Is Earth round or flat ?

[richard_smith237]

4 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

What's your take on the ample footage of celestial bodies which strongly suggests they are of a sonoluminescent nature, and in any case nothing like the NASA representations of them?

 

 

The idea that celestial bodies, such as stars or planets, could have a sonoluminescent nature is intriguing but also speculative.

 

Celestial bodies, as we understand them scientifically, are primarily powered by nuclear fusion (in the case of stars) or various forms of energy depending on their composition and structure. The light we see from stars is a result of nuclear reactions in their cores, producing enormous amounts of energy that travel through space as electromagnetic radiation, rather than being generated by sound waves or mechanical processes like sonoluminescence.

 

As for the depiction of celestial bodies by organizations like NASA, the visual representations we see, especially in public media, are often colored or adjusted to enhance certain features. The true colours of celestial bodies can be much more varied and are sometimes not visible to the human eye because of the range of electromagnetic radiation (including ultraviolet or infrared) that they emit. What we see in typical images might be a rendering that highlights particular aspects of a celestial body for better scientific interpretation.

 

With this in mind - I believe it quite possible that sonoluminescence may exist - we have a very poor 'distant view' of the universe.

 

This understanding of distant celestial bodies and the potential that some of them may have a sonoluminescent nature presents a far more viable possibility given the lack of understanding compared to our understanding of the Earth in regards to the 'flat earth' vs 'Oblate  Spheroid' discussion, which as far as I'm concerned is unequivocally proven and any discussion (i.e. this thread) is merely entertaining but preposterous.

[black tabby12345]

The Earth is a sphere.

One decisive evidence for that.

 

The radar waves cannot reach beyond horizon.

 

If the world is flat, it can go further, but it doesn't.

 

 

[Yolando]

10 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Rio Gallegos - Johannesburg: why the detour via Sao Paulo?

 

 

The population of Rio Gallegos is less than 100,000 people and it has no international airport.  It surprises you that there are no international flights there?

 

[harryviking]

Why on earth will someone waste time on such a retarded thing like this....I mean....c'mon!!😫😫

[Stiddle Mump]

1 hour ago, harryviking said:

Why on earth will someone waste time on such a retarded thing like this....I mean....c'mon!!😫😫

I'll tell you why Harry. If the earth is not spherical as we are told, it begs the question; 'what else is not true?'

 

Hve a read of; 'The Falsification of History.' by historian John Hamer. It might get you thinking Sir.

[Free the 115]

On 3/16/2025 at 9:34 AM, Stiddle Mump said:

Great post Mr Gamb00ler. Even at my age I'm still willing to learn.

For me, this topic is somewhat a barometer. I started off thinking that the earth could be round, and then, I read @rattlesnakeand because he certainly knows his stuff, the pendulum swung; and I was 50/50. Then @richard_smith237posts. His arguments were/are very convincing and I went 60/40. in favour of a round earth. But!! The pics Rattles put up are the nuts. So I'm now 40/60.

 

If someone could tell me why a plane can't fly round the coast of Antarctica, it might sort it for me. Or/and, if we drilled a hole through one ocean, say the Atlantic, would all the water pour through it? Into where? Outer space? Maybe inner space!

 

It's a complicated subject alright.

I’m going to assume that you know what volcanoes are, and how hot they can become. 
islands have been formed by Nature “drilling “ holes into the crust. Whole island groups have been formed down the coast of Africa, and I’m sure it’s the same in the Pacific.( Just too lazy to look it up)

[Free the 115]

15 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

This seals the deal.

 

Are there any spherical earthers that could explain?

I think that the fact that all airlines have to route through their own country. I’m assuming that the flight you have quoted is KLM. 

Why don’t flights go over the Sahara? Rules on using accessible routes will kick in here. Same reason a flight to Florida from the US gets to the coast as quick as it can and then follows it down 

[richard_smith237]

5 hours ago, harryviking said:

Why on earth will someone waste time on such a retarded thing like this....I mean....c'mon!!😫😫

 

Its an entertaining discussion in a section of the forum [off the beaten track] specifically set up for such absurdity... 

 

 

I also think it quite important for us to be well aware that we live amongst people who are so flawed of thought that they believe in the utterly absurd regardless of irrefutable evidence. 

 

Another 'one' is the completely unfalsifiable theory "Humanity Never Existed" that we [humanity] is just a construct designed by some unknown force, it reliant on solipsism to the extreme - makes for great sci-fi but terrible science, where as flat earth just makes for terrible science, but outstanding trolling !!! 

 

 

 

 

 

[FritsSikkink]

On 12/23/2024 at 3:57 PM, dinsdale said:

How about does god exist? Very similar in that there is no evidence to support either. A flat earth or the existence of god/gods. Absolutely ZERO evidence based on science.

You should have spend more time on science at school.

[richard_smith237]

3 hours ago, Free the 115 said:

I’m going to assume that you know what volcanoes are, and how hot they can become. 
islands have been formed by Nature “drilling “ holes into the crust. Whole island groups have been formed down the coast of Africa, and I’m sure it’s the same in the Pacific.( Just too lazy to look it up)

 

... Various reasons.. 

 

Pacific Islands (i.e Hawaii) are 'hotspot' Island whereby as the Pacific tectonic plate moved over a stationary hotspot in Earth's mantle. Over millions of years, magma from the hotspot erupted, creating a chain of volcanic islands.

 

Yellow Stone is also caused by the same phenomenon.

 

 

Others are

 

Subduction Zone Volcanoes – Formed when one tectonic plate sinks beneath another, melting and generating magma that erupts (e.g., Ring of Fire volcanoes).

 

Rift Zone Volcanoes – Occur at divergent boundaries where tectonic plates pull apart, allowing magma to rise (e.g., Mid-Atlantic Ridge) - Iceland etc.

 

Continental Rift Volcanoes – Formed when landmasses split apart, thinning the crust and allowing magma to escape (e.g., East African Rift).

[dinsdale]

7 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

You should have spend more time on science at school.

Maybe I should have. I obviously missed the lessons on the evidence of God's existence and the Earth being flat.

[FritsSikkink]

23 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Maybe I should have. I obviously missed the lessons on the evidence of God's existence and the Earth being flat.

There is evidence that the earth is round. 

I have a school mate who actually been in the ISS space station for months.

For god have a look here: https://www.godisimaginary.com/ 

 

[dinsdale]

17 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

There is evidence that the earth is round. 

I have a school mate who actually been in the ISS space station for months.

For god have a look here: https://www.godisimaginary.com/ 

 

I think you need to go back and look at my OP. I said there's as much evidence of a flat earth as there is evidence of God. Zero.

[parallelman]

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

I think you need to go back and look at my OP. I said there's as much evidence of a flat earth as there is evidence of God. Zero.

Mentioning 'the deivine' I just  thought to comment ('light heartedly') that FE Eric Dubay has an explanation for elcipses on a flat Earth. Rahu (from Indian astrology) is the 'body' that eclipses the Sun and Moon by...well it seems to depend on which form of Indian astrology one reads. So it seems that FE's not only use the Christian writings for their belief.

[Stiddle Mump]

7 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Maybe I should have. I obviously missed the lessons on the evidence of God's existence and the Earth being flat.

Good point Mr Dinsdale.

 

Did god make the earth different to all the other planets because he knew all of children would live there?

 

He was not stupid in his designs.

[richard_smith237]

1 minute ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Good point Mr Dinsdale.

 

Did god make the earth different to all the other planets because he knew all of children would live there?

 

He was not stupid in his designs.

Other planets exist in the ‘Goldilocks zone’…. 
But to travel there would take ‘near’ speed of light travel & relativity (theory of) dictates we’d return millions of years later…. & never be able report back…

 

Thus: ‘the children’ could be elsewhere too…. In fact given the numbers, it’s very likely intelligent life already exists elsewhere….

 

…. would they only be flat planets too ? 

 

 

[Stiddle Mump]

5 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Other planets exist in the ‘Goldilocks zone’…. 
But to travel there would take ‘near’ speed of light travel & relativity (theory of) dictates we’d return millions of years later…. & never be able report back…

 

Thus: ‘the children’ could be elsewhere too…. In fact given the numbers, it’s very likely intelligent life already exists elsewhere….

 

…. would they only be flat planets too ? 

 

I hear you Richard.

 

But!! Is there a danger that we belittle the subject in question?

[richard_smith237]

6 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

I hear you Richard.

 

But!! Is there a danger that we belittle the subject in question?

If you’re taking ‘flat Earth’ - I’ve been belittling the subject throughout the the thread.

 

or if referring to ‘’children’ in the concept of ‘gods children’ & the idea of other intelligent alien civilisations - then how would a discussion of such a possibility be belittling? With or without the concept of a god or supreme intelligence ? 

 

 

[dinsdale]

12 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Good point Mr Dinsdale.

 

Did god make the earth different to all the other planets because he knew all of children would live there?

 

He was not stupid in his designs.

What about the other 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the known universe. That's a lot of designing and all more than likely unique. Do ALL "the children" only live on Earth? 

[Stiddle Mump]

4 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

What about the other 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the known universe. That's a lot of designing and all more than likely unique. Do ALL "the children" only live on Earth? 

Ah yes!

 

But we earthlings are special. So why can't the earth be a shape other than spherical? Just for us! Are you suggesting that a billion humans could be wrong?

 

BTW, I don't believe there are that many planets.

[dinsdale]

2 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Ah yes!

 

But we earthlings are special. So why can't the earth be a shape other than spherical? Just for us! Are you suggesting that a billion humans could be wrong?

 

BTW, I don't believe there are that many planets.

Sextillion planets none of them flat.

[cjinchiangrai]

On 12/23/2024 at 4:21 PM, rattlesnake said:

Use common sense, be objective and rational. This was taken from a balloon at 121,000 feet.

 

How do you reconcile what you see with the heliocentric model, which posits that we are on a ball spinning on its axis at 1,000 mph as it revolves around the sun at 66,600 mph, while the Sun itself (and therefore we) are shooting through space at 450,000 mph?

 

 

All of the real observations confirm the spherical planet and the various vectors.

[richard_smith237]

42 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Ah yes!

 

But we earthlings are special. So why can't the earth be a shape other than spherical? Just for us! Are you suggesting that a billion humans could be wrong?

 

BTW, I don't believe there are that many planets.

Nope…,  I don’t think anyone you are debating against is ‘suggesting’ a billion humans could be wrong…

 

Apart from the fact that your ‘a billion humans’ comment is a hyperbolic conjecture…   No one is suggesting… we are ‘stating’ - as in a statement of scientific fact - “a billion (or however many) humans are wrong” ! 

[rattlesnake]

37 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

All of the real observations confirm the spherical planet and the various vectors.

 

Please define what a "real observation" is, and give an example.

[rattlesnake]

57 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Sextillion planets none of them flat.

 

What's your take on the ample footage of celestial bodies which strongly suggests they are of a sonoluminescent nature, and in any case nothing like the NASA representations of them?

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

17 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Please define what a "real observation" is, and give an example.

Real observation: 

 

“Reading your comments in this thread & concluding no one is as smart as you & so daft at the same time; ergo you are clearly twisting ours melons !” 

[rattlesnake]

4 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Real observation: 

 

“Reading your comments in this thread & concluding no one is as smart as you & so daft at the same time; ergo you are clearly twisting ours melons !” 

 

I will take that as a compliment 

 

I am genuinely interested in reading people's takes on the different aspects of this matter. Quite a few are, in my strictly personal opinion, ignorant and arrogant. Others are pretty smart: for example, a few responses I received to my questions on flight paths are pretty astute.

 

As you said, it is entertaining, and the fact that we are on the 20th page is an indication that things are maybe not quite as straightforward as we all thought. Once the basics are covered, I will draw a summary post with bullet points, highlighting the aspects which are still not, as far as I can see, rationally explained and/or refuted.

[rattlesnake]

On 3/16/2025 at 3:16 PM, richard_smith237 said:

The idea that celestial bodies, such as stars or planets, could have a sonoluminescent nature is intriguing but also speculative.

 

The presented footage warrants speculation, and differs radically from the depictions we have consistently been given and have come to accept as real. There is a big difference between this (Mars, courtesy of NASA):

 

 

And this:

 

 

 

On 3/16/2025 at 3:16 PM, richard_smith237 said:

This understanding of distant celestial bodies and the potential that some of them may have a sonoluminescent nature presents a far more viable possibility given the lack of understanding compared to our understanding of the Earth in regards to the 'flat earth' vs 'Oblate  Spheroid' discussion, which as far as I'm concerned is unequivocally proven and any discussion (i.e. this thread) is merely entertaining but preposterous.

 

The core issue is the relevance and reliability of NASA. The below footage captures Venus with a Nikon P900. Does this look anything like the Venus you have been shown since you were a child?

 

NASA depiction:

 

 

Captured with Nikon P900:

 

[dinsdale]

7 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

What's your take on the ample footage of celestial bodies which strongly suggests they are of a sonoluminescent nature, and in any case nothing like the NASA representations of them?

 

 

 

 

 

 

My take on these are they all have one thing in common. They're all out of focus.

[cjinchiangrai]

8 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Please define what a "real observation" is, and give an example.

Not by biased ignorant morons. This is settled science for thousands of years and reconfirmed in our lifetimes.