Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: Dankward on February 13, 2022, 11:09:35 AM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexZbunD7Jg
-
(https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.aa97668940a85e16792e5b4483084476?rik=GStNW0Y0dVT2sQ&riu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.quickmeme.com%2fimg%2f01%2f014944bf103c6ef4095941dcbc331c08976e64d9372adb492e6eca04d10253b1.jpg&ehk=epCfLKQtF5mERJImDJRdu46t1na8IXxryL4xJZKre10%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0)
-
Another one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YzeGRFDIms
:popcorn:
-
Can you just admit that you’re simply unwilling to look at all the evidence objectively? You just cherry-pick the things that you think favor your position without entertaining alternative explanations. True objectivity requires a scholastic type of examination of all sides of an issue ... which you’ll never do.
-
I could do the same thing for Flat Earth, including declaration of "victory" with a touchdown dance and everything.
And I would be more justified in doing so.
-
There is no solid evidence for a flat earth.
Except for observations like "this lake looks flat to me", but:
"Where the senses fail us, reason must step in."
It's literally a bunch of bloggers, youtube armchair experts and conspiracy theorists vs. the rest of the (educated) world.
You can't refute the overwhelming evidence at all. This is not about "declaring victory" or anything, but about simply debunking an archaic and unscientific worldview, or should we say, conspiracy theory.
-
Anyone who has done a cursory search about FE will be laughing at the stupidity of the OP.
-
Anyone who has done a cursory search about FE will be laughing at the stupidity of the OP.
It was too late to modify or withdraw my post. I was going by the information showing the sun's path on the FE model which was once easily available. I wondered why the OP wasn't balanced. Had he not see the FE videos and diagrams?
No he had not because they are being systematically disappeared.
I now realize that a diagram like this one
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=43439.0
is difficult to find.
Page after page after page of searches for "sun's path on flat earth model" shows only attack after attack on FE theory and support for the Kabbalsitc, Freemasonic GE theory.
Hmmm. Might this be an indication that the fake staged "alien" (demomic) invasion is coming soon. Those of us who believe God's word will not be easily manipulated as the rest of the population when our "space brothers" arrive and tell us that they, and not God, created life on earth.
-
If it is an existential question, the flat Earth comes out funny, since space is 3-D, which is also spherical. The informative video mentioned "spherical radiation", as in "spherically radiating sunlight", which is true, there is that, and that's something something, and this type of radiation says a lot about the nature of space, even as pure or absolute space.
If in principle all numbers themselves are as three dimensional as pure space, then the Earth would be odd or unnatural to be flat, since it is a number too. Numbers are three dimensional in all space, and in abstraction too, in the sense that there is always more or less in the relation ... the relation of position ... or any opposition.
Since position is relative to six cosmic directions in one, for seven in the middle, the relation of more or less in all things is complete in 3-D; and the best relation of pure space to the infinite is in 3-D also. So if the Earth is flat, it is a strange tension for it to have in the great circles of 3-D space, where so many other things are round and full.
-
There is no solid evidence for a flat earth.
Except for observations like "this lake looks flat to me", but:
"Where the senses fail us, reason must step in."
It's literally a bunch of bloggers, youtube armchair experts and conspiracy theorists vs. the rest of the (educated) world.
More lies and dishonesty. You deliberately present it backwards. FEs don’t say “it looks flat to me”. They do experiments, collect the data, do the math, etc. You (and many brainwashed globetards) show one picture with no data that appears to show something cut off on the bottom and declare victory ... without ever so much as considering other possible explanations for it.
As for the “rest of the educated world”, don’t make me laugh. FEs have done man-on-the-street interviews asking people how they would prove that the earth is a globe without using NASA. Vast majority were stumped, and a couple used the lame boat disappearing over the horizon nonsense.
When I get home, I will post an interview conducted stealthily be an FE of a world-renowned physicist that makes her look like an absolute illiterate idiot.
I’ve known my share of Ph.D.s and the majority are dumber than a box of rocks.
-
Flat Earthism is based on two assertions that are physically impossible: 1) that the sun moves parallel to the ground in a straight line, and 2) that the sun moves in a path that is circular and parallel to the surface of the earth. There is no exemplar of either of these two types of movement anywhere in the universe; therefore they are both impossible.
-
Nah, neither of those explain FE. You’re attacking ghost facts. The sun can move up and down, and side to side. In the northern hemisphere winter, the sun is simply “down south”, that’s why it appears lower in the sky (because it’s farther away).
-
Flat Earthism is based on two assertions that are physically impossible: 1) that the sun moves parallel to the ground in a straight line, and 2) that the sun moves in a path that is circular and parallel to the surface of the earth. There is no exemplar of either of these two types of movement anywhere in the universe; therefore they are both impossible.
What universe?
-
In case anyone hasn't heard, Columbus( who btw was Catholic) & Isabella determined 500 yrs ago that E is Globe( sphere) They are both of mucho higher authority than anyone in this forum... :fryingpan:
-
What universe?
I don't understand your question. :confused:
-
Nah, neither of those explain FE. You’re attacking ghost facts. The sun can move up and down, and side to side. In the northern hemisphere winter, the sun is simply “down south”, that’s why it appears lower in the sky (because it’s farther away).
The question is one of how objects move through the air. When you throw an object, it travels in a straight line, not a circle. Or you can have a helium balloon that floats in the air and gets blown around by the wind. Or you can look out into outer space and see various heavenly bodies rotating (orbiting) around other heavenly bodies, such as how we see the moons of Jupiter rotate around Jupiter. Those are all examples of different types of movement in different circuмstances.
But there is no example of the type of movement that flat earthers claim the earth makes. First of all, they said it floats over the earth parallel to the surface of the earth. There is no known object that does this. Then, flatters say the sun naturally moves in a circle. Again, there is no object that naturally moves in a circle in the air, with the exception of heavenly bodies in orbit, which globe earthers claim is the sort of movement that the earth makes around the sun (or vice versa, as you wish), but which flatters strongly reject. But they can give no example of any other object that moves in a circle the way they claim the earth moves.
If there is nothing that moves in such a manner, then such types of motion must be impossible.
-
But there is no example of the type of movement that flat earthers claim the earth makes. First of all, they said it floats over the earth parallel to the surface of the earth. There is no known object that does this. Then, flatters say the sun naturally moves in a circle. Again, there is no object that naturally moves in a circle in the air, with the exception of heavenly bodies in orbit, which globe earthers claim is the sort of movement that the earth makes around the sun (or vice versa, as you wish), but which flatters strongly reject. But they can give no example of any other object that moves in a circle the way they claim the earth moves.
If there is nothing that moves in such a manner, then such types of motion must be impossible.
Your logic is flawed. Does the moon/sun move similar to stars? No, you are correct. Do they move similar to an orbit around a planet (i.e. jupiter)? No, you are correct. But the sun/moon are UNIQUE heavenly bodies, created for the earth alone, thus they have UNIQUE heavenly movements. Just as a dog moves differently than a bird or a snake, doesn't mean a dog can't exist. The moon/sun move differently than the stars and other heavenly bodies because of their unique purpose as lights/warmth.
-
Yes, but you cannot posit a unique law of physics that only applies to the sun and moon. You are positing that they move in a manner that is impossible. The laws of physics apply to all material things.
-
Why is it impossible? You’re basing your physics on lies from the govt. The true physics, like true sizes of the moon/sun, have been covered up. One explanation for how the moon/sun move is a) they are smaller than we’ve been told and b) they aren’t solid globes but are a kind of plasma. This would mean their movements wouldn’t be like any other planetary object.
-
But they can give no example of any other object that moves in a circle the way they claim the earth moves.
If there is nothing that moves in such a manner, then such types of motion must be impossible.
That is not logical at all.
There is no other place like Earth. Earth is NOT just a rock in the far hinterlands of space, "nowhere special" as the atheist astronomers teach.
You accept as a given the "fact" that Earth is just a peer of trillions of other so-called "planets". I will not grant you that. I don't hold that to be true at all.
Earth is where God created the ONLY life in the universe, including mankind, the only RATIONAL life, and where God the Son took flesh and died on Calvary. The sun and moon are for the benefit of that creation, not for the other "planets".
You have to unlearn what you think you have learned. satan was let loose long before we were born.
Man has as many QUESTIONS as ANSWERS about something so simple as a cell. If we understood a cell -- life -- we'd be able to duplicate the feat. We can't. We are still in awe of the little universe that is a single cell. There is much about God's creation that we don't understand, which we can only pass over in reverent silence, and/or give glory to God for.
-
Here's the video of an FE who interviewed a renowed astrophysicist ... and she does not perform well.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ndw0b6G7wWRe/
I'm not sure how I feel about interviews like this, obtained under false pretenses and intended to humiliate the person, but it does show how very little thought any of the "experts" have ever given to the issues raised by FE.
-
Flat Earthism is based on two assertions that are physically impossible: 1) that the sun moves parallel to the ground in a straight line, and 2) that the sun moves in a path that is circular and parallel to the surface of the earth. There is no exemplar of either of these two types of movement anywhere in the universe; therefore they are both impossible.
As others have pointed out, this begs the question regarding what scientists claim about the rest of the universe. Most of us think that the entire construct is a lie, that there are these solar systems with the sun in the center and planets revolving around them, etc.
-
Here's the video of an FE who interviewed a renowed astrophysicist ... and she does not perform well.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ndw0b6G7wWRe/
I'm not sure how I feel about interviews like this, obtained under false pretenses and intended to humiliate the person, but it does show how very little thought any of the "experts" have ever given to the issues raised by FE.
This FE does make some very interesting points. So he addresses the claim (about the 13:00 minute mark) that the reason we don't feel the rotation of the earth is because it has a constant velocity, but then he points out that we're allegedly revolving around the sun at the same time, and, therefore, as a result we should be experiencing regular changes in velocity, depending upon whether we're rotating AWAY from that orbit at 1000MPH or rotating TOWARD it.
-
I'm not sure how I feel about interviews like this, obtained under false pretenses and intended to humiliate the person, but it does show how very little thought any of the "experts" have ever given to the issues raised by FE.
If it wakes people up, great. I don't have a problem with what Project Veritas does, for example. How else do you infiltrate and expose? You can't walk up to them and say, "I'm a pro-lifer. You know, your enemy. Please give me a tour of your abortion facility."
-
If it wakes people up, great. I don't have a problem with what Project Veritas does, for example. How else do you infiltrate and expose? You can't walk up to them and say, "I'm a pro-lifer. You know, your enemy. Please give me a tour of your abortion facility."
Oh, Project Veritas is absolutely justified in doing what it does. In this case, though, I don't think this woman is evil, just a dummy, and I kind of feel for her being embarrased like that.
-
I’ve known my share of Ph.D.s and the majority are dumber than a box of rocks.
The appeals to PhD's is an appeal to someone with specialized knowledge. But, when the specialized knowledge is on a subject that is already boxed in by the "laws" of a presupposed version of the cosmos, one has to really question whether such an "expert" is a good source of information. At that point, their opinions really have no more weight than us "youtube armchair experts and conspiracy theorists".
You have to first accept a specific cosmology before you can start making truth-claims. And the cosmology accepted by modern science contradicts that of the Biblical worldview (the true cosmology).
-
the Biblical worldview (the true cosmology).
The one, where sun and moon rise and set, and not the Eric Dubay one, where sun and moon circle above the earth, and rising and setting are deceiving appearences.
-
The one, where sun and moon rise and set, and not the Eric Dubay one, where sun and moon circle above the earth, and rising and setting are deceiving appearences.
Why do you fixate on Eric "the Eastern idolater" Dubay? I can't even recall the last person to cite him for anything FE-related on here.
-
The appeals to PhD's is an appeal to someone with specialized knowledge. But, when the specialized knowledge is on a subject that is already boxed in by the "laws" of a presupposed version of the cosmos, one has to really question whether such an "expert" is a good source of information. At that point, their opinions really have no more weight than us "youtube armchair experts and conspiracy theorists".
You have to first accept a specific cosmology before you can start making truth-claims. And the cosmology accepted by modern science contradicts that of the Biblical worldview (the true cosmology).
My statement is even broader than that. Having a Ph.D. means nothing but that you put in the time. I've known many of them who couldn't string together a coherent sentence or even a coherent thought. They invest the time and the money and eventually get their degree.
-
Why do you fixate on Eric "the Eastern idolater" Dubay? I can't even recall the last person to cite him for anything FE-related on here.
That's been his dishonest argument from the outset, attempting to cast FE as the invention of Eric Dubay. I have on my computer hard drive a collection of PDF copies of FORTY-FIVE books written on the subject between 1865 - 1961.
-
That's been his dishonest argument from the outset, attempting to cast FE as the invention of Eric Dubay. I have on my computer hard drive a collection of PDF copies of FORTY-FIVE books written on the subject between 1865 - 1961.
Sun and moon circling at a constant height above flat earth is a concept that hasn't been published before Dubay started the recent hype around 2014/2015. Given your vast literature, you could simply refute this, if you weren't dishonest yourself.
P.S.: And what about your implicit claim that all the world, including Moses, Solomon, and the Lord, use deceptive language, describing appearences and not reality? No answer?
-
Sun and moon circling at a constant height above flat earth is a concept that hasn't been published before Dubay started the recent hype around 2014/2015. Given your vast literature, you could simply refute this, if you weren't dishonest yourself.
P.S.: And what about your implicit claim that all the world, including Moses, Solomon, and the Lord, use deceptive language, describing appearences and not reality? No answer?
You're a dishonest fool who simply makes things up without proof and then demands that others disprove your nonsense.
1902 "The Earth" (volumes III-IV), a journal published in 1902 by John Williams (editor).
(https://i.ibb.co/JjMSbpx/fe1.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/Vp0sN4x/fe2.png)
And this is just the third one I randomly opened to look for this.
And we admit that the exact path of the sun and moon are speculation. Perhaps they do exit and enter these "gates" as the Book of Enoch seems to describe. We don't know for sure. We're taking guesses based upon the other phenomena we can observe. That is precisely known as the scientific method, where you form theories and hypotheses and then see whether observations back them up or falsify them.
DuBay actually got his ideas from a lot of these same books. He has this video "200 Proofs ...". There's a book out there from the 1800s called "100 Proofs", and Dubay took that book and then added stuff in there from other books. When DuBay was talking about how he became a Flat Earthers, he spoke about having come across these very books (most of which I have in my collection as well).
-
That's been his dishonest argument from the outset, attempting to cast FE as the invention of Eric Dubay. I have on my computer hard drive a collection of PDF copies of FORTY-FIVE books written on the subject between 1865 - 1961.
Reminds me of the Conciliar heretics casting Traditional Catholics as "Lefebvrites" -- as if we are in a cult, heretics, following a mere man. It's not about the Faith, the truth, or Tradition handed down by the Apostles -- it's all about "Lefebvre". A diabolical inversion of the truth, which is to be expected I suppose.
It's the oldest trick in the book. A dirty trick, but unfortunately a very effective one, at least with the normies and sheeple.
-
Reminds me of the Conciliar heretics casting Traditional Catholics as "Lefebvrites" -- as if we are in a cult, heretics, following a mere man. It's not about the Faith, the truth, or Tradition handed down by the Apostles -- it's all about "Lefebvre". A diabolical inversion of the truth, which is to be expected I suppose.
It's the oldest trick in the book. A dirty trick, but unfortunately a very effective one, at least with the normies and sheeple.
There was the original Flat Earth Society from the mid 1950s ... that most FEs believe was taken over by disinfo agents after the death of its original founder, but Marion insists this was all invented by DuBay in 2015 because Sungenis embarrassed a Jєω in his movie. Pay no attention to the fact that he has zero evidence for this and just pulls it out of his rear end.
At the end of the day, there's much theory there with FE due to the gaps of our scientific knowledge. We don't have the billions per year at our disposal that NASA does in order to conduct experiments. Some of the theory might be right; some of it might be wrong.
But I simply cannot buy that this magical refraction is responsible for all the "see too far" phenomena. I laid out both sides of the issue, and the odds are so small that this refraction can consistently and repeatably make light bend perfectly around the curve, are almost zero. And the odds that as we're hurtling through space at millions of miles per hour, not just the planet, but the entire solar system, and then the galaxy, and that the angle of our north pole towarad Polaris hasn't budged, and that the moon rotates at the same rate as it revolves around the earth ... to the second, those odds are so preposterously small that it would be like my claiming that complex organisms just evolved randomly out of nothing.
I would be more inclined to believe some evidence that "gravity" causes light to bend around the curve. At least that would result in a repeatable and consistent result. But nobody argues that because they realize that gravity does not have that effect on light.
-
If I had even a million dollars at my disposal for scientfic reasearch (I think NASA's number if $60 million a day), then would simply organize a flight to circuмnavigate Antarctica. We have planes that can easily make it around the entire alleged perimeter of Antarctica without refueling. I'd place observers at what would be the halfway mark, and various Flat Earthers can be on the plane filming and taking their readings and measurements. If the plane made it around the other side in about 20 hours (about what it would take), then the FE map is just plain (plane) flat-out wrong :laugh1:
Heck, if I were a glober and just wanted to shut up the FEs, it would do the same thing. That would quickly put an end to the whole thing.
-
As I posted on the other thread...I find it fascinating to see many sedes against FE, because it hasn't been "fully explained" or some details are unclear, yet...how many theories of sedevacantism are there (100s)? Not all the sede details are worked out (not even close). But still, millions of people believe sedeism and it’s plausible even if not fully explained (yet).
-
If I had even a million dollars at my disposal for scientfic reasearch (I think NASA's number if $60 million a day), then would simply organize a flight to circuмnavigate Antarctica. We have planes that can easily make it around the entire alleged perimeter of Antarctica without refueling. I'd place observers at what would be the halfway mark, and various Flat Earthers can be on the plane filming and taking their readings and measurements. If the plane made it around the other side in about 20 hours (about what it would take), then the FE map is just plain (plane) flat-out wrong :laugh1:
Heck, if I were a glober and just wanted to shut up the FEs, it would do the same thing. That would quickly put an end to the whole thing.
Big budget is completely unnecessary. You needn't search very long to find people who have spent seasons in Antarctica and in the Arctic circle.
(I know one who did a 9-month stint at South Pole Station, and several techs from the now decommissioned White Alice network).
They will tell you about the midnight summer sun WHICH OCCURS AT BOTH POLES BUT AT DIFFERENT TIMES, half year apart during respective seasons for northern and southern hemispheres, and also about the sunless winter days. Now, try to fit that into the ludicrous FE "terrarium" models those pathetic frauds keep ginning up.
-
Oh, and I suppose it's necessary to point out the obvious, that the midnight sun observed at both poles during opposite halves of the year, is very low to the horizon and circles the observer through each day.
Shouldn't have to point that out, but it proves the "spirograph sun" of these fraudsters is quite an impossibility.
-
But I simply cannot buy that this magical refraction is responsible for all the "see too far" phenomena. I laid out both sides of the issue, and the odds are so small that this refraction can consistently and repeatably make light bend perfectly around the curve, are almost zero.
...
I would be more inclined to believe some evidence that "gravity" causes light to bend around the curve. At least that would result in a repeatable and consistent result. But nobody argues that because they realize that gravity does not have that effect on light.
Actually, it's diffraction, and it is caused by the graded density of air, being moreso at the surface and becoming rarefied as you go up. It is consistent, measurable, and forms a huge lens which curves light rays, because light moves slower in the more dense part of the medium. Like glass is more dense than air....
In fact, the old experiment which "proved" gravity can bend light (eclipsed sun shifting the apparent position of stars within a fraction of a degree) can just as likely be due to the same effect. Nearby to any large star is a more dense cloud of molecular stuff being attracted by its gravity, and forming a similar "faint" lens, albeit a super huge one.
-
1902 "The Earth" (volumes III-IV), a journal published in 1902 by John Williams (editor).
(https://i.ibb.co/JjMSbpx/fe1.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/Vp0sN4x/fe2.png)
And this is just the third one I randomly opened to look for this.
Since I couldn't really figure out what that text is supposed to mean, I looked it up. The monthly Journal "The Earth" was edited, printed, and published in 73 West Street, Brighton, England by Lady Elizabeth Anne Mould Blount ("A pancake world, rolled flat by Lady Blount"). Lady Blount F.R.S.L., F.S.A. also was President of the Universal Zetetic Society, and President of the Society for the Protection of the Dark Races.
The text quoted by Ladislaus is from a letter to the editor, written by W. Ernest Cooke, an Australian astronomer, who was not amused. A reader had given a pamphlet of Lady Blunt titled "The Midnight Sun" to Cooke, and had forwarded Cooke's refutation to Blunt, who printed it.
Dear Sir,
I know there are still a few persons who profess to believe that the Earth is a plane and stationary, whilst the sun revolves round it, but I did not know that any of them had printed such utter rubbish as in the pamphlet you so kindly sent me. This is the first of their publications I have seen and I am much obliged to you for it. I suppose some of them have written something a trifle more plausible than The Midnight Sun, and it would interest me to see a really plausible explanation of their theory. As to The Midnight Sun, the author has not the slightest idea of modern theories, etc., e g.: in his diagram on page 7. As a fact the sun at its farthest north declination, passes overhead at the tropic of Cancer, and according to accepted theory “overhead” means a contination of a line joining the observing station with the Earth’s centre. The position of the sun therefore should be on a prolongation of E F and at an enormous distance away. Placed thus, what becomes of the difficulty of seeing it from M, in a direction somewhat resembling M Q ?
(http://Zetetics-1.png)
As to the theory of the sun’s rays just reaching through our atmosphere to a certain distance, it is too funny for words. An action of this kind must be gradual and must vary with the constitution of our atmosphere, if we are to accept any verified facts of optics whatever. In this case the length of each day will be determined by the state of the atmosphere! Besides apply the simplest mathematics to the case. On page 9 : suppose the sun is running round the inner circle O R Q. See how his motion would appear to an observer at G. With centre G and radius G N draw a circle cutting O R Q in X and Y. Then when the sun reaches X it would be just rising to the observer at G, when at R it would be noon, and sunset at Y. But in one hour’s motion from X its apparent angular movement at G would be almost nil and this would gradually increase until it would reach a maximum at noon and then decrease. Now nothing is so certain as that the sun moves through equal angles in equal times, so this consideration alone would absolutely demolish the theory.
(http://Zetetics-2.png)
I need not go on, but what about the stars? I honestly believe that many who profess to believe (!) in this nonsense do not even know that every star in the sky describes a circle round the celestial pole every 24h. Ask some of them for fun, if you come across any.
The fact is that the writer of the book on Norway could easily have worked out all his statements of facts in his study, and if he used the ordinary theories they would be as correct as if he observed them, and probably more so, because the small error of observation would be eliminated, e.g., the 4th par. on page 3, “the nearer any point,” etc., evidently has been written in this manner, for the observer has not certainly visited the Pole or has remained remarkably reticent about it.
One more word. I believe the confusion of the term “level” with “straight” or “plane” has given rise to no end of error. The sea is, on the whole, level but certainly not plane. The level of anything is measured by an instrument which depends upon the action of gravity and when we state that two points are on the same level we mean that they are subjected to the same gravitational pull, or in other words are equi-distant from the Earth’s centre. This, however, would be above the level of these paradoxers.
Yours faithfully,
W. ERNEST COOKE.
archive.org (https://archive.org/details/TheEarthJournalFlatEarthZeteticsBlount1895ALL/Earth%2C%20The%20%28Vol%20III%2C%20Nos.%2027-28%29/)
Unfortunately I couldn't find a copy of the pamphlet of Lady Blunt, so her model of the trajectory of the sun remains somewhat in the dark. Cooke discusses a section of a circle above the tropic of Cancer, which would be a section of that trajectory. Vertical movements are not mentioned.
Ladislaus, I really wasn't aware of this letter of Cooke's and of the pamphlet of Lady Blount. Maybe you can find "The Midnight Sun" in your Literature?!
And we admit that the exact path of the sun and moon are speculation.
But constant height. That was given e.g. in the video you posted and highly recommended about that "Perspective Matrix". The horizontal path, then, should follow the places within the tropics where the sun is seen at the zenith at noon. How can this be open to speculation?
-
Big budget is completely unnecessary. You needn't search very long to find people who have spent seasons in Antarctica and in the Arctic circle.
(I know one who did a 9-month stint at South Pole Station, and several techs from the now decommissioned White Alice network).
They will tell you about the midnight summer sun WHICH OCCURS AT BOTH POLES BUT AT DIFFERENT TIMES, half year apart during respective seasons for northern and southern hemispheres, and also about the sunless winter days. Now, try to fit that into the ludicrous FE "terrarium" models those pathetic frauds keep ginning up.
Nonsense. Two known videos of the Antarctic midnight sun are proven frauds. Why the fraud if such a thing exists?
There's so much fraud and lying on the part of the globeheads that something along these lines would in fact be necessary. If NASA and the government had proven themselves reliable and not pathological liars, then it's posible that no such experiment would be necessary. They have made it necessary.
-
Actually, it's diffraction, and it is caused by the graded density of air,
:laugh1: ... ridiculous. Dr. John D (a specialist in spectrometry) explains why its nonsense and conducted a two-way laser experiment which ruled out any diffraction. We had a very lengthy and thorough discussion of the subject and you think you can come here and pontificate it away with the wave or your hand and a gratuitous statement.
-
Since I couldn't really figure out what that text is supposed to mean, I looked it up.
I see that you spent a lot of time trying to distract from the fact that you're a liar who pulls stuff out of his rear end when it suits your fancy.
First you claim that Dubay is a disinfo agent in response without a shred of proof and then later asserted that Dubay invented the flat earth model which has the sun and moon rotating above the earth ... again without a shred of proof and from a position of total ignorance. But these things sound good to you, so you go with it.
Do you have some unnatural fascination with Dubay that you are so fixated on him?
Besides that, it's total nonsense that FE was invented in 2015, so get lost with your stupidity.
-
But I simply cannot buy that this magical refraction is responsible for all the "see too far" phenomena. I laid out both sides of the issue, and the odds are so small that this refraction can consistently and repeatably make light bend perfectly around the curve, are almost zero. And the odds that as we're hurtling through space at millions of miles per hour, not just the planet, but the entire solar system, and then the galaxy, and that the angle of our north pole towarad Polaris hasn't budged, and that the moon rotates at the same rate as it revolves around the earth ... to the second, those odds are so preposterously small that it would be like my claiming that complex organisms just evolved randomly out of nothing.
I would be more inclined to believe some evidence that "gravity" causes light to bend around the curve. At least that would result in a repeatable and consistent result. But nobody argues that because they realize that gravity does not have that effect on light.
Then please look up terrestrial refraction, how it works, how to calculate it, and then make an informed decision if it can be used as an explanation for bent lines of sight.
Here is a good calculator, as an example I chose the 273 miles world record line of sight distance and it's parameters, which gives you a k value for refraction, which you can put into the terrestrial refraction formulas that I posted earlier and that you can look up everywhere.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator&state=--22743.2-9439350.91-9-31760.6569-40.41974412-10.034081287-9-9-2#App
Because the other explanation of so called atmospheric lensing is a baseless, unscientific claim with no evidence for it's existence. Even if it did exist, it's behavior would be highly inconsistent and definitely looks much more like a human ad-hoc explanation.
That is looking at the issue from both sides then I guess?
-
Nonsense. Two known videos of the Antarctic midnight sun are proven frauds. Why the fraud if such a thing exists?
There's so much fraud and lying on the part of the globeheads that something along these lines would in fact be necessary. If NASA and the government had proven themselves reliable and not pathological liars, then it's posible that no such experiment would be necessary. They have made it necessary.
:facepalm:
As already noted, my source is an eyewitness former colleague who spent 9 months at Amundsen-Scott Station. He was an engineer taking care of the instruments, not a researcher. So he had no "investment" in data which might be twisted to support uniformitarianism. But, so as not to disappoint, here's some stuff for your amusement, especially the time-lapse footage. Sure you'll decide it's a few 100K frames of boring doctored CGI before even looking, but watch it anyway, you might learn something for a change: https://gml.noaa.gov/obop/spo/livecamera.html
As for your Dr. D(imbulb), may I suggest checking his creds very carefully before quoting him further. Most assuredly, lengthy discussions with him are as much wasted intervals of your life. If I sound snarky, it's because he would not the first "specialist in spectrometry" just for knowing the operating sequence on-zeroize-sample on a fully automatic mass spectrometer.
-
As already noted, my source is an eyewitness former colleague who spent 9 months at Amundsen-Scott Station.
Good for you. I don't know this guy from Adam and his opinion means nothing to me. He could be lying ... just as those videos were frauds made by people who allegedly spent time down there. If that's the case, it should have been easy to make a real and unfraudulent video of the midnight sun from Antarctica. Why the blatant fraud?
-
Then please look up terrestrial refraction, how it works, how to calculate it, and then make an informed decision if it can be used as an explanation for bent lines of sight.
Dr. John D spent hours going through the numbers and he used the calculators that were most favorable to globe earth.
Refraction explanation is a complete joke as explained in that lengthy thread on the subject, and your repetition of your obviously-biased opinion does nothing to change that.
-
I see that you spent a lot of time trying to distract from the fact that you're a liar who pulls stuff out of his rear end when it suits your fancy.
First you claim that Dubay is a disinfo agent in response without a shred of proof and then later asserted that Dubay invented the flat earth model which has the sun and moon rotating above the earth ... again without a shred of proof and from a position of total ignorance. But these things sound good to you, so you go with it.
Yes, as I said, I was in complete ignorance of Lady Blount's paper "The Midnight Sun". And, you weren't aware of it, either. If you had known it, why post a letter to the editor of an Australian astronomer instead of posting "The Midnight Sun" or at least mentioning it?
Besides that, it's total nonsense that FE was invented in 2015, so get lost with your stupidity.
I never said that Dubay invented FE, or that FE was invented in 2015. I was talking about the flat earther's model of the trajectory of the sun and the moon, not about FE in general, and I really wasn't aware of Lady Blount's model of the trajectory of the sun.
In the past twenty minutes or so, I first learnt about Lady Blount's model of "THE SUN’S SPIRAL PATH". It wasn't easy to find her paper, since she hadn't mentioned that she had published it pseudonymously as "Zetetes”. It can be found at https://theflatearthsociety.org/library/pamphlets here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/pamphlets/Midnight%20Sun,%20The%20(Zetetes).pdf).
And we admit that the exact path of the sun and moon are speculation.
Not surprisingly, in the model of Blount the trajectory of the sun is a spiral between the tropics in a plane parallel to the flat earth; this ensures that within the tropics the sun is seen at the zenith at noon conforming to observation. There is no room for speculation, since the trajectory of the sun is required to conform observation.
Your clement concession that "we admit that the exact path of the sun and moon are speculation" just hushes up the fact that there is no room for speculation. Rather, there is observation. The model has to conform observation.
I won't further comment on Lady Blount's trajectory of the sun, I think Cooke has said enough (see my previous post).
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Lady_blount.png/220px-Lady_blount.png)
-
Here again the full letter of J. William Cooke, quoted by Ladislaus in Reply #31, since the last time I forgot to upload the images (which originally are from Lady Blount's "The Midnight Sun").
======================
Dear Sir,
I know there are still a few persons who profess to believe that the Earth is a plane and stationary, whilst the sun revolves round it, but I did not know that any of them had printed such utter rubbish as in the pamphlet you so kindly sent me. This is the first of their publications I have seen and I am much obliged to you for it. I suppose some of them have written something a trifle more plausible than The Midnight Sun, and it would interest me to see a really plausible explanation of their theory. As to The Midnight Sun, the author has not the slightest idea of modern theories, etc., e g.: in his diagram on page 7. As a fact the sun at its farthest north declination, passes overhead at the tropic of Cancer, and according to accepted theory “overhead” means a contination of a line joining the observing station with the Earth’s centre. The position of the sun therefore should be on a prolongation of E F and at an enormous distance away. Placed thus, what becomes of the difficulty of seeing it from M, in a direction somewhat resembling M Q ?
(https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/debunk-of-a-flat-earth-without-using-science-but-only-empirical-observations/?action=dlattach;attach=17155;image)
As to the theory of the sun’s rays just reaching through our atmosphere to a certain distance, it is too funny for words. An action of this kind must be gradual and must vary with the constitution of our atmosphere, if we are to accept any verified facts of optics whatever. In this case the length of each day will be determined by the state of the atmosphere! Besides apply the simplest mathematics to the case. On page 9 : suppose the sun is running round the inner circle O R Q. See how his motion would appear to an observer at G. With centre G and radius G N draw a circle cutting O R Q in X and Y. Then when the sun reaches X it would be just rising to the observer at G, when at R it would be noon, and sunset at Y. But in one hour’s motion from X its apparent angular movement at G would be almost nil and this would gradually increase until it would reach a maximum at noon and then decrease. Now nothing is so certain as that the sun moves through equal angles in equal times, so this consideration alone would absolutely demolish the theory.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/debunk-of-a-flat-earth-without-using-science-but-only-empirical-observations/?action=dlattach;attach=17157;image)
I need not go on, but what about the stars? I honestly believe that many who profess to believe (!) in this nonsense do not even know that every star in the sky describes a circle round the celestial pole every 24h. Ask some of them for fun, if you come across any.
The fact is that the writer of the book on Norway could easily have worked out all his statements of facts in his study, and if he used the ordinary theories they would be as correct as if he observed them, and probably more so, because the small error of observation would be eliminated, e.g., the 4th par. on page 3, “the nearer any point,” etc., evidently has been written in this manner, for the observer has not certainly visited the Pole or has remained remarkably reticent about it.
One more word. I believe the confusion of the term “level” with “straight” or “plane” has given rise to no end of error. The sea is, on the whole, level but certainly not plane. The level of anything is measured by an instrument which depends upon the action of gravity and when we state that two points are on the same level we mean that they are subjected to the same gravitational pull, or in other words are equi-distant from the Earth’s centre. This, however, would be above the level of these paradoxers.
Yours faithfully,
W. ERNEST COOKE.
-
I never said that Dubay invented FE, or that FE was invented in 2015. I was talking about the flat earther's model of the trajectory of the sun and the moon, not about FE in general, and I really wasn't aware of Lady Blount's model of the trajectory of the sun.
I wasn't trying to debate Blount's model per se, was just pointing out that the circling sun model wasn't invented by Dubay, and I just picked out the first one in my collection of books that made mention of it.
Dubay certainly helped popularize the notion, but there were others who became active right round the same time, and I attribute it to the release of the Nikon P900 camera in early 2015. Otherewise, Dubay would have been another conspiracy theorist on the web. But people were able to use these cameras to verify the "see too far" problem. Had people not been able to independently verify the results, he would have been consigned to the dustbin of conspiracy crackpots.
Lots of the FEs came from the "questioning the moon landings" crowd. Once you see the massive fraud and hoaxes being perpetrated by NASA, then you just can't accept anything they put out there as evidence anymore.
Whether someone believes in globe or flat, there's enough solid stuff out there to make it very credible. As one of the FEs points out, the earth seems to just be "hiding" the curve form all observations. Similarly, detecting the motion of the earth has been elusive, and every experiment has failed, from Airy to Michelson-Morley (and many in between). You have Foucault's pendulum, but its validity is extremely debatable. Even Foucault followers admit that the tiniest force applied at the very start could set the pendulum in motion one way or another, and not a few of them end up moving in the wrong direction.
-
There's also a question of universals and likeness. If one accepts universals and likenesses, it's also clear that the only way that things on the surface of the Earth have a universal relation to the Earth (in any likeness of position) is through sphericity not flatness.
When a boat is upright on the sea, it is always in the same universal relation to the surface of the Earth because the Earth is a sphere. When the Earth is flat, the center is different as well as the sides and the relation of the boat ... and the objects and people on the boat.
What the...
You globers make it impossible to have a logical conversation running fantasies and assumptions practically to the moon. Why pray tell, is the center different from the sides in relation to the boat on FE?
-
Flat earth is a barmy troll, invented by some Protestants as a meme to attack Catholics of the past as backward. I refuse to believe anyone of sound mind believes this. If the earth is flat, how did the Japs attack Pearl Harbor? Fuel must have been cheap as they'd have to sail or fly across the world?:jester::jester:
-
I wasn't trying to debate Blount's model per se, was just pointing out that the circling sun model wasn't invented by Dubay, and I just picked out the first one in my collection of books that made mention of it.
Dubay certainly helped popularize the notion, but there were others who became active right round the same time, and I attribute it to the release of the Nikon P900 camera in early 2015. Otherewise, Dubay would have been another conspiracy theorist on the web. But people were able to use these cameras to verify the "see too far" problem. Had people not been able to independently verify the results, he would have been consigned to the dustbin of conspiracy crackpots.
Lots of the FEs came from the "questioning the moon landings" crowd. Once you see the massive fraud and hoaxes being perpetrated by NASA, then you just can't accept anything they put out there as evidence anymore.
Whether someone believes in globe or flat, there's enough solid stuff out there to make it very credible. As one of the FEs points out, the earth seems to just be "hiding" the curve form all observations. Similarly, detecting the motion of the earth has been elusive, and every experiment has failed, from Airy to Michelson-Morley (and many in between). You have Foucault's pendulum, but its validity is extremely debatable. Even Foucault followers admit that the tiniest force applied at the very start could set the pendulum in motion one way or another, and not a few of them end up moving in the wrong direction.
Well said. There are serious problems with the ball model for the earth, and especially with NASA and its deceptions. That in itself doesn't prove FE, but it should be taken into consideration.
Indeed, the "see too far" problem has not been debunked, and it presents a roadblock for believing in a ball earth.
-
Flat earth is a barmy troll, invented by some Protestants as a meme to attack Catholics of the past as backward. I refuse to believe anyone of sound mind believes this. If the earth is flat, how did the Japs attack Pearl Harbor? Fuel must have been cheap as they'd have to sail or fly across the world?:jester::jester:
Golly, it sure looks like a straight shot to me.
(http://<a href=)(https://i.ibb.co/kKjHQzv/FE-map-jap.jpg)
-
If the earth is flat, how did the Japs attack Pearl Harbor?
As you are apparently a man of prayer, I would advise asking for some common sense. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you, but it cannot hurt to ask.
-
Whether flat or round: :fryingpan:
The Japanese used six aircraft carriers, Akagi, Kaga, Sōryū, Hiryū, Shōkaku, and Zuikaku. See wikipedia.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/PearlHarborCarrierChart.jpg)
-
The Japanese used six aircraft carriers, Akagi, Kaga, Sōryū, Hiryū, Shōkaku, and Zuikaku.
So that's how they did it. And?
-
There's also a question of universals and likeness. If one accepts universals and likenesses, it's also clear that the only way that things on the surface of the Earth have a universal relation to the Earth (in any likeness of position) is through sphericity not flatness.
When a boat is upright on the sea, it is always in the same universal relation to the surface of the Earth because the Earth is a sphere. When the Earth is flat, the center is different as well as the sides and the relation of the boat ... and the objects and people on the boat.
Are you A) high or B) drunk when you write nonsense like this? It's not a matter of disagreement or agreement on a position. I'm saying it literally DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.
It probably seemed quite sane and profound when you wrote it -- but in the morning, when the pot and/or booze wears off, it's a load of silly nonsense.
You wrote this at 3:22 AM, and your other nonsense post was in the 1:00 AM range.
-
Here's the Book of Enoch regarding the sun.
The "Book of Enoch" is apocryphal, sort of a rejected / not approved private revelation of obscure origin. It's not even part of the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh (see wikipedia). For good reasons it's said to be pseudepigraphical (not of Enoch, so the vision is a lie). Claims that Holy Scripture quotes the book are unproven, and aren't provable by principle.
Now, since flat earthers seem to love that book, here what it says about the sun rising and setting (using a different translation calling the "portals" gates [of heaven]):
CHAP. LXXIV. 12. Twelve gates I beheld in heaven, at the extremities of the earth, through which the sun, moon, and stars, and all the works of heaven, proceed at their rising and setting.
CHAP. LXXV. 1. And at the extremities of the earth I beheld twelve gates open for all the winds, from which they proceed and blow over the earth.
CHAP. LXXXI. 5. With respect to the progress of the sun in heaven, it enters and goes out of each gate for thirty days [plus one day per quarter of the year, see LXXXI. 5.]
The twelve gates are sections of 360°/ 12 = 30°, at the extremities of the earth. Hence, rising and setting of sun, moon, and stars are (not apparent only but) real. Sun, moon, and stars ascend from the extremities of the earth and descend down to the extremities of the earth again.
CHAP. XXXII 1. From thence I went on towards the extremities of the earth ; where I saw large beasts different from each other, and birds various in their countenances and forms, as well as with notes of different sounds.
2. To the east of these beasts I perceived the extremities of the earth, where heaven ceased. The gates of heaven stood open, and I beheld the celestial stars come forth. I numbered them as they proceeded out of the gate, and wrote them all down, as they came out one by one according to their number. I wrote down their names altogether, their times and their seasons, as the angel Uriel, who was with me, pointed them out to me.
The hero went towards the extremities of the earth, sees beasts and birds, and sees that heaven ceases, and sees the gates of heaven. He sees the celestial stars come forth from the gates.
Conclusion: Following the book of Enoch, the rising and setting of sun, moon, and stars is real, and not apparent only. The book of Enoch contradicts the flat earthers' model of the trajectories of sun and moon circling at constant height (Lady Blount, Eric Dubay, most online flat earthers, CI flat earthers). It also contradicts the claim that rising and setting are apparent only (explained on CI by an unreal "Perspective Matrix").
So much for the credibility and solid research of CI flat earthers.
https://book-ofenoch.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/book-of-enoch.pdf
-
- deleted -
-
Conclusion: Following the book of Enoch, the rising and setting of sun, moon, and stars is real, and not apparent only. The book of Enoch contradicts the flat earthers' model of the trajectories of sun and moon circling at constant height (Lady Blount, Eric Dubay, most online flat earthers, CI flat earthers). It also contradicts the claim that rising and setting are apparent only (explained on CI by an unreal "Perspective Matrix").
So much for the credibility and solid research of CI flat earthers.
https://book-ofenoch.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/book-of-enoch.pdf
I make no claim or pretense that I've come up with anything approaching a "solid" or thorough alternative model for how the natural world works. That's what professional scientists SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING all these decades instead of chasing after aliens, the "origins of life", and the "origins of the universe".
All I can do is *reject* a nonsensical model for the nonsense it is. That goes for the ball earth/spinning ball/Big Bang, that goes for the "official story" on 9/11, and many other things.
I can't tell you exactly who did what on Sept 11, 2001. Some of that information is simply not available -- the bad guys don't have recordings much less videos of their machinations available on the Internet. But what I *can* do is call out the official story as impossible malarkey, which it is.
That also goes for the COVID hoax. I don't know what exactly this new disease "COVID" is or where it came from, but the popular mythology of the Cult of Covid (it's a deadly disease, we're in a Pandemic, we should all be afraid, it's worth shutting down businesses for, it requires that you be vaccinated, masks somehow stop it) I completely reject.
-
P.S. That also goes for the Crisis in the Church.
I've said MANY TIMES that the Crisis is a supernatural mystery, defying a detailed explanation OR SOLUTION by humans alone.
I can say we have a problem -- leave the Conciliar Church structures completely, stay completely aloof from the whole Conciliar Church -- without having a complete multi-step solution to the Crisis in my back pocket. All I know is: to preserve my Faith, I have to do this. That doesn't mean I have a solution to the Crisis, or that such is even within my grasp.
-
Marion and others appeal to the logical fallacy called "false dilemma"....they say: "either you can explain FE fully or it's not true." :facepalm:
Meanwhile, if FE's point out a problem with globe earth, they just prance out some "scientific term" which is supposed to explain away the problem with high-brow words.
Globe Earther's have a vast array of these high-brow scientific terms because the scientific community doesn't spend their time on true science (objectively looking for truth), but defending an agenda and teaching their view (for which they are paid by govt grants). For modern science, they have decades and 1000s upon 1000s of scientists who do nothing else but "prove" the narrative (i.e. their religion).
-
Are you A) high or B) drunk when you write nonsense like this? It's not a matter of disagreement or agreement on a position. I'm saying it literally DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.
It probably seemed quite sane and profound when you wrote it -- but in the morning, when the pot and/or booze wears off, it's a load of silly nonsense.
You wrote this at 3:22 AM, and your other nonsense post was in the 1:00 AM range.
I refuse to believe Donachie is serious when he writes these posts. Either high, drunk, trolling or using a translator? I don't know. It's just incoherent ramblings.
Tradman, this is not a case of "you globers".
-
Marion and others appeal to the logical fallacy called "false dilemma"....they say: "either you can explain FE fully or it's not true." :facepalm:
Meanwhile, if FE's point out a problem with globe earth, they just prance out some "scientific term" which is supposed to explain away the problem with high-brow words.
Globe Earther's have a vast array of these high-brow scientific terms because the scientific community doesn't spend their time on true science (objectively looking for truth), but defending an agenda and teaching their view (for which they are paid by govt grants). For modern science, they have decades and 1000s upon 1000s of scientists who do nothing else but "prove" the narrative (i.e. their religion).
Either you offer a better congruent explanation for all natural phenomena (observations) or I won't believe you because your worldview is not reasonable, not evidence based, but belief based.
-
I refuse to believe Donachie is serious when he writes these posts. Either high, drunk, trolling or using a translator? I don't know. It's just incoherent ramblings.
Tradman, this is not a case of "you globers".
So, you're not a glober? Just because you're not all on the same page, if someone thinks earth is a globe and defends it, they are a glober.
-
Either you offer a better congruent explanation for all natural phenomena (observations) or I won't believe you because your worldview is not reasonable, not evidence based, but belief based.
:laugh1:
1. A perfect example of the "false dilemma" logical fallacy.
2. That's not how the scientific method works. Science works by examining each thing individually, to test it's certitude. Then you combine all proven facts together to form a "worldview".
3. FE at the moment is still examining specifics, so such a "worldview" doesn't exist. The globe view's worldview, however, is sinking, because it is not founded on proven facts.
-
Are you A) high or B) drunk when you write nonsense like this? It's not a matter of disagreement or agreement on a position. I'm saying it literally DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.
It probably seemed quite sane and profound when you wrote it -- but in the morning, when the pot and/or booze wears off, it's a load of silly nonsense.
You wrote this at 3:22 AM, and your other nonsense post was in the 1:00 AM range.
It makes total sense but perhaps one doesn't want to understand it. This question involves physics as well as logic as much as the truth of simple facts. As in this question, when is a dog or boat upside down? and which is the right side up? The way to answer that is in relation to the center (a major center) in extension and intension of the object.
Besides that, do universals exist? I say they do. Bertrand Russell even advocated for universals by the simple principle of likeness, as in like this or like that. This question of universals and likeness also impacts space and the matter of geometric relation. The way to work out the question of universals in space is through sphericity not flatness. For the Earth to be flat messes things up in terms of the reality of universals.
One should remember too that the principle of vision in the eyeball works in sphericity not flatness. The important things there are the sphericity of water and light. There are principles there that will relate to the rest of creation ... including the shape of the Earth. Thales speculated that the world (the Earth and so forth as the cosmos) rested on water, but then the question is how does one really believe that? So then it is water all the way down (instead of turtles) to the last drop, which brings up the problem again of infinite regress which flat Earthers will never get around (no pun intended exactly), whether it's the sphericity of drops of water or counting numbers to the very last one.
If at the edge of the Earth it is not turtles, golf balls or drops of water all the way down, then it must be at least the counting numbers (which are round too), but one'll never reach the end. That's why I suggest instead the uniform relation of the curve of a circle and that of a sphere to the infinite. That way one can stop counting all the way down and just accept the curve.
Nature has a way and tries to find a way to minimize the relation to the infinite to increase stability of a thing, especially a little thing like the Earth.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/221210/why-sphere-minimizes-surface-area-for-a-given-volume
-
You have the wrong mental picture of FE. The earth, as a whole, is a sphere (including the firmament and bottomless pit). The land (upon which we walk) alone is flat.
I can see why you think FE makes no sense if you simply picture earth as a flat disc, while ignoring the firmament and the depths below.
-
You have the wrong mental picture of FE. The earth, as a whole, is a sphere (including the firmament and bottomless pit). The land (upon which we walk) alone is flat.
I can see why you think FE makes no sense if you simply picture earth as a flat disc, while ignoring the firmament and the depths below.
Many cannot seem to get over the whole "infinite void" of space angle which is central to the modern cosmology, which is why they immediately jump to the idea that the earth is a flat planetoid floating in space. Rather than realize that the universe is the earth-plane enclosed in the system you describe. There are no other "earth-like planets" out there that we can go to. We live in a bubble with waters above and waters below. The planets (i.e. "wandering stars") are just that: wandering stars and may only be miles in diameter and subsist in the waters above, or within, the solid Firmament itself.
-
I make no claim or pretense that I've come up with anything approaching a "solid" or thorough alternative model for how the natural world works. That's what professional scientists SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING all these decades instead of chasing after aliens, the "origins of life", and the "origins of the universe".
All I can do is *reject* a nonsensical model for the nonsense it is. That goes for the ball earth/spinning ball/Big Bang, that goes for the "official story" on 9/11, and many other things.
I can't tell you exactly who did what on Sept 11, 2001. Some of that information is simply not available -- the bad guys don't have recordings much less videos of their machinations available on the Internet. But what I *can* do is call out the official story as impossible malarkey, which it is.
That also goes for the COVID hoax. I don't know what exactly this new disease "COVID" is or where it came from, but the popular mythology of the Cult of Covid (it's a deadly disease, we're in a Pandemic, we should all be afraid, it's worth shutting down businesses for, it requires that you be vaccinated, masks somehow stop it) I completely reject.
I understand this. My best example is: The existence of pathogenic viruses hasn't been proven, at least not to me, so I assume there aren't any. That doesn't mean that I have an alternative explanation for so called "contaminous" diseases. And I don't subscribe to more or less esoteric ideas of e.g. Dr. Stefan Lanka, who on the one hand has demonstrated that current virologist theories are BS, but on the other hand offers ludicrous alternative explanations. Same thing for Dr. Andrew Kauffman, and Dr. Tom Cowan.
Concerning the topic of this thread, to reject much, most, or all of NASA, ISS, Moon landings, astronomy, etc., some people seem to feel the need to react by defending obscure alternative theories. Based on outlandish folks like Samuel Birley Rowbotham, Lady Elizabeth Anne Mould de Sodington Blount, Eric Dubay, and others, they defend a theory which is philosophically absurd, just like Heliocentrism, which was condemned as such by the Roman Inquisiton.
I agree with you. To reject what government, science, or whoever presents as truth, as acceptable, as reasonable, one doesn't need to present an alternative theory. And I think one better well watches out, to not fall for the next best offered "alternatives". It's in the well known Protocols. "They" control both sides.
-
It makes total sense but perhaps one doesn't want to understand it.
Punk charlatan. :fryingpan:
-
Marion and others appeal to the logical fallacy called "false dilemma"....they say: "either you can explain FE fully or it's not true." :facepalm:
Meanwhile, if FE's point out a problem with globe earth, they just prance out some "scientific term" which is supposed to explain away the problem with high-brow words.
Globe Earther's have a vast array of these high-brow scientific terms because the scientific community doesn't spend their time on true science (objectively looking for truth), but defending an agenda and teaching their view (for which they are paid by govt grants). For modern science, they have decades and 1000s upon 1000s of scientists who do nothing else but "prove" the narrative (i.e. their religion).
You just present a strawman logical fallacy. I (and others) never said what you say we said. Consequently, you didn't quote anyone saying what you say we said.
A despicable comment of yours.
You don't quote any logical fallacy of mine or anyone else, but just claim that your opponents present such. If you want to convince not just the retarded, like yourself, you would have to quote our alleged fallacies.
You react on my recent post about the "Book of Enoch". I showed that it contradicts the known flat earthers models of the trajectories of sun, moon, and stars. And my comment hasn't been refuted so far. No one even tried to. Not even you.
-
I refuse to believe Donachie is serious when he writes these posts. Either high, drunk, trolling or using a translator? I don't know. It's just incoherent ramblings.
Even another anti-FE-er sees your posts are incoherent, imbecilic trash, Donachie.
-
You have the wrong mental picture of FE. The earth, as a whole, is a sphere (including the firmament and bottomless pit). The land (upon which we walk) alone is flat.
I can see why you think FE makes no sense if you simply picture earth as a flat disc, while ignoring the firmament and the depths below.
Since the Earth is a sphere, the flatness in it and along the surface is tangential. How many tangents are there to a sphere is how flat so flat. It's like al-Kindi rays and corners and all the aspects of astro-weathers and bills to be paid all up in here and all across the great wide world. The flat Earthers confuse the stillness of it with flatness, since stillness seems flat to them rather than round, like the flat surface of calm water. Yet all water is as round as pure space in the drops and the dew.
About space and the bank, to continue on with such notes and observations, even in empiricism there is the question of infinite regress and how many tangents to a sphere, that Husserl attempted to address. Some of those manuscripts have been lost, however. But this is only partly to address Feral Rezerve Bank and WEF empirosity and how those astronomical numbers are never gonna get paid as flat broke as many people are. Flat broke is flat as another tangent to a sphere of some activity, for examples.
-
An extremely large sphere indeed appears very flat for a small observer on it, just a basketball may quite flat for an ant crawling on it.
(https://i.imgur.com/61KTDVJ.jpg)
(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/368680598853648405/769255477174992918/Close_Up.gif)
But upon closer examination, we can observe the true shape of level water surfaces on earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGA1ZYkaxzE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kADO7nkt-rk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hROaZ9cyTO4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybkgOD_4CTg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3ZuqDlFzsI