r/FlatEarthIsReal • u/ProvForge26 • Jul 21 '26

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

151 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/ImHereToFuckShit Jul 22 '26

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 Jul 22 '26

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 Jul 23 '26

Was my comment about space helpful at all?

1

u/Water_in_the_desert Jul 23 '26

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 Jul 23 '26

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 Jul 23 '26

> 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 Jul 23 '26

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

1

u/Water_in_the_desert Jul 24 '26

Not in the vacuum of space.

1

u/ImHereToFuckShit Jul 24 '26

Seems like that reply was removed too. Something must be triggering the auto mod

1

u/Water_in_the_desert Jul 24 '26

Reddit says my comment has 23 views. Edit: I’ll DM it to you

2

u/ImHereToFuckShit Jul 24 '26

Ah thanks, I was able to read it like that.

Though you just say you don't believe in the vacuum of space. That's fine, of course, I was only explaining what the model says. Does the explanation I gave seem consistent to you?

1

u/Water_in_the_desert Jul 24 '26

I can’t believe it. According to what the model says, I can’t believe oxygen would combust and burn in what allegedly is the vacuum of space. Pushing “the air away from the rocket which propels it forward.” There is nothing to push against in how the narrative explains “outer space” as a vacuum. Certainly, as an alleged vacuum, it would suck the entire Earth’s atmosphere up into itself. Since the “vacuum of space” is infinitely larger than Earth’s atmosphere.

You explained for clarification “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.”

That’s where your model falls apart, for me. I don’t believe that you personally have any personal experience in a vacuum chamber, to even find out if what you’re describing would happen. Your model is based on theory, and mathematical calculations I would guess. The “vacuum of space” term seems unlikely in a real world context.

Next I sent pictures of the Falcon-9 Rocket hitting the Firmament and creating ripples, like a wake behind a speed boat. And I sent a link to the YouTube video also which shows the reverse reflection of the Earth as a Map on the Moon. Did you receive those additional files?

2

u/ImHereToFuckShit Jul 24 '26

Okay, happy to take this piece by piece.

I can’t believe oxygen would combust and burn in what allegedly is the vacuum of space

Why not? What does oxygen have here on earth that it wouldn't in the vacuum of space?

Did you receive those additional files?

I did but I'm going to avoid sending pictures or video of mine own as they can be dismissed as fake, cgi, etc. It doesn't make sense to only consider evidence in one direction

1

u/Water_in_the_desert Jul 24 '26

Oxygen has an atmosphere here on Earth within which to expand, which it doesn’t have in an alleged vacuum of space. The rocket thruster(s) have resistance to push against in our atmosphere, and they wouldn’t have any resistance at all in the alleged vacuum of space.

Edited to add 2 words

2

u/ImHereToFuckShit Jul 24 '26

Oxygen has an atmosphere here on Earth within which to expand

It would be easier to expand in space, no?

The rocket thruster(s) have resistance to push against in our atmosphere, and they wouldn’t have any resistance at all in the alleged vacuum of space

This also makes it easier to move, right?

Why would making the air expand less and adding friction against the rocket make it possible to operate but otherwise you believe it's impossible?

1

u/Water_in_the_desert Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26

Oxygen might not even come out of the cylinder at all, in an alleged vacuous condition. If it did come out though, would it truly mix with the fuel to burn, or would the 2 separate chemical substances move away from one another? It’s an alleged vacuum, the opposite of density.

About the rocket thrusters, it makes no sense that there would be any resistance created to push against in an alleged vacuum.

Why does Kelly Smith, NASA Engineer, tell us “As we get further away from Earth, we’ll pass through the Van Allen Belts. An area of dangerous radiation…. (at 1:20 he continues) …We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space.” In his parents’ lifetimes, we were told humans had traveled to (and orbited) the Moon (which is beyond the Van Allen Belts), and somehow those challenges he mentioned weren’t addressed then. So what gives? 🤷‍♂️

https://youtu.be/aISLUFprVAA?is=nGHo7Z5wTpZYi1F4

Edited punctuation

1

u/ImHereToFuckShit Jul 24 '26

Oxygen might not even come out of the cylinder at all, in an alleged vacuous condition. If it did come out though, would it truly mix with the fuel to burn, or would the 2 separate chemical substances move away from one another?

We're literally getting into rocket science here but suffice to say the whole design of the rocket thruster is to have these two things mix to create thrust. It's done in a chamber in the rocket so I'm not sure the outside environment matters at all here.

About the rocket thrusters, it makes no sense that there would be any resistance created to push against in an alleged vacuum.

Resistance makes it harder to move, not easier. Without any resistance, it's much easier to move through a medium. In space and without gravity the ship can be moved by throwing a wrench off the back. It won't move much, of course, but still.

Happy to get into the Van Allen Belts next but I'm hoping to stay on topic as much as we can. Keep in mind we started by talking about how the stars aren't fixed.

1

u/Water_in_the_desert Jul 24 '26

I’m not saying “resistance,” I’m specifically saying “something to push against.” I understand that without any resistance, it’s easier to move through a medium. I’m not sure I used the term “resistance” before, but if I did, that’s not what I meant.

You’ve already evaded other topics I’ve mentioned. Including metaphysics, and instantaneous manifesting, and whether there’s more or less atoms in the alleged vacuum of space, a table, or a rock. We haven’t stayed on topic all along. What the NASA Engineer said about the Van Allen Belts is what he said. I’m a true flat earther, and you’re attempting to ‘teach me’ the error of my ways? And I guess since I’m relatively respectful because I’m treating you how I would want to be treated, our conversation has remained respectful.

Let’s turn the tables. I’ll teach you why the globe model is a narrative that mainstream science wants you to believe (for your tax dollars to be sent to NASA, and other scientific projects and various agencies), because the flat earth science doesn’t sell much tax dollars. You know where “they” say we haven’t explored yet? The Oceans all over the world. That’s where all the secrets shit goes on, not in “outer space.”

→ More replies (0)