Author Topic: How time zones hide the Flat Earth (video) (Read 2771 times)

St Giles · « **Reply #15 on:** February 10, 2023, 02:18:00 PM »

One of the maps he showed looked like it had at least 2 waterways to the edge of the flat earth through antarctica, like in the pirates of the carribean movie where they sail through huge ice walls into a different world.

Yeti · « **Reply #16 on:** February 10, 2023, 02:36:20 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 10, 2023, 02:02:47 PM

Inhomogeneity can be explained simply by density, with lighter elements rising and heavier ones sinking. Directionality is a separate discussion regarding which there are different theories.

.

Like many flat earth arguments, this explanation is merely descriptive, i.e. it gives us the material cause instead of the formal or final cause. It's simply a way of re-stating the question. So, heavier substances sink below lighter substances in any medium; this is an observable fact. Why do they do this? The globe earth model says it is because the earth attracts objects to itself by gravity, and denser objects with more mass are attracted more strongly, since it is the mass or matter itself that is receiving the pull. This causes substances of different densities to separate out, or any fluid to be denser at the bottom than at the top, such as in our atmosphere. But to say that air is thinner at higher elevations simply because of density is not an explanation but merely a repetition of the question. It doesn't explain why differences in density cause this effect. And that's without even getting into the problem you mentioned, of why heavier substances are attracted towards the earth instead of, say, towards the moon or the Dog Star.

I see the same thing with the "law of prospective", in which flat earthers claim there is a law of perspective that makes things disappear from the bottom up. This is how they explain why ships sink below the horizon. They say, "Ships appear to disappear from the bottom up as they sail away due to a 'law of perspective', which states that objects appear to disappear from the bottom up as they recede from the observer." But the assertion is false; as objects go away from the observer, they appear to shrink towards a central point in the middle of them, such that all parts of the object appear to shrink towards the middle at the same rate and at the same time. There is nothing in geometry or physics that would make the bottom of an object appear to shrink faster than the rest of it, much less disappear entirely as ships do.

Lent is approaching; last year we spent all Lent talking about this. I can sense another global(!) war shaping up (pun intended) over the shape of the earth again this Lent! Let's go!

Ladislaus · « **Reply #17 on:** February 10, 2023, 04:10:27 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on February 10, 2023, 02:36:20 PM

Like many flat earth arguments, this explanation is merely descriptive, i.e. it gives us the material cause instead of the formal or final cause. It's simply a way of re-stating the question. So, heavier substances sink below lighter substances in any medium; this is an observable fact. Why do they do this?

You theorize that density is due to gravity. I don't believe gravity exists, but attribute it to electromagnetic charge. There's a video in circulation of an MIT professor who says the same thing, that on earth thing move down because of electric charge and not gravity.

But what causes the directionality is independent of the question and has nothing to do with the question, which I answered adequately. I was asked why there's inhomogeneity in the atmosphere under a firmament, and the answer is due to density, and has absolutely nothing to do with a dispute over what causes density / buoyancy (which is a well known phenomenon accepted by all).

This is yet another misdirection.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #18 on:** February 10, 2023, 04:13:54 PM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on February 10, 2023, 07:44:03 AM

Can some Flat Earther PLEASE post a decent model that comes close to demonstrating and explaining the movements of the Sun, Moon, stars, planets, etc.. Remember, the geocentric and heliocentric globe models both do an admirable job (admittedly not perfect) explaining Heavenly movements. Every single FE model that I’ve seen is embarrassingly silly.

It’s fine to poke holes in the global Earth model, but you’d be foolish to discard both GE models without having a reasonable replacement.

This is yet another desperate misdirection by the globers form the issue at hand.

Globe model has been falsified simply due to the "see too far" phenomenon. It doesn't really matter whether we have a full model that explains everything. We know that the earth's surface is flat, and you keep throwing misdirections out there. There are many considerations that falsify YOUR model, from seeing too far, to the completely different climates between the north and the south poles, etc. You simply assume that you have a model, i.e. that the globe model is true, when the contrary has been demonstrated.

We don't have a full model, but can prove that the globe model is false. You keep ducking behind this question while failing to address the evidence for a flat earth ... which is incredibly solid.

Matthew · « **Reply #19 on:** February 10, 2023, 04:39:14 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 10, 2023, 04:13:54 PM

This is yet another desperate misdirection by the globers form the issue at hand.

Globe model has been falsified simply due to the "see too far" phenomenon. It doesn't really matter whether we have a full model that explains everything. We know that the earth's surface is flat, and you keep throwing misdirections out there. There are many considerations that falsify YOUR model, from seeing too far, to the completely different climates between the north and the south poles, etc. You simply assume that you have a model, i.e. that the globe model is true, when the contrary has been demonstrated.

We don't have a full model, but can prove that the globe model is false. You keep ducking behind this question while failing to address the evidence for a flat earth ... which is incredibly solid.

I agree.

It doesn't require a "replacement" to call out BS, to shout "The Emperor has no clothes on!" or expose something clearly false as false.

Sure, I'd love a full explanation of the natural world as well. But over the ages, mankind has understood more or less of various aspects of the natural world. Knowledge is gained and destroyed over the centuries, as history flows. Nothing new there. We are merely in a sort of dark age with regards to cosmology.

Quo Vadis seems to keep coming back to this point -- he keeps saying (in so many words) "Stop cursing the darkness and light a candle already!". He critiques Flat Earth proponents for tearing down without much building up.

Sorry, it's not that simple.

It's much easier to find proofs that something is false, than trying to prove something is true, or creating a whole working model. I can debunk evolution, but it's more difficult to "prove" to an atheist that God exists. Especially when their brain has no philosophical foundation.

I keep using 9/11 as the example. It's clear that 9/11 was a fαℓѕє fℓαg; not what the "official story" claimed at all. But will we EVER know exactly who did what? There are some rumors and clues -- but much of it is necessarily shrouded in mystery. We don't have access to shady dark boardrooms where the men behind the scenes -- the men who control the world -- make their plans and decisions. So it is literally impossible in some cases to come up with the full truth about these events. Does that mean we can't call out their false narratives? We can't point out inconsistencies, poke holes in their false claims, cast doubt on the Official Story? God forbid!

St Giles · « **Reply #20 on:** February 10, 2023, 04:55:43 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 10, 2023, 04:10:27 PM

You theorize that density is due to gravity. I don't believe gravity exists, but attribute it to electromagnetic charge. There's a video in circulation of an MIT professor who says the same thing, that on earth thing move down because of electric charge and not gravity.

But what causes the directionality is independent of the question and has nothing to do with the question, which I answered adequately. I was asked why there's inhomogeneity in the atmosphere under a firmament, and the answer is due to density, and has absolutely nothing to do with a dispute over what causes density / buoyancy (which is a well known phenomenon accepted by all).

This is yet another misdirection.

Lets see some videos that don't just state the fact, lets see some videos that both try to prove and disprove it. If it is as simple as electricity, then my theory is that gravity should be easy to manipulate with electricity regardless of what an object is made of. Lets see some artificial gravity on a vertical wall, and anti-gravity on the floor, such that a human can walk up a wall without the camera angle being changed. Static charges moving, repelling, and attracting very small light things doesn't count.

Matthew · « **Reply #21 on:** February 10, 2023, 05:09:09 PM »

Let's see ANY experiment demonstrating "gravity" or a pull on small objects by massive objects, on ANY scale.

The only direction things go (independent of any other force) is towards the earth -- end of list.

No matter how much mass they collect, they can't get so much as a grain of dust to divert towards it. With all their most sensitive instruments, you'd think they'd be able to.

St Giles · « **Reply #22 on:** February 10, 2023, 05:21:47 PM »

I saw one example briefly demonstrated in a video with many clips about FE/GE, or some science topic, that showed that mass based gravity works. Equal small and presumably dense masses were attached to the end of a long stick, which was tied in the middle at it's balance point, and suspended by a long thin string; the idea being to maximize torque and minimize rotational resistance around the axis. This suspended stick had like a 100lb dumbbell next to each end, so that if masses attract, the stick will rotate until the ends bump into the dumbbells. I don't have such big dumbbells, but if I had a couple similar blocks of iron or lead, I'd perform this experiment right now.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #23 on:** February 10, 2023, 10:36:24 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 10, 2023, 02:02:47 PM

Problem is that no one is permitted to go south of 60 degrees latitude to investigate.…But, either way, there's no way to get down to Antarctica where whatever it is would be found.

Please elaborate on this. Is there really some diktat saying "You may not…"? Are you saying that some uppity dude like Riboni was stopped from going further? …threatened in some way? …would get sunk or shot down as the case may be if he or someone else attempted? If so, who the bloody hell is in charge?

If all this is true, how have I not heard of such a thing?

MiserereMei · « **Reply #24 on:** February 10, 2023, 11:07:48 PM »

Honest question for FE's:
How is it possible that in June's solstice people in the north coasts of Alaska, Canada, Iceland, Finland and Russia can all see the sun at the same time, circling 360° just above the horizon? Can anyone draw a sketch to explain this phenomenon?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #25 on:** February 10, 2023, 11:20:16 PM »

Mark, Quo Vadis, and Yeti...
All 3 of you have no problem "going with your gut" and concluding that "V2 popes aren't real popes" even if all the details/explanations aren't worked out (that's the job of theologians of the future).

But yet, when the *same people* (i.e. V2 supporting globalists) push the lie about the "globe earth" you demand detailed explanations. ?? It makes no sense.

Open your eyes...the same satanist globalists who are behind the infiltration in the Church are behind the infiltration in sciences. The main difference being that they infiltrated sciences around the 1600s, which was 400 years earlier than the Church, so that the "science lies" they tell are much more "fine tuned".

But they are still lies told by satanists.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #26 on:** February 11, 2023, 06:46:53 AM »

It's always funny to me to watch people get so riled up over FE. It's as Pax says, you treat literally everything else about the world with skepticism, unless it touches on scientism, THEN it's like it's more certain than teachings of the Church.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #27 on:** February 11, 2023, 07:42:48 AM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on February 11, 2023, 06:46:53 AM

It's always funny to me to watch people get so riled up over FE. It's as Pax says, you treat literally everything else about the world with skepticism, unless it touches on scientism, THEN it's like it's more certain than teachings of the Church.

Yes, I've pointed this out before. What's the big deal? Why all the emotion, the hostility, the ridicule? To elicit this kind of response, both of the following must apply --

1) people must be strongly attached to the globe (evidence of the psychological programming)

AND

2) there must be something too it, some decent / solid evidence in its favor

If EITHER of these were not true, there wouldn't be this response. If I started writing that I believed we were controlled by purple aliens from Neptune, people would casually walk by, make the circle gesture by their ear, and keep going, not wasting 5 minutes arguing about it. That's because it's so preposterous (with so little evidence) that it's not believable (missing #2 above). If, on the other hand, it was something nobody really cared about, such as the composition of the planet Neptune, even if you had plenty of evidence, you also wouldn't get people spending much time on it (so missing #1).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #28 on:** February 11, 2023, 08:02:56 AM »

Quote from: Mark 79 on February 10, 2023, 10:36:24 PM

Please elaborate on this. Is there really some diktat saying "You may not…"? Are you saying that some uppity dude like Riboni was stopped from going further? …threatened in some way? …would get sunk or shot down as the case may be if he or someone else attempted? If so, who the bloody hell is in charge?

If all this is true, how have I not heard of such a thing?

Yes, there's an Antarctic Treaty that has been signed by all the nations of the world since, I think it was, 1959 or thereabouts. That by itself is suspicious. Riboni sailed around 50 degrees south, and these sailing races around the globe never go farther south than about 55.

I've seen some videos, one where a few guys in a mid-sized boat try to go south of 60 to see how far they could get, and they were intercepted and told to turn around by a large warship, and the other where a couple guys in a plane try to fly down there, and they were met with a fighter jet and escorted back to base. Once at the base, the pilot questioned the base commander, asking whether if he had refused to comply, he would have been shot down, and the commander responded in the affirmative. So there goes the motivation of keeping people safe. Also, in 1959, environmentalism wasn't even "a thing," so the modern excuse of it being to protect the environment is utter nonsense. US, Russia, and many others would have been vying to see who could exploit the natural resources (which Admiral Byrd said were plentiful) down there, and not signing a treaty during the Cold War (with every nation in the world) to keep Antarctica off limits.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #29 on:** February 11, 2023, 09:53:19 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 11, 2023, 07:42:48 AM

Yes, I've pointed this out before. What's the big deal? Why all the emotion, the hostility, the ridicule? To elicit this kind of response, both of the following must apply --

1) people must be strongly attached to the globe (evidence of the psychological programming)

AND

2) there must be something too it, some decent / solid evidence in its favor

If EITHER of these were not true, there wouldn't be this response. If I started writing that I believed we were controlled by purple aliens from Neptune, people would casually walk by, make the circle gesture by their ear, and keep going, not wasting 5 minutes arguing about it. That's because it's so preposterous (with so little evidence) that it's not believable (missing #2 above). If, on the other hand, it was something nobody really cared about, such as the composition of the planet Neptune, even if you had plenty of evidence, you also wouldn't get people spending much time on it (so missing #1).

I like how some will say you'd have to be stupid or it's an "obvious fact" that the earth is a globe. Yet there are Fathers, like St. John Chrysostom, who believed it was flat. Sacred Scripture provides information to suggest it is flat. Yet because a man-made institution and the very "science" that is aligned with anti-christ says the opposite, it is given the assent of natural faith.

But then we present people who take the empirical approach and have real-world experience circuмnavigating the earth, such as in the OP, or taking measurements and showing it can't be globular, like Dr. John D or JTolan Media, and it's "not enough evidence". No, it just does not fit the cosmology you accept that has been carefully constructed over 4-500 years, (based on PYTHAGORIAN TEACHINGS mind you)

Author Topic: How time zones hide the Flat Earth (video) (Read 2771 times)

St Giles

Re: How time zones hide the Flat Earth (video)

Yeti

Re: How time zones hide the Flat Earth (video)

Ladislaus

Re: How time zones hide the Flat Earth (video)

Ladislaus

Re: How time zones hide the Flat Earth (video)

Matthew

Re: How time zones hide the Flat Earth (video)

St Giles

Re: How time zones hide the Flat Earth (video)

Matthew

Re: How time zones hide the Flat Earth (video)

St Giles

Re: How time zones hide the Flat Earth (video)

Mark 79

Re: How time zones hide the Flat Earth (video)

MiserereMei

Re: How time zones hide the Flat Earth (video)

Pax Vobis

Re: How time zones hide the Flat Earth (video)

DigitalLogos

Re: How time zones hide the Flat Earth (video)

Ladislaus

Re: How time zones hide the Flat Earth (video)

Ladislaus

Re: How time zones hide the Flat Earth (video)

DigitalLogos

Re: How time zones hide the Flat Earth (video)