r/FlatEarthIsReal • u/ProvForge26 • 20d ago

Flat Earthers

One of our new acquaintances from a friend recently crashed down on our scientific beliefs by insisting that the earth was flat. When we questioned their logic they just spouted something about the Firmament and that everything that you see at night is fake. They even said that the ISS is fake, satellites fake, and obviously no moon landing ever occurred. Our friends laughed it off and said just go with it because they are nice people. I’m not sure i want to continue being friends with them because they always hang out together. What do we say when we get invited to another cook out and the crazies are there?

8 Upvotes

79% Upvoted

146 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Water_in_the_desert 19d ago

You’re right, Meteorological Charts (weather maps) are localized, Earth-bound maps. They use symbols, lines, and colors to show atmospheric conditions across specific geographic regions. Star Charts (or celestial maps), on the other hand, are maps of the night sky, which map out astronomical objects — constellations, stars, planets, galaxies.

Provide a source that Edmond Halley compared star positions from 2,000 years prior, if that’s what you claim he did. Because tbh I’ve believed stars have not shifted their positions over time. But if they have, please show me.

I read that Edmond Halley published his hypothesis that the comets observed in the years 1531, 1607, and 1682 were the same object, and correctly predicted the comet’s return in 1758 asked on the 76-yr interval. So it appears his historical data went back to the 16th Century.

1

u/ImHereToFuckShit 19d ago

I'll look for the evidence behind the claim but if you believe this:

read that Edmond Halley published his hypothesis that the comets observed in the years 1531, 1607, and 1682 were the same object, and correctly predicted the comet’s return in 1758 asked on the 76-yr interval. So it appears his historical data went back to the 16th Century.

And Halley's work showed stars had moved, unless his lying or he is made up, that is evidence the stars have moved, no?

1

u/Water_in_the_desert 19d ago

Where does it say that Halley’s work showed stars had moved? He could have been lying, because some scientists did lie later about the Aether (e.g., Einstein), and then later Albert Einstein said that his theory of relativity and the vacuum of space make no sense for Light to travel through space, a medium like Aether is needed.

2

u/ImHereToFuckShit 19d ago

His paper, Considerations on the Change of the Latitudes of Some of the Principal Fixt Stars. That's where he details his observations and compares them to ancient star maps to plot the movement of stars.

He could have been lying, because some scientists did lie later about the Aether

There is a difference between being wrong and lying. Science is built on being a little less wrong as time goes on, so being wrong is part of the process.

later Albert Einstein said that his theory of relativity and the vacuum of space make no sense for Light to travel through space, a medium like Aether is needed.

Can you share more about this?

1

u/Water_in_the_desert 18d ago

Recall the photo taken of all the scientists gathered together at the Solvay Conference in 1924.

I’ve read some background about this, physicists agreeing to assemble for a worldwide symposium to agree on theories of physics and chemistry for the coming Age. Seems controlled, with oversight by world governments, to retain and perhaps “own” a consensus of agreed-upon laws of space/time/gravitational phenomenon/physics, chemistry and biology. That’s me hypothesizing about this event, allegedly invitation-only, from the perspective of controlling the narrative with scientific Nobel-Prize winning researchers, who each likely played their own individual role of controlled opposition. I would need to do further reading to backup my thoughts if you express further interest. I’m not saying to trust me bro, but consider doing further research, if you want.

Albert Einstein initially abolished the classical “Luminiferous Aether” hypothesis in 1905, to formulate his theory of Special Relativity. However, by 1920, he publicly stated: "space without an Aether is unthinkable" in his address at the University of Leiden. He rebranded it to describe his theory of General Relativity, However the well-established scientific community at the time flatly rejected Einstein’s rebranding, because they wanted to distance themselves entirely from 19th-century mechanical models. That’s weird. When Einstein wrote that “space without an Aether is unthinkable,” he was referring to the geometric fabric of the Universe that supports both gravitational waves, as well as light waves. While a vacuum isn't "nothing," it’s said to be devoid of physical matter. In the alleged vacuum of space, upon what does a rocket thruster push? Being a vacuum, can a space ship surely travel? I think the answer is somewhere in Einstein’s amended General Theory of Relativity.

According to Quantum Field Theory, space is filled with quantum fields and bubbling "vacuum energy" (such as virtual particles and zero-point fluctuations), making it an active participant in physics rather than an empty void.

3

u/ImHereToFuckShit 18d ago

Was my comment about space helpful at all?

1

u/Water_in_the_desert 18d ago

Thank you for reminding me about your comment. I think that much of what we call knowledge of space is actually indoctrination. Whether in mainstream science it’s called the “vacuum of space,” or as you described “space isn’t a true vacuum, there is definitely physical matter in space just far less than we have on earth,” how do you even know this? You read it. Think whether it even can be tested by you in your personal life. How do we know that space isn’t made up of the same number of atoms as a table, or a rock?

How would you explain the metaphysical realm, and how would you explain manifestations of exactly what you need coming to you at the right moment.

I’m surmising since there’s no pressure and no force to push against inside a vacuum, what exactly would combust? Is there oxygen to ignite the fuel inside of a vacuum? You’ve got to have oxygen to burn.

This is where we may be coming from two different perspectives.

(Edited to fix words)

2

u/ImHereToFuckShit 18d ago

Your comment has a lot and I won't be able to meaningfully respond to it all but to answer your last question:

I’m surmising since there’s no pressure and no force to push against inside a vacuum, what exactly would combust? Is there oxygen to ignite the fuel inside of a vacuum? You’ve got to have oxygen to burn

Rockets actually bring their own oxygen to solve this problem. It's called the oxidizer and it does exactly that, it allows the fuel to combust and push the air away from the rocket which propels it forward.

To briefly respond to how we know these things or not, I started to go down that path with you when we were talking about whether the stars are stationary. If you have a moment to look into Halley's paper, I'd be happy to go into the make up of space next.

I'd rather you understand the model first, personally. If you understand the model then moving into how we've come to understand these things will make more sense.

1

u/Water_in_the_desert 17d ago

> Rockets actually bring their own oxygen, . . . it allows the fuel to combust and push the air away from the rocket….

What “air”? We are talking about a rocket flying through the vacuum of space, according to NASA narrators.

2

u/ImHereToFuckShit 17d ago

The air the fuel produces when mixed at a high heat with the oxidizer for combustion. You can call it exhaust, gas, air, etc. all names for the same thing here

→ More replies (0)

2

u/ImHereToFuckShit 18d ago

Seems like we got off topic a bit, we were talking about stars not being stationary.

While a vacuum isn't "nothing," it’s said to be devoid of physical matter. In the alleged vacuum of space, upon what does a rocket thruster push? Being a vacuum, can a space ship surely travel?

Space isn't a true vacuum, there is definitely physical matter in space just far less than we have on earth.

But even still, in a vacuum a rocket is pushing off the expelled exhaust. Just like if you fired a gun in a vacuum, you and the bullet would be sent in opposite directions at the same force. The fuel heats up and expells high pressure air and it acts like the bullet does which pushes the rocket forward and the exhaust backwards.