The NSMB Random Conspiracy Theory Thread

Posted by: Mic

1. Is not gravitational theory trying to explain that due to the mass of rotating earth every object is influenced by the mass and therefore by gravity?

2. Re: the horizon - I think that the earth is so huge that a height of a commercial flight is simply not high enough to notice the curvature, my guess.

3. And....I have never seen clouds behind the sun and if I ever should I'd assume an optical illusion because of the light from the sun.

1. Part of the Flat Earth Theory is Earth isnt spinning. Which is why they claim the stars are in the same place as whenever the Giza Pyramids were built. They claim "gravity", which is still a theory,  is one of three things: centrifugal force, centripetal force or electro-magnetics which goes into the Electric Universe theory.

2. I think you should guess again.

3. If the sun's too bright to look at, try the moon. And why is it, that if the moon reflects sun light, that temps are colder in the moonlight compared to the 'shade' or darkness. I'm not expecting warmth from the moon but the moon lit area's should, in theory, be slightly measurably warmer.

1. Ok, get it...sort of. Really have to get my head around this one. Question: If the stars were in the same place how do the Falt Earthers explain that the stars are moving? We all know the images where a camera is set up in such a way that it ends up taking a picture of a night sky with the stars literally "drawing circles", as a result from long exposure.

2. Why should I? Too tired for that one... :shrug:

3. Never seen clouds behind the moon as well. But what is definitely missing in the theory about the reflection of the sun light is that the universe is a pretty cold place, and that a cover of clouds always results in a warmer environment, compare to the temps in the deserts. Sahara nights can be pretty cold I have heard. And quite often there is a definite difference in temp if cover vs no cover at night. So...the moon should be so warm that it reflects the warmth of the sun - which does not really work I suppose.
Heat up a rock and observe how rapidly it cools down. Same with the moon. Just because the sun warms it, it does not have any cloud cover or atmosphere so that the heat is retained, and a big part of the earth's cosy temperature has to do with how the atmospheric system (for the lack of a better word, since I am an absolute layman) retains the heat.

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: switch

Water isn't level on the Earth.  That's why we have tides.

And I thought we had tides because of the moon..... ..... ................? Wanna try again.

No need too. If the moon's pull on the ocean's water causes a high tide, them why is there a second simultaneous high tide on the other side of the Earth?  Not possible unless the Earth is spherical and rotating.

Posted by: switch

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: switch

Water isn't level on the Earth.  That's why we have tides.

And I thought we had tides because of the moon..... ..... ................? Wanna try again.

No need too. If the moon's pull on the ocean's water causes a high tide, them why is there a second simultaneous high tide on the other side of the Earth?  Not possible unless the Earth is spherical and rotating.

If Earth is spherical and rotating, the water, due to the massive weight and the momentum of it, should only go one direction (water is the most destructive natural force on earth still right?). Tides in technically different directions should lead you to think that Earth is not moving as thats where the centrifugal force would come into play. It would move in one direction, IE: the direction of Earths spin.

ps: Since I've gone full rehtard, I cant stop now. Thanks for playing along ;)

Posted by: Mic

1. Ok, get it...sort of. Really have to get my head around this one. Question: If the stars were in the same place how do the Falt Earthers explain that the stars are moving? We all know the images where a camera is set up in such a way that it ends up taking a picture of a night sky with the stars literally "drawing circles", as a result from long exposure.

2. Why should I? Too tired for that one... :shrug:

3. Never seen clouds behind the moon as well. But what is definitely missing in the theory about the reflection of the sun light is that the universe is a pretty cold place, and that a cover of clouds always results in a warmer environment, compare to the temps in the deserts. Sahara nights can be pretty cold I have heard. And quite often there is a definite difference in temp if cover vs no cover at night. So...the moon should be so warm that it reflects the warmth of the sun - which does not really work I suppose.
Heat up a rock and observe how rapidly it cools down. Same with the moon. Just because the sun warms it, it does not have any cloud cover or atmosphere so that the heat is retained, and a big part of the earth's cosy temperature has to do with how the atmospheric system (for the lack of a better word, since I am an absolute layman) retains the heat.

1. Because to them, its literally like the Truman Show with Jim Carrey - remember when the Sirius light fell? The stars are all on the dome/firmament. Not sure how many had or have telescopes. So if Earth is flat and stationary - it'd also be the center of the universe. Which is why there's concentric circles on time lapse. You can find some time lapse's of the night sky with the stars as streaks.

2. Obvious answer is areoplane windows are concave or fish eye'd to give the curvature.

3. If you have some time, google image either "clouds behind sun" or "clouds behind moon". Or, "93 million miles away" will give some other results. I'll admit I've seen it at night and it makes zero sense when you see it for go on for over a few minutes. As for the moon light being colder, it'd make sense for that to happen when its a clear night since it'd just be a cloudy night otherwise with a balanced ambient temp. There's a reason why a meadow is noticeably cooler than the surrounding tree's at night; without fog that is.

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

If Earth is spherical and rotating, the water, due to the massive weight and the momentum of it, should only go one direction (water is the most destructive natural force on earth still right?). Tides in technically different directions should lead you to think that Earth is not moving as thats where the centrifugal force would come into play. It would move in one direction, IE: the direction of Earths spin.

ps: Since I've gone full rehtard, I cant stop now. Thanks for playing along ;)

Centrifugal force is fictitious an doesn't exist.

Posted by: switch

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

If Earth is spherical and rotating, the water, due to the massive weight and the momentum of it, should only go one direction (water is the most destructive natural force on earth still right?). Tides in technically different directions should lead you to think that Earth is not moving as thats where the centrifugal force would come into play. It would move in one direction, IE: the direction of Earths spin.

ps: Since I've gone full rehtard, I cant stop now. Thanks for playing along ;)

Centrifugal force is fictitious an doesn't exist.

And gravity is actually electro-magnetism then? And last time I checked, centrifugal force wasnt called the theory of CF, like two other bastions of main stream science.

Re: clouds. 

I checked the images. Of course I have seen it. It can be observwd rather regularly. 

But I do not think that the type of cloud we are talking about here is literally behind the sun or moon, rather it has to do with the 'density' of said cloud.

Stars that are behind the sun have been observed, thanks to general relativity.

Posted by: switch

Stars that are behind the sun have been observed, thanks to general relativity.

General as in the Theory of Relativity? You knoooow both Einstein and Tesla didnt believe in Globe Earf, right?

Posted by: Mic

Re: clouds. 

I checked the images. Of course I have seen it. It can be observwd rather regularly. 

But I do not think that the type of cloud we are talking about here is literally behind the sun or moon, rather it has to do with the 'density' of said cloud.

What happens when the whole damn cloud goes behind the Sun/Moon? I do accept the density of said cloud argument but there are times when shit just doesnt add up.

Planetariums around the world prove there is a dome over Earf - its how they represent the star systems so well like our own night sky (lol?).

The only way to get out of this dilemma is boarding a plane with a huge tank and simply fly into one direction. Light beer only...in case we'd get too drunk to observe. And strictly no gin or malt. 

And...Mars is a globe, as are the other planets? Why should Earth be flat then?

Posted by: Mic

The only way to get out of this dilemma is boarding a plane with a huge tank and simply fly into one direction. Light beer only...in case we'd get too drunk to observe. And strictly no gin or malt.

And...Mars is a globe, as are the other planets? Why should Earth be flat then?

First why beer - other than your German? Why not hot box an aeroplane? Cant say I've done that yet.

Why would and should all planets be the same? For all we know Neptune's a giant poprock. Got some change in your pocket? Its both flat and round.. oooooooh.

ps: we've never been to Mars. So we dont know. Thats you and me I mean.