The earth is a flat, non spinning realm, not a planet in an infinite universe
- Thread starter Bushy Bill
- Start date
- Status
Yes you have, and I [laughing] at them.
# 2 result if you Google "Gyroscope proves flat earth". Great Googling my friend! Dollars to doughnuts you didn't even watch it
*there
Anyway - I asked you the question as to why was there this big conspiracy hiding the earth is flat theory. You said it was because they are hiding GOD. I responded that didn't make sense because billions who believe in a spherical earth also believe in God.
As far as caring about the souls of atheists- you have no idea what I care about, or don't.
Basically, you cannot justify a true reason why there is a conspiracy to hide a flat earth. It's cool - you be you.
I guess you're the kind of Christian that doesn't believe that Satan is the ruler of this world. OK, whatever.
Electromagnetic properties of the realm that explain Coriolis forces should make round gyroscopes unstable, only flat gyroscopes on a flat Earth
Apparently you're not in on the little inside joke about my propensity for misspelling. That's OK, I stand by the underlying ideas, thoughts and general direction of the conversation that I am trying to have.
Bill, I went to a Lutheran church on Easter Sunday and brought up the whole flat earth for true Christians thing and they looked at me like I was full of ****.
So these guys are definitely in on the conspiracy.
Where can I worship with like minded flat earthers?
So these guys are definitely in on the conspiracy.
Where can I worship with like minded flat earthers?
Guys, I was in my crawlspace this past weekend cleaning up a deuce dropped by the DirecTV installer when I came across proof of the flat earth. No youtube videos are silly memes. Actual proof. I'll have it available to anyone interested in the parking lot of Applebee's.
It is not a video with someone who cannot understand it so he is asking questions.
but a quick read of the below link might help you out:
https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-696.pdf
An introduction to inertial navigation - Oliver J. Woodman
University of Cambridge
Edit to add: Precise navigation does not rely solely on gyroscopes, GPS, etc. There are ways to compensate for gyroscopic drift and other anomalies. I will just leave it at that.
Because - one, well.... and two, it has been so long that even if I was inclined to talk about it. I cannot remember the exact and very complicated details. Toooooo many beers and I think I killed the critical brain cell. Poor feller.
Last edited:
Right there in the concluding remarks. Check and Mate. [banana]:cool2:[cheers]
Those remarks are merely explaining how those particular equations were derived and should be viewed. They are not from an idiot asserting the Earth is flat. You ignored the part about "were derived from"
That bubble is clearly inside the spacecraft. It is also clearly spherical. This is due to the lack of gravity and a sphere being the most economical shape. Same reason the Earth is a sphere.
Supposedly taken from an f-16 chase plane.
Where do you get NASA here? Is this finally the bottom of your barrel? If not, it should be.
I doubt that I'll respond again to this thread. I just wanted it to hit 40 pages so it could be officially declared epic. You have yet to provide even one piece of "evidence" that is credible to support your fantasy. Thanks though. It's been fun.
Yep it's "clearly" inside the "spacecraft", [winking]
Also you're just going to totally ignore the guy in the background as NASA releases a satellite from the shuttle. LOL
"Credible" is a subjective term. No one has made a credible argument why you can see things that should be beyond the horizon either.
I cannot claim this as I am not that smart, so this is blatant copy and paste. The following makes a bit of sense to me but is over my head pretty quickly. I figured Linear and Simplified had a whole lot to do with the wording they used:Right there in the concluding remarks. Check and Mate. [banana]:cool2:[cheers]
To linearize a non-linear flight model for the purpose of simplification, you have to assume those criteria otherwise it would no longer be LINEAR. Linear algebra is used make approximations of nonlinear models. If the mass changes the calculations are no longer linear. If the vector of gravity changes via a spherical earth it wouldn't be LINEAR. A flat plane and constant mass are demands to linearize the math. This paper is articulating the process used to linearize the model for quicker approximations. Those that are using this paper as a justification for a flat earth have no flipping idea what they are reading or understand linear algebra. If flight happened with things of constant mass on a flat plane then the linear model would be the only one that existed. There wouldn't be papers about the process of linearization.
The flat earth community looks like total nimwits when they use this paper as proof that NASA doesn't accommodate for a spherical earth.
So in my opinion it is not quite checkmate.
edit: I am referring to the calculations and applying the subject matter are over my head. Not what the "guy" in the post is saying. I get that part.
The flat earth community looks like total nimwits when they use this paper as proof that NASA doesn't accommodate for a spherical earth.
[roll]:cool2:[banana]:boxing:
See if you can guess what is wrong with this official NASA video? If you need help, just ask.
I REALLY wish I could claim it. I thought for a brief second to leave that part off......naaaaa
Holy space pirates.......... This made 40 pages????!?!?!!?!
This would be the most pointless lie EVER. Whether the earth is flat or a sphere....... why the hell would it matter?
This would be the most pointless lie EVER. Whether the earth is flat or a sphere....... why the hell would it matter?
- Status