Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: Arch Stanton on January 05, 2022, 12:36:24 AM
-
Hello, I've noticed the flat earth issue/debate is often discussed here on CI. I know nothing about it, so I'd appreciate some guidance. Can someone point me to specific, detailed resources covering the basics of how spherical earthists have deceived the entire human species for hundreds of years? I'm more interested in the how and the why than mathematical equations. Is there concrete evidence? What is the foundation for the thesis?
I can only guess that the diabolical is at work in the deception, as with Darwin & the death cult of evolution.
I'm sincerely curious. This is not a troll.
-
Here are some resources, mostly easy to verify visual evidence, to get you started:
- https://flatearth.ws/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorntonbank_Wind_Farm#/media/File:Offshore_windpark_Thorntonbank.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hROaZ9cyTO4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeURyLNUe1Y
- water curving:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2VjoPqPDQo
The famous flat Earth "Blackswan - we see too far for it to be a sphere" demonstration debunked:
(https://i.imgur.com/VCHxLkw.png)
Objects on the water surface with increasing distance:
(https://i.imgur.com/U3VlIoe.jpg)
Objects on an actual small-scale sphere with increasing distance:
(https://i.imgur.com/TkCXpAW.jpg)
-
Here are some resources, mostly easy to verify visual evidence, to get you started:
- https://flatearth.ws/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorntonbank_Wind_Farm#/media/File:Offshore_windpark_Thorntonbank.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hROaZ9cyTO4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeURyLNUe1Y
- water curving:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2VjoPqPDQo
The famous flat Earth "Blackswan - we see too far for it to be a sphere" demonstration debunked:
(https://i.imgur.com/VCHxLkw.png)
Objects on the water surface with increasing distance:
(https://i.imgur.com/U3VlIoe.jpg)
Objects on an actual small-scale sphere with increasing distance:
(https://i.imgur.com/TkCXpAW.jpg)
Thanks, Dankward. Much appreciated.
-
Here are some resources, mostly easy to verify visual evidence, to get you started:
- https://flatearth.ws/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorntonbank_Wind_Farm#/media/File:Offshore_windpark_Thorntonbank.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hROaZ9cyTO4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeURyLNUe1Y
- water curving:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2VjoPqPDQo
The famous flat Earth "Blackswan - we see too far for it to be a sphere" demonstration debunked:
(https://i.imgur.com/VCHxLkw.png)
Objects on the water surface with increasing distance:
(https://i.imgur.com/U3VlIoe.jpg)
Objects on an actual small-scale sphere with increasing distance:
(https://i.imgur.com/TkCXpAW.jpg)
Dankward,
Lots to see here.
Where is that horizontal water curve I've been asking about?
-
Here are some resources, mostly easy to verify visual evidence, to get you started:
These are by far the weakest and most pathetic globe earth arguments out there, and yet you keep posting garbage like this ... even after it's been pointed out to you. You are completely dishonest.
Did you watch that group from South America that did real experiments? They had a top surveying firm use precision GPS equipment (accurate to within centimeters) to measure whether buildings about 1800 miles away from each other actually lean away from each other as they should on a globe. Buildings were at the same elevation and similar heights. They used directional radio waves that are not subject to refraction that could not work through earth curvature. They also built their own specialized laser. They also used precision GPS and geodetic surveying equipment to prove that a large body of water was in fact flat. They had engineers and professional cartographers accompany some of these experiments, men who were skeptical of flat earth at the outset but then had to concede based on the experiments. They also measured sun paths and sun angles by setting up cameras around the world, and they found that these were not consistent with a spherical earth.
Yet you pull out these dumb populast globe "proofs" that are the weakest out there. That picture of the cards disappearing on a curved surface is stupid. Nobody doubts that they would disappear like that on a curved surface. So what does that prove? In fact, however, Flat Earthers have demonstrated that the same thing happens on a FLAT surface due to perspective.
You keep posting these absurd pictures of one or two things that appear to be cut off, but it's been proven by Flat Earthers that this CAN be due to atmospheric conditions as well as the limits of whatever optics are being used. Flat Earthers take measurements, explain which optics are being used, etc. But the Globe Earthers simply dismiss them as refraction. But then you post random pictures and pretend that refraction doesn't exist. It only exists for you when pictures indicate flat earth. Black Swan has never been debunked, simply because you CAN take a picture of the platform under certain atmospheric conditions where it does appear to be cut off. Black Swan picture not only showed both platforms but you can also clearly see the horizon line behind the second platform.
Flat Earthers have demonstrated that sometimes you can see the whole thing and sometimes you can't ... from the same location on a different day. There are only two possibilities: there's atmospheric conditions and refraction on the "globe earth" days or else it happens on the "flat earth" days. Globe Earthers simply assume, but never prove, that the refraction only magically happens when there's a picture that proves flat earth, but couldn't possibly be there on the "globe earth" days. It's completely dishonest, and you discredit yourselves this way. Meanwhile, the FEs try to be honest, taking all the measurements, etc. There's no intellectual honesty among the globe earthers, just a bunch of lies and fake videos from the space agencies.
-
Hello, I've noticed the flat earth issue/debate is often discussed here on CI. I know nothing about it, so I'd appreciate some guidance. Can someone point me to specific, detailed resources covering the basics of how spherical earthists have deceived the entire human species for hundreds of years? I'm more interested in the how and the why than mathematical equations. Is there concrete evidence? What is the foundation for the thesis?
I can only guess that the diabolical is at work in the deception, as with Darwin & the death cult of evolution.
I'm sincerely curious. This is not a troll.
This video is what got me "off the fence" about flat earth. These are real experiments, not random pictures, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9AWEuMi4is
-
Another place where the Globe Earthers shoot themselves in the foot. They claim that due to the earth's rotation, the earth actually turned into an oblate spheroid due to the centrifugal forces involved, and yet these same forces have zero effect in terms of displacing the water on the earth. Due to these forces, you wouldn't have a consistent sea level around the "globe" but would have the oceans bulge at the lower latitudes. Oops. Centripetal forces should be higher at the equator, and so the same mass at the equator should weight a bit less than at the poles, but experiments have actually shown the opposite, that they weigh a tiny bit less closer to the north pole.
-
I love this comment beneath the video as the globers tried to swam it with ridiculously desperate comments. This says it all about Globe Earthers, such as Dankwad here. It's about confirmation bias. They latch onto any flimsy nonsense as proof but then dismiss everything out of hand that is inconsistent with their preconceived notion.
"All this modern science vs a Greek fella with 2 sticks thousands of years back.
Greek fella yes. Modern groups of scientists with high range equipment no."
-
This confirms that this type of equipment is accurate to within centimeters.
https://bathylogger.com/product/emlid-reach-r-plus/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAoNWOBhCwARIsAAiHnEhGFToF2iQLqIVg8uBE1fbJ_nLhbNtCV2LNyCcl8ma87HgiCkjNzasaAi2CEALw_wcB
Looks similar to what they were using.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUVoXCHFp2c
If I ever hit the big-time, I'll get some of these and conduct my own tests.
-
This confirms that this type of equipment is accurate to within centimeters.
https://bathylogger.com/product/emlid-reach-r-plus/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAoNWOBhCwARIsAAiHnEhGFToF2iQLqIVg8uBE1fbJ_nLhbNtCV2LNyCcl8ma87HgiCkjNzasaAi2CEALw_wcB
Looks similar to what they were using.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUVoXCHFp2c
If I ever hit the big-time, I'll get some of these and conduct my own tests.
:facepalm:
These devices don't work without satellites.
-
:facepalm:
These devices don't work without satellites.
Hard to say what these "satellites" are. FE theories include a combination of land-based towers, and there are in fact many satellites that hang from helium balloons, etc. These devices are known to work though, with HOW they work being a separate consideration. US military, long before the age of satellites, had a system known as LORAN that used towers. Two towers could provide very accurate positioning to sea vessels a thousand miles away. That's actually another pro-FE argument. These things required line of sight and could not have worked over curvature at the distances it did work. Some FE proponents do believe that satellites can rotate around on their own, but dismiss the explanation of how they stay in "orbit". That's actually the belief of the group that produced the video above.
-
Always the argument shifts from ground-based, very clear experiments to postulations about the sky, moon, satellites and "space".
Is Prof. (((Dave))) a CI poster now?
(http://<a href=)(https://i.ibb.co/1rcHYDv/20220105-084356.png)
-
Always the argument shifts from ground-based, very clear experiments to postulations about the sky, moon, satellites and "space".
Is Prof. (((Dave))) a CI poster now?
(http://<a href=)(https://i.ibb.co/1rcHYDv/20220105-084356.png)
I am just wondering why Lad would rely on U.S. military data and satellite technology to prove flat earth.
-
I am just wondering why Lad would rely on U.S. military data and satellite technology to prove flat earth.
As I said before, the technology works ... with how it works being a separate consideration.
-
Is Prof. (((Dave))) a CI poster now?
Speaking of "Dave," he's been shredded by scientists regarding a number of non-FE-related subjects where he showed himself to be ignorant ... and yet was extremely arrogant about his comments anyway.
This gentleman here very politely makes Dave look like an idiot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRrTvP95kf4
-
Speaking of "Dave," he's been shredded by scientists regarding a number of non-FE-related subjects where he showed himself to be ignorant ... and yet was extremely arrogant about his comments anyway.
This gentleman here very politely makes Dave look like an idiot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRrTvP95kf4
:laugh1:
"And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he hath not yet known as he ought to know." [1 Cor. 8:2]
-
:laugh1:
"And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he hath not yet known as he ought to know." [1 Cor. 8:2]
I wish I had the virtue this guy does in keeping calm and polite in the face of the scathing and arrogant attack from Dave.
-
I wish I had the virtue this guy does in keeping calm and polite in the face of the scathing and arrogant attack from Dave.
It's definitely a gift from God on his part. I can barely stand to listen to the guy.
Funny thing, this Jimbob guy I subscribe to was just talking about Prof. Dave yesterday - 32:55 "the grabbler of all grabblers" :laugh1:
https://youtu.be/G-UHWDFisX8
-
Dankward,
Lots to see here.
Where is that horizontal water curve I've been asking about?
Here:
(https://i.imgur.com/6f8ckx3.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/QSItxtA.png)
from https://www.metabunk.org/threads/measuring-the-curvature-of-the-horizon-with-a-level.7832/
-
Did you watch that group from South America that did real experiments? They had a top surveying firm use precision GPS equipment (accurate to within centimeters) to measure whether buildings about 1800 miles away from each other actually lean away from each other as they should on a globe. Buildings were at the same elevation and similar heights. They used directional radio waves that are not subject to refraction that could not work through earth curvature. They also built their own specialized laser. They also used precision GPS and geodetic surveying equipment to prove that a large body of water was in fact flat. They had engineers and professional cartographers accompany some of these experiments, men who were skeptical of flat earth at the outset but then had to concede based on the experiments. They also measured sun paths and sun angles by setting up cameras around the world, and they found that these were not consistent with a spherical earth.
They did the "electromagnetic waves across a lake" experiments, which are bunk due to refraction mostly.
GPS relies on a satellite network, but you probably knew that. The GPS antenna on helicopters and airplanes is mounted on top, because the satellites are above them. Let that sink in when you talk about GPS-based measurements. No, it's not terrestrial masts. No, these satellites cannot magically hover over a flat plane on defined positions, kept up by balloons or something. Tell that to any expert in the field and he'll laugh at your face.
If you actually measure Sun angles they're totally inconsistent with a flat plane and consistent with a spherical Earth, there are tons of experiments and videos about that.
You keep posting these absurd pictures of one or two things that appear to be cut off, but it's been proven by Flat Earthers that this CAN be due to atmospheric conditions as well as the limits of whatever optics are being used. Flat Earthers take measurements, explain which optics are being used, etc. But the Globe Earthers simply dismiss them as refraction. But then you post random pictures and pretend that refraction doesn't exist. It only exists for you when pictures indicate flat earth. Black Swan has never been debunked, simply because you CAN take a picture of the platform under certain atmospheric conditions where it does appear to be cut off. Black Swan picture not only showed both platforms but you can also clearly see the horizon line behind the second platform.
Flat Earthers have demonstrated that sometimes you can see the whole thing and sometimes you can't ... from the same location on a different day. There are only two possibilities: there's atmospheric conditions and refraction on the "globe earth" days or else it happens on the "flat earth" days. Globe Earthers simply assume, but never prove, that the refraction only magically happens when there's a picture that proves flat earth, but couldn't possibly be there on the "globe earth" days. It's completely dishonest, and you discredit yourselves this way. Meanwhile, the FEs try to be honest, taking all the measurements, etc. There's no intellectual honesty among the globe earthers, just a bunch of lies and fake videos from the space agencies.
Blackswan is bullcrap:
(https://i.imgur.com/CCgATsh.png)
Not only does the first image demonstrate variability of refraction which allows to see farther depending on temperature and atmospheric conditions, but if you think that perspective causes straight lines to bend down, you've a profound issue with understanding how perspective works.
If think you actually try to bend reality to conform to your mind.
You're talking about Sun paths, geodetic measurements and GPS satellites, yet can't even explain simple sunsets in your worldview.
(https://i.imgur.com/b8rbWvH.gif)
-
Here:
(https://i.imgur.com/6f8ckx3.jpg)
Another idiotic post. You can't see curvature on that scale down on the earth.
Secondly, if there were curvature shown in this picture, it would be equal at either end from center, since it curves both ways from center, but somehow here the alleged horizon is a bit lower left than the right, whereas both ends are equidistant from the center.
-
They did the "electromagnetic waves across a lake" experiments, which are bunk due to refraction mostly.
GPS relies on a satellite network, but you probably knew that. The GPS antenna on helicopters and airplanes is mounted on top, because the satellites are above them. Let that sink in when you talk about GPS-based measurements. No, it's not terrestrial masts. No, these satellites cannot magically hover over a flat plane on defined positions, kept up by balloons or something. Tell that to any expert in the field and he'll laugh at your face.
If you actually measure Sun angles they're totally inconsistent with a flat plane and consistent with a spherical Earth, there are tons of experiments and videos about that.
Blackswan is bullcrap:
Your ignorant rants about satellites is moot. GPS equipment works, and their experiments with high-precision GPS disproved the globe.
"If you actually measure the sun they're totally inconsistent" ... I'm glad you measured the Sun angles. These teams put cameras around the globe and did measure the sun angles and found them inconsistent with globe.
Blackswan blows globe out of the water.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4h9Y5lqn5w
-
So, are we just going to ignore that all these observations may vary from day to day?
(https://i.imgur.com/4pW0kxL.png)
Blackswan is bullshit.
-
So, are we just going to ignore that all these observations may vary from day to day?
(https://i.imgur.com/4pW0kxL.png)
Blackswan is bullshit.
No it isn't. FEs demonstrate that sometimes the view IS obstructed, due to various conditions. But you lack the honesty to admit that. You post a single picture of something cut off and claim it as "proof" where the FEs take into consideration both possibilities. There's a guy named Nathan Oakley who has these FE debates, and the scientist he was debating just said that the only thing this proves is that the radius of the earth isn't what they say it is. In order for this to happen, the earth would have to be about 10x larger than they claim.
-
They did the "electromagnetic waves across a lake" experiments, which are bunk due to refraction mostly.
Microwave data links (which is what they were doing) are line-of-sight. You have to have a solid, concentrated signal in order to network two computers over them and transfer data ... which is what they were doing. See below how it explains that the signals are impeded by the earth's curvature and would require high tower heights and large dishes to overcome. These guys had small dishes and were just about a meter above the ground. If you had some refracted signal going over the curve, they would never have been able to achieve a stable network connection.
(https://i.ibb.co/NVsGSVd/microwavedatalink.png)
-
This video is what got me "off the fence" about flat earth. These are real experiments, not random pictures, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9AWEuMi4is
Here is a torough debunk of this docuмentary: https://flatearthlunacy.com/index.php/2-uncategorised/852-convex-earth-debunked-dakila-research-ctz-zigurats-technology-center-urandir-fernandes-de-oliveira
It's mostly pseudoscientific "experiments" by questionable researchers, at least one of which also believes in mind control being able to bend things.
It also adresses the microwave experiment, where a large part of the beam (the fresnel zone) was well within the line of sight of the receiver.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/b8rbWvH.gif)
I just wanted to copy this graphic again. This to me is the most effective argument against flat earth, and I am still waiting for a FE person to provide some sort of answer to it.
For those of you who live in the midwest or the southwestern desert, this may not be a huge deal to you because you may never have seen the image on the left. But believe me, it is real, and I have seen it myself many times in California across Pacific Ocean. It is not, to my knowledge, explainable by the FE hypothesis. Ladislaus, can you please do me a favor and drive up to Lake Erie or something and find a place where you have an unobstructed view westwards across the water on a clear sunny day, and just watch this. Trust me, it's incredible.
-
I just wanted to copy this graphic again. This to me is the most effective argument against flat earth, and I am still waiting for a FE person to provide some sort of answer to it.
For those of you who live in the midwest or the southwestern desert, this may not be a huge deal to you because you may never have seen the image on the left. But believe me, it is real, and I have seen it myself many times in California across Pacific Ocean. It is not, to my knowledge, explainable by the FE hypothesis. Ladislaus, can you please do me a favor and drive up to Lake Erie or something and find a place where you have an unobstructed view westwards across the water on a clear sunny day, and just watch this. Trust me, it's incredible.
Yes. This, the crows nest on a ship, and the impossible distances between points on a flat map are deal breakers for me. These observations cannot be reconciled with a flat Earth. In order for me to take a serious look at it again, someone needs to come up with a reasonable working model.
-
I just wanted to copy this graphic again. This to me is the most effective argument against flat earth, and I am still waiting for a FE person to provide some sort of answer to it.
For those of you who live in the midwest or the southwestern desert, this may not be a huge deal to you because you may never have seen the image on the left. But believe me, it is real, and I have seen it myself many times in California across Pacific Ocean. It is not, to my knowledge, explainable by the FE hypothesis. Ladislaus, can you please do me a favor and drive up to Lake Erie or something and find a place where you have an unobstructed view westwards across the water on a clear sunny day, and just watch this. Trust me, it's incredible.
I also agree with this honestly... I don't necessarily understand the radio arguments or how to double check the math on someone's curvature calculations... But I can look at a basic model and think about how it would look in real life...
The only two videos I have seen where the sun did what the FE models suggest it does came from FE specific sources and also seemed... doctored... to my eyes at least. From what I remember they actually didn't even match each other, now that I think about it... I don't understand why there haven't been videos like the one on the right posted by random non-FE sources if it actually ever happens like they say.
-
I just wanted to copy this graphic again. This to me is the most effective argument against flat earth, and I am still waiting for a FE person to provide some sort of answer to it.
For those of you who live in the midwest or the southwestern desert, this may not be a huge deal to you because you may never have seen the image on the left. But believe me, it is real, and I have seen it myself many times in California across Pacific Ocean. It is not, to my knowledge, explainable by the FE hypothesis. Ladislaus, can you please do me a favor and drive up to Lake Erie or something and find a place where you have an unobstructed view westwards across the water on a clear sunny day, and just watch this. Trust me, it's incredible.
I grew up seeing this on the Oregon coast every night as a child, It's hard for anyone to convince me the left one is some ZOG plot or something, I could even go back and take a video of it this summer when I visit.
HOWEVER...
I agree with Logos that "professor" (((David))) is not to be trusted, and I lean RE.
-
I lived in California most of my life so I get why it's so hard to imagine the sunset as moving away rather than sinking.
Here is a video showing why the reflection of the sun on the water is actually a proof of flat earth. It wouldn't be possible to see the sun's reflection "over the curve".
3min 24sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/1JvjskIHN2z9/
-
I just wanted to copy this graphic again. This to me is the most effective argument against flat earth, and I am still waiting for a FE person to provide some sort of answer to it.
But it's not. It's a pseudo-argument. Skiba did a demonstration where if there's any water in between, the sun's size get magnified. On the other hand, there are many pictures and videos where the sun does indeed get smaller as it "sets". Moisture in the atmosphere is incapable of making the sun get smaller in size.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-PhStb6mTQ
-
https://vimeo.com/272923314
Look especially at 10:21 in the video. And also 16:43.
-
https://vimeo.com/272923314
Look especially at 10:21 in the video. And also 16:43.
Yes! The diagrams shortly after the timestamp are really helpful.
Then it shows the reflection stretching across the water, like the video I posted above, which is not possible if there was a "bump" between the viewer and the sun.
And the second timestamp is also good. Like I said, I lived in CA and watched many a sunset and sometimes the sun looks huuuuge and cut in half by the ocean and sometimes it shrinks away and never really "sets".
(Skiba explained how the atmosphere changes the size of the sun in appearance.)
Anyway, when I tried to point out to my husband how the sun didn't really set on a particular night as we watched it over the ocean and how strange that was he was like, "Mmm....yeah. Well what's for dinner?" LOL :P
Those huuuge cut in half sunsets really make an impression though and after watching those again and again it's hard to comprehend it in any other way than what we were told our whole lives---it's moving downwards "behind the curve". (even though you can't see that curve from left to right)
Over and over and over told this year after year after year.
Have you guys tried the coin across the table experiment?
Find a quarter ( quick before they are all gone :) )
Put it on a table and bend down so the table surface is at eye level ( just like the horizon is always at eye level).
Move the coin away from you.
It starts to disappear from the bottom up and looks cut in half.
This is just like the sun looking cut in half and disappearing from the bottom up as it moves over the water into the distance.
-
Those huuuge cut in half sunsets really make an impression though and after watching those again and again it's hard to comprehend it in any other way than what we were told our whole lives---it's moving downwards "behind the curve". (even though you can't see that curve from left to right)
What would be an excellent experiment would be to send up a high-altitude balloon with a camera and record both one of the huge sunsets from ground level right below it and then watch what it looks like from way high up, and compare the two. At about 120,000 feet you're going to get very little moisture, refraction, etc.
There are two types of sunsets recorded from the ground ...
1) where it seems to shrink very little and
2) where it shrinks very noticeably
So which of these is the reality?
Moisture in the atmosphere makes things seem bigger. What would cause the sun to appear smaller when it really wasn't? I've never seen a glober answer that question. They merely show an alternative picture where it doesn't get smaller. That's dishonestly just looking at one side of the issue, which the globers are famous for. I've noticed that the videos where the sun shrinks the most are in low-humidity environments, like in a desert or above the clouds, but the big sunsets tend to be over the ocean (with lots of humidity).
FEs look at both. They'll put together videos of an object that's cut off at the bottom, but then go back later to the same location and show the object in full view. Globe earthers never do that, but simply ignore the contrary evidence. So again, with a picture/video taken of the same object from the same place, if one is cut off and the other in full view (when it shouldn't be due to curvature math), then there are two possibilities.
1) atmospheric conditions sometimes block the bottoms of objects that would otherwise be fully visible
2) atmospheric conditions refract light over the curve of the earth to the viewer
I find #2 totally unconvincing, especially when you have photographs of mountains from over 200 miles away that should be hidden under a few miles of curvature. To me that's absurd. I've seen hundreds of such videos, and I find it ridiculous that refraction would magically bend light exactly parallel with the curve of the earth.
Then you add to it tests like what the "convex earth" group from Latin America did, all kinds of absurdities regarding the alleged rotation of the earth, globe earth doesn't have a leg to stand on.
-
I lived in California most of my life so I get why it's so hard to imagine the sunset as moving away rather than sinking.
Here is a video showing why the reflection of the sun on the water is actually a proof of flat earth. It wouldn't be possible to see the sun's reflection "over the curve".
3min 24sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/1JvjskIHN2z9/
This video is pretty stupid honestly, very much grabbing for straws.
Did you actually perform the mental experiment of sunlight reflecting off the water on a spherical Earth vs a flat Earth? The reflection would work pretty much the same, although the Sun eventually sinks below the horizon on GE, while it wouldn't disappear on a FE.
There are inconsistent explanations for the Sun actually setting on flat Earth which involve visibility and light attenuation, however this has never been formalized in a congruent model, obviously, because it would require different explanations for every different sunset.
-
But it's not. It's a pseudo-argument. Skiba did a demonstration where if there's any water in between, the sun's size get magnified. On the other hand, there are many pictures and videos where the sun does indeed get smaller as it "sets". Moisture in the atmosphere is incapable of making the sun get smaller in size.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-PhStb6mTQ
Oh, the magic atmospheric lens that FEs like to propose which bends light in all kinds of ways as they need. They don't use it for observations that they think would "just work", like Sunsets where the Sun fades or a normal, non-distorted night sky. They do use it however for observations that don't work on a flat Earth, like bright Sunsets, the two celestial poles, and generally all celestial observations that they can't explain.
That's actually a reification fallacy - they can't explain something, so they reify the abstract atmospherical lens that hasn't ever been demonstrated to exist or properly formalized, because as I said it would have to completely adjust it's characteristics to match all obsevations.
It's a mind-numbingly stupid explanation actually.
-
What would be an excellent experiment would be to send up a high-altitude balloon with a camera and record both one of the huge sunsets from ground level right below it and then watch what it looks like from way high up, and compare the two. At about 120,000 feet you're going to get very little moisture, refraction, etc.
There are two types of sunsets recorded from the ground ...
1) where it seems to shrink very little and
2) where it shrinks very noticeably
So which of these is the reality?
That's a good proposal actually.
Moisture in the atmosphere makes things seem bigger. What would cause the sun to appear smaller when it really wasn't? I've never seen a glober answer that question. They merely show an alternative picture where it doesn't get smaller. That's dishonestly just looking at one side of the issue, which the globers are famous for. I've noticed that the videos where the sun shrinks the most are in low-humidity environments, like in a desert or above the clouds, but the big sunsets tend to be over the ocean (with lots of humidity).
Isn't that third statement a bit ignorant? Light scatters when traveling through a dense medium (or rather the complex mixture of gases that the atmosphere is). In the atmosphere, light is scattered in mutliple ways, e.g. by Raleigh scattering, Mie scattering or general dispersion/attenuation through different particles (i.e. fog, low visibility). This diminishes the intensity of light by scattering its rays, which is why the Sun shrinks when its light travels through many air masses at sunrise or sunset.
So it all depends on visibility. Dense fog will greatly scatter the sunlight so it will appear to shrink when sinking. On clear days, especially over the ocean, not much of this scattering will go on and you'll see the Sun at its actual angular size.
Which is still way too big for it to disappear in the distance as FE claims.
So again, with a picture/video taken of the same object from the same place, if one is cut off and the other in full view (when it shouldn't be due to curvature math), then there are two possibilities.
1) atmospheric conditions sometimes block the bottoms of objects that would otherwise be fully visible
2) atmospheric conditions refract light over the curve of the earth to the viewer
I find #2 totally unconvincing, especially when you have photographs of mountains from over 200 miles away that should be hidden under a few miles of curvature. To me that's absurd. I've seen hundreds of such videos, and I find it ridiculous that refraction would magically bend light exactly parallel with the curve of the earth.
Argument from personal incredulity. The atmosphere changes day-by-day, so depending on temperature, visibility, humidity etc., refraction will be more or less severe.
The atmosphere follows an exponential pressure gradient along the surface of Earth with densest layers at the bottom. So the light traveling there will bend towards the denser medium, which perfectly follows the curvature. It's not hard to grasp.
Then you add to it tests like what the "convex earth" group from Latin America did, all kinds of absurdities regarding the alleged rotation of the earth, globe earth doesn't have a leg to stand on.
This docuмentary was quite pseudoscientific actually. I appreciate the effort they took, actually going out there with radio, GPS and geodetic surveying equipment, but they had many systematic errors (e.g. using GPS to measure building orientations - this is not what GPS does).
Did you skim this refutation of it I posted earlier: https://flatearthlunacy.com/index.php/2-uncategorised/852-convex-earth-debunked-dakila-research-ctz-zigurats-technology-center-urandir-fernandes-de-oliveira
I'm not sure which is more ridiculous - convex Earth or flat Earth. Both theories have (mostly completely non-scientific) proponents. There's also torus Earth theory, so Donut shaped :laugh1:.
Speaking of legs to stand on, why is there no scientific work being done on flat Earth since centuries? No research papers, no studies, no peer review, no serious books, no reputable scientists. What do FEs have to show for their conviction, apart from vague videos? No serious scientists has ever been convinced of FE by FEs. I wonder why ::)
-
Here's an easy do-it-yourself idea. Read the news story and then look at a flat earth map and the stop in Alaska makes perfect sense. Then look at a globe map and you will see the problem.
Amazing moment a woman gives birth to a premature baby girl at 30,000ft on a Taiwan to Los Angeles flight with crew and passengers helping out
A China Airlines flight landed in Alaska with an extra passenger after an expectant mother gave birth to a baby girl more than eight weeks early.
The Taiwan to Los Angeles flight was forced to make an emergency landing on Thursday after a Taiwanese passenger's waters broke six hours into the 19 hour journey.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3270382/Caught-camera-amazing-moment-woman-gives-birth-premature-baby-girl-30-000ft-Taiwan-Los-Angeles-flight-crew-passengers-helping-out.html
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQnNh7HZ7rI
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKTFGbbbBbk
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQnNh7HZ7rI
LOL ... you beat me to it.
-
LOL ... you beat me to it.
First, it was Taiwan not Bali, which is quite further south.
Second, This is probably the actual flight pattern on a globe Earth:
-
For some reason I couldn’t attach this to the previous post.
-
First, it was Taiwan not Bali, which is quite further south.
Second, This is probably the actual flight pattern on a globe Earth:
I love how on your picture the Pacific Ocean takes up about half the globe. It's a deliberately distorted map that actually looks more like the Flat Earth dimensions than Globe Earth. It's one lie after another from the globers. Google is deliberately messing with their "earth" map to cover up for precisely this problem. Here's what it looks like on a Traditional/normal map.
(https://i.ibb.co/LpVpRhp/pacific1.png)
-
I love how on you picture the Pacific Ocean takes up about half the globe. It's a deliberately distorted map that actually looks more like the Flat Earth dimensions than Globe Earth. It's one lie after another from the globers.
The Pacific Ocean makes up over 30% of the surface of the Earth, so that picture I posted is about as accurate as you can get on a globe Earth.
I watched the first minute of the video and found two major errors.
It seems to me Lad that you have dug in to your position on FE and aren’t being rational and objective.
-
The Pacific Ocean makes up over 30% of the surface of the Earth, so that picture I posted is about as accurate as you can get on a globe Earth.
I watched the first minute of the video and found two major errors.
It seems to me Lad that you have dug in to your position on FE and aren’t being rational and objective.
I mean his argument is boiling down to a projection, a way to express RE on a flat surface
-
Here's Google earth showing the Pacific ... taking up half the globe. :laugh1:
(https://i.ibb.co/bKLLH0m/pacific2.png)
-
Speaking of legs to stand on, why is there no scientific work being done on flat Earth since centuries? No research papers, no studies, no peer review, no serious books, no reputable scientists. What do FEs have to show for their conviction, apart from vague videos? No serious scientists has ever been convinced of FE by FEs. I wonder why ::)
Why do all of the top university scientists believe man evolved from apes?
Why do the top scientists and doctors believe the rona scam?
-
NASA's different globe "pics". Take a look at the size of North America on the 2012 picture (vs., say, 1997). :laugh1:
(https://i.imgur.com/l4VPtTF.jpg)
-
I love how on your picture the Pacific Ocean takes up about half the globe. It's a deliberately distorted map that actually looks more like the Flat Earth dimensions than Globe Earth. It's one lie after another from the globers. Google is deliberately messing with their "earth" map to cover up for precisely this problem. Here's what it looks like on a Traditional/normal map.
(https://i.ibb.co/LpVpRhp/pacific1.png)
Lad, step back for a minute and look at the map you posted. A flat map can never accurately illustrate a globe Earth. I don’t understand your mental block. You normally look at things objectively. I’m not trying in the least to belittle you, but this just isn’t rational thinking. I apologize in advance if I offended you, but I’m just being truthful.
-
Why do all of the top university scientists believe man evolved from apes?
Why do the top scientists and doctors believe the rona scam?
Agreed, I think arguing from authority is weak especially in a time like this where there is near 0 legitimate authority in the world.
-
The Pacific Ocean makes up over 30% of the surface of the Earth, so that picture I posted is about as accurate as you can get on a globe Earth.
I watched the first minute of the video and found two major errors.
It seems to me Lad that you have dug in to your position on FE and aren’t being rational and objective.
Quite the contrary, YOU are the one dug in to globe and irrational. I started off a skeptic, as did most FEs, but not a single glober would ever consider the possibility of having been deceived. Globers are the ones dug in, brainwashed by a lifetime of propaganda.
That "Convex" earth video does all the experiments and completely destroys the globe.
Anyone who approaches the question with an open mind and follows the evidence will conclude that the earth is flat.
-
This video is pretty stupid honestly, very much grabbing for straws.
Did you actually perform the mental experiment of sunlight reflecting off the water on a spherical Earth vs a flat Earth? The reflection would work pretty much the same, although the Sun eventually sinks below the horizon on GE, while it wouldn't disappear on a FE.
There are inconsistent explanations for the Sun actually setting on flat Earth which involve visibility and light attenuation, however this has never been formalized in a congruent model, obviously, because it would require different explanations for every different sunset.
On a globe earth you are on one side of a bump.
The sun is on the other side of the bump.
The light reflection on the water cannot go up the side of the bump over the top and down to your feet.
There might be a short reflection of light but it would not be able to extend all the way to you.
He showed it very well in the video.
Here is a drawing from Dingbat. (I hope she doesn't mind me using it in this thread.) She was using it to explain another aspect but for our purposes just consider the first example.
You can see that the light reflection on the water would not be able to go up and over the bump of the curve and down the other side to the observer's feet.
(https://i.imgur.com/iOWCMgd.png)
-
This guy here, an engineer who spent his life studying science (points out having read a book on relativity three times early in the video) started out a skeptic but then started doing the math and making the calculations. He talks about how at no point do scientists try to crunch the numbers to validate or falsify the globe. They all simply take it for granted. When he started applying physics and engineering to the problem, he was taken aback by what he found. This is just the first few in a long series that he put together.
https://kookootube.com/videoEmbeded/488
-
NASA's different globe "pics". Take a look at the size of North America on the 2012 picture (vs., say, 1997). :laugh1:
(https://i.imgur.com/l4VPtTF.jpg)
This doesn't prove anything besides that NASA likes to fake images. We already knew that lol. Do you think QVD is actually lying to you when he posts an image of RE mapped in a way that scales differently from yours? You posted a map that is stretched and distorted to fit on a flat piece of paper while still giving a basic representation of RE. I'm not saying your map is incorrect, but the way that you are using it definitely is.
Probably nobody here trusts Google anyways, so I don't know why you even bring that up.
-
This doesn't prove anything besides that NASA likes to fake images. We already knew that lol.
But that's part of the puzzle. 90% of people when asked how they would prove the globe respond, "Muh NASA has pictures." If they've been out in space and if they have satellites out there, why all the fake pictures? Why not the real ones? If they actually have an ISS out there, why the hours of footage where they were clearly faking spacewalks and interviews from ISS? If they really have astronauts on ISS, they could merely take real video. They've been lying through their teeth since their very inception, and the #1 argument for globe is the "argument from authority". See the previous video I posted from the engineer. If anyone seriously sits down and starts doing the math and physics, the globe doesn't work. But 99% of all "scientists" absolutely refuse to go there and start from the very foundations. Not only have they too been brainwashed, but they would jeopardize their careers if they came forward with such opinions. So they don't. Why do you think that 99% of "medical professionals" promote the jab? They parrot back the propaganda they've heard and are terrified of losing their careers and their livelihoods. One former F-16 pilot who came forward asserting that the earth is certainly flat said that he was reluctant due to fear of ridicule. That "follow the science" lie behind the jab is the same fallacy they use to promote the globe.
-
On a globe earth you are on one side of a bump.
The sun is on the other side of the bump.
The light reflection on the water cannot go up the side of the bump over the top and down to your feet.
There might be a short reflection of light but it would not be able to extend all the way to you.
He showed it very well in the video.
Here is a drawing from Dingbat. (I hope she doesn't mind me using it in this thread.) She was using it to explain another aspect but for our purposes just consider the first example.
You can see that the light reflection on the water would not be able to go up and over the bump of the curve and down the other side to the observer's feet.
(https://i.imgur.com/iOWCMgd.png)
I don't mind at all, Miser. I'm flattered that you liked my wonderful work of art here well enough to save it :laugh2:
That being said, after watching the video that explains how the sunlight can't go over the curve, and even looking at my above drawing, I don't quite understand why it wouldn't be able to go over the curve. After all, if you can still see the top part of the sun, can't the top part cast light on the water?
(https://i.imgur.com/WwqSHZK.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/dJl1Ane.png)
Maybe I misunderstood your point?? I apologize if so.
-
Not really meant to prove anything, but Vibes of Cosmos has a new video showing his moon-earth maps in an Atlas form. Pretty cool
https://youtu.be/QNRi-gIYxMw
-
Do you think QVD is actually lying to you when he posts an image of RE mapped in a way that scales differently from yours?
No. Google Earth is lying ... just like NASA has been lying since the beginning. Google is nothing but an NSA operation, not some independent company. They're actively censoring Flat Earth materials. NASA and Google are in on the scam together. I'm saying that QVD is naive to believe anything that comes from these government agencies. He accepts them for "evidence" because he wants to.
-
Here's an easy do-it-yourself idea. Read the news story and then look at a flat earth map and the stop in Alaska makes perfect sense. Then look at a globe map and you will see the problem.
Amazing moment a woman gives birth to a premature baby girl at 30,000ft on a Taiwan to Los Angeles flight with crew and passengers helping out
A China Airlines flight landed in Alaska with an extra passenger after an expectant mother gave birth to a baby girl more than eight weeks early.
The Taiwan to Los Angeles flight was forced to make an emergency landing on Thursday after a Taiwanese passenger's waters broke six hours into the 19 hour journey.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3270382/Caught-camera-amazing-moment-woman-gives-birth-premature-baby-girl-30-000ft-Taiwan-Los-Angeles-flight-crew-passengers-helping-out.html
There are many, many emergency landings which make no sense on globe earth.
Lots of videos showing them and interviewing flat earth pilots coming out of the closet are available for those who want to find them.
Pilots use the flat earth map in the cockpit.
-
But that's part of the puzzle. 90% of people when asked how they would prove the globe respond, "Muh NASA has pictures." If they've been out in space and if they have satellites out there, why all the fake pictures? Why not the real ones? If they actually have an ISS out there, why the hours of footage where they were clearly faking spacewalks and interviews from ISS? If they really have astronauts on ISS, they could merely take real video. They've been lying through their teeth since their very inception, and the #1 argument for globe is the "argument from authority".
I don't profess to be smart enough to look at the calculations, make my own, or verify others' calculations with any kind of confidence. That's part of why I kinda ignore the NASA/YouTube side of things. How am I to know whether these people are fooling me with silver tongue?
What I do understand is what I can see. What I trust is that which is available freely from non-zog sources. Someone innocently posting sunset timelapses because they like photography is someone I trust 1000x over an explicit NASA or FE (or RE) source.
I hate to bring this up again but I still haven't seen any significantly shrinking sunsets that were non FE sources... Do you think ALL relevant sunset videos are being censored?
-
Not really meant to prove anything, but Vibes of Cosmos has a new video showing his moon-earth maps in an Atlas form. Pretty cool
https://youtu.be/QNRi-gIYxMw
That's fascinating. Thanks for posting. One of the better ones I've seen on this subject. While it's not necessarily perfect (it seems to be some kind of reflection onto a surface (convex, concave, who knows?) ... but it's way too much of a coincidence not to be related somehow. I'm not 100% sold on the "Terra Vista" thing, though I don't rule it out. Those "Convex Earth" people from Latin America came to the same conclusion without invoking the "moon map" phenomenon.
I've absolutely never bought the BS about how we've seen the same face of the moon for centuries because it rotates at EXACTLY the same rate as it revolves around the earth. That's just ludicrous. Even if it were a second off per day, we've see significant changes on the face of the moon within years, not to mention decades and centuries. Scientists claim that it gets a bit farther away from the earth every year, and in that case it would have to proportionally change its rate of rotation for the same face to keep pointing toward earth. And eclipses happen because the sun is exactly both 400x larger and 400x more distant from the earth than the moon. Who are they kiddding? It's one big joke.
Then there was that astrophysicist from the 1950s or 1960s, Professor Foster, who asserted that he had undeniable proof that the moon was made of plasma and was not a solid body.
-
No. Google Earth is lying ... just like NASA has been lying since the beginning. Google is nothing but an NSA operation, not some independent company. They're actively censoring Flat Earth materials. NASA and Google are in on the scam together. I'm saying that QVD is naive to believe anything that comes from these government agencies. He accepts them for "evidence" because he wants to.
No, I don’t trust google and I certainly don’t trust NASA, but whether it’s a google globe or the one in my living room, what I posted demonstrates, fairly accurately, what a global Earth would look like.
There is not a single model that any FE adherent has posted that even remotely demonstrates a workable FE. Sorry.
-
I don't mind at all, Miser. I'm flattered that you liked my wonderful work of art here well enough to save it :laugh2:
That being said, after watching the video that explains how the sunlight can't go over the curve, and even looking at my above drawing, I don't quite understand why it wouldn't be able to go over the curve. After all, if you can still see the top part of the sun, can't the top part cast light on the water?
(https://i.imgur.com/WwqSHZK.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/dJl1Ane.png)
Maybe I misunderstood your point?? I apologize if so.
Try it with a candle and a roll of paper towels. :)
-
No, I don’t trust google and I certainly don’t trust NASA, but whether it’s a google globe or the one in my living room, what I posted demonstrates, fairly accurately, what a global Earth would look like.
There is not a single model that any FE adherent has posted that even remotely demonstrates a workable FE. Sorry.
So you don't trust Google/NASA, but you assert that their model of globe earth is accurate, even though it doesn't match previous renderings of the same.
Watch the "Convex Earth" video ... they meticulously came up with a model of the convex/flat earth after years of working out the measurements and studying the angle of the sun from different parts of the world.
-
No, I don’t trust google and I certainly don’t trust NASA, but whether it’s a google globe or the one in my living room, what I posted demonstrates, fairly accurately, what a global Earth would look like.
There is not a single model that any FE adherent has posted that even remotely demonstrates a workable FE. Sorry.
This guy mapped out the sunrise and sunset times on the FE map.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/P543CpzH3nDa/
-
Stepping aside from the controversy, I found some video about Admiral Byrd's Antarctic expedition, and if you go to 34:30 - 34:42, they show pictures of Catholic Mass in a tent down in Antarctica. By the sounds of it, they had several Catholic Masses, used the phrase "after the last Mass" ... then there were Prot and Jєωιѕн services. But it seemd as if the Catholic Mass was the most well attended. They show brief video of the Mass starting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9chz8COYVc
-
Why do all of the top university scientists believe man evolved from apes?
Why do the top scientists and doctors believe the rona scam?
These are very opinionated topics, and I would probably disagree on your preestablished view on them. Bleeding edge research is going on at both of those.
But the globe is established since about two millenia. So if people disagree with this historic and contemporary consensus, there should be good, waterproof reasons for that. I think it's problematic that there is so little scientific ground to stand on for FE, so far. I think there are good reasons for why that is.
If there are opposing scientific hypotheses, usually there are proponents on both sides until the argument is settled. The problem I and many others are seeing with FE is that the quality of FE material is so low: Youtube videos, blog posts, essays at best. There is way too little high level scientific work going on, too little evidence, there just isn't much to show on this very important front for FE (a formalized model, research papers, studies, peer review, serious books, reputable scientists, etc.), even when taking into account funding, societal pressure and other obvious disadvantages, because these are modern developments, although the ideas of FE and GE are much older than that.
-
That's fascinating.
May I ask when did you become flat earther? And are you alone in this forum in that regard?
-
NASA's different globe "pics". Take a look at the size of North America on the 2012 picture (vs., say, 1997). :laugh1:
Perhaps this quite concise video will answer some of your valid doubts about the Blue Marble pictures:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRoJZtWRswY
-
Perhaps this quite concise video will answer some of your valid doubts about the Blue Marble pictures:
None of them are actual pictures to begin with. Video is more BS by the globist liars. Every globist video I've seen has been a pack of lies, which is why I ultimately became a believer in FE.
-
This guy mapped out the sunrise and sunset times on the FE map.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/P543CpzH3nDa/
Some problems with this:
1. You cannot show angles or sun "circles" / "orbits" on an equidistant azimuthal projection of a globe. The EAP map is not a flat Earth map (no actual, usable, to scale flat Earth map exists).
2. The Sun changing it's radius over the flat Earth with the seasons would either require the seasons to be of different length (which they are not) or the Sun somehow dynamically changing speeds for the seasons. No such mechanism is known. The seasons haven't been (and can't be, in my opinion) explained on a FE.
3. There is no light propagation model that would allow 24h sunlight on either the Arctic circle or Antarctic circle, especially. Because for that to happen, the complete Antarctic circle has to be lit at the same time as the rest of the "day half" of the disc is lit - that impossible. That's why many FEers see themselves forced to claim that a 24h Sun does not exist in the Antarctic circle.
Not how all these problems dissolve perfectly when using a globe instead.
-
That's why many FEers see themselves forced to claim that a 24h Sun does not exist in the Antarctic circle.
That's no mere claim. There are a couple time-lapse films allegedly showing 24h sun that were proven to be fakes. Why fake it if it exists? Just do a real video.
-
These are very opinionated topics, and I would probably disagree on your preestablished view on them. Bleeding edge research is going on at both of those.
But the globe is established since about two millenia. So if people disagree with this historic and contemporary consensus, there should be good, waterproof reasons for that. I think it's problematic that there is so little scientific ground to stand on for FE, so far. I think there are good reasons for why that is.
If there are opposing scientific hypotheses, usually there are proponents on both sides until the argument is settled. The problem I and many others are seeing with FE is that the quality of FE material is so low: Youtube videos, blog posts, essays at best. There is way too little high level scientific work going on, too little evidence, there just isn't much to show on this very important front for FE (a formalized model, research papers, studies, peer review, serious books, reputable scientists, etc.), even when taking into account funding, societal pressure and other obvious disadvantages, because these are modern developments, although the ideas of FE and GE are much older than that.
Bleeding edge research is going on at Universities regarding Intelligent Design? It's well known you get fired for that.
No all the smartest of the smarties believe man evolved from apes. :P
Doctors and scientists questioning the rona scam are getting fired.
Flat earth pilots won't speak out until they retire or do so anonymously because they fear getting fired.
Scientists who question "climate change" are fired and ridiculed.
Peer review is another term for popular consensus.
Want funding? Don't step out of the lines.
Science is never settled and is not decided by peer pressure.
Questioning is not allowed.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQnNh7HZ7rI
Cera and Miser, the flight routes are actually not true. If you book a flight from Sydney to Santiago, it will follow a route across the pacific ocean which is a circular flight path when mapped to a EAP map, as shown below. That is because this route follows a straight line on the sphere that is Earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/GQ2Wtdk.png)
More here: https://flatearth.ws/southern-flight
-
That's no mere claim. There are a couple time-lapse films allegedly showing 24h sun that were proven to be fakes. Why fake it if it exists? Just do a real video.
They were not actually fake. In the most popular one, it was footage of the Sun going over 360 degrees around, where the last few degrees just started from the beginning again, so it was a loop.
Now what FEers should do is not "debunk" the looped 360th degree, but focus on the other 359 degrees instead. Because that's 24h already.
Here's a totally different video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgZa9oZDN5g
And here's a 360° version of it (pan to look around):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g3IbYcELDw
I mean, you can keep denying it, because it's easier for you FE folks if you don't have to explain it, but an explanation for Sun on the complete ice ring would still be quite interesting to hear.
-
I don't profess to be smart enough to look at the calculations, make my own, or verify others' calculations with any kind of confidence. That's part of why I kinda ignore the NASA/YouTube side of things. How am I to know whether these people are fooling me with silver tongue?
What I do understand is what I can see. What I trust is that which is available freely from non-zog sources. Someone innocently posting sunset timelapses because they like photography is someone I trust 1000x over an explicit NASA or FE (or RE) source.
I hate to bring this up again but I still haven't seen any significantly shrinking sunsets that were non FE sources... Do you think ALL relevant sunset videos are being censored?
I understand that. I saw it with my own eyes over the Pacific but I don't live there anymore or I would try to film it for you.
Here is one that shows the dramatic shrinking of the sun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITQcXWj5PIo
-
So you don't trust Google/NASA, but you assert that their model of globe earth is accurate, even though it doesn't match previous renderings of the same.
Neither Google nor NASA has a model of the globe earth. All they did was borrow the map of the world that was created in the 16th century by the Spanish Empire at the height of its Catholicism, having just kicked all the (((those people))) out of Spain in 1492. They sent explorers all over the world and mapped the continents and major islands, and Google and NASA simply borrow the map that they produced.
-
I understand that. I saw it with my own eyes over the Pacific but I don't live there anymore or I would try to film it for you.
Here is one that shows the dramatic shrinking of the sun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITQcXWj5PIo
Here is another one that shows how tiny the sun gets. By the end it's a mere fraction of the size it was at the beginning.
It's smaller and smaller even before it reaches the water (horizon line).
It's moving farther and farther away!
Also notice how the reflection on the water reaches all the way to the where the viewer is.
Even at the 24:44 mark the reflection reaches the viewer.
Now try to replicate that with a candle and a roll of paper towels in a dark room.
How high does the candle have to be for the light to reach the other side of the curve?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbG1JPTWbNk
-
Here is another one that shows how tiny the sun gets. By the end it's a mere fraction of the size it was at the beginning.
It's smaller and smaller even before it reaches the water (horizon line).
These are some great sunsets, but please keep in mind that the movement and explanation of the Sun over FE must have the Sun disappear completely in the distance, there shouldn't be any intersection between the Suns disc and the horizon at all, just a fade to zero at the horizon. So when you show those nice sunsets where the Sun actually does appear smaller in size, that's actually cherry picking.
The ones FE has difficulty explaining what's happening are all of these:
(https://i.imgur.com/avdizEL.png)
-
there shouldn't be any intersection between the Suns disc and the horizon at all, just a fade to zero at the horizon.
Why would there be no intersection?
Any object that moves away into the distance until it can no longer be seen will intersect at the horizon vanishing point.
It will disappear from the bottom up at vanishing point.
The Dave Weiss kitchen counter top video demonstrated the intersection at the horizon vanishing point with the sun disappearing from the bottom up.
The quarter across the table experiment shows the intersection at vanishing point as the bottom half slowly disappears more and more.
The hallway photo I shared demonstrates the intersection at vanishing point.
The vimeo video Lad posted earlier in this thread demonstrated again and again in real life and with diagrams the intersection at vanishing point at the horizon.
Artists have to study and understand how the intersection at vanishing point works.
Mountains will disappear from the bottom up the farther away you go. The closer you get the taller they get and the more of the bottom half you can see.
If you photograph a mountain at 50 miles away and then at 100 miles away and then at 150 miles away
the mountain will appear to be shorter and shorter each time.
The bottom half will disappear more and more
the top half will remain visible until you go so far away even that is no longer visible.
Look at this drawing:
(https://i.imgur.com/yMKraXY.png)
Art teacher says to redraw this photo as if you have traveled 20 miles closer to the mountain.
What would you change about the mountain?
You would show more of the bottom half.
-
That's fascinating.
Not sure if my question got ignored or just nobody noticed it. Asking again ...
So is Ladislaus flat earther? Anybody else in this forum?
-
Not sure if my question got ignored or just nobody noticed it. Asking again ...
So is Ladislaus flat earther? Anybody else in this forum?
Ladislaus, Matthew, Tradman, and Meg, off the top of my head, are all Flat earthers.
I lean Flat earth, but definitively hold to the Hebrew conception of the earth/cosmos (https://wp-media.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/files/2012/11/Ancient-Hebrew-view-of-universe.png). I held FE more firmly for a time, but since I can't make a positive claim of the earth being flat, globe or "convex (https://steemitimages.com/p/USgKoryE83ixapxnpmKWwbL6J9XE6HD4SLpVM4UzXLcHscNXAJphuYG5am2ZHzJ16SjAMn7pQcwC7qbx37kkzj?format=match&mode=fit)", all I know is modern cosmology is satanic bunk and Scripture is Truth.
-
Ladislaus, Matthew, Tradman, and Meg, off the top of my head, are all Flat earthers.
I lean Flat earth, but definitively hold to the Hebrew conception of the earth/cosmos (https://wp-media.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/files/2012/11/Ancient-Hebrew-view-of-universe.png). I held FE more firmly for a time, but since I can't make a positive claim of the earth being flat, globe or "convex (https://steemitimages.com/p/USgKoryE83ixapxnpmKWwbL6J9XE6HD4SLpVM4UzXLcHscNXAJphuYG5am2ZHzJ16SjAMn7pQcwC7qbx37kkzj?format=match&mode=fit)", all I know is modern cosmology is satanic bunk and Scripture is Truth.
Thanks for the candid response. After completing extensive university studies, advanced math and learning in depth laws of physics (created by God), all I can do is here is to laugh out loud. But hey, it is not part of the Magisterium, so there is a hope :-).
-
You would show more of the bottom half.
Nonsense. You would show more of the whole mountain, it would simply increase in size. It is impossible for half the sun to be below the horizon on the flat earth model. Yet this is what the photos show. The "vanishing point" is the horizon. Flat-earth is a nonsense psy-op to make anyone that questions the mainstream narrative look kooky. That is why it has it's own Netflix show promoting the theory! h0Ɩ0cαųst revisionism or 9/11 truth or climate change denial would never get a Netflix show promoting them now would they? It gets promoted because the flat earth theory is in their interests to be promoted! Then when we make rational replies to their lies (e.g. the covid scam), they lump us in with flat-earthers and make us out to be crazy!
-
Nonsense. You would show more of the whole mountain, it would simply increase in size. It is impossible for half the sun to be below the horizon on the flat earth model. Yet this is what the photos show. The "vanishing point" is the horizon. Flat-earth is a nonsense psy-op to make anyone that questions the mainstream narrative look kooky. That is why it has it's own Netflix show promoting the theory! h0Ɩ0cαųst revisionism or 9/11 truth or climate change denial would never get a Netflix show promoting them now would they? It gets promoted because the flat earth theory is in their interests to be promoted! Then when we make rational replies to their lies (e.g. the covid scam), they lump us in with flat-earthers and make us out to be crazy!
I would direct you to the most popular flat earth channels on Youtube but you would have a very difficult time finding them, my friend.
-
Thanks for the candid response. After completing extensive university studies, advanced math and learning in depth laws of physics (created by God), all I can do is here is to laugh out loud.
University studies??????
You mean the same places that tell me that I came from a monkey and to never, ever, ever, ever, question climate change and to never, ever, ever, question the fact that gender is fluid?????
Those people are sooooooooooo smart!!!!!!
Why would anyone in their right mind question anything they say?
Oh no!
If I question
THE SCIENCE
they might laugh at me?
Hahahahahahhahahahhahahah! It's alllllll so funny!!!!!!!
Do you laugh out loud at NASA?
Hahahhahaahahahhahhhahahahaah
So much funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1:
who has more funny?
:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
This is how "science" works.
-
Thanks for the candid response. After completing extensive university studies, advanced math and learning in depth laws of physics (created by God), all I can do is here is to laugh out loud. But hey, it is not part of the Magisterium, so there is a hope :-).
Math, physics. Yes, as Tesla pointed out, they've constructed a mathematical (fantasy) world based on false foundations. They've applied their "laws of physics" ... until they got here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhzELtLmsCA
Scientists admit that they've lost their way. They can't come up with a unified theory to describe the behavior of the universe. Gravity is a set of equations that allow you to predict various behaviors, but they still have zero explanation for what causes it. They're absolutely clueless.
That's your brilliant response, to "laugh out loud".
I've also studied physics and advanced math at University, bud. And so did this guy here (linked below). He's a structural engineer who likes to read books on relativity during his leisure time. He starts off by saying that at no point during his studies did they go out of their way to verify the "first principles" and merely took them for granted. When you're off by as much of a factor as Kaku indicates, you're wrong on your first principles. Mullin is correct. In all my physics classes, they simply started off with a set of assumptions, never proved them, and then constructed mathematical equations on top of them, a mathematical house of cards that is quickly collapsing and imploding.
Maybe you should have taken a history class or two during your "extensive university studies" and come to the realization that modern science for the past several hundred years has been driven and animated by an atheistic agenda.
Here's your "physics".
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLL6L7eG0SWTA9u_OiARRo3l0x_cGnzeDE
You can find hours of footage proving without a doubt that NASA is one massive fraud. What are they hiding? Big Tech is ruthlessly censoring Flat Earth. What are THEY hiding?
-
Nonsense. You would show more of the whole mountain, it would simply increase in size. It is impossible for half the sun to be below the horizon on the flat earth model. Yet this is what the photos show. The "vanishing point" is the horizon. Flat-earth is a nonsense psy-op to make anyone that questions the mainstream narrative look kooky. That is why it has it's own Netflix show promoting the theory! h0Ɩ0cαųst revisionism or 9/11 truth or climate change denial would never get a Netflix show promoting them now would they? It gets promoted because the flat earth theory is in their interests to be promoted! Then when we make rational replies to their lies (e.g. the covid scam), they lump us in with flat-earthers and make us out to be crazy!
I didn’t know that about Netflix, thanks. Just more proof to me that FE is most likely a disinformation campaign. The feigned suppression is a telltale sign.
-
I didn’t know that about Netflix, thanks. Just more proof to me that FE is most likely a disinformation campaign. The feigned suppression is a telltale sign.
Yes. There is a Flat Earth Society too. It spreads dumb false notions about what most Flat Earthers believe.
Someone else brought up the notion that nobody has ever explained how the seasons work on Flat Earth.
You can go to Bitchute and put in "Flat Earth Seasons" and find a number of videos explaining it.
Try to do the same search at Youtube and you'll only find NASA based debunkers.
It's the same story with 911, covid facts, "gender theory", evolution, etc. etc.
FE was very popular at Youtube for a number of years but they got their channels removed and or buried and they've had to move elsewhere.
-
I didn’t know that about Netflix, thanks. Just more proof to me that FE is most likely a disinformation campaign. The feigned suppression is a telltale sign.
Uhm, no, there's no feigned suppression. It's very real. FE youtubers have had their channels deleted, multple times, and the search engine results for Flat Earth (both Google and youtube) will give you nothing but anti-FE material.
-
Yes. There is a Flat Earth Society too. It spreads dumb false notions about what most Flat Earthers believe.
Someone else brought up the notion that nobody has ever explained how the seasons work on Flat Earth.
You can go to Bitchute and put in "Flat Earth Seasons" and find a number of videos explaining it.
Try to do the same search at Youtube and you'll only find NASA based debunkers.
It's the same story with 911, covid facts, "gender theory", evolution, etc. etc.
After the original founder of FE passed away (toward the end of his life, his home somehow burned down and he lost nearly all of his materials related to FE), some other mysterious fellow swooped in and rebooted it. Most FEs believe that the guy is a government disinfo agent.
You're correct, that the behavior of the search engines with regard to FE is the same as with other cօռspιʀαcιҽs they're trying to suppress: COVID jab, 9/11 truth, etc. FE even has a more specialized treatment from Google and Youtube. If you DO find an FE video, they stick this "disclaimer" tag at the bottom denouncing Flat Earh. They don't do that even for these other issues. In fact, I go to the Youtube search engine, and put in not only the term "Flat Earth" but even the exact name of the youtube channel (in cases where I know it) and the channel STILL doesn't come up in their search results. It's ridiculous.
With these other issues two, one of their favorite tactics is controlled opposition. So, for instance, they let Alex Jones enjoy a certain amount of notoriety ... but then took out William Cooper (whom Jones effectively ended up replacing). Jones is actually Bill Hicks, who was brought onto the alphabet payrolls to become Alex Jones. They let part of the truth out ... for audiences that already know it, so that the gatekeeper could keep them away from certain other issues due to the credibilit he gained from exposing some of the others. So, for instance, Jones has been covering for the Jєωs his entire career. He keeps talking about "international bankers" but but then dismisses and ridicules anyone who mentions that those bankers happen to be Jєωs.
-
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLltxIX4B8_USzcT-eaGeKajwgx8JLaOur
-
In fact, I go to the Youtube search engine, and put in not only the term "Flat Earth" but even the exact name of the youtube channel (in cases where I know it) and the channel STILL doesn't come up in their search results. It's ridiculous.
Right. There are many videos there explaining how the seasons work on FE but they won't come up in a search.
I often end up at Bitchute looking for info even though there are many, many more FE videos at Youtube. They are just so hard to find.
-
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLltxIX4B8_USzcT-eaGeKajwgx8JLaOur
That's a good playlist.
Strange though. The 32nd Degree Mason Talks About Flat Earth video is 1 hour 27min and 27 seconds.
Click on it to watch and it only plays for 1 minute 59 seconds. ???
-
They were not actually fake. In the most popular one, it was footage of the Sun going over 360 degrees around, where the last few degrees just started from the beginning again, so it was a loop.
Now what FEers should do is not "debunk" the looped 360th degree, but focus on the other 359 degrees instead. Because that's 24h already.
Here's a totally different video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgZa9oZDN5g
And here's a 360° version of it (pan to look around):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g3IbYcELDw
I mean, you can keep denying it, because it's easier for you FE folks if you don't have to explain it, but an explanation for Sun on the complete ice ring would still be quite interesting to hear.
Well, the endless sun in both the arctic and Antarctic in summer is always in sunset mode, wouldn't that be correct? It's never full sun there, even in summer. I can see how that would lend itself to the idea of a ball earth, but it could work on a flat earth too, since on a flat earth, the sun still moves above and around the entirety of the earth in 24 hours, and could show a sunset mode in both the arctic and Antarctic, even though the Antarctic surrounds the earth.
-
After the original founder of FE passed away (toward the end of his life, his home somehow burned down and he lost nearly all of his materials related to FE), some other mysterious fellow swooped in and rebooted it. Most FEs believe that the guy is a government disinfo agent.
You're correct, that the behavior of the search engines with regard to FE is the same as with other cօռspιʀαcιҽs they're trying to suppress: COVID jab, 9/11 truth, etc. FE even has a more specialized treatment from Google and Youtube. If you DO find an FE video, they stick this "disclaimer" tag at the bottom denouncing Flat Earh. They don't do that even for these other issues. In fact, I go to the Youtube search engine, and put in not only the term "Flat Earth" but even the exact name of the youtube channel (in cases where I know it) and the channel STILL doesn't come up in their search results. It's ridiculous.
With these other issues two, one of their favorite tactics is controlled opposition. So, for instance, they let Alex Jones enjoy a certain amount of notoriety ... but then took out William Cooper (whom Jones effectively ended up replacing). Jones is actually Bill Hicks, who was brought onto the alphabet payrolls to become Alex Jones. They let part of the truth out ... for audiences that already know it, so that the gatekeeper could keep them away from certain other issues due to the credibilit he gained from exposing some of the others. So, for instance, Jones has been covering for the Jєωs his entire career. He keeps talking about "international bankers" but but then dismisses and ridicules anyone who mentions that those bankers happen to be Jєωs.
Alex Jones is Bill Hicks? No way. They don't even look alike.
-
After the original founder of FE passed away (toward the end of his life, his home somehow burned down and he lost nearly all of his materials related to FE), some other mysterious fellow swooped in and rebooted it. Most FEs believe that the guy is a government disinfo agent.
You're correct, that the behavior of the search engines with regard to FE is the same as with other cօռspιʀαcιҽs they're trying to suppress: COVID jab, 9/11 truth, etc. FE even has a more specialized treatment from Google and Youtube. If you DO find an FE video, they stick this "disclaimer" tag at the bottom denouncing Flat Earh. They don't do that even for these other issues. In fact, I go to the Youtube search engine, and put in not only the term "Flat Earth" but even the exact name of the youtube channel (in cases where I know it) and the channel STILL doesn't come up in their search results. It's ridiculous.
With these other issues two, one of their favorite tactics is controlled opposition. So, for instance, they let Alex Jones enjoy a certain amount of notoriety ... but then took out William Cooper (whom Jones effectively ended up replacing). Jones is actually Bill Hicks, who was brought onto the alphabet payrolls to become Alex Jones. They let part of the truth out ... for audiences that already know it, so that the gatekeeper could keep them away from certain other issues due to the credibilit he gained from exposing some of the others. So, for instance, Jones has been covering for the Jєωs his entire career. He keeps talking about "international bankers" but but then dismisses and ridicules anyone who mentions that those bankers happen to be Jєωs.
I have to be honest with you here, Lad. Your credibility is going downhill. I like a good conspiracy just like everyone else on Cathinfo, but you seriously need to reevaluate this stuff.
-
Alex Jones is Bill Hicks? No way. They don't even look alike.
There are a few videos on youtube that try to prove that Alex Jones is really Bill Hicks. There is compelling evidence, though not absolutely conclusive, that Alex Jones is Bill Hicks. I can post the videos if you like, or a google search can bring them up fairly quickly.
-
Ladislaus, Matthew, Tradman, and Meg, off the top of my head, are all Flat earthers.
I lean Flat earth, but definitively hold to the Hebrew conception of the earth/cosmos (https://wp-media.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/files/2012/11/Ancient-Hebrew-view-of-universe.png). I held FE more firmly for a time, but since I can't make a positive claim of the earth being flat, globe or "convex (https://steemitimages.com/p/USgKoryE83ixapxnpmKWwbL6J9XE6HD4SLpVM4UzXLcHscNXAJphuYG5am2ZHzJ16SjAMn7pQcwC7qbx37kkzj?format=match&mode=fit)", all I know is modern cosmology is satanic bunk and Scripture is Truth.
This is reasonable, DL.
The semi-dogmatic flat Earthers are way out of line here. They don’t even have a remotely credible model, but want to claim that FE is almost a fact.
-
There are a few videos on youtube that try to prove that Alex Jones is really Bill Hicks. There is compelling evidence, though not absolutely conclusive, that Alex Jones is Bill Hicks. I can post the videos if you like, or a google search can bring them up fairly quickly.
I'm not compelled by it. They don't look alike or even sound alike. Bill Hicks died of pancreatic cancer and Alex Jones is a shill for Israel. Two different people.
-
This is reasonable, DL.
The semi-dogmatic flat Earthers are way out of line here. They don’t even have a remotely credible model, but want to claim that FE is almost a fact.
I had that initial zeal for it that made me think it was utter fact. But, the more I've reflected on it, I've decided to take a step back and have a more prudential position on the whole FE vs GE debate.
I still find the ground-based experiments for FE most compelling, and why I yet lean that direction, but primarily the Scriptural support for a world unlike that we are sold by mainstream science is why I hold to the Hebrew cosmological model. And the Convex Earth docuмentary Lad shared comes to a similar conclusion to that of the Hebrew model, which is very interesting.
I've also become very suspicious on how heated the topic can be on both sides. Which tells me there's something awry with the subject.
-
This is reasonable, DL.
The semi-dogmatic flat Earthers are way out of line here. They don’t even have a remotely credible model, but want to claim that FE is almost a fact.
There are flat-earth models, but not one that everyone accepts, since we can't really know for sure about what shape the flat earth is. I'm okay with that, since I'm not a rationalist.
There are also different ball earth models. Have you noticed how Greenland is of various sizes on differing ball earth models? Those who believe in a ball earth have NASA to provide a model, and they perhaps think that this settles the question. But we FE'ers don't accept NASA's version of supposed truth and shape of the earth, just because they provide what seems like a valid model.
-
Try it with a candle and a roll of paper towels. :)
How about a flashlight and an onion :laugh2:
My results were somewhat inconclusive at first. You could see the light from the flashlight lighting up the very edge of the onion with sharp, definitive light, but the part of the onion that was closer to me was comparatively dark. There were rays of light going directly into my eyes from the flashlight, which reminded me of the rays of light from the sunset that come visibly towards you over the water. Unfortunately they made it very hard to see!
I decided to try it from another angle as it seems impossible to objectively tell if the onion was actually being lit at the top or not. From a side view if you hold the onion level with the edge of a table, you can slowly move the flashlight up and down in height to see where the sun's rays would be illuminating the earth. Using this method, the onion was lit up even when the flashlight was well below it! I am sure this method is not perfect, but I believe it to be more accurate than the paper towels with a candle. The onion is round, instead of cylindrical (and I don't have a candle, but figured the sun irl to be way more powerful than any flashlight anyways :laugh1:)
Actually out of fairness, I ended up trying it with a lighter flame as well. This was a lot less bright in general and didn't light up the onion very well at all, but given this same side view it was basically just a dimmer, less defined version of what the flashlight showed.
I would post pics of the flashlight version, but unfortunately my flashlight and my camera are one and the same :cowboy:
However, while doing this experiment, I did notice another example of how light could behave in the way that you see during sunsets on RE.
The following pictures show a recessed light fixture. The lightbulb is higher up than the fixture and ceiling that contain it. Despite this, it illuminates the ceiling clearly. Now, better than this, you can see that this ceiling is tiered. A little over 1ft past the light fixture, the ceiling rises up by about 1ft. (This section of the wall is painted green, while the ceiling is white)
You can see in the photos that the higher part of the ceiling is not illuminated in the same way as the part by the light fixture. What this demonstrates (unless I am misinterpreting here) is that the light can bend around slightly greater than 90⁰ corners. It does have limits though, and you can see it reaches the limit when trying to illuminate the higher portion of the ceiling.
Let me know what you think of this :)
(https://i.imgur.com/9wTOTRR.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ZAu6zaI.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/to8DUFv.jpg)
-
This is reasonable, DL.
The semi-dogmatic flat Earthers are way out of line here. They don’t even have a remotely credible model, but want to claim that FE is almost a fact.
No need to be dogmatic and unite your identity to either side. That shuts down one's ability to question things.
It's fun and interesting to just wonder like a kid wonders and investigate to find out more.
The thing is that I never found the globe model to be remotely credible even as a kid.
I never understood how we can be spinning 1000 miles per hour. ??
How does water stick to a ball, especially to a spinning ball?
Why can't we see the curve of the earth on the horizon?
How does water curve when it always finds level?
How can we be shooting through space and still have the same constellations year after year for thousands of years?
Wouldn't the planes flying over Australia be upside down? Why not?
Where is the firmament? Does it surround the globe? But they say space is ever expanding. So where is the firmament?
So many things don't make sense.
But if you ask questions you get laughed at and mocked and ridiculed.
That's even weirder to me! Why?
What's wrong with asking questions?
It seems like the Emperor's New Clothes in a lot of ways.
When that pilot told me I needed to be a Freemason to know the answer I was even more curious!
I mean look at all of the things we have been lied to about:
Going to the moon (they really got everyone to believe it! lol :P)
Covid shots are safe and effective
PCR tests tell you what you have
We evolved from apes
There are 75 or more "genders"
Building 7 fell due to fire
Flight 93 was absorbed into the ground
How do they get away with this stuff?
Answer: Make fun of people who ask questions.
Don't ask questions. Smart people believe what they are told. Only dumb people ask questions, right?
It goes on and on to where it's like, "So what haven't they lied about?"
-
Have you guys tried the coin across the table experiment?
Find a quarter ( quick before they are all gone :) )
Put it on a table and bend down so the table surface is at eye level ( just like the horizon is always at eye level).
Move the coin away from you.
It starts to disappear from the bottom up and looks cut in half.
This is just like the sun looking cut in half and disappearing from the bottom up as it moves over the water into the distance.
I just tried this experiment. As far as I could reach, the coin did not disappear from the bottom up UNLESS I allowed the table to actually obstruct my view of the coin. Similarly to how the RE model says that the curve of the earth obstructs view of the sun and makes it disappear, if you hold your eyes low enough compared to the edge of the table, the bottom of the coin is cut off.
This is not a good representation of flat earth however. On FE, your viewpoint is positioned ABOVE the ground, which is why you can see so far. On the table, in order to make the coin disappear you have to have almost no real view of the table at all. In fact, you pretty much just see the corner! I don't think flat earth is supposed to have corners (at least not in that sense lol). You could probably replicate that viewpoint of the sun on FE if you were standing inside of a trench, but not if you were standing on flat ground.
(https://i.imgur.com/7Mie8sc.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Tr2Rrh0.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/DIobh0q.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/b9a9Ink.jpg)
You can see in these photos what I mean. The coin is not cut off at any point. I will admit the camera was not perfectly steady as I had it in one hand and the coin in the other. If you do have doubts, then you could probably try the same experiment but do it the way shown here :)
You can also see that the camera is positioned very low on the table, and that a lot of the view is actually cut off by the corner. I didn't want to hold it too high, but made a point to hold it high enough that the corner itself could not obstruct the coin. Remember, the coin is supposed to intersect with the ground in the distance, not nearby to the viewer :)
-
That's a good playlist.
Strange though. The 32nd Degree Mason Talks About Flat Earth video is 1 hour 27min and 27 seconds.
Click on it to watch and it only plays for 1 minute 59 seconds. ???
One of the best Youtube channels out there on Flat Earth is impossible to find using the Youtube search engines. I only found it because the Taboo Conspiracy guy had a link to it.
"Dr. John D"
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrV1BQhaufM-PsEtMjjehDQ/videos
Here's a brief summar of one of his videos by another FE.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/aEwja2tfbQTS/
-
I just tried this experiment.
FEs have made videos of where the sun had appeared to set, where a large part of it was visuall "cut off" and then zoomed in on it and found it still above the horizon. I'll try to find it.
-
How about a flashlight and an onion :laugh2:
My results were somewhat inconclusive at first. You could see the light from the flashlight lighting up the very edge of the onion with sharp, definitive light, but the part of the onion that was closer to me was comparatively dark. There were rays of light going directly into my eyes from the flashlight, which reminded me of the rays of light from the sunset that come visibly towards you over the water. Unfortunately they made it very hard to see!
I decided to try it from another angle as it seems impossible to objectively tell if the onion was actually being lit at the top or not. From a side view if you hold the onion level with the edge of a table, you can slowly move the flashlight up and down in height to see where the sun's rays would be illuminating the earth. Using this method, the onion was lit up even when the flashlight was well below it! I am sure this method is not perfect, but I believe it to be more accurate than the paper towels with a candle. The onion is round, instead of cylindrical (and I don't have a candle, but figured the sun irl to be way more powerful than any flashlight anyways :laugh1:)
Actually out of fairness, I ended up trying it with a lighter flame as well. This was a lot less bright in general and didn't light up the onion very well at all, but given this same side view it was basically just a dimmer, less defined version of what the flashlight showed.
I would post pics of the flashlight version, but unfortunately my flashlight and my camera are one and the same :cowboy:
Interesting. :)
Well, one thing of note is that the size of the sun (even when it's at its largest) as it sets is rather tiny compared to the size of the horizon line.
The flashlight is huge compared to the horizon line of the onion.
Imagine how big that sun would be in real life! :O
And the curve of the horizon line on the onion is very different from real life.
The paper towels give you a long horizon line (like the ocean) for the tiny sun to set behind.
There is no curve on the left and the right on the paper towels just like there is no curve on the left and on the right with the ocean horizon.
Just a big long line with a little sun going down in the middle of it.
I tried it with the flashlight and the paper towels just now and it still demonstrates the principle pretty well.
Especially when you look at the how low the sun is in the video.
We aren't just looking to see if there is light in the sky. We are looking at the reflection of the sun on the water.
How far can the light reach on the ground level.
That reflection is still visible all the way across the water to the viewers feet even at the 24:44 mark.
https://youtu.be/ITQcXWj5PIo
I'm not sure what to make of the ceiling light. It's hard for me to grasp how it compares to the reflection on the water. :/
-
FEs have made videos of where the sun had appeared to set, where a large part of it was visuall "cut off" and then zoomed in on it and found it still above the horizon. I'll try to find it.
Do you have a link?
-
We could settle a large part of this very easily. Charter a commercial airlines with a long range. There's a Singapore to NY flight that takes a bit under 18 hours and covers 9,500+ miles. Circuмference of Antarctica on a Globe Earth is purported to be about 9,900 miles. I'm guessing the plane could make it around on one tank. Invite a bunch of FE advocates and let them observe and make sure that the edge of Antarctica remains on the one side (either right or left depending on which way you're going) the entire time. If you can get around the continent and come back to the exact same place within about 20 hours (which is about what it would take), then that would completely disprove the Flat Earth model. Of course, the plane would have to have additional fuel to make it back to somewhere it could land. I bet there are military planes, bombers, for instance, that have a much longer range and could do it with no problem.
Of course, they'll never let you anywhere near there due to the Antarctic treaty.
-
Do you have a link?
I'll try to find it. I just saw it in part of a longer video. It was kindof cool to see. About half the sun appeared to be completely cut off, the camera zooms in, and it's still there completely and above the horizon line, with space between its bottom and the horizon line.
-
No need to be dogmatic and unite your identity to either side. That shuts down one's ability to question things.
It's fun and interesting to just wonder like a kid wonders and investigate to find out more.
The thing is that I never found the globe model to be remotely credible even as a kid.
I never understood how we can be spinning 1000 miles per hour. ??
How does water stick to a ball, especially to a spinning ball?
Why can't we see the curve of the earth on the horizon?
How does water curve when it always finds level?
How can we be shooting through space and still have the same constellations year after year for thousands of years?
Wouldn't the planes flying over Australia be upside down? Why not?
Where is the firmament? Does it surround the globe? But they say space is ever expanding. So where is the firmament?
So many things don't make sense.
But if you ask questions you get laughed at and mocked and ridiculed.
That's even weirder to me! Why?
What's wrong with asking questions?
It seems like the Emperor's New Clothes in a lot of ways.
When that pilot told me I needed to be a Freemason to know the answer I was even more curious!
I mean look at all of the things we have been lied to about:
Going to the moon (they really got everyone to believe it! lol :P)
Covid shots are safe and effective
PCR tests tell you what you have
We evolved from apes
There are 75 or more "genders"
Building 7 fell due to fire
Flight 93 was absorbed into the ground
How do they get away with this stuff?
Answer: Make fun of people who ask questions.
Don't ask questions. Smart people believe what they are told. Only dumb people ask questions, right?
It goes on and on to where it's like, "So what haven't they lied about?"
As far as spinning at 1000mph goes, the best analogy I have seen is this: when you are in a car or plane, do you feel as though you are moving as fast as you actually are? Or do you feel basically motionless as long as the vehicle stays at the same speed? How about if you're on a bike or skateboard? If you stay the same speed, don't you mostly just feel the wobble of unlevel ground under your wheels +wind in your face? I think that on RE, we would really know the earth was spinning if it suddenly stopped :laugh1:
Water sticks to a ball the same way rocks and dust stick to other planets. We can see that other planets are definitely round. We can see that they have the same "gravity" mechanism that RE theories present for here on earth. We can see that the moon is covered with dust and rocks. Why don't they all fall down to earth? (I'm really glad they don't :laugh1:)
If rocks and dust can stick, why not water? We can see the other planets rotating as well. Why aren't they constantly covered in enormous dust clouds (every one of them that rotates should be, right?)
There are a lot of photos that show a slight curve, at least in my eyes. It could be some trickery of how our vision works so I don't really take that as proof lol. Supposedly a 6' tall human can see for about 3 miles on flat ground, but over 200 miles on top of Mount Everest (assuming no clouds get in the way). If I am wrong, feel free to let me know because I actually haven't been to Mt Everest to verify :laugh2:
I do believe that you can see way further at great heights than you can from the ground. Your vision on the ground then must not be limited by your own eyesight, but some other mechanic. What do you think that might be?
Level vs curved is hard for me to explain lol. If you put 10 different levels, at say 100 miles apart, they would all show that they were level, despite the fact that they would be at slightly different angles when you compared them to each other. If you then held each level to the same exact angle and brought them all together, you would see how they differed, and also each level would stop showing that it was properly level. Again, rocks and dust stick to the surface of other planets. Imagine how the levels would work there. The same concept applies here. "Gravity" makes everything sit "level" with the surface of the globe no matter which side of the globe you are on. It's not up and down. Down is basically just "towards the center of the planet" and up is the opposite, no matter where you stand on said planet.
As far as the constellations changing goes, my understanding is that we are going in a big rotation every year, and that we return to about the same place we started in at the end of the year. The constellations DO change throughout the year (look up stellar parallax) but it's very slight and probably not really noticable unless you have a way to measure it. We also do see different constellations depending on the time of the year! There are some that appear only in winter, some in summer, and I believe a few that are year round depending on your location! Actually before looking into FE I had no idea that it worked that way, so it was interesting to read about :)
Planes flying to Australia aren't flying upside down for the same reason that dust and rocks on other planets aren't upside down, and water sticks to a spinning ball haha. Again, "gravity" as RE explains it, pulls towards the center of the earth. As long as the plane flies parallel to the center, it will be upright no matter where it flies. Now if you tried to turn an Aussie plane to fly at the same angle as say... A plane in Canada... I don't think it would go very well. This is because it would no longer be flying parallel to the center of the earth.
I have seen some interpretations that say the firmament is an expanse, rather than a literal, physical, fish bowl style dome. My personal best guess is just that the firmament encloses basically everything we can possibly see or reach, and that heaven is on the other side of that. Maybe I am wrong, but how do you prove that lol. The stars are supposed to be within the firmament, correct? So it must be past the stars.
Asking questions is good! Blindly trusting corrupt authority (we know it is corrupt) is bad. However, a broken clock tells the right time twice a day ;)
You can't always assume EVERYTHING is a lie. Yes, verify what you can. That is good. If they lied about everything, it would be too obvious and nobody would play follow the leader.
The bottom line is that I believe this is actually a psyop where they want to make people who doubt the vax and 9/11 and all these other things look actually crazy. It's not crazy to believe the vax is evil. It's not crazy to believe in and obey God. But if you can prove that the earth is round (most people accept that you can. I would guess far more people doubt the vax than RE for instance) then they think you are crazy for believing it's not. They start to question the other things you believe as well, just as we question the shape of the earth due to the lies of those who are in charge.
Again, it's not bad to question things at all. You should be doing that. So far I just can't understand why FE people are so convinced though due to the daily observations that you can make about the world. I actually think that they want us to believe FE in order to discredit conspiracy theorists. Tinfoil hats, aliens, flat earth. Most people think of those things as similar. They want people to think that Christianity is in the same vein. Why wouldn't they?
-
Interesting. :)
Well, one thing of note is that the size of the sun (even when it's at its largest) as it sets is rather tiny compared to the size of the horizon line.
The flashlight is huge compared to the horizon line of the onion.
Imagine how big that sun would be in real life! :O
And the curve of the horizon line on the onion is very different from real life.
The paper towels give you a long horizon line (like the ocean) for the tiny sun to set behind.
There is no curve on the left and the right on the paper towels just like there is no curve on the left and on the right with the ocean horizon.
Just a big long line with a little sun going down in the middle of it.
I tried it with the flashlight and the paper towels just now and it still demonstrates the principle pretty well.
Especially when you look at the how low the sun is in the video.
We aren't just looking to see if there is light in the sky. We are looking at the reflection of the sun on the water.
How far can the light reach on the ground level.
That reflection is still visible all the way across the water to the viewers feet even at the 24:44 mark.
https://youtu.be/ITQcXWj5PIo
I'm not sure what to make of the ceiling light. It's hard for me to grasp how it compares to the reflection on the water. :/
Sure, I will give you that haha. The problem with this experiment is that it's impossible for it to be entirely accurate. It can demonstrate ideas, but of course cannot prove anything. Staring at the sun causes eye damage. The flashlight and the candle are a lot less bright than the sun. They also throw light in a different way (at least as far as RE is concerned, with the idea of a globe sun)
Not to mention, for RE, the sun is thought to be very very far away. Hard to replicate that on small scale unfortunately. I do understand why you would prefer to use the flat horizon paper towel model, but really what I would like to see is a big huge globe to test! Unfortunately all I had was the onion :laugh1:
Did you try the side view with the paper towels? It actually did still represent what the onion experiment did, at least for me. The light can be well below the top of the paper towels and still be illuminating the top.
For the ceiling light, try turning the photos upside-down. Now, consider the light bulb to be the "sun". You can see that the light bulb is well below the horizon/ground (ceiling) but it still brightly illuminates the ground/ceiling. It "curves" around a corner to do so. If you compare it to the part of the ceiling that is higher up, you can see that that part cannot be touched by the light in the same way. This is where the light hits its limit and cannot curve far enough.
(Edited to include visual for ceiling light example)
Imagine you are standing where the little orange guy is (minus the fact that his feet are hanging off the edge lol)
The sunlight still reaches him even though the sun has dipped completely below the horizon/ground/whatever you want to call it.
(https://i.imgur.com/5Y0vvut.jpg)
-
Sure, I will give you that haha. The problem with this experiment is that it's impossible for it to be entirely accurate. It can demonstrate ideas, but of course cannot prove anything. Staring at the sun causes eye damage. The flashlight and the candle are a lot less bright than the sun. They also throw light in a different way (at least as far as RE is concerned, with the idea of a globe sun)
Not to mention, for RE, the sun is thought to be very very far away. Hard to replicate that on small scale unfortunately. I do understand why you would prefer to use the flat horizon paper towel model, but really what I would like to see is a big huge globe to test! Unfortunately all I had was the onion :laugh1:
Did you try the side view with the paper towels? It actually did still represent what the onion experiment did, at least for me. The light can be well below the top of the paper towels and still be illuminating the top.
For the ceiling light, try turning the photos upside-down. Now, consider the light bulb to be the "sun". You can see that the light bulb is well below the horizon/ground (ceiling) but it still brightly illuminates the ground/ceiling. It "curves" around a corner to do so. If you compare it to the part of the ceiling that is higher up, you can see that that part cannot be touched by the light in the same way. This is where the light hits its limit and cannot curve far enough.
(Edited to include visual for ceiling light example)
Imagine you are standing where the little orange guy is (minus the fact that his feet are hanging off the edge lol)
The sunlight still reaches him even though the sun has dipped completely below the horizon/ground/whatever you want to call it.
(https://i.imgur.com/5Y0vvut.jpg)
Well, here's the thing about the side view you describe. It puts the person on the top of the curve. I was assuming the person would be on one side of the curve and the sun on the opposite side of the curve like the hill in your drawing. That way the sun is getting "hidden behind the curve" like supposedly what happens at sunset.
(https://i.imgur.com/O4acpUQ.png)
There is a bump between the person and the sun on ball earth.
No bump, no hidden sun behind the curve.
So the guy can't be standing on the top of the curve.
I see what you are saying with the recessed ceiling light now. Thanks!
But the light is all around like the sunlight in the sky.
We are talking specifically about the "reflection" or sun glint...that shiny narrow line of light that extends across the water.
It's a reflection that demonstrates the angle of the sun hitting the water.
When the candle or flashlight is this high behind the paper towel the light will extend to the person on the other side of the hill/bump/curve.
(https://i.imgur.com/B5cMjDb.png)
When the candle/flashlight is lower it looks very much like this.
(https://i.imgur.com/d30Yfse.png)
Except with the paper towel roll in the dark room the light does not reach to the other side of the curve. It doesn't go over the bump.
I don't know how to load photos or I would show it.
The paper towel with the light behind it in a dark room looks just like this photo actually...it's a really good replication
except the sunglint wouldn't reach over the curve to the feet of the photographer. The photographer would be standing with total darkness at his feet.
If the photographer stood on top of the curve he would still see the sun and it wouldn't be setting or "hiding behind the curve." Where is the horizon line?
It wouldn't be "sinking down below the horizon line".
For the sun to hide behind the curve, there has to be a bump between the viewer and the sun on the ball earth.
-
I just tried this experiment. As far as I could reach, the coin did not disappear from the bottom up UNLESS I allowed the table to actually obstruct my view of the coin. Similarly to how the RE model says that the curve of the earth obstructs view of the sun and makes it disappear, if you hold your eyes low enough compared to the edge of the table, the bottom of the coin is cut off.
This is not a good representation of flat earth however. On FE, your viewpoint is positioned ABOVE the ground, which is why you can see so far. On the table, in order to make the coin disappear you have to have almost no real view of the table at all. In fact, you pretty much just see the corner! I don't think flat earth is supposed to have corners (at least not in that sense lol). You could probably replicate that viewpoint of the sun on FE if you were standing inside of a trench, but not if you were standing on flat ground.
Yes, obstruction of view. :)
When the table starts to obstruct your view it's because of the visual convergence of what is above the horizon line with what is below.
This convergence starts to happen before the vanishing point.
The table example is not perfect of course but it's an experiment to replicate what happens when something moves towards and beyond the vanishing point on the horizon.
Your experiment never demonstrated the vanishing point.
Dave Weiss demonstrated how it works with his kitchen counter in the video I shared in the other thread, but he would need a much longer counter to demonstrate it better since he used the mountains as the vanishing point horizon line with the sun overhead.
If he had kept going further with a lonnng countertop he could have demonstrated the sun meeting with the counter top at vanishing point.
Dave's "sun" would converge with the counter top in the far distance. The bottom part of the "sun" (ball on the string above the counter) would visually disappear from the bottom up until the whole thing disappeared. It would look like it went "down behind the counter" even though in reality it stayed the same height above the counter. It's just perspective.
(https://i.imgur.com/ere6eSl.png)
If you strung a ball on those lines above the tracks and moved it along at the same height above the tracks the ball would eventually look like it was getting cut off on the bottom as it converged with the horizon shortly before it disappeared altogether.
In real life the ball would stay at the same height moving along the lines above the tracks. Yet it would look like it the ball went down the further away it got. Then it would start to disappear from the bottom up.
(https://i.imgur.com/mr4I4sh.png)
So we are replicating what happens when an object moves towards vanishing point on the table. Not as good as the ball overhead but it still works.
Objects that move beyond the vanishing point can no longer be seen.
What happens as the quarter reaches closer to vanishing point?
It starts to get visually cut off from the bottom.
So you could say "the table starts to obstruct your view" or you could say what is above and below the table is starting to visually converge prior to vanishing point.
Imagine these boxes keep moving forward at the same height across a flat plane. Would they all crash into each other? No. Would it look like they started to converge? Yes. When they move away far enough the ones above the horizon line would disappear from the bottom up and the ones below would disappear from the top down.
(https://i.imgur.com/ON3JKbC.png)
Anyway, for the experiment the view of the table has to be split in half at eye level.
The horizon line is always at eye level. If you sit down at the beach and then you stand up, what happens to the horizon line? It moves down to remain at eye level.
The table can be "like" the horizon line for our experiment if we put our eye down at the level of the table so our view is cut in half.
No it's not a horizon line in the distance like at the beach.
We're making a fake horizon line right up close for our experiment to show convergence before the vanishing point.
As the coin moves beyond the horizon line into the distance it is cut off more and more from the bottom up until it is all gone from view.
That's how the vanishing point perspective works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rPvhFq7Ykk
You can even do this with your laptop. Put the bottom at eye level and lay your finger on it. Now move your finger into the distance. It starts to disappear from the bottom up.
Visual convergence before vanishing point.
-
FEs have made videos of where the sun had appeared to set, where a large part of it was visuall "cut off" and then zoomed in on it and found it still above the horizon. I'll try to find it.
I've seen that too. Hard to find them later because the word search doesn't work and they disappear from my Youtube history. :/
-
I've seen that too. Hard to find them later because the word search doesn't work and they disappear from my Youtube history. :/
If this is true and not a fake video, ask yourself why don’t people observe this on a daily basis? Why isn’t the internet rife with videos showing this?
-
If this is true and not a fake video, ask yourself why don’t people observe this on a daily basis? Why isn’t the internet rife with videos showing this?
That's a good question. There are probably 100 zoom out videos on the water showing ships and oil rigs disappear and reappear. Amateurs are using their Nikon p900 or 1000 all around the world and posting those.
Here's a question for you. How far away does a boat need to get to go over the curve and disappear from view?
-
Well, here's the thing about the side view you describe. It puts the person on the top of the curve. I was assuming the person would be on one side of the curve and the sun on the opposite side of the curve like the hill in your drawing. That way the sun is getting "hidden behind the curve" like supposedly what happens at sunset.
(https://i.imgur.com/O4acpUQ.png)
There is a bump between the person and the sun on ball earth.
No bump, no hidden sun behind the curve.
So the guy can't be standing on the top of the curve.
I see what you are saying with the recessed ceiling light now. Thanks!
But the light is all around like the sunlight in the sky.
We are talking specifically about the "reflection" or sun glint...that shiny narrow line of light that extends across the water.
It's a reflection that demonstrates the angle of the sun hitting the water.
When the candle or flashlight is this high behind the paper towel the light will extend to the person on the other side of the hill/bump/curve.
(https://i.imgur.com/B5cMjDb.png)
When the candle/flashlight is lower it looks very much like this.
(https://i.imgur.com/d30Yfse.png)
Except with the paper towel roll in the dark room the light does not reach to the other side of the curve. It doesn't go over the bump.
I don't know how to load photos or I would show it.
The paper towel with the light behind it in a dark room looks just like this photo actually...it's a really good replication
except the sunglint wouldn't reach over the curve to the feet of the photographer. The photographer would be standing with total darkness at his feet.
If the photographer stood on top of the curve he would still see the sun and it wouldn't be setting or "hiding behind the curve." Where is the horizon line?
It wouldn't be "sinking down below the horizon line".
For the sun to hide behind the curve, there has to be a bump between the viewer and the sun on the ball earth.
Miser, in the rotating GE model explanation for sunsets, you are at the "top" of the bump. Essentially, the earth rotating to the point where you can no longer see the sun itself is what creates the "bump" if that makes sense. If you can still see the sun, the sun can still cast light onto the water in front of you. Behind you could be obstructed by the bump though :)
(https://i.imgur.com/kuZW6wx.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/BzocIjl.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/My3cxih.png)
Mind you, these pictures are definitely not perfect. The sun is too close. The line of sight isn't exactly straight. Instead of showing the earth rotating, it looks like the sun is actually going down. This is a very rough interpretation of what is happening, but I believe it still gets the point across. As long as you have a visual on the sun, it can cast light on the water at your feet. When you can no longer see the sun, the "bump" is in the way.
Paper towels do not reflect light in nice shiny rays like water does. A flashlight does not light up the surrounding area like the sun does. Looking directly into a flashlight just prevents you from being able to see exactly where the light is traveling. You kind of need the side view perspective in order to have a real idea of how the light is traveling. Actually from my experiments earlier, the light traveled further than I expected it to. Even when the flashlight was well below the onion/paper towel tube, it was still illuminating the top!
Given that even a small flashlight can illuminate a significant percentage of the surface of the objects in question ABOVE where the beam is shining, I would imagine even a very tall person would have trouble seeing the sun after the light on the ground has disappeared. It seems to me that the sun throws light slightly past the bump. Probably you could observe this by viewing the sunlight as it illuminates the tops of mountains but not the valleys, or perhaps by watching the sun on a beach side building (a tall one lol).
I may be wrong, but I would imagine that if you had a tall enough building at beach side, you might be able to watch as the bottom is slowly swallowed by darkness slightly before the rest. I have seen before how lower elevations get dark a lot sooner. This seems like a plausible extension of that.
-
I've also studied physics and advanced math at University, bud.
[...]
You can find hours of footage proving without a doubt that NASA is one massive fraud. What are they hiding? Big Tech is ruthlessly censoring Flat Earth. What are THEY hiding?
High energy theories indeed fail to describe the universe but in the world "near us" all calculations are so damn precise. This is not a secret.
Is NASA hiding stuff? You bet. But they do not lie about everything. Is the mixture of the truth and their fantasies.
There is a simple homework for you. The Apollo 13 weighted ~50 tons. Plus it was carrying ~20 tons of propellant. (this is from official NASA website). Is it possible that it can reach moons orbit then leave it and come back to earth. Use the law of conservation of momentum as basis of calculations. Also lookup details about rocket engines. Can you do that?
-
If you stay the same speed, don't you mostly just feel the wobble of unlevel ground under your wheels +wind in your face?
Lots of stuff to cover here but I'll do my best.
I'd rather talk about this than the other current events going on right now! :D
And you keep it fun and not contentious, so thank you for that!
So if we spin at 1000mph why don't we feel 1000mph winds?
Water sticks to a ball the same way rocks and dust stick to other planets. We can see that other planets are definitely round. We can see that they have the same "gravity" mechanism that RE theories present for here on earth. We can see that the moon is covered with dust and rocks.
How do we know planets and the moon have rocks and dust?
Here is a photo of a moon rock:
(https://i.imgur.com/0rrJTat.png)
Moon Rock Is Really Just Petrified Wood
"A prize possession in the Dutch national museum is not what the curators thought. In 1969, three Apollo 11 astronauts visited the Netherlands. And the U.S. ambassador gave the Dutch prime minister what he said was a moon rock. When an expert saw the rock in the museum, he didn't think it was real. Geologists have identified the moon rock as petrified wood."
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112324216#:~:text=the%20curators%20thought.-,In%201969%2C%20three%20Apollo%2011%20astronauts%20visited%20the%20Netherlands.,moon%20rock%20as%20petrified%20wood.
Ooops. They pulled a fast one 'em! LOL
It's no surprise because I don't know if you've looked into it but we never went to the moon. NASA even says we can't send a man to Mars because they can't go past the Van Allen Belt so how did they get to the moon? LOL :P
Here are some of NASA's artists creating planet pictures for us. They hire a lot of artists. All of the "photos" of the earth and the planets are made by artists. There's one thing they are honest about!
https://www.bitchute.com/video/tEC2vxmkNIsb/
Have you seen the video of planets amateurs are getting with their Nikon P1000 cameras? They don't look at all like what NASA said.
Here is one but there are many people doing this and finding amazing things:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZwAv1OMrkAVt/
We can see the moon is round but can we verify it's a ball? Why has nobody seen the back side, especially if it's spinning?
I think the terms round earth and globe earth can also describe the flat earth. Flat earth models are round and with the firmament can create a globe. I think Ball Earth is probably a better term for globe.
Gravity works for large and small objects right? So why can't we take a large ball and carve out a lake and a few ponds and fill them with water and spin it around?
Supposedly a 6' tall human can see for about 3 miles on flat ground, but over 200 miles on top of Mount Everest (assuming no clouds get in the way). If I am wrong, feel free to let me know because I actually haven't been to Mt Everest to verify :laugh2:
Lol. Me neither. :)
So how far out does a boat need to go to go over the curve?
Level vs curved is hard for me to explain lol. If you put 10 different levels, at say 100 miles apart, they would all show that they were level, despite the fact that they would be at slightly different angles when you compared them to each other.
Hmmm...okay, is there any proof for this?
As far as the constellations changing goes, my understanding is that we are going in a big rotation every year, and that we return to about the same place we started in at the end of the year. The constellations DO change throughout the year (look up stellar parallax) but it's very slight and probably not really noticable unless you have a way to measure it. We also do see different constellations depending on the time of the year! There are some that appear only in winter, some in summer, and I believe a few that are year round depending on your location!
See to me, the "Wheel In The Sky" over flat earth explains this motion of the stars in the Heavens much better than this:
2:08
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiZxEno-cP0&t=56s
So not only is the earth spinning at 1000 mph but it's also:
"moving about our sun in a very nearly circular orbit. covers this route at a speed of nearly 30 kilometers per second, or 67,000 miles per hour. In addition, our solar system--Earth and all--whirls around the center of our galaxy at some 220 kilometers per second, or 490,000 miles per hour."
Zooming through the universe like a comet, always progressing forward (which is a Kabbalah belief--the solar system is a Kabbalah system), forward, but our zodiacs remain in the same rotation visible from earth for thousands of years?
Are the zodiacs zooming through space like comets too? Always forward in the same exact trajectory as earth?
btw: Know what else is based on Kabbalah? Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ :O
Now if you tried to turn an Aussie plane to fly at the same angle as say... A plane in Canada... I don't think it would go very well. This is because it would no longer be flying parallel to the center of the earth.
I've never heard of flying parallel to the center of the earth.
I was a flight attendant and I asked pilots if the plane makes adjustments nose downward as we go over the curve and they told me no.
You would feel it if the plane was tilting nose downward. It would feel strange while you try to eat or watch a movie. You can feel when a plane leans back during takeoff and you could also feel when a plane heads nose down but they never do the entire flight (unless something goes wrong!) . They lean back but never forward. Even while landing it's leaning back not forward.
Planes fly straight across over the plane of the earth. They "level out" at cruising altitude and fly a comfortable level path. When you go to the bathroom you don't walk downward or back upward during the flight. You don't lean forward in your seat during flight. The plane is nice and flat---level. The captain announces we are "leveling out".
And the nose down wouldn't be a subtle adjustment either. Ships don't have to travel very far to "go over the curve" so the plane would be adjusting down the entire trip. If you didn't, it would miss the curve and fly straight out into space wouldn't it?
Also, how fast does the plane need to go to catch up with the 1000mph spin?
In the other direction can it just hover and let the earth spin below until it gets to it's destination?
I have seen some interpretations that say the firmament is an expanse, rather than a literal, physical, fish bowl style dome. My personal best guess is just that the firmament encloses basically everything we can possibly see or reach, and that heaven is on the other side of that.
I can only make sense of this using the flat earth model. The same one all the ancient civilizations used. Have you seen those pictures Digital Logos posted?
Douay-Rheims Bible Gen 1:6
And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters.
I can't see how the firmament would work with the solar system shooting like a comet through an ever expanding space like the video I posted above. ??
So they want to make Christians look crazy because modern science trumps the Bible and Christians need to get with the times?
Haven't we heard that one before?
I mentioned this somewhere but when I asked one of the pilots why I couldn't see the curve from the cockpit view over the ocean and why we were flying over the arctic and other questions he told me I'd have to be a Freemason to know about that. Hmm???
I know they don't like their special "knowledge" getting out to the "profane" (loosers like us). :P
-
If this is true and not a fake video, ask yourself why don’t people observe this on a daily basis? Why isn’t the internet rife with videos showing this?
Here is one:
FLAT EARTH - SUN ZOOM ELIMINATES CURVATURE
1min 17sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/otFs7OM3SUet/
So how many miles does a boat need to go to go over the curve of the earth?
-
RE: Miser
(http://<a href=)(https://i.ibb.co/bQtNXhh/21369-1080-983.jpg)
-
Here is one:
FLAT EARTH - SUN ZOOM ELIMINATES CURVATURE
1min 17sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/otFs7OM3SUet/
So how many miles does a boat need to go to go over the curve of the earth?
Miser, I appreciate your sincerity, but that video is *almost* worthless since it is so grainy and blurry. Is there anything out there that is clear and demonstrates what you and Ladislaus contend? There are many clear videos of the setting Sun that show it disappearing over the purported curve of the Earth.
-
Well, the endless sun in both the arctic and Antarctic in summer is always in sunset mode, wouldn't that be correct? It's never full sun there, even in summer. I can see how that would lend itself to the idea of a ball earth, but it could work on a flat earth too, since on a flat earth, the sun still moves above and around the entirety of the earth in 24 hours, and could show a sunset mode in both the arctic and Antarctic, even though the Antarctic surrounds the earth.
No, you'd need to have insane light propagation models for a local Sun to light the entire surrounding Antractican ring plus the day half of the known Earth while not lighting the night half. It's pretty much impossible, 24h Sun at the South Polar circle is impossible on a flat Earth.
This is explained here: https://youtu.be/3WiHly5J6mM?t=408
-
No, you'd need to have insane light propagation models for a local Sun to light the entire surrounding Antractican ring plus the day half of the known Earth while not lighting the night half. It's pretty much impossible, 24h Sun at the South Polar circle is impossible on a flat Earth.
This is explained here: https://youtu.be/3WiHly5J6mM?t=408
It might seem to have to be insane, yes, I understand that. But not impossible. We don't really know how it works exactly. And it will be difficult to provide you with an absolute working model for how it works, because it doesn't exist as yet. And it may not ever exist, unless NASA 'fesses up and tells the truth.
Sorry, I didn't watch the video in the link. Unless it addresses the specific issue of how the sun cannot work on a flat earth (and provide sunset light for both the north and south pole), I'd rather not go to the trouble of viewing it. I already know that there is a sunset sun 24 hours a day in Antarctica. I don't dispute that.
-
No, you'd need to have insane light propagation models for a local Sun to light the entire surrounding Antractican ring plus the day half of the known Earth while not lighting the night half. It's pretty much impossible, 24h Sun at the South Polar circle is impossible on a flat Earth.
This is explained here: https://youtu.be/3WiHly5J6mM?t=408
In thinking about it again, I have to wonder how it is that there could be enough sunlight to light up both the north and south pole on a ball earth model. After all, if you view the sunset sun in antarctica in summer, the sun doesn't look as if it's over the equator, but it would have to be, in order for the ball model to work, wouldn't that be right? It doesn't look like the sun is that far away.
-
Meteors may be combustible fumes and gases condensing and burning up in the atmosphere
https://youtu.be/f3TVlW8PXkw
-
I mentioned this somewhere but when I asked one of the pilots why I couldn't see the curve from the cockpit view over the ocean and why we were flying over the arctic and other questions he told me I'd have to be a Freemason to know about that. Hmm???
He's clearly just messing with you.
-
Miser, I appreciate your sincerity, but that video is *almost* worthless since it is so grainy and blurry. Is there anything out there that is clear and demonstrates what you and Ladislaus contend? There are many clear videos of the setting Sun that show it disappearing over the purported curve of the Earth.
I had a feeling you would say that. :)
I don't know but I'll keep my eye out for one.
There are many that show ships and oil rigs but I would need to know the answer to my question:
How far out does a ship need to go to go over the curve and disappear?
-
He's clearly just messing with you.
Okay.
If you say so.
I'll go back to my couch, watch tv, and drool...
But before I go...
How many miles out does a ship need to get in order to go over the curve?
-
I have read bits and pieces of these threads and most involve math or physics, so I tune out. But a flat earth makes no sense to me whatsoever. And it has been decades since I have even thought about this stuff, so take it for what you will.
We have hills and valleys that are not "flat." The earth orbits around the sun in a period of 365 1/4 days, approx. We have the longest night of the year on the Winter Solstice, after which the days get longer. We have the shortest night on the Summer Solstice.
The earth rotates around the sun and thus we have night and day and 4 seasons. Australia has its seasons opposite of Canada's, etc. The earth is tilted on its axis at 23.5 degrees and the moon orbits the earth like a satellite if you will. The moon follows around the curvature of the earth and doesn't crash into it because of the forces that are exuded by the earth (gravitational pull, if I remember correctly).
You can see the sun disappear below the horizon if you look across the ocean. If you happen to see a ship in the distance coming toward you, you will see the mast of the ship first, and then the ship will get bigger as it comes closer to you. If you read liquids in a measuring cup, you read them at the meniscus.
I kind of think we are not meant to explore space, but that it obviously does exist. You might be able to travel a certain distance above the surface of the earth, but I think God has some way of restraining us from going beyond a certain point by a force, "glass ceiling" or a glass bubble around the entire earth. A bubble within a bubble if you will. So I don't think humans can get lost in space, but I would not want to go into space in the first place, in case I didn't return! Besides that, the G-forces to get there would be awful.
I don't think humans have been to the moon, but it is very interesting to look at it if you have a telescope, or zoom in with your cellphone even. The moon contributes to the tides of the oceans. I don't think we are meant to go to the moon, and I don't think anyone is going to be living on mars. But I would love to send a few people to mars if we could! Line up a whole bunch of poliiticans, for starters...
I don't think it is any sort of sin to believe the earth goes around the sun, nor to think the earth is a globe (round, an orb).
I believe that Jesus Christ is King of the Universe. He has dominion over the earth. Canada's National Holiday on July 1, used to be called Dominion Day before it was renamed Canada Day. Every single picture of Jesus as King shows at least 1 item to identify He is a King. Those items of note are a Crown, (representing a King or Queen) a scepter, and an orb, which represents the earth. Our Lady is sometimes shown with a crown because she is Queen of Heaven and earth and is crowned in May, etc.
Almost always the orb will have a simple gold crown around it that has a simple circular headpiece horizontally (which nicely represents the equator), and a vertical part of the crown that is in an arch and one half the radius of a circle. On top of that would be a cross, which represents Jesus died on a cross.
The scepters I have seen, almost all, without exception, have a tiny orb and cross combo on top of it.
If Jesus Christ is King, then to deny otherwise is an error. If He is a King, then it is suitable he have a crown. It is also suitable that He has symbols to reflect His reign, the scepter to represent rule, ruling, or leadership, and the orb to represent His territory, or domain. What He has dominion over.
So if the earth is flat, then why wouldn't He be shown holding a flat map of the earth? Flat earth sounds hokey to me and something someone came up with to deny the existence of God, not accept His Dominion, and to reject that Jesus Christ died on the cross. It sounds very much like a means to keep people from accepting basic things about God's creation, and to exude pride in wanting to know everything we may not be meant to know. I believe it is fine to use tools like satellites and telescopes, etc., but forget trying to "go into space."
And I bet if someone took a poll, most people here would believe the earth is a globe, or round, an orb. Curious to know. And don't do some anonymous poll. I would want to see who thinks what, because it may help to understand where certain people are coming from.
God bless, Anne.
-
If you happen to see a ship in the distance coming toward you, you will see the mast of the ship first, and then the ship will get bigger as it comes closer to you.
At what distance?
How many miles out?
-
High energy theories indeed fail to describe the universe but in the world "near us" all calculations are so damn precise. This is not a secret.
Is NASA hiding stuff? You bet. But they do not lie about everything.
Yes, the math works, but the math merely describes things. Math can describe the rate at which something falls, but the actual cause for why it falls has remained elusve. Gravity has never been proven, and there's a wide array of competing theories about what causes the phenomenon. Tesla rightly pointed out that a fantasy world has been built up with one equation layered on top of another.
NASA lies about a LOT of stuff, and that's enough to discredit them as an authority. I don't have to prove that they lie about everything. But it isn't just one or two things; their entire space program is a complete fraud.
-
If people want, math and physics, check out Dr. John D.
https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/dr-john-d-destroys-globe-earth/
Very few responses. This man is less popular than the other youtubers because, quite frankly, his channel is extremely dry. And it's very dry because he does all the math and runs the numbers, so his laser test video goes over an hour, and your average viewer doesn't have the patience for it.
I noticed that there were zero glober refutations.
He destroys refraction by conducting a two-way laser test. He took all the temperature and humidity readings, and recorded all the numbers with precision. Really the only comeback that globers have against all the "see too far" experiments is the gratuitous mention of the magic word "refraction". It's never proven or demonstrated. In order for light to follow exactly the cuvature of the globe, there would have to be an increasing density gradient along the path of the laser, as Dr. John D points out. But if there's an increasing density gradient, then in the reverse direction, there would be a decreasing density gradient. Consequently, the laser could not work in both directions at the same time at those distances. This puts the nail in the coffin of the "refraction" magic.
He also affirms my #2 reason why the current cosmology is bogus. Gravity is simply not strong enough to explain why the immense vacuum of space, as modern science conceives of it, would not rip the atmosphere off the planet. It's simply not possible that our atmosphere could exist adjacent to a nearly-perfect vacuum.
-
At what distance?
How many miles out?
Never bothered to measure. 15-20 miles, maybe? It would depend on the height of the mast for one thing, and then you could get into trig to calculate certain things I suspect.
It is the same situation with driving across flat prairie land where you see the approach of grain elevators getting bigger and bigger as you get closer and closer to them.
-
Never bothered to measure. 15-20 miles, maybe? It would depend on the height of the mast for one thing, and then you could get into trig to calculate certain things I suspect.
It is the same situation with driving across flat prairie land where you see the approach of grain elevators getting bigger and bigger as you get closer and closer to them.
Thanks
Can you or anyone else here who prefer the Ball Earth theory find out how far out the average ship needs to get?
Say an average person is on the beach watching a ship go out to sea.
What does the Ball Earth theory say?
I'm sure after centuries of this and with all of the technology available it has been measured accurately right?
I mean on a clear day.
I just want to know when the actual physical obstruction the curve of earth kicks in.
-
It might seem to have to be insane, yes, I understand that. But not impossible. We don't really know how it works exactly. And it will be difficult to provide you with an absolute working model for how it works, because it doesn't exist as yet. And it may not ever exist, unless NASA 'fesses up and tells the truth.
Sorry, I didn't watch the video in the link. Unless it addresses the specific issue of how the sun cannot work on a flat earth (and provide sunset light for both the north and south pole), I'd rather not go to the trouble of viewing it. I already know that there is a sunset sun 24 hours a day in Antarctica. I don't dispute that.
Good. We know really well how it works exactly, we understand the seasons and sunlight very well. But the good thing is that even if "NASA" (most science) was totally off, the scientific method would allow us to gradually gather new evidence until we have figured out a complete, working model.
"In an ideal world, flat Earthers would some day once again figure out that earth is in fact a spheroid" - unless they keep holding themselves back by biases.
This is what 24h Sun looks like on flat earth, this is the winter Sun lighting FE:
(https://i.imgur.com/lGH8kwL.gif)
FE vs. GE
(https://i.imgur.com/RSySBj0.gif)
What do you think, which model explains it better?
Because the FE animation is what would have to happen on a flat surface, regardless of the map being a EAP map (globe projection).
-
At what distance?
How many miles out?
What height is the ship, what height is the observer (eye height)? We need a few more parameters.
When we have those, we can calculate it as described here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/593064/how-to-calculate-how-much-of-an-object-is-hidden-due-to-earth-curvature
Earth's radius is 3959mi or 6371km.
Or we use this simpler formula: h = 6,371km * (1 - cos(0.009° * d))
We could solve for d here if h is known (too tired for that right now).
Let's assume the observer is on water level, and the ship is 30m high.
6371 * (1 - cos(0,009 * 19,55)) = 30m
So that gives us roughly d = 19,55km fo ar distance with the assumption of no atmospheric effects going on for the ship to stay visible longer or shorter.
-
What height is the ship, what height is the observer (eye height)? We need a few more parameters.
When we have those, we can calculate it as described here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/593064/how-to-calculate-how-much-of-an-object-is-hidden-due-to-earth-curvature
Earth's radius is 3959mi or 6371km.
Or we use this simpler formula: h = 6,371km * (1 - cos(0.009° * d))
We could solve for d here if h is known (too tired for that right now).
Let's assume the observer is on water level, and the ship is 30m high.
6371 * (1 - cos(0,009 * 19,55)) = 30m
So that gives us roughly d = 19,55km fo ar distance with the assumption of no atmospheric effects going on for the ship to stay visible longer or shorter.
Is there an earth curve calculator we can use?
-
Thanks
Can you or anyone else here who prefer the Ball Earth theory find out how far out the average ship needs to get?
Say an average person is on the beach watching a ship go out to sea.
What does the Ball Earth theory say?
I'm sure after centuries of this and with all of the technology available it has been measured accurately right?
I mean on a clear day.
I just want to know when the actual physical obstruction the curve of earth kicks in.
You're welcome, but it won't be me to provide you with that. I mentioned something briefly to my husband (former pilot when he was younger) and he is too busy to bother with any of this. He mentioned a few things about wind speed, knots, height of the mast and so on, and I tuned out.
Ask another physics and math geek.
-
Good. We know really well how it works exactly, we understand the seasons and sunlight very well. But the good thing is that even if "NASA" (most science) was totally off, the scientific method would allow us to gradually gather new evidence until we have figured out a complete, working model.
"In an ideal world, flat Earthers would some day once again figure out that earth is in fact a spheroid" - unless they keep holding themselves back by biases.
This is what 24h Sun looks like on flat earth, this is the winter Sun lighting FE:
(https://i.imgur.com/lGH8kwL.gif)
FE vs. GE
(https://i.imgur.com/RSySBj0.gif)
What do you think, which model explains it better?
Because the FE animation is what would have to happen on a flat surface, regardless of the map being a EAP map (globe projection).
No question the bottom one. That's all I need to know. Thanks for this animation!
-
#1, there is no 24-hour sun in Antarctica.
#2, the climate of Antarctica is massively colder than that of its opposite "pole" which it should not be based on the tilt model
#3, that first one is not an accurate picture of FE, which holds that there's a firmament which reflects the sun when it hits its outer limts, which does cause there to be more sun in the Antarctic, but never a 24-hour sun.
There was a timelapse video made pretending to show the 24-hour sun from Antarctica but it was proven to be a hoax due to absolutely identical cloud detail at the beginning and at the end of the video. Why fake it if there's a real 24-hour sun.
-
What height is the ship, what height is the observer (eye height)? We need a few more parameters.
When we have those, we can calculate it as described here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/593064/how-to-calculate-how-much-of-an-object-is-hidden-due-to-earth-curvature
Earth's radius is 3959mi or 6371km.
Or we use this simpler formula: h = 6,371km * (1 - cos(0.009° * d))
We could solve for d here if h is known (too tired for that right now).
Let's assume the observer is on water level, and the ship is 30m high.
6371 * (1 - cos(0,009 * 19,55)) = 30m
So that gives us roughly d = 19,55km fo ar distance with the assumption of no atmospheric effects going on for the ship to stay visible longer or shorter.
Alright how about a woman that is 6' tall, standing level at 650' above sea level. There is 100% visibility, no clouds, completely blue sky, June 1, above the equator, with a cruise ship that is sailing to Alaska from the port of Los Angeles,
CA up to Juneau, AK
The cruise ship is a maximum of 217' in height, and is travelling at maximum speed of 22 knots.
Anything else you need, you can add in.
Okay just going to add in here that there are no buildings around, and the nearest tree is 15' away and is 150' tall. It is 4PM in the afternoon.
Too tired to think of anything else. Thanks.
-
Here's another proof of FE, that reality is closer to the Azimuthal equidistant map than the fake globe model.
FEs hold that the reality looks something like this (Azimuthal equidistant map from the North pole).
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg/1024px-Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg)
Mostly reconizable, right? You can make everythig out. But globe earthers allege that the Southern hemisphere continents are too big.
But is that the case? No. That perception is actually based on the distorted Mercator map. To correct this, they released the Galls-Peter projection map, which asserts that this shows the TRUE SIZE of the continents in the Southern hemisphere, and that they were deliberately shrunk on the Mercator map. They have their true size, even if, they assert, their shapes are slightly off in order to get the right size projection.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Gall%E2%80%93Peters_projection_SW.jpg/1920px-Gall%E2%80%93Peters_projection_SW.jpg)
So now the size of the continents on the North Pole Azimuthal Equidistant map are so far off, are they?
And, if the earth were a true globe, a South Pole Azimuthal Equidistant map would be recognizable as well, just like the North Pole one is.
Well, have a look:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_south_SW.jpg/1024px-Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_south_SW.jpg)
This is riduclous, and apart from Australia, South America, and to a degree, Africa, the rest is absolutely unrecognizable. But if the earth were a true globe, both of them would be rather recognizable and would be off by about the same degree.
This demonstrates that the Azimuthal Equidistant map from the North Pole is actually an extremely accurate representation of the TRUE layout of the world.
-
What height is the ship, what height is the observer (eye height)? We need a few more parameters.
When we have those, we can calculate it as described here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/593064/how-to-calculate-how-much-of-an-object-is-hidden-due-to-earth-curvature
Earth's radius is 3959mi or 6371km.
Or we use this simpler formula: h = 6,371km * (1 - cos(0.009° * d))
We could solve for d here if h is known (too tired for that right now).
Let's assume the observer is on water level, and the ship is 30m high.
6371 * (1 - cos(0,009 * 19,55)) = 30m
So that gives us roughly d = 19,55km fo ar distance with the assumption of no atmospheric effects going on for the ship to stay visible longer or shorter.
So the curve is steep enough to hide the ship at about 12 miles out in this case?
-
Alright how about a woman that is 6' tall, standing level at 650' above sea level. There is 100% visibility, no clouds, completely blue sky, June 1, above the equator, with a cruise ship that is sailing to Alaska from the port of Los Angeles,
CA up to Juneau, AK
The cruise ship is a maximum of 217' in height, and is travelling at maximum speed of 22 knots.
Anything else you need, you can add in.
Okay just going to add in here that there are no buildings around, and the nearest tree is 15' away and is 150' tall. It is 4PM in the afternoon.
Too tired to think of anything else. Thanks.
LOL
That's too complicated for me!
I just want a simple answer.
Average person on the beach watching average ship go over curve.
How far out?
-
#1, there is no 24-hour sun in Antarctica.
#2, the climate of Antarctica is massively colder than that of its opposite "pole" which it should not be based on the tilt model
#3, that first one is not an accurate picture of FE, which holds that there's a firmament which reflects the sun when it hits its outer limts, which does cause there to be more sun in the Antarctic, but never a 24-hour sun.
There was a timelapse video made pretending to show the 24-hour sun from Antarctica but it was proven to be a hoax due to absolutely identical cloud detail at the beginning and at the end of the video. Why fake it if there's a real 24-hour sun.
Brain is already mush for today, back is bugging me from shoveling, and I could only wish there were more sun around here! I don't trust a whole lot of what NASA says, but it cannot all be garbage. A lot of what was at Kennedy Space Centre made sense, and a lot did not. But there were an awful lot of "burnt" props, if you will, from something very hot, (ie. the sun), so however high the astronauts can go, I really do not know! Sounding like Dr. Seuss here.
There are all sorts of reasons for people to fake a whole lot of things, and money immediately comes to mind. But if you actually visit the Kennedy Space Centre, it seems there is an awful lot of money being spent to simply try and fool everyone.
So while I appreciate your thoughts and help, I personally am going to stick with the globe theory, and again, I have given many reasons why. Not the least of which are the pictures showing Jesus Christ King with a globe, or orb in His hand. If those pictures are wrong, then giving them veneration is blasphemy.
Since I am going to go with the assumption that you would not partake in that, HOW do you explain the pictures of Our Lord with a globe? You can't.
If the earth were flat, He would be shown with a flat map in His hands, right? So either one has to deny the Kingship of Christ (atheist), or accept that those pictures are acceptable for Catholics.
Therefore if anything, I would say the Flat Earth belief is for atheists. It does not speak to my natural instincts for understanding the world.
-
LOL
That's too complicated for me!
I just want a simple answer.
Average person on the beach watching average ship go over curve.
How far out?
Then why did you ask for details? There is no "average" scenario of which you speak. You have to have a point of reference to DO the math and physics involved, which is why I didn't want to get into this stuff.
Everything is relative to something else. An "average" beach in North America is different than an "average" beach in Australia. An "average" curve on a fastball is different than an "average" curve on a golf swing. When I take out my camera, an "average" picture with automatic exposure is different than one with manual exposure.
There really is no such thing as average for your scenario. You need to figure out solid and stable objects to work from and allow for different environmental situations that can alter your math. That is why I gave the height of the tree, the sea level and so on.
-
Then why did you ask for details? There is no "average" scenario of which you speak. You have to have a point of reference to DO the math and physics involved, which is why I didn't want to get into this stuff.
Everything is relative to something else. An "average" beach in North America is different than an "average" beach in Australia. An "average" curve on a fastball is different than an "average" curve on a golf swing. When I take out my camera, an "average" picture with automatic exposure is different than one with manual exposure.
There really is no such thing as average for your scenario. You need to figure out solid and stable objects to work from and allow for different environmental situations that can alter your math. That is why I gave the height of the tree, the sea level and so on.
Oh, and don't forget to factor in what you had for breakfast, of course! LOL
No. That's silly.
We are talking about an object going over the side of a ball so it's hidden from view.
That's all.
It's ubiquitous on beaches around the world.
Person stands on beach and boat disappears over the curve.
Average distance should be very easy to calculate give or take a mile.
That's all I'm asking.
-
What height is the ship, what height is the observer (eye height)? We need a few more parameters.
When we have those, we can calculate it as described here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/593064/how-to-calculate-how-much-of-an-object-is-hidden-due-to-earth-curvature
Earth's radius is 3959mi or 6371km.
Or we use this simpler formula: h = 6,371km * (1 - cos(0.009° * d))
We could solve for d here if h is known (too tired for that right now).
Let's assume the observer is on water level, and the ship is 30m high.
6371 * (1 - cos(0,009 * 19,55)) = 30m
So that gives us roughly d = 19,55km fo ar distance with the assumption of no atmospheric effects going on for the ship to stay visible longer or shorter.
So if I understand this correctly that's about 12miles out.
Is that right?
Do others here who favor the Ball Earth model agree that's a pretty good average?
I've heard some say it would be at about 3 miles out.
I'm really not interested in the gobbley gook.
Just a simple answer.
I'm okay with, "It would probably be "between 3 to 12 miles" according to standard calculations.
What do the Ball Earth model proponents think?
Does this sound about right?
-
Brain is already mush for today, back is bugging me from shoveling, and I could only wish there were more sun around here! I don't trust a whole lot of what NASA says, but it cannot all be garbage.
It doesn't all have to be garbage, but since NASA has been demonstrated to lie, and lie a lot, then nothing can simply be accepted by their authority. We can't simply take their word for it. Really the biggest argument your average person has for globe earth is because "NASA has pictures". Very few can cite any actual scientific evidence. Of the few who can, it's invariably the boats disappearing over the horizon. 99% of the popular perception comes from NASA and just the sheer force of it having been implanted in everyone's minds since earliest youth. Every kindergarten class has a globe in it.
-
It doesn't all have to be garbage, but since NASA has been demonstrated to lie, and lie a lot, then nothing can simply be accepted by their authority. We can't simply take their word for it. Really the biggest argument your average person has for globe earth is because "NASA has pictures". Very few can cite any actual scientific evidence. Of the few who can, it's invariably the boats disappearing over the horizon. 99% of the popular perception comes from NASA and just the sheer force of it having been implanted in everyone's minds since earliest youth. Every kindergarten class has a globe in it.
I noticed that you did not comment on anything about the pictures of Christ the King with a globe that I brought up. Why is that?
-
I noticed that you did not comment on anything about the pictures of Christ the King with a globe that I brought up. Why is that?
This thread addressed your question already.
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/how-do-flat-earth-catholics-explain-these-devotions/msg788032/#msg788032
-
This thread addressed your question already.
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/how-do-flat-earth-catholics-explain-these-devotions/msg788032/#msg788032
Okay, thank-you. I hopped over there, read it, and well, still think the earth is round. It's not a point that really matters, either. ;)
-
I noticed that you did not comment on anything about the pictures of Christ the King with a globe that I brought up. Why is that?
I’ve commented multiple times on such pictures. First of all, they’re art. There are pictures of Jesus in early Christian art showing Him clean-shaven. Art is not Magisterium. Secondly, even though we live in a flat plane, the world is in fact shaped like a globe due to the firmament dome. It’s more like a snow globe. DL showed a picture of an empty / hollow globe on one such artistic rendering. But it’s just art and not evidence either way.
-
I’ve commented multiple times on such pictures. First of all, they’re art. There are pictures of Jesus in early Christian art showing Him clean-shaven. Art is not Magisterium. Secondly, even though we live in a flat plane, the world is in fact shaped like a globe due to the firmament dome. It’s more like a snow globe. DL showed a picture of an empty / hollow globe on one such artistic rendering. But it’s just art and not evidence either way.
This thread: https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/how-do-flat-earth-catholics-explain-these-devotions/msg790316/#msg790316 (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/how-do-flat-earth-catholics-explain-these-devotions/msg790316/#msg790316)
-
Is there an earth curve calculator we can use?
Yes, here's an easy one: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature
(no refraction or other factors are considered)
And here an advanced one: http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator
Most known factors are considered here, especially refraction.
With this we can calculate at which distance the ship whould completely disappear below the horizon.
-
So if I understand this correctly that's about 12miles out.
Is that right?
Do others here who favor the Ball Earth model agree that's a pretty good average?
I've heard some say it would be at about 3 miles out.
I'm really not interested in the gobbley gook.
Just a simple answer.
I'm okay with, "It would probably be "between 3 to 12 miles" according to standard calculations.
What do the Ball Earth model proponents think?
Does this sound about right?
Yes, geometrically the ship should be hidden by the drop of Earths curvature at 12 miles out, with no refraction going on, so this is pretty idealistic.
Consider this to see how these 12 miles could be different on different days:
(https://i.imgur.com/imxWnj5.jpg)
-
I’ve commented multiple times on such pictures. First of all, they’re art. There are pictures of Jesus in early Christian art showing Him clean-shaven. Art is not Magisterium. Secondly, even though we live in a flat plane, the world is in fact shaped like a globe due to the firmament dome. It’s more like a snow globe. DL showed a picture of an empty / hollow globe on one such artistic rendering. But it’s just art and not evidence either way.
That's nice. "...it's just art and not evidence either way." So what you are saying is that we could actually live on a globe?
Oh, but you just finished telling me that I don't care about Catholic dogma on another thread, but now you are trying to tell me we live in a snow globe? LOL. :laugh1:
Pass the Prozac. The earth is not flat, imo. But you don't care anyway what some woman thinks because we are all just "feminists" according to you. Oh I am getting the picture now. You probably have never changed a diaper in your life or bathed a baby, have you? How many other men are like that here? Have kids but don't do a darn thing to help? Don't give two hoots about the feelings of your wife. One man didn't think I am a woman. Pure bonkers! This is the grumpy old men club if you ask me.
If it is "just art and not evidence either way," then such art pictures of Christ the King would be a type of blasphemy and condemned. But they are not, and so therefore I can believe the earth is a globe (which it is), and you can believe the earth is flat (which it isn't).
Not buying it. The earth is a globe, and I don't live in some snow globe (which I happen to collect of the Nativity!)
Go babysit your grandchildren if you have any, and do something fun like coloring.
Anne.
-
I noticed that you did not comment on anything about the pictures of Christ the King with a globe that I brought up. Why is that?
While I think this has already been explained, I'll address it, because it needs to be reiterated. The "globe" of the earth doesn't necessarily mean a ball-shaped earth. It means, to us flat-earthers, that the globe is a system, which includes the flat land of the earth, and also includes the firmament dome above (as is described in Genesis), and Hell below. That's the old Hebrew belief of how the earth is shaped. It's what we believe Scripture describes. So when you see a globe in certain Church paintings, we believe that it means the flat earth system globe. If that makes sense.
-
While I think this has already been explained, I'll address it, because it needs to be reiterated. The "globe" of the earth doesn't necessarily mean a ball-shaped earth. It means, to us flat-earthers, that the globe is a system, which includes the flat land of the earth, and also includes the firmament dome above (as is described in Genesis), and Hell below. That's the old Hebrew belief of how the earth is shaped. It's what we believe Scripture describes. So when you see a globe in certain Church paintings, we believe that it means the flat earth system globe. If that makes sense.
Lad was talking to me. I was dealing with Lad.
-
Lad was talking to me. I was dealing with Lad.
I know that. I gave my opinion anyway. It happens on a forum.
-
Yes, here's an easy one: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature
(no refraction or other factors are considered)
And here an advanced one: http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator
Most known factors are considered here, especially refraction.
With this we can calculate at which distance the ship whould completely disappear below the horizon.
Nifty, thanks! In the first calculater I have a question about the obscured object part. Is that referring to the bottom of the cruise ship, the first point of the ship that is visible to me, or ?
-
Yes, the math works, but the math merely describes things. Math can describe the rate at which something falls, but the actual cause for why it falls has remained elusve. Gravity has never been proven, and there's a wide array of competing theories about what causes the phenomenon. Tesla rightly pointed out that a fantasy world has been built up with one equation layered on top of another.
You just fail to distinguish between the high and low energy physics. There is no need to prove theory of gravity in order to have very accurate formulas applicable here on the Earth. Or Solar System.
We all type our posts on computers which are created by engineers using those rudimentary law of physics you so despise. How ironic.
-
F FE :sleep:
-
Lots of stuff to cover here but I'll do my best.
I'd rather talk about this than the other current events going on right now! :D
And you keep it fun and not contentious, so thank you for that!
So if we spin at 1000mph why don't we feel 1000mph winds?
How do we know planets and the moon have rocks and dust?
Here is a photo of a moon rock:
(https://i.imgur.com/0rrJTat.png)
Moon Rock Is Really Just Petrified Wood
"A prize possession in the Dutch national museum is not what the curators thought. In 1969, three Apollo 11 astronauts visited the Netherlands. And the U.S. ambassador gave the Dutch prime minister what he said was a moon rock. When an expert saw the rock in the museum, he didn't think it was real. Geologists have identified the moon rock as petrified wood."
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112324216#:~:text=the%20curators%20thought.-,In%201969%2C%20three%20Apollo%2011%20astronauts%20visited%20the%20Netherlands.,moon%20rock%20as%20petrified%20wood.
Ooops. They pulled a fast one 'em! LOL
There are a lot of points for sure. I have to drop out of this topic sometimes because it takes a while to go through it all :laugh1:
I'm with you on talking about this over other current events! And you keep it fun as well so I appreciate that in return!
For your first question, regarding 1000mph winds:
I could talk about how everyone says motion is relative or that the upper atmosphere makes it so that you don't have wind. I don't think you would find that helpful, so I will raise a different point :)
Mars has an atmosphere that is somewhat similar to ours. Actually I believe it is thinner, which shouldn't hurt this argument at all. A martian day/night cycle is very similar to Earth's, at 24hr, 37 min. Since it is smaller than Earth, with a slightly longer day, Mars spins at 539.48 MPH, according to this source:
https://www.universetoday.com/14889/mars-rotation/
Now, one might wonder about Mars having constant 539.48 mph winds, right? It doesn't! And you can see this with a backyard telescope. Now, apparently Mars is best observed every 2 ish years due to its orbit (it is closest at this time), so you can't just always look and expect to see it, but it is an observable thing for anyone with a decent scope.
Now, what do I mean about being able to observe the lack of wind?
What I mean is that you can see when there actually is wind, versus when there isn't. Mars is famous for occasionally throwing up some massive duststorms. According to a couple sources (which may track back to NASA, so take with a grain of salt) the winds on Mars were often around 20mph, and sometimes in excess of 70mph.
I am betting that a backyard astronomer could actually measure to confirm the speeds, but I haven't looked into whether it has or hasn't been done as of yet.
My point basically boils down to: if being on a round and spinning planet requires you to experience constant winds traveling at the same speed the planet turns, why would there not ALWAYS be dust storms on Mars?
https://cosmicpursuits.com/2183/how-to-see-mars-in-2020/
This link gives some relevant info on what I am talking about above. There are some cool pictures too! The dust storms are actually insanely massive when they do kick up, and they are well observed as they unfortunately prevent unobstructed viewing of Mars at times.
Oh, and about the atmosphere being thinner... Wouldn't that make the wind more likely to happen?
What I think of is this: if you have a bowl of thin soup, and you rotate it in your hands, the bowl rotates but the soup does not follow it. If you have a thicker soup, it is more likely to rotate with the bowl. Similarly, I would expect that a planet with thinner atmosphere would spin more freely from the atmosphere. Thicker atmosphere would follow better, right?
Another thing is, to my understanding, the winds on earth are far greater at higher elevations. I am sure we could confirm this if you haven't heard of that before. My thoughts are that the air nearest the ground "follows" the earth the best, and that the further out you go, the less inclined the air is to follow. I wonder how fast the winds are moving inside of a hurricane, versus on the ground...
Finally I get to your second point :laugh1:
This will be shorter. We know that there is dust on other planets because it is observable via backyard telescope. Mars, as mentioned above, is a perfect example. Your moon rock is a good one though, gotta love NASA :laugh2:. I had heard of the petrified rock but never seen it before, so thanks for that!
I will quote the other points on a separate post as I find time :)
-
It's no surprise because I don't know if you've looked into it but we never went to the moon. NASA even says we can't send a man to Mars because they can't go past the Van Allen Belt so how did they get to the moon? LOL :P
Here are some of NASA's artists creating planet pictures for us. They hire a lot of artists. All of the "photos" of the earth and the planets are made by artists. There's one thing they are honest about!
https://www.bitchute.com/video/tEC2vxmkNIsb/
Have you seen the video of planets amateurs are getting with their Nikon P1000 cameras? They don't look at all like what NASA said.
Here is one but there are many people doing this and finding amazing things:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZwAv1OMrkAVt/
We can see the moon is round but can we verify it's a ball? Why has nobody seen the back side, especially if it's spinning?
I know NASA likes to lie about a lot of things. I know there is a lot of evidence about the moon landings being faked, as well. Honestly I haven't looked into it much, as FE is more interesting :laugh2:
That being said, with what I currently know about it, I figure you guys are probably right and moon travel is a meme lol
And yes, any "photos" from NASA are suspect as well. I prefer photos from hobby astronomers. Too bad it's so hard to take good photos! I tried to get into that when I was younger, but the camera settings are too complicated :fryingpan:
This might be a crackpot theory, but I have a guess as to what the dark side of the moon looks like, and it isn't the boring take that NASA likes to show.
I personally think that it's likely that the back of the moon is horribly disfigured. Why I say this is that if it was perhaps hit by a large enough object, couldn't it have lost a significant enough chunk to become "heavier" in the front? I could draw a picture if you are curious as to exactly what I mean, but this is just my idea as to why the moon tracks the earth so perfectly with only the front side, and doesn't rotate to show the back.
Let me know what you think of THAT one, because it's something I just thought of but honestly kinda hold to because it seems like it makes sense :jester:
-
Nifty, thanks! In the first calculater I have a question about the obscured object part. Is that referring to the bottom of the cruise ship, the first point of the ship that is visible to me, or ?
Yes, that number means how much the curvature will obstruct of an object from bottom up, viewed from this height over this distance.
-
You just fail to distinguish between the high and low energy physics. There is no need to prove theory of gravity in order to have very accurate formulas applicable here on the Earth. Or Solar System.
That's utrue. It's precisely because their theory of "gravity" doesn't work out in the cosmos that there's the "crisis in cosmology" mentioned by Kaku. That's why they had to invent the notion of "dark matter".
-
I think the terms round earth and globe earth can also describe the flat earth. Flat earth models are round and with the firmament can create a globe. I think Ball Earth is probably a better term for globe.
Gravity works for large and small objects right? So why can't we take a large ball and carve out a lake and a few ponds and fill them with water and spin it around?
Lol. Me neither. :)
So how far out does a boat need to go to go over the curve?
When I think of the word "round" the first thing to pop to mind is a ball/sphere. I like the term "Disk Earth" instead of FE personally. ;)
I think you would have to start with a REALLY large ball for that to work :laugh1:
Gravity as RE defines it is determined by mass. Let's say we are doing our little experiment on earth. If we were able to get a ball that was even 1/10th the mass of the earth (impossible for us of course) and carve out some lakes, what would stop the earth from completely negating any gravitational pull that our ball had for the water? The earth would have 10x the gravitational pull that our ball did.
Now if we were to take our ball and launch it into space (as NASA defines it :cowboy:) and carve out some lakes and add some water.... I would imagine it would probably stick! Although I don't know how well lol. With no atmosphere and a significantly smaller gravitational pull, it would probably not stick as well as it does to Earth. Water likes to stick though! It sticks to itself even, which is how you get surface tension (which causes water to bead up into little balls)
Here's a question for you! Why aren't raindrops flat as they fall through the sky if water is always level? ;)
With the question of how far out it should take a boat to disappear over the water... I don't know! This is something the other RE leaning people seem to know more about. But my question is why do we always ask about distance over water? It always leads to the same arguments of refraction and distortion and waves and whatnot lol. There are some places on earth that are incredibly level! (Notice I don't say flat as we haven't proven that :laugh1:)
Think about the Salar de Uyuni salt flat for instance. According to RE, it should be almost perfectly level compared to the sea, meaning it follows the curve of the earth accurately. On FE, it should be super super flat. Why don't we talk about a place like that, maybe with buildings or something to compare to instead of talking about the sea?
Now, you might not want to show pictures when it's wet, as it acts as a giant mirror and allows for more refraction arguments (lol) but wouldn't this be better than testing over water? I suppose mirages are still a thing so maybe there is some refraction, but surely less than there would be over the ocean?
-
Hmmm...okay, is there any proof for this?
See to me, the "Wheel In The Sky" over flat earth explains this motion of the stars in the Heavens much better than this:
2:08
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiZxEno-cP0&t=56s
So not only is the earth spinning at 1000 mph but it's also:
"moving about our sun in a very nearly circular orbit. covers this route at a speed of nearly 30 kilometers per second, or 67,000 miles per hour. In addition, our solar system--Earth and all--whirls around the center of our galaxy at some 220 kilometers per second, or 490,000 miles per hour."
Zooming through the universe like a comet, always progressing forward (which is a Kabbalah belief--the solar system is a Kabbalah system), forward, but our zodiacs remain in the same rotation visible from earth for thousands of years?
Are the zodiacs zooming through space like comets too? Always forward in the same exact trajectory as earth?
btw: Know what else is based on Kabbalah? Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ :O
I've never heard of flying parallel to the center of the earth.
I was a flight attendant and I asked pilots if the plane makes adjustments nose downward as we go over the curve and they told me no.
You would feel it if the plane was tilting nose downward. It would feel strange while you try to eat or watch a movie. You can feel when a plane leans back during takeoff and you could also feel when a plane heads nose down but they never do the entire flight (unless something goes wrong!) . They lean back but never forward. Even while landing it's leaning back not forward.
Planes fly straight across over the plane of the earth. They "level out" at cruising altitude and fly a comfortable level path. When you go to the bathroom you don't walk downward or back upward during the flight. You don't lean forward in your seat during flight. The plane is nice and flat---level. The captain announces we are "leveling out".
And the nose down wouldn't be a subtle adjustment either. Ships don't have to travel very far to "go over the curve" so the plane would be adjusting down the entire trip. If you didn't, it would miss the curve and fly straight out into space wouldn't it?
As far as having proof for my level explanation, it wasn't meant to be an experiment or anything. It was simply an explanation for how gravity is supposed to work on the RE model. If you wanted to prove it, you would have to prove RE, and then you should be able to reasonably conclude that the level idea would work as described.
Now on FE, all the levels should be at the same exact angle no matter where you were located :cowboy:
Hah, that video is pretty hard to believe! Actually I haven't seen that theory before and find it bizarre myself. The older heliocentric model makes more sense than that does imo :laugh1:
You know how galaxies look right? All swirly around a central point? One theory I have heard of is that everything moves around that central point (imagine all the planets swirling around the drain of a flushing toilet :laugh2:) and that the sun and stars move too, also following that point. Maybe that's correct, maybe not, but I find it way more compelling than the video linked above.
What would cause the sun to move in a straight line forever like that??? It reminds me of the UK/Flat Earth Society model for FE, where the Earth is supposedly constantly accelerating upwards (which is how gravity is explained in that model). Totally bananas lol.
As far as not having to level out the plane, perhaps it is due to the air being thinner the further out from Earth (higher up) you go. You have to apply additional thrust in order to travel higher due to the air being thinner. If you were to try to move in a perfectly straight line above the earth (not following the curvature) you would be gaining altitude and thus be hitting thinner air. If you didn't apply additional thrust to maintain (or realistically, obtain) that higher altitude, I think you would stay at the original altitude. Wouldn't that make sense for why they don't have to correct to avoid space? Anyways, I don't think a plane has the power to ever get to space even if they tried ;)
-
Also, how fast does the plane need to go to catch up with the 1000mph spin?
In the other direction can it just hover and let the earth spin below until it gets to it's destination?
I can only make sense of this using the flat earth model. The same one all the ancient civilizations used. Have you seen those pictures Digital Logos posted?
Douay-Rheims Bible Gen 1:6
And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters.
I can't see how the firmament would work with the solar system shooting like a comet through an ever expanding space like the video I posted above. ??
So they want to make Christians look crazy because modern science trumps the Bible and Christians need to get with the times?
Haven't we heard that one before?
I mentioned this somewhere but when I asked one of the pilots why I couldn't see the curve from the cockpit view over the ocean and why we were flying over the arctic and other questions he told me I'd have to be a Freemason to know about that. Hmm???
I know they don't like their special "knowledge" getting out to the "profane" (loosers like us). :P
As far as catching up to the 1000mph spin, I am not 100% sure how it works. I believe the answer is probably somehow related to relative motion. To me though, I find it plausible that there is a real explanation. I bring back my point about Mars's dust storms. If the plane has to speed up an extra 1000mph to keep up with the spin, why isn't Mars always covered in complete clouds of dust? Remember, we can observe the rate at which it spins, which is over 500mph.
Yes, I am familiar with the FE firmament models :)
They are definitely interesting, though to me it feels a little claustrophobic. I guess it seems like the night sky goes on forever! Picture this as a model for the firmament: imagine God creates the waters. Then, He makes a huuuuge border that divides the waters from the waters. He gathers the waters inside of this huge expanse together, and creates the Earth from those. But the Earth is really tiny compared to the border. Also within the border is everything else God created (the lights, the stars, the other planets and everything else). Outside the border is the other part of the waters, and also heaven! Does that make more sense as an idea now?
Alternatively, if you WANT to think of space as an ever growing expanse, if some translations of the original word for firmament also mean expanse, this seems possible. Maybe it would be something like this.... The Earth is at the center, along with all the planets and lights around it. The firmament that keeps us from just physically traveling to heaven is actually just the ever expanding length of space. Personally I like the big border idea better myself but how can we ever know? I think it would be impossible to find the firmament, and that it's an unexplained mystery how it works.
Operation fishbowl is definitely a curious name, and makes you wonder, but I don't trust it as proof of the FE fishbowl firmament. I think government sources are suspect even when they seem to not want us to believe something... I definitely don't take that as a sign that it's true lol. A lot of the times it seems they want to intentionally divide people in new and surprising ways.
For instance, if they do 9 bad things that they want to cover up, and one truthful thing... If they make sure that the general public knows that the last thing is truthful beyond reasonable doubt, and you deny that one truthful thing nobody will trust you when you bring up the 9 things they did wrong. I think they try to trick us to make us doubt the truth as well as their lies... It is guilt by association basically.
Obviously we know the Catholic Faith is the truth. Everything else we have to discern. Anyone denying the Faith is wrong, but they can be right on unrelated matters. The Dimonds are wrong on a couple of big things, and right on most everything else, right? Just because they are wrong on some things doesn't mean we have to deny everything they say. Alternatively, I am sure you and I agree on a lot of things, but that doesn't mean we have to agree on everything :laugh1:
That being said, a lot of people are tempted to avoid anyone that isn't following mainstream opinion. They use our mistakes to reaffirm their confirmation in their own mistakes! That's why I worry about getting caught up in FE if it truly is false! What if it prevents someone from listening to me on something more important that I know is true, like the Catholic Faith?
Alternatively, if you are right and FE is the truth and you convince others that it is, they are more likely to listen to you about the Catholic truth. You definitely have to go with what you think has the best evidence here! I could be wrong, and I admit that.
Lol, I think that pilot may have been pulling your leg. Definitely a weird joke. He may have been a freemason himself, or maybe not. Hard to know. But do you think that a freemason high enough on the chain to know the truth about FE would be working as a pilot? I think he would be living the easy life. :laugh1:
-
All I know is that God made the earth and it is being destroyed by those who seek knowledge like Eve and Adam did.
-
That's utrue. It's precisely because their theory of "gravity" doesn't work out in the cosmos that there's the "crisis in cosmology" mentioned by Kaku. That's why they had to invent the notion of "dark matter".
Yup.
The classic, relatively innocent cosmology embraced by Baby Boomers both Catholic and non-Catholic in the 60's has grown up into a monster.
We're not merely talking about a globe earth spinning and rotating around the sun. That's bad enough, yes, but that was relatively tame.
That video above -- which expresses OFFICIAL TEACHING on the motion of the earth, sun, galaxy, etc. through the universe -- shows what you ALSO have to believe if you buy in to their "system". You can't just say, "Nah, give me the classic 60's version I grew up with." you can't be "Traditionalist" that way. It's a PACKAGE DEAL. These other things were added over the decades to keep the whole system viable.
Which leads to the next point -- Dark Matter.
Part of their crazy system -- which includes the Big Bang and order coming from chaos on its own -- basically enough monkeys typing for enough years will produce the complete works of Shakespeare -- is this Dark Matter, without which their whole System collapses.
That is why I am willing to reject their whole system, rather than follow them off a cliff. Especially when the classic idea of a disc-shape earth with a firmament, etc. is much more compatible with Creationism. And there is *so* much evidence for a flat earth, and virtually zero evidence for a globe-shaped earth.
-
The idea of there being such thing as "dark matter" versus, what? "light matter"?, reeks of the dualism of the occult roots of this cosmology