic path circles the earth. That is an orbit.

Regarding gravitational interactions with the moon you are describing Lagrange (stability) points which you wouldn't get to study until higher level math/physics

We do get asked a lot, thanks for supporting the flat earth, keep up the good fight, have a fantastic day

an error occurred (status: 0)

I admire your ability to get high as a fucking kite and still use reddit coherently.

delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

I understand, you clearly have enough of your own.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yelfvc5E3js

This vid explains it from another angle which I am more prone to believe.

Right. That video about flat earth isn't about your post which is about flat earth. Got it.

You didn't read his post if you think it's about flat Earth.. the tile put me off too, but the post barely mentions it.

I'll definitely have what you're smoking.

I am quite curious as to what strain he got ahold of.

As daft as the whole post is, this line in particular is where you lost me "PS. This also explains the Trump time-travel theory."

Its a CHILDRENS fantasy novel!

Not sure what worse making unsourced claims or citing a childrens book.

Dude, this is a conspiracy board. Most of the claims are going to be unsourced or unverified and outlandish.

There is absolutely nothing outlandish about suspecting conspiracies. The entirety of recorded Human history is rife with conspiracy, modern times not withstanding.

It is only completely absurd ideas like Flat Earth that muddy the waters.

That's not what I'm saying; maybe I should have said "up to outlandish." In other words, there will be "crazy" conspiracy theories posted as well and I'm tired of people policing what is "acceptable" to discuss. Flat earth included.

Who cares what other people think?

I'll agree that caring about what other people think is pointless in regards to most opinions. But when it is something this outrageous, people should certainly care. Being so misinformed and plain stupid is harmful to society. For example it's ok to care that someone thought it was a good idea to vote for Trump.

There's a difference between not having great evidence and thinking something up in your head and posting it as fact.

I've got nothing against someone posting a theory without sources but making a claim as fact with nothing doesn't help anyone.

"It's a good thing this is a conspiracy sub because when people go to discredit you they'll find stupid shit like this and be able to further look at the truth as fiction. Palpatine is a luminous and magnificent being."

That's what I read.

Don’t believe in flat earth but I’ve been intrigued by the mud flood, Tataria for a few months now. Thanks for the YouTube videos I will be watching them.

Any honest person who believes in conspiracies will approach flat earth with an open mind, curiosity, and fascination.

I didn't touch FE with a 10 foot pole for about 2 years but even then I was just neutral about it, not telling people they're stupid and that the earth is obviously round and other claims that I can't be sure of.

These shills overplay their hand so much by reacting with overt hostility and showing up in every thread that mentions any kind of NASA fakery.

I agree I’m not talking about the OP here. He/she has gone to a lot of effort in this post. The information on the mud flood & Tartaria is what this subreddit used to be like. That’s why I felt obligated to post a comment.

The flat earth shills are very aggressive in general. They demand you engage. It seems to come in waves. You might here nothing for a while then all of a sudden we get flooded with posts.

You said something that I thought about recently. The people who were in power never lost power, they just adapted to the changing times. What changed over time? Technology. Tho controlled the release of technology? The people in power. Here has never been a change if power rather just a long succession and an ever growing family tree

Five hundred years sound like too little time from a great flood to where we are now where its so well hidden that it ever even happened.

I think the only thing I completely agree with is a technological breakthrough is the only way to save humanity from themselves. Free unlimited energy for example, which I guess would just mean a type I civilization.

Now you've got my attention...

When a random internet stranger pops out of nowhere claiming to have the “truth” that nobody else has and presents it as THE fact, not even a theory or a possibility, but FACT, I don’t trust a word they say. The fact that in this specific case, the offender believes that the planet (or do they call it a plate?) is flat, well, enough said.

I just found these vids over on paradigmshift the other day and have been thinking similarly to what you're saying about the flood! That could explain the buried layers of architecture people have found literally everywhere they dig! Crazy stuff man!

This is a really fascinating theory. Thanks for the info

Yeah! This is the sort of content this sub has been missing for months! Thank you.

Things are built on top of other things particularly in cities.

300-500 years is a very small time frame. Paris is 2,000 years old.

This theory is fun but absolutely wrong. It suffers from some of the same flaws as FE. For one thing the conspiracy would have to be so sweeping and all encompassing that it just wouldn't be possible. Basic geology and anthropology disproves it and there is no way every person in those fields for the last 150 years is part of some cover up.

That is why we have peer review and consensus. There will always be a few fringe people who postulate alternative ideas and this is good because everything is worth investigating. My point stands that its not possible to fleece or buy all of science. Do I think it's possible that we don't have an accurate view of history? Yes I think its very likely we have some things wrong... maybe even a lot of things wrong. Civilization being wiped out 300-500 years ago isn't one of them.

I am not going to engage in a debate about the earth being flat because its absurd and I know from experience that it wont matter to you what I say anyway. I was only addressing your claim that current civilization is 500 years old.

This is definitely the most effort put into a troll post i've ever seen!

Haha. Very good. My parish records go back further than that. When were they rewritten to jibe with your theory?

I believe you to some degree.

Picture's aren't going to cut it. I asked you to explain the flood and it's effects.

If you can't explain something you don't understand it.

Oh don't get me started on gravity.

For real though, just the most basic science is enough to disprove flat earth. Your so set on believing that everything little thing in this world is a lie.while I agree that our government and nasa are hiding some pretty big things, but flat earth isn't one of them.they could probably offer to take you into space personally on the next mission and you'd be up there floating in space still saying" pssshhhh this is all fake“even though all the proof you need is right on front of you.Yaaa just gotta not be retarded

Yeah it's a total downer.

It sucks.

It's funny because it is a joke that globe heads just say "Gravity" to explain everything, and here we see it in the real world.

Any honest person who believes in conspiracies will approach flat earth with an open mind, curiosity, and fascination.

I didn't touch FE with a 10 foot pole for about 2 years but even then I was just neutral about it, not telling people they're stupid and that the earth is obviously round and other claims that I can't be sure of.

These shills overplay their hand so much by reacting with overt hostility and showing up in every thread that mentions any kind of NASA fakery.

But why do the satellites neither fall down onto earth nor fly out into space?

It was a little over 10 hours in a Cessna 152 multiple years ago. I'd have to go back over the notes and manual for details, but the basics as I explained above are how we did things.

You don't understand the argument. The issue is with the balance of forces (gravity of earth - orbital velocity) being upset by the irregular distance to the moon. Are you misinterpreting what I say on purpose? I can't put it any clearer.