Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 11

Author Topic: FE and geometry  (Read 28024 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Quo vadis Domine

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 4750
  • Reputation: +2897/-667
  • Gender: Male
Re: FE and geometry
« Reply #105 on: August 21, 2024, 03:51:18 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 21, 2024, 03:25:21 PM
    It would be the same size as it rises/sets because it would be the same distance at that time/ or the same intensity of its focus.


    The sun is different sizes in the summer/winter because it's closer/further away.

    That doesn’t explain why it wouldn’t appear disc shape (if it was actually a “spotlight”) as it moves away from or toward the observer. It also doesn’t explain why the Sun actually looks smaller and is more intense at high noon and usually appears larger and less intense upon rising and setting.
    Logged
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12508
    • Reputation: +7954/-2452
    • Gender: Male
    Re: FE and geometry
    « Reply #106 on: August 21, 2024, 04:18:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    It also doesn’t explain why the Sun actually looks smaller and is more intense at high noon and usually appears larger and less intense upon rising and setting.
    There's no rational explanation for this on a globe either.
    Logged

    Offline MiracleOfTheSun

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 818
    • Reputation: +352/-142
    • Gender: Male
    Re: FE and geometry
    « Reply #107 on: August 21, 2024, 04:35:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • This video on C. Rays is longer so it must be right. lol  Actually, he also runs an interesting experiment on a localized light source versus one that is further away.




    Or maybe it's this one.  I think they're basically the same, however.

    Logged

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2897/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: FE and geometry
    « Reply #108 on: August 21, 2024, 04:44:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 21, 2024, 04:18:09 PM
    There's no rational explanation for this on a globe either.

    Yes there is. This in no way answers my question. You can’t explain it if the Sun is in fact a “spotlight” type of light source.

    I know the conventional explanation is that it just appears larger because upon rising and setting the Sun is seen around smaller objects like trees and buildings that make it appear larger. However, I’m not opposed to the idea that the Sun is just closer to the Earth at certain times rather than what scientists would have us believe.
    Logged
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12508
    • Reputation: +7954/-2452
    • Gender: Male
    Re: FE and geometry
    « Reply #109 on: August 21, 2024, 04:55:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    I know the conventional explanation is that it just appears larger because upon rising and setting the Sun is seen around smaller objects like trees and buildings that make it appear larger.
    Another example of perspective bias. 

    Quote
    However, I’m not opposed to the idea that the Sun is just closer to the Earth at certain times rather than what scientists would have us believe.
    Of course, this makes no sense, nor would it be possible, because the earth is always spinning (and so is the sun).  So how can the sun be "closer" to the EST time zone as it rises?  Wouldn't that mean it was farther away from another time zone? 

    That would mean the sun both rotates around the earth, and bobs up/down (continuously) in order to appear closer/farther away, depending upon each time zone.  And it would have to do this every hour or so (as each new time zone starts the day).

    So if the Sun "bobs down" closer to earth in California, for it's sunrise...how do we (on the east coast) not see this "bob down"?  Because in the East, the sun is already 3 hours in the sky and it continues to move up in the sky.

    No, the globe earth/sun movements make no sense either.
    Logged

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2897/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: FE and geometry
    « Reply #110 on: August 21, 2024, 05:10:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: MiracleOfTheSun on August 21, 2024, 04:35:32 PM
    This video on C. Rays is longer so it must be right. lol  Actually, he also runs an interesting experiment on a localized light source versus one that is further away.




    Or maybe it's this one.  I think they're basically the same, however.



    At the 2:10 mark in the second video he admitted he used CGI for the beams of light. That is why you can’t see the light beams in the video when he’s doing his experiment. He wants you to believe that they’re crepuscular rays and that is why he used the CGI to draw in the divergent beams. 

    Also, just think about this: Some FEers hold the the Sun is around 3000 to 5000 miles above the Earth. The highest cuмulus cuмulonimbus clouds are roughly 10 miles high. That means the Sun is actually still an extremely huge distance above the clouds rendering the crepuscular ray argument impossible. Do you understand?
    Logged
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2897/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: FE and geometry
    « Reply #111 on: August 21, 2024, 05:11:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 21, 2024, 04:55:36 PM
    Another example of perspective bias. 
    Of course, this makes no sense, nor would it be possible, because the earth is always spinning (and so is the sun).  So how can the sun be "closer" to the EST time zone as it rises?  Wouldn't that mean it was farther away from another time zone? 

    That would mean the sun both rotates around the earth, and bobs up/down (continuously) in order to appear closer/farther away, depending upon each time zone.  And it would have to do this every hour or so (as each new time zone starts the day).

    So if the Sun "bobs down" closer to earth in California, for it's sunrise...how do we (on the east coast) not see this "bob down"?  Because in the East, the sun is already 3 hours in the sky and it continues to move up in the sky.

    No, the globe earth/sun movements make no sense either.


    So then the conventional explanation makes the most sense.
    Logged
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46958
    • Reputation: +27814/-5167
    • Gender: Male
    Re: FE and geometry
    « Reply #112 on: August 21, 2024, 05:15:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on August 21, 2024, 02:32:21 PM

    So when the Sun sets or rises, why do we see it as being round and approximately the same size and not as a disk that gets smaller as it’s setting or larger when it’s rising?

    Yet another begging of the question.  This is not actually the case.  Now, the sun (or moon) can be magnified closer to the horizon due to the fact that you're looking through more moisture in the atmosphere, but there's nothing that would explain it shrinking as it closes in on the horizon and sets ... and yet we have video showing exactly this, in the dry desert of Afghanistan, taken by a US serviceman over there, where the sun noticeably shrinks as it "sets" and gets closer to the horizon.  There's no explanation for it shrinking on the horizon.  In cases where it doesn't shrink and even gets larger in size, that's due to the moisture in the air (absent in the deserts of Afghanistan).

    But you're constantly begging the question and making assumptions such as in your queston above that the sun remains the same size as it sets or as it rises.  In point of fact, there's a great variation in the perceived size of the sun due to atmospheric conditions.  There's actually even an optical illusion where the moon looks to be huge at the horizion (but apparently if you look at it upside down, it returns to normal size).  But there's no factor that would explain the video where it does in fact get noticeably smaller as it sets.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12508
    • Reputation: +7954/-2452
    • Gender: Male
    Re: FE and geometry
    « Reply #113 on: August 21, 2024, 05:26:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    So then the conventional explanation makes the most sense.
    :laugh2:  Riiiight.  The sun "bobs down" in california to "rise" at 6am, while in New York, we don't see the "bob down" because the sun has been in the sky for 3 hours, continuously rising.


    Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.
    Logged

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2897/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: FE and geometry
    « Reply #114 on: August 21, 2024, 06:07:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 21, 2024, 05:26:35 PM
    :laugh2:  Riiiight.  The sun "bobs down" in california to "rise" at 6am, while in New York, we don't see the "bob down" because the sun has been in the sky for 3 hours, continuously rising.


    Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.

    You people have seriously lost your collective minds! Just the fact alone that you think that the Sun is some sort of spotlight makes you look mentally imbalanced. :facepalm:
    Logged
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12508
    • Reputation: +7954/-2452
    • Gender: Male
    Re: FE and geometry
    « Reply #115 on: August 21, 2024, 06:31:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    You people have seriously lost your collective minds! Just the fact alone that you think that the Sun is some sort of spotlight makes you look mentally imbalanced. :facepalm: title=facepalm
    It's more mentally unbalanced to think the sun "bobs down" in california, meanwhile it's rising in NY.


    Unless that's another "false perspective" thing, which the "science gods" tell us that our eyes deceive us.  :facepalm:
    Logged

    Offline josh987654321

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 801
    • Reputation: +253/-414
    • Gender: Male
    Re: FE and geometry
    « Reply #116 on: August 21, 2024, 08:48:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on August 21, 2024, 06:07:23 PM
    You people have seriously lost your collective minds! Just the fact alone that you think that the Sun is some sort of spotlight makes you look mentally imbalanced. :facepalm:

    I thought something similar at first... but this is more us IMO and how taken aback we are by it... and at the end of the day insults aren't really an argument... just an expression of frustration.

    At the beginning I was thinking like 2D Google Maps and that they were crazy... but then another poster put up an early 2D image of the North Pole which I didn't recognise what it was at first because it was such an old map... nevertheless, from that perspective a lot of the arguments such as the rotation of the sun actually breaks down, because after all, a circle is not far off from a globe from such a top down perspective (there was also no need to deny my time lapse YouTube video of the North Pole as another poster did because it make sense from that perspective of a flat Earth).. then I realized that some of the arguments they are coming up with, while I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that they are incorrect here... they are certainly clever some of them IMO.

    So in terms of the 2D map of the North Pole (2D Google Maps is clearly wrong here for obvious reasons, as you can't show the entire globe accurately in 2D which is why no such 2D world map exists) then if you play that out as a circular flat Earth, then while some globe arguments break down... other arguments are amplified... such as the Southern Hemisphere like Australia, and such 2D maps of Australia cannot fit into such a model unless the Earth is a globe.

    Then like I said above, if we take a telescope we can see first hand that we are surrounded by globes.

    God Bless
    Logged

    Offline josh987654321

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 801
    • Reputation: +253/-414
    • Gender: Male
    Re: FE and geometry
    « Reply #117 on: August 21, 2024, 09:07:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on August 21, 2024, 12:34:47 PM
    and the thought that we're flying through space at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour seems preposterous on the face of it ...

    In terms of this, just think about being on an airplane, the atmosphere acts as the cabin and furthermore, unlike a plane flying through the air the Earth is in space with no resistance thus it needs no propulsion. 

    God Bless
    Logged

    Offline josh987654321

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 801
    • Reputation: +253/-414
    • Gender: Male
    Re: FE and geometry
    « Reply #118 on: August 21, 2024, 09:26:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Cera on August 21, 2024, 12:19:04 PM
    I agree that the theory of globe earth is not contoversial. Why is that so?

    This is where we disagree. I think the reason the globe earth heliocentric theory is not controversial is that we have all been brainwashed since early childhood to believe that there two theories are fact.

    You and the vast majority of the population, who (like all of us) have been taught from childhood that those who reject the theories of globe earth and heliocentricism are crackpots. Also taught from childhood is the notion that these  theories are scientific fact.

    In reality, science is based on observation and (as we see here on CI in microcosm) both sides (or all three sides if we include geocentricism) produce observations to support their respective theories.

    Fauchi lied when he said "the science is settled" just as he lied when he said "I AM science." Run away from anyone who puts forth the lie that "the science is settled." In science, nothing is settled until the hypothesis or theory is proven. This has not been done with the theories of globe earth, flat earth, heliocentricism or geocentricism. The theory with the best proof may be geocentricism, not due to provable scientific fact, but due to the overwhelming proof that the theory of heliocentricism is well-docuмented as occult and anti-God.

    Remember, because it's taught in schools means that a lot of people can repeat it but that does not mean they can all fully comprehend and explain it in their own words IMO... It doesn't answer the question one way or the other and you should be careful not to be bias in the other direction IMO... Just because we have been lied to so badly for so long doesn't mean that everything is a lie IMO. Some early Christians were taught by Judas when Christ sent the disciples out.

    Now heliocentrism is a tricky one, because while I think it is logical that the Earth rotates around the Sun with it's gravitational pull... Without clear defined boundaries of the universe one cannot declare the center of it yet.

    Yes, science is based on observation... the difficult part about debunking the flat Earth is that for the average person to know for sure we need to use tools that they have at their disposal personally, there are others who deal with the globe Earth on a daily basis so there is no question for them but for the average person the tools they use are not available... given we are not in the 1500's or so anymore... we have more tools than our ancestors had so we should not be locked into the same disputes that our ancestors had in the 1500's or so.

    God Bless
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46958
    • Reputation: +27814/-5167
    • Gender: Male
    Re: FE and geometry
    « Reply #119 on: August 22, 2024, 06:08:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: josh987654321 on August 21, 2024, 09:07:18 PM
    In terms of this, just think about being on an airplane, the atmosphere acts as the cabin and furthermore, unlike a plane flying through the air the Earth is in space with no resistance thus it needs no propulsion. 

    God Bless

    Not only is there a difference between flying a few hundred miles per hour and flying a few hundred thousand miles per hour, but you feel the turbulence/movement of an airplane.  That's also a huge issue with the heliocentric model (this consideration doesn't pertain to FE per se, but more to geocentrism) because you would certainly feel (big time) the changes in speed allegedly encountered by the earth due to the multiple vectors of motion.  When you're on the side of the earth rotating WITH its revolution around the sun, you're moving the speed of the earth's rotation + 1000 MPH (at equator), but then when you flip around and are rotating contrary to the earth's revolution, you're at the earth's revolution - 1000MPH.  You'd feel effects similar to those carnival teacup rides that spin in place in addition to revolving around the track.  You don't feel steady speeds (though 600K+ MPH is absurd), but you most certainly feel changes in speed and changes in direction, and the effects on the earth's weather would be catastrophic.  Again, not an FE issue per se, but pertains to geocentrism.  Nevertheless, the point was to illustrate that man, without "knowledge" of space, left to his own devices, naturally concludes that we are at rest and on a flat plane.  It's CONTRARY to our natural common sense and sensibilities to assert that we life on the side or even bottom of a ball and that we're flying through space at 100s of 1000s of MPH (more if you take into account the alleged movement of the galaxy through the universe).  Thus when children are initially told they live on a ball flying though space at breakneck speeds, it does violence to their psyche and to their sensibilities, and that is why this programming is so difficult to unravel, since their minds cling artificially to these notions when ever fiber of their being tells them the opposite is true.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 11
    « previous next »