-
I'm proposing to do the Eratosthenes observations from several latitudes at the same time.
Basically, this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno
I would like to try this on Dec 21, solstice, at solar noon. (Solar noon isn't 12:00 with or without DST.)
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/solcalc/
If you're willing to try, what you need to do is take a measurement of
- the angle the sun makes with "level"
- or, equivalently the angle a shadow makes
If you choose to take the sun angle, you should use a theodolite; there are theodolite apps, though I haven't looked at free theodolite apps yet
If you choose to take a shadow measurement, please verify that the item is vertical (with a plumb line or household leve) and report both its height and the shadow length.
Post in this thread with that information, and the latitude at which you took the observation.
-
How about on a day everyone has off? The 21st isn't on a weekend unfortunately.
-
Sunday after Christmas?
-
Good idea. This even could be done repeatedly. The guy in the video complains about few flat earther participation, but CI flat earthers say they're truth seekers.
Sure better than supporting jootoob with lots of clicks and hours of view.
-
I'm up for it. Sunday after Christmas!
-
Stanley, what do you think of using a "swiss knife" app, which has a mechanic's level? Then use the smart phone to measure the angle of a broomstick, or aluminum profile?
-
I can't remember if I saw this experiment done by watching a link on this website as a lurker or not? It was about a guy that did it in Regina, Saskatchewan. He rode his bike a certain distance while his buddy measured also at the other end. He concluded the earth is curved.
-
I can't remember if I saw this experiment done by watching a link on this website as a lurker or not? It was about a guy that did it in Regina, Saskatchewan. He rode his bike a certain distance while his buddy measured also at the other end. He concluded the earth is curved.
Why would I get 2 thumbs down for simply reporting what this fellow concluded? I was only trying to be helpful by adding in a link? :confused: Geesh, if you give thumbs down for things like this, I can't imagine what you would use for things that are actually offensive. :(
-
I can't remember if I saw this experiment done by watching a link on this website as a lurker or not? It was about a guy that did it in Regina, Saskatchewan. He rode his bike a certain distance while his buddy measured also at the other end. He concluded the earth is curved.
You're thinking of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaPa4esJJx4
He took it for granted the sun was far away and took two observations.
What I'm suggesting is take a lot of observations and (more or less) triangulate where the sun is. That won't work on at least one of the models.
Why would I get 2 thumbs down for simply reporting what this fellow concluded? I was only trying to be helpful by adding in a link? :confused:
Welcome to CI :)
You seem genuine. Consider the downvotes as badges of honor.
-
Thanks for the welcome. :-)
-
I didn't give you a downvote.
Reading the above, I realized it could be misunderstood.
-
I'm proposing to do the Eratosthenes observations from several latitudes at the same time.
So what do we assume the distance between the earth and sun is? That's one of the chief problems with that experiment.
-
So what do we assume the distance between the earth and sun is? That's one of the chief problems with that experiment.
No assumption.
-
If you're willing to try, what you need to do is take a measurement of
- the angle the sun makes with "level"
- or, equivalently the angle a shadow makes
If you choose to take a shadow measurement, please verify that the item is vertical (with a plumb line or household leve) and report both its height and the shadow length.
Yes, if your equipment isn't level then your calculations could be off.
Since water is always level it makes sense to use a water level to check your equipment and make sure it's level.
A water level is more accurate than even a laser.
Since water is always level.
Always.
Everywhere. :)
-
Yes, if your equipment isn't level then your calculations could be off.
Since water is always level it makes sense to use a water level to check your equipment and make sure it's level.
A water level is more accurate than even a laser.
Since water is always level.
Always.
Everywhere. :)
:laugh1:
This is the kind of FE discussion I like to see here. Charity comes first. Humor is good too :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:
-
I didn't give you a downvote.
Reading the above, I realized it could be misunderstood.
Thank-you, that's very kind. But to be honest, I take voting with a grain of salt. It's a type of social credit score. Not interested. I might give an upvote to a great post, and some jerk with an axe to grind comes along and adds a downvote. So the votes here may or may not be accurate. Some people will down vote just because they can, or because they have a bee in their bonnet.
Years ago in forum settings there was no such thing as voting or scores. People figured out for themselves what a worthy post was or not, and that was that. After awhile you can see who is worth paying attention to, or not.
It's the younger generations brought up on FB and Instagram, etc., that rely on their "likes," to feed their fragile ego. ;)
-
You can test GE vs FE easily if you climb a small hill or mountain.
On FE, the horizon should be at the same level as your eye level. It should lay in the same vertical plane than the vanishing point.
On GE, the horizon should dip below your eye level. It shoud lay below the vertical plane of your vanishing point.
So we use the water level:
(https://i.imgur.com/vAto5KA.jpg)
Wasn't that easy? On FE, the horizon should converge with the water level.
-
@ 42oN, at solar noon, the angle of inclination to the sun was 26o using a theodolite app.
-
The sky is overcast where I live, unfortunately.
-
Overcast today for me as well.
-
The sky is overcast where I live, unfortunately.
Same here! :facepalm:
-
No assumption.
Then the experiment is wothless. This assumes that the rays of the sun are parallel when they arrive the earth from millions of miles away and an enormous star. But if the sun is about 3,000 miles away and much smaller (e.g. 32 miles in diamater), as the FEs hold, then the rays would not be parallel and the experiment inconclusive.
-
Wasn't that easy? On FE, the horizon should converge with the water level.
False. Constant fallacies from the globers. Horizon line is indeterminate depending on atmospheric conditions and depending on the distance whatever equipment taking the photo can actually reach. Footage taken from high altitudes 120,000 feet by an amateur balloon showed the horizon at eye level. And there's very little atmospheric distortion at that height. You can argue that it's inconclusive because you can't see curvature even from that level, but to claim that curvature can be detected from the earth, even from the highest mountain is absurd.
Even your guru Neil de Grasse Tyson says you can't see any curvature from even the height of the Red Bull jump (which was 127,000 feet).
I'm just tired of having the same fallacious argument rehashed over and over again.
You find one picture that you falsely interpret and do the mic drop, but completely ignore the hundreds of experiments done by FEs which show no curvature from many miles away. Globers dismiss that as refraction (without doing any of the math) and even mirages, but then pretend there's no such thing as refraction and atmospheric phenomena when they present their isolated "slam dunk" proof picture.
-
Then the experiment is wothless. This assumes that the rays of the sun are parallel when they arrive the earth from millions of miles away and an enormous star. But if the sun is about 3,000 miles away and much smaller (e.g. 32 miles in diamater), as the FEs hold, then the rays would not be parallel and the experiment inconclusive.
No Laddy, no assumption about the distance to the sun is necessary if you take several observations.
You don't have to assume the sun is "far" nor do you have to assume the sun is 3000 miles away.
You calculate it from the data.
-
If they wanted to end this debate very quickly, all they would need to do is take a few of the leading flat earthers on a flight across Antarctica and come across the other side. Let everybody take their equipment with them, video equipment, GPS equpment, anything they wanted.
Or they could take them down to observe the actual 24-hour sun.
Why all the fake footage from the globers? There's one time-lapse video alleging to show this that is proven to be an obvious fake. Why did they need to fake it when they could just do a real video? PBS / Discover were also caught hoaxing and faking a "helicopter" test when they could have just done it normally. Why?
NASA has been caught hundreds of times faking footage from "space" (on the "ISS"). Why?
I saw a group of engineers from Latin America conduct an experiment with high-precision GPS equipment demonstrating that two very tall buildings many miles apart, which should have had the tops farther apart than their bottoms given globe earth theory, were instead completely parallel (tops and bottoms exactly the same distance apart).
-
If they wanted to end this debate very quickly, all they would need to do is take a few of the leading flat earthers on a flight across Antarctica and come across the other side. Let everybody take their equipment with them, video equipment, GPS equpment, anything they wanted.
Or they could take them down to observe the actual 24-hour sun.
Why all the fake footage from the globers? There's one time-lapse video alleging to show this that is proven to be an obvious fake. Why did they need to fake it when they could just do a real video? PBS / Discover were also caught hoaxing and faking a "helicopter" test when they could have just done it normally. Why?
NASA has been caught hundreds of times faking footage from "space" (on the "ISS"). Why?
I saw a group of engineers from Latin America conduct an experiment with high-precision GPS equipment demonstrating that two very tall buildings many miles apart, which should have had the tops farther apart than their bottoms given globe earth theory, were instead completely parallel (tops and bottoms exactly the same distance apart).
I agree. Well said.
I might start a thread later: "If we're on a globe, with gravity and all that, why not use rockets to send men to space? Maybe build a space station? Even if the Van Allen Belts prevent humans visiting other "planets" (again, this is assuming the Globers are correct), A) we should be able to send unmanned probes there, and B) we should be able to hang out in Low Earth Orbit.
I know what many are thinking "Like, HELLO? Ever heard of NASA?"
But that's my point: NASA (and the other space agencies as well) is a complete scam organization. They constantly fake everything. There is no proof we've even made it to "low earth orbit". It's all zero-G flights (the "vomit comet"), underwater footage, harnesses, green screens, and CGI work. That's it. NASA has a huge budget too, and I must say they don't even do a very good job with that money.
I am grateful for various Flat Earth videos for pointing out something I always noticed, but never had a problem with: all the "rocket launches" always look like a rainbow. They are clearly not going very high, and they just dump in the ocean somewhere. It's ridiculous. It's as if they know there's a Firmament there, and they don't want to *thud* into it. I'm sorry, but they HAVE no good excuse. They're taking a "hard right" way too soon, into thick atmosphere. You'd want to cut through that atmosphere as directly as possible, according to their beliefs and worldview. Even if you wanted to start curving for some reason, you'd do that later. Imagine flying an airplane directly into a hurricane, instead of going around it. That's essentially what those launch rockets are doing.
Another thing: rockets couldn't work in the vacuum space. Probably not even well before space proper. Once you have no air, there's nothing for the explosion to "thrust" against to propel you forward. Rockets of all sizes work here on earth, because we have AIR EVERYWHERE.
-
No Laddy, no assumption about the distance to the sun is necessary if you take several observations.
You don't have to assume the sun is "far" nor do you have to assume the sun is 3000 miles away.
You calculate it from the data.
No you can't. If the sun were only slightly bigger than the earth, and not very far way, the rays would come in parallel. Even the guy in the OP, all he could claim was that the rays were close to 90+ regardless of the latitude. He concluded that it was "immensely far away", which absolutely cannot be concluded. Sun could just be somewhat bigger than the earth and much less far way. It's a function of the size and distance.
And the imprecise measurements taken by guys with tape measures were pretty close to what's predicted by the FE theory regarding the distance. But the guy in the video didn't actually indicate how far "off" they were. Was it that the measurements were 3 degres off for FE and 1 degree off for "parallel". But parallel rays could be caused by many permutations of size and distance. That's why the estimates of the size of the sun and its distance from the earth have varied widely, starting from one million miles to something like 9-10 million miles, to 30, to 50, to 67, to 93.
I notice that the guy in the OP video never bothered to give the numbers that readings were off from the FE expectation, but the green lines he drew looked pretty darn close to the grey lines expected. They were not that far off by any stretch, and he didn't actually bother to give the numbers. Then he claimed they were within 1 degree of what would be expected if the rays were coming in at 90 degree angles to the surface on a globe. So, what, were they 2 or 3 degrees off from FE? What's the degree of precision and the margin of error given the fact that these were a bunch of guys with tape measures. If you're off by 1/8th of an inch in measuring that way, that's plenty to badly skew the results. In the end, the readings looked pretty darn close, close enough given the precision instruments they were using (i.e. tape measures). If either their measurement of the object or of the shadow were even 1/8th or 1/16th of an inch off, given the scale, that kind of test is worthless.
And even IF the angles are off, all that means is that the 3,000 miles estimate of FE was somewhat off. How far off? Who knows? All he was trying to do was falsify a particular FE estimate and did not positively prove or establish anything about the actual size and distance. Because you can't with this kind of experiment.
-
Here's how close the two models can be ...
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-6994d50141325a9e50b91a572eb726d8)
To think that a few guys with tape measures can determine the correct model is ludicrous.
-
No you can't.
Well, you're wrong. No assumption is necessary.
If we had several measurements, we could calculate the curvature of the earth according to those measurements. Perhaps that curvature is zero? That would come out of the calculations.
Might take more than a few measurements to distinguish FE/GE.
Too bad nobody else could observe the world and take a simple measurement.
-
Another thing: rockets couldn't work in the vacuum space. Probably not even well before space proper. Once you have no air, there's nothing for the explosion to "thrust" against to propel you forward. Rockets of all sizes work here on earth, because we have AIR EVERYWHERE.
Rockets work on the principle of conservation of momentum.
If you shoot a gun, the gun recoils to offset the momentum imparted to the bullet. There would be recoil in a vacuum.
Same with rockets. They expel exhaust gas at high speed, providing momentum in the opposite direction.
-
Let's see what can be done with one observation.
Where was the sun on Dec 26? 5 days after the solstice, so somewhere near the southern tropic, 23.4 S.
The sun is always at 90 degrees elevation from some point on earth, and this point moves between the tropics, 46.8 degrees over half of a 365.25 day year. As a first approximation, the point of 90 degree elevation moved 1.3 degrees in 5 days. That puts it over 22.1 S latitude.
If the earth were flat, the sun, the point at 22 S latitude, and the point at 42 N latitude would form a right triangle.
What would be the distance from 42 N to 22 S latitudes, or 64 degrees? One degree of latitude is 69 miles, so that's approximately 4420 miles.
On a flat earth, a 26 degree elevation angle would put the distance from the earth surface to the sun at 4420 * tan (26) = 2160 miles.
-
Let's see what can be done with one observation.
Where was the sun on Dec 26? 5 days after the solstice, so somewhere near the southern tropic, 23.4 S.
The sun is always at 90 degrees elevation from some point on earth, and this point moves between the tropics, 46.8 degrees over half of a 365.25 day year. As a first approximation, the point of 90 degree elevation moved 1.3 degrees in 5 days. That puts it over 22.1 S latitude.
If the earth were flat, the sun, the point at 22 S latitude, and the point at 42 N latitude would form a right triangle.
What would be the distance from 42 N to 22 S latitudes, or 64 degrees? One degree of latitude is 69 miles, so that's approximately 4420 miles.
On a flat earth, a 26 degree elevation angle would put the distance from the earth surface to the sun at 4420 * tan (26) = 2160 miles.
We should honestly try a second attempt at this. In my area, it looks like Friday (Dec 31st) will possibly have clear skies. Since it is New Years Eve, I assume at least some people have the day off. Do we want to try again for that day? No guarantees, but at least if we get a couple people who are able to measure, that's something.
-
We should honestly try a second attempt at this.
Anyone can take an observation at any time. Near a solstice has some benefits for this observation.
And you don't need several hundred dollars of equipment (a la Corey Kell) to do this.
You can do this with a smartphone app. A free one called Protractor360 will work, though it only gives degrees, so its measurement uncertainty is automatically at least 0.5 degrees. This will let you measure angles relative to level, using sensors in the smartphone.
Seems best to use this app along with something physical akin to a missal stand. Put the phone on the stand and move the angle until the edge of the phone points to the sun. (Wear eye protection.) If the phone is face up and you haven't played with the settings, the app should read the elevation + 270 degrees. That is, if elevation is 26 degrees, the app will show 296. You should validate how the app works. Make sure you are measuring the smartphone axis that you're changing.
Measurement should be at solar noon. That's when the sun is directly due south.
I suspect other observations, well away from 42N, would not get the same 2200 mile altitude for the sun in the "flat earth" model.
-
Reality:
1.All pictures of the earth from space are admitted by NASA to be fake.
2. We're able to see objects such as land, buildings, boats that are supposed to be behind the "curve".
3. NASA and Obama say we can't leave low earth orbit.
4. The North Star never moves and the constellations have never changed ever.
5. Weather balloon footage and footage from airplanes show the horizon to be flat and always at eye level.
6. All of the astroNOTS that supposedly landed on the moon would not swear on the Bible.
7. Water is always level on the surface yet it makes up 70% of our earth.
8. NASA takes $50,000,000 a day.
9. Operation Paperclip.
10. The heliocentric model was created by freemasonic devil worshippers.
11. Air bubbles viewed in "space".
12. AstroNOT almost drowning in "space".
13. Scuba tank viewed in "space".
14. Density and buoyancy without magic gravity.
15. Gravity strong enough to hold the oceans to the earth yet birds and planes fly with ease.
16. GoPro lenses used to fake the "curve" of earth.
17. No observable proof of evolution.
18. Sun rays come down in angles and not parallel.
19. Moon light is always colder then moon shade and completely different than sunlight.
20. Super zoom cameras show that boats do not go over any curve.
21. Neil Degrasse Tyson says the earth is pear shaped as well as an oblate spheroid.
22. NASA caught faking a photo of the earth on the way too the moon.
23. More than one light source during the moon landings.
24. The UN flag is a flat earth map.
25. It took Captain Cook 3 years and 60,000 miles to circuмnavigate Antarctica.
26. Underground cables and ground based towers used for our communication.
27. Flight paths only make sense on a flat earth.
28. All but one challenger passengers are still alive today.
29. NASA caught using green screens.
30. No 24 hour live feed of the earth from space.
31. No actual photos of satellites in space.
32. Lighthouses
33. Sun dogs impossible on a globe
34. Antarctica treaty
35. Admiral Byrd said that there is more land.
36. The Michelson–Morley experiment proved the earth is stationary.
37. Auguste Piccard the first man to reach the stratosphere observed the earth is a flat disk upturned at the edges.
38. The sun and the moon in the sky at the same time.
39. Rockets never go straight up.
40. Bedford level experiment.
41. Tesla's real scientific findings.
42. Our own senses tell us that the earth is flat and stationary.
43. The sun and moon appear to be the same size.
44. The globe model was created 500 years before NASA.
45. No one has ever circuмnavigated the earth from north to south only east and west.
46. Sun dials.
47. All the "space" agencies across the land share the same vector logo.
48. Gyroscopes.
49. Astrolabes.
50. No parallax with the stars.
51. Time lapse shows the stars makings perfect circuits around the North Star.
52. Bolivian salt flats.
53. Sun appears smaller near the horizon.
54. We only see one side of the moon.
55. Railroads.
56. Air planes fly level and don't account for the curve.
57. We've only been able to dig 8 miles into the earth yet they say we have a molten core.
58. The top of the moon being illuminated during a eclipse.
59. Stars visible thru the moon.
60. Submarine periscopes
61. The firmament
62. Scripture
63. Saints
64. The Galileo Affair
65. Popes condemned the Pythagorean Doctrine
Unproven Pseudoscience Myths
1. Dark Matter
2. Dark Energy
3. Black Holes
4. Singularities
5. Event Horizons
6. Wimps (weakly interacting massive particles)
7. Macho (massive compact halo object)
8. Mond (massive Newtonian dynamics)
9. Neutron Stars
10. Gravitational collapse
11. Gravitrons
12. Gravity waves
13. Inward pulling Gravity
14. Gravitational lensing
15. Gravitational constant
16. Schwarzchild radius
17. Gravitational radiation
18. Frame dragging
19. Anti-Gravity
20. Virtual Gravity
21. Quantum Field Theory
22. General Relativity
23. Gravity
24. Pretty much anything NASA says about space
-
8. Mond (massive Newtonian dynamics)
Mond = modified Newtonian dynamics.
I'm skeptical of the Mond hypothesis too. Outside the situations it was designed for, it doesn't make good predictions.
-
Reality:
(https://i.imgur.com/9ARnOKK.png)
There is no effect that would make objects, or light/light rays/photons, obstruct your view if it was on a flat surface. Only a curved surface explains this observations.
-
Reality:
There is no effect that would make objects, or light/light rays/photons, obstruct your view if it was on a flat surface. Only a curved surface explains this observations.
Seriously? This statement is preposterous.
-
Seriously? This statement is preposterous.
What is preposterous about it?
Can you explain partial obstruction of distant objects on a flat surface?
If yes, I'd like to hear it, if no, welcome to globe Earth.
-
What would be the distance from 42 N to 22 S latitudes, or 64 degrees? One degree of latitude is 69 miles, so that's approximately 4420 miles.
On a flat earth, a 26 degree elevation angle would put the distance from the earth surface to the sun at 4420 * tan (26) = 2160 miles.
The point of 90 degree elevation doesn't actually move linearly between the tropics, it moves as a cosine.
So on Dec 26, that point was at -23.4 * cos(5/365.25 * 360) = 23.3 S.
That puts the sun at 2200 miles above earth surface, if the earth were flat.
Curious that observations from other places or at other times of the year - even by flat earthers - give quite different solar altitudes.
I think we know why.
-
Reality:
(https://i.imgur.com/9ARnOKK.png)
There is no effect that would make objects, or light/light rays/photons, obstruct your view if it was on a flat surface. Only a curved surface explains this observations.
Were the heights the same in the two photos?
-
Were the heights the same in the two photos?
Roughly the same, directly on the lake, so saying 2m would be fine.
Here are the actual calculations: https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/09/flat-earth-follies-incredible-shrinking.html
-
Reality:
1.All pictures of the earth from space are admitted by NASA to be fake.
2. We're able to see objects such as land, buildings, boats that are supposed to be behind the "curve".
3. NASA and Obama say we can't leave low earth orbit.
4. The North Star never moves and the constellations have never changed ever.
5. Weather balloon footage and footage from airplanes show the horizon to be flat and always at eye level.
6. All of the astroNOTS that supposedly landed on the moon would not swear on the Bible.
7. Water is always level on the surface yet it makes up 70% of our earth.
8. NASA takes $50,000,000 a day.
9. Operation Paperclip.
10. The heliocentric model was created by freemasonic devil worshippers.
11. Air bubbles viewed in "space".
12. AstroNOT almost drowning in "space".
13. Scuba tank viewed in "space".
14. Density and buoyancy without magic gravity.
15. Gravity strong enough to hold the oceans to the earth yet birds and planes fly with ease.
16. GoPro lenses used to fake the "curve" of earth.
17. No observable proof of evolution.
18. Sun rays come down in angles and not parallel.
19. Moon light is always colder then moon shade and completely different than sunlight.
20. Super zoom cameras show that boats do not go over any curve.
21. Neil Degrasse Tyson says the earth is pear shaped as well as an oblate spheroid.
22. NASA caught faking a photo of the earth on the way too the moon.
23. More than one light source during the moon landings.
24. The UN flag is a flat earth map.
25. It took Captain Cook 3 years and 60,000 miles to circuмnavigate Antarctica.
26. Underground cables and ground based towers used for our communication.
27. Flight paths only make sense on a flat earth.
28. All but one challenger passengers are still alive today.
29. NASA caught using green screens.
30. No 24 hour live feed of the earth from space.
31. No actual photos of satellites in space.
32. Lighthouses
33. Sun dogs impossible on a globe
34. Antarctica treaty
35. Admiral Byrd said that there is more land.
36. The Michelson–Morley experiment proved the earth is stationary.
37. Auguste Piccard the first man to reach the stratosphere observed the earth is a flat disk upturned at the edges.
38. The sun and the moon in the sky at the same time.
39. Rockets never go straight up.
40. Bedford level experiment.
41. Tesla's real scientific findings.
42. Our own senses tell us that the earth is flat and stationary.
43. The sun and moon appear to be the same size.
44. The globe model was created 500 years before NASA.
45. No one has ever circuмnavigated the earth from north to south only east and west.
46. Sun dials.
47. All the "space" agencies across the land share the same vector logo.
48. Gyroscopes.
49. Astrolabes.
50. No parallax with the stars.
51. Time lapse shows the stars makings perfect circuits around the North Star.
52. Bolivian salt flats.
53. Sun appears smaller near the horizon.
54. We only see one side of the moon.
55. Railroads.
56. Air planes fly level and don't account for the curve.
57. We've only been able to dig 8 miles into the earth yet they say we have a molten core.
58. The top of the moon being illuminated during a eclipse.
59. Stars visible thru the moon.
60. Submarine periscopes
61. The firmament
62. Scripture
63. Saints
64. The Galileo Affair
65. Popes condemned the Pythagorean Doctrine
Unproven Pseudoscience Myths
1. Dark Matter
2. Dark Energy
3. Black Holes
4. Singularities
5. Event Horizons
6. Wimps (weakly interacting massive particles)
7. Macho (massive compact halo object)
8. Mond (massive Newtonian dynamics)
9. Neutron Stars
10. Gravitational collapse
11. Gravitrons
12. Gravity waves
13. Inward pulling Gravity
14. Gravitational lensing
15. Gravitational constant
16. Schwarzchild radius
17. Gravitational radiation
18. Frame dragging
19. Anti-Gravity
20. Virtual Gravity
21. Quantum Field Theory
22. General Relativity
23. Gravity
24. Pretty much anything NASA says about space
Nice collection of facts!
I was just thinking about how it was about a year ago (right before Christmas 2021) that Flat Earth discussion really heated up on CI. It was "All Flat Earth, all the time" as some might complain. But once again, it passed after a while.
-
Looks pretty flat to me guys
https://youtu.be/RI7rIJzf1NQ
-
What is preposterous about it?
Can you explain partial obstruction of distant objects on a flat surface?
If yes, I'd like to hear it, if no, welcome to globe Earth.
I can explain it….. the Earth is a globe.
-
Gospel for today, the 1st Sunday of Lent:
Again the devil took him up into a very high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, (Matt 4:8)
...This would not be possible on a globe earth...The Church tells us that Satan did tempt Jesus 3x. We take this story in a literal sense. Therefore, we must also take this description of the earth in a literal sense. To me, this proves a flat land, dome earth model.
-
Who can see that far even from Mt Everest?
-
Gospel for today, the 1st Sunday of Lent:
Again the devil took him up into a very high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, (Matt 4:8)
...This would not be possible on a globe earth...The Church tells us that Satan did tempt Jesus 3x. We take this story in a literal sense. Therefore, we must also take this description of the earth in a literal sense. To me, this proves a flat land, dome earth model.
Can you explain how all the theologians and canonists missed that? I suggest that there is another explanation.
-
Who can see that far even from Mt Everest?
Correct, therefore there must be another explanation.
-
Who can see that far even from Mt Everest?
You normally can't ... due to atmospheric conditions, as Dr. Sungenis concedes vis-a-vis the Flat Earth debate. Of course, the devil has the capability to cut through atmospheric conditions if he wanted to and create a line of sight through it.
Nevertheless, Globers have zero explanation for how repeatedly, time after time, and consistently, objects are seen from distances that would be impossible on a globe. They have a word they throw out there ... "refraction" but it's hogwash and can't explain what's been and is destroyed by the two-way laser experiments. No convincing explanation has ever been offered by Globers.
-
Reality:
(https://i.imgur.com/9ARnOKK.png)
There is no effect that would make objects, or light/light rays/photons, obstruct your view if it was on a flat surface. Only a curved surface explains this observations.
Utterly idiotic. It's the other way around. Surface and atmospheric conditions and convergence with the horizon can clearly be demonstrated to obstruct objects sometimes. There are videos of a guy's legs disappearing as he walks down a street ... due to heat and humidity. Boats appear to vanish from the bottom up as they travel away, but then if you zoom in on them, the bottom comes back, meaning that the bottom disappeared tude to line of sight, perspective, and convergence. What can't be explained is how the light rays and photos can bend around the surface of the earth both ways.
There is no effect that can explain pictures of a lighthouse that stands 150 feet above sea level from over 200 miles away when it should be obstructed by miles of curvature, and especially the two-way laser experiments, where "refraction" is 100% ruled out.
Of course, with the 2 pictures above, as usually with the globers, no data whatsoever is provided about from where the pictures are being taken, from how far away and from what angle, no data about the weather or atmospheric conditions. There appears to be some kind of rocky barrier in the view on the right. Globers never provide the data because they're dishonest and aren't seeking the truth. FEs are constantly providing the measurements, distances, temperature / humidity readings, do refraction calculations, etc.
It's amazing how "refraction" is this ever-present phenomenon when FEs show pictures that defy globe math, but then there's never a mention of "refraction" possibly being involved with pictures Globers present as evidence. It magically disappears when it confirms in their mind their pre-conceived Globe model. That's classic confirmation bias.
-
Looks pretty flat to me guys
https://youtu.be/RI7rIJzf1NQ
J Tolan ran his pictures from a long flight across the country through some high-end photogrammetry software, which is known to be extremely accurate in terms of contructing 3-D images and 3-D / depth data from 2-dimensional images, and the software determined that his entire route of several thousand miles was flat as a pancake.
Think about this for a second. You've see those views from 120,000 feet from the amateur balloons. Think of how high that is. Well, if you were to go from one end of Kansas to the other, you would exeperience 120,000 feet of curvature, the same amount of curvature as those balloon are above the surface. You would see the horizon dip significantly instead of remaining at eye level.
-
Is there any part of space where a plane can't make a full 360 rotation?
NO. If all the space provided for planes is fully spherical and ready to go, why is the Earth flat? Because it's not moving and the Sun oribits the Earth!
-
Can you explain how all the theologians and canonists missed that?
I don't think there are a lot of canonists and theologians who support globe earth. So they didn't miss it. Even St Augustine thought flat-land was possible.
-
I don't think there are a lot of canonists and theologians who support globe earth. So they didn't miss it.
No offense but, do you know how ridiculous that sounds? :facepalm: No one for millennia gave FE a serious consideration until the last few years. This is, in my estimation, a distraction, developed by the “powers to be”, mostly to keep geocentrism under wraps. I can’t believe how many knowledgeable people on this forum have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker. FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, can any of you produce a coherent reasonable FE model??? If you can’t, this topic should be permanently removed.
-
No offense but, do you know how ridiculous that sounds? :facepalm: No one for millennia gave FE a serious consideration until the last few years. This is, in my estimation, a distraction, developed by the “powers to be”, mostly to keep geocentrism under wraps. I can’t believe how many knowledgeable people on this forum have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker. FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, can any of you produce a coherent reasonable FE model??? If you can’t, this topic should be permanently removed.
Hey right back at ya. FOR CRYING OUT LOUD the globe model is ridiculous. A globe earth covered in oxygen surrounded by a powerful infinite vacuum of outer space, being able to see WAY too far given the alleged size of the "globe" earth, the countless attempts to scam us with fish-eye lenses and outright lies. And then there's NASA! "Not A Space Agency". EVEN IF globe earth were true, SPACE IS 100% FAKE and that is even easier to prove. NASA lies more often than they tell the truth. They've been caught faking HUNDREDS of times, starting with the so-called Moon Landings.
The globe-pushers always resort to name calling, emotion, and ad hominems, never respecting their audience or their opponents to be rational human beings. On the other hand, only FE proponents invite their audience to think for themselves, consider this or that, or do their own experiments. Interesting. With globists, it's all "trust the Science", "trust the experts", "don't be a Heretic".
Why would NASA lie so much, if there's really a vacuum of space that men can go into with specialized vehicles (spacecraft)? Why fake it?
And why the hell would Google be pushing satan's lies and agenda seven ways from Sunday, in and out of season -- but OOPS! they actually care about mankind and the truth when it comes to the nature of the Earth!
A related argument: why smash an ant with a sledgehammer? They feel compelled to devote great amounts of effort and resources to fight against Flat Earth, even though it's a "crazy archaic conspiracy theory" that only a lunatic would consider. Why all the disclaimers and warnings on every Youtube video or webpage/article touching on Flat Earth? Why all the debunking videos? Seems they protest too much. You catch that much flak only when you're flying over the target...
Would a man spend $200 to rent a flamethrower to torch an (average, 6" tall) anthill, then have a concrete company pour a slab over the anthill? Of course not. It wouldn't be worth the expense/effort.
-
Did you know how popular Flat Earth was just 80 or 100 years ago? It was almost common knowledge.
Don't mistake 100% of hollywood movies and 100% of recent textbooks for "everyone knows Flat Earth is false".
Hollywood and the Media give you a false impression about reality, as always. The people who were taught Flat Earth in school are only recently deceased.
-
As Ladislaus said,
Globers never provide the data because they're dishonest and aren't seeking the truth. FEs are constantly providing the measurements, distances, temperature / humidity readings, do refraction calculations, etc.
It's amazing how "refraction" is this ever-present phenomenon when FEs show pictures that defy globe math, but then there's never a mention of "refraction" possibly being involved with pictures Globers present as evidence. It magically disappears when it confirms in their mind their pre-conceived Globe model. That's classic confirmation bias.
and
Globers have zero explanation for how repeatedly, time after time, and consistently, objects are seen from distances that would be impossible on a globe. They have a word they throw out there ... "refraction" but it's hogwash and can't explain what's been and is destroyed by the two-way laser experiments. No convincing explanation has ever been offered by Globers.
-
This bears repeating:
Reality:
1.All pictures of the earth from space are admitted by NASA to be fake.
2. We're able to see objects such as land, buildings, boats that are supposed to be behind the "curve".
3. NASA and Obama say we can't leave low earth orbit.
4. The North Star never moves and the constellations have never changed ever.
5. Weather balloon footage and footage from airplanes show the horizon to be flat and always at eye level.
6. All of the astroNOTS that supposedly landed on the moon would not swear on the Bible.
7. Water is always level on the surface yet it makes up 70% of our earth.
8. NASA takes $50,000,000 a day.
9. Operation Paperclip.
10. The heliocentric model was created by freemasonic devil worshippers.
11. Air bubbles viewed in "space".
12. AstroNOT almost drowning in "space".
13. Scuba tank viewed in "space".
14. Density and buoyancy without magic gravity.
15. Gravity strong enough to hold the oceans to the earth yet birds and planes fly with ease.
16. GoPro lenses used to fake the "curve" of earth.
17. No observable proof of evolution.
18. Sun rays come down in angles and not parallel.
19. Moon light is always colder then moon shade and completely different than sunlight.
20. Super zoom cameras show that boats do not go over any curve.
21. Neil Degrasse Tyson says the earth is pear shaped as well as an oblate spheroid.
22. NASA caught faking a photo of the earth on the way too the moon.
23. More than one light source during the moon landings.
24. The UN flag is a flat earth map.
25. It took Captain Cook 3 years and 60,000 miles to circuмnavigate Antarctica.
26. Underground cables and ground based towers used for our communication.
27. Flight paths only make sense on a flat earth.
28. All but one challenger passengers are still alive today.
29. NASA caught using green screens.
30. No 24 hour live feed of the earth from space.
31. No actual photos of satellites in space.
32. Lighthouses
33. Sun dogs impossible on a globe
34. Antarctica treaty
35. Admiral Byrd said that there is more land.
36. The Michelson–Morley experiment proved the earth is stationary.
37. Auguste Piccard the first man to reach the stratosphere observed the earth is a flat disk upturned at the edges.
38. The sun and the moon in the sky at the same time.
39. Rockets never go straight up.
40. Bedford level experiment.
41. Tesla's real scientific findings.
42. Our own senses tell us that the earth is flat and stationary.
43. The sun and moon appear to be the same size.
44. The globe model was created 500 years before NASA.
45. No one has ever circuмnavigated the earth from north to south only east and west.
46. Sun dials.
47. All the "space" agencies across the land share the same vector logo.
48. Gyroscopes.
49. Astrolabes.
50. No parallax with the stars.
51. Time lapse shows the stars makings perfect circuits around the North Star.
52. Bolivian salt flats.
53. Sun appears smaller near the horizon.
54. We only see one side of the moon.
55. Railroads.
56. Air planes fly level and don't account for the curve.
57. We've only been able to dig 8 miles into the earth yet they say we have a molten core.
58. The top of the moon being illuminated during a eclipse.
59. Stars visible thru the moon.
60. Submarine periscopes
61. The firmament
62. Scripture
63. Saints
64. The Galileo Affair
65. Popes condemned the Pythagorean Doctrine
Unproven Pseudoscience Myths
1. Dark Matter
2. Dark Energy
3. Black Holes
4. Singularities
5. Event Horizons
6. Wimps (weakly interacting massive particles)
7. Macho (massive compact halo object)
8. Mond (massive Newtonian dynamics)
9. Neutron Stars
10. Gravitational collapse
11. Gravitrons
12. Gravity waves
13. Inward pulling Gravity
14. Gravitational lensing
15. Gravitational constant
16. Schwarzchild radius
17. Gravitational radiation
18. Frame dragging
19. Anti-Gravity
20. Virtual Gravity
21. Quantum Field Theory
22. General Relativity
23. Gravity
24. Pretty much anything NASA says about space
I would add:
During an eclipse, you NEVER see the moon approach the Sun and then leave it afterwards. Why can't you see the moon ANYWHERE near the sun, not right before/after, not right next to it, etc. There's some other mechanism that causes eclipses, and no one talks about it.
and
"Penumbra" nonsense. The "moon's" shadow cast on the Earth during an eclipse is WAY too small, given the "facts" of the Globe model.
-
Did you know how popular Flat Earth was just 80 or 100 years ago? It was almost common knowledge.
This is absolutely false. If it isn’t, please tell me how you know that it was so popular 100 years ago? Matthew, how is it possible for you to make such a statement? Where is the evidence for it?
-
No offense but, do you know how ridiculous that sounds? (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/facepalm.gif) No one for millennia gave FE a serious consideration until the last few years.
How did the explorers sail around the world only 500 years ago? They navigated by the stars, which don’t move. How do the stars not move, if the earth spins and rotates?
Even if they used a compass, their world map was different than the fabricated nonsense used today. If one uses a compass today, they have to make all manner of “adjustments” to make sense of the globe earth. Many old maps are similar to a flat-land model. Because it works, scientifically.
Modern/Masonic science has covered up evidence of the Great Flood, of the Garden of Eden, of Jericho, of Noah’s Ark, etc etc. You don’t think they could cover up/hide old maps from the 1600s showing a flat-land model?
Look at what these evil people have done to the Church in a matter of 100 years. It’s completely unrecognizable. And sciences were the FIRST major institution they corrupted (not counting the banking industry) starting waaaay back in the 1400s. They had to control the sciences long before Copernicus came on the scene in the 1500s. They’ve controlled science for darn near 600 years.
Think outside the box, dude.
-
Another deal-breaker for the Globe model:
The idea that thin air molecules at 30,000 feet are connected to the ground below it, as by a solid iron bar. No way!
Air, especially THIN air, would not be connected to the ground immediately below it, as if it were connected by a solid bar of metal. AND if the earth spins at 1X, how fast would the air at 30,000 or 50,000 feet have to spin, to keep up? Planes flying against the "spin" of the Earth should face an incredible headwind. Such has not been observed.
And if the air is NOT glued to the ground below it, then why can't you fly up in a hot air balloon, come down 2 hours later MANY miles from where you started? Such has not been observed.
Either way, the Globe model is screwed.
-
This is absolutely false. If it isn’t, please tell me how you know that it was so popular 100 years ago? Matthew, how is it possible for you to make such a statement? Where is the evidence for it?
I've seen more evidence for FE being widespread 100 years ago, than I've seen evidence that it was taboo 100 years ago.
Most of what I (and you) know about globe vs. flat earth we learned from MSM, modern scientists, public school, Bugs Bunny, countless media and cartoons, etc.
We have to realize where our ideas came from.
One thing I'm convinced of, is that human beings, with their short life span, can be molded very quickly. Things can fade out of living memory in only a handful of decades -- around 50 years. Before long, ALL KNOWLEDGE of a given time period (dress, attitudes, beliefs, lifestyle, culture) comes from Hollywood movies, official textbooks, and those who write the history books. Keep that in mind. I certainly am.
-
Hey right back at ya. FOR CRYING OUT LOUD the globe model is ridiculous.".
At least the GE (both the geocentric and heliocentric) models work and explain how the heavenly bodies move. I can’t believe that you and Ladislaus don’t understand this simple NECESSITY. You NEED to have a model.
-
Gospel for today, the 1st Sunday of Lent:
Again the devil took him up into a very high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, (Matt 4:8)
...This would not be possible on a globe earth...The Church tells us that Satan did tempt Jesus 3x. We take this story in a literal sense. Therefore, we must also take this description of the earth in a literal sense. To me, this proves a flat land, dome earth model.
I was thinking this exact thing when the gospel was read yesterday.
-
At least the GE (both the geocentric and heliocentric) models work and explain how the heavenly bodies move.
It's a story that sounds good but doesn't stand up to experiments and actual scientific knowledge. "Flat Earth" is general term to mean...anything non-helio and non-globe. The details aren't worked out yet. We're pushing up against 6 CENTURIES of lies...have a little patience.
-
Quo Vadis keeps saying "Where is the FE model? At least Globe Earth has a working model!" and until today, I didn't have a good answer.
Now, here is my answer: the Heliocentric/Globe Earth/outer space model is SHOT TO PIECES, TOTAL GARBAGE. The Flat Earth model doesn't explain how all the Powers of Heaven operate -- are we required to know everything about the natural world, instead of just seeking and gaining knowledge of it? -- but I think FE actually has LESS GAPS AND GLARING HOLES than the Globe Earth model!
Besides all the proofs for Flat Earth, which I consider holes in the Globe Earth model, to the point of casting doubt on it and even invalidating it, there are these entire categories of made-up nonsense that mainstream Science has made up to keep their cosmological model held together with scotch tape!
Unproven Pseudoscience Myths
1. Dark Matter
2. Dark Energy
3. Black Holes
4. Singularities
5. Event Horizons
6. Wimps (weakly interacting massive particles)
7. Macho (massive compact halo object)
8. Mond (massive Newtonian dynamics)
9. Neutron Stars
10. Gravitational collapse
11. Gravitrons
12. Gravity waves
13. Inward pulling Gravity
14. Gravitational lensing
15. Gravitational constant
16. Schwarzchild radius
17. Gravitational radiation
18. Frame dragging
19. Anti-Gravity
20. Virtual Gravity
21. Quantum Field Theory
22. General Relativity
23. Gravity
24. Pretty much anything NASA says about space
Again, the whole mainstream cosmological model, which I THOUGHT made sense when I was younger -- massive stars gravitationally holding planets in orbit around them, etc. -- that whole thing was going to come to an end, unless they came up with Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the rest of that list above! It's all a part-and-parcel, package deal. All this nonsense -- basically a whole FALSE RELIGION OF PSEUDO-SCIENCE -- is required to maintain their whole cosmological worldview. So the whole thing is shot.
I don't believe you can reject the made-up nonsense in the list above, while holding to just PART of their worldview. It's like the Catholic Faith -- deny one part, and the rest unravels. That's why denial of just ONE Catholic dogma makes you a heretic. It all inter-connects, inter-depends, and hangs together. The same for the mainstream cosmology.
And you do know the rule about liars, right? Once a person (or organization) is proven to be a liar, you shouldn't believe a word they say. If they lied about one thing, they probably lied about it all. They won't even admit we're at the center of the universe. Heck, they won't even admit that God exists. Why should I take *anything* they say seriously -- especially things that go against common sense and the natural powers of observation?
-
Quo Vadis keeps saying "Where is the FE model? At least Globe Earth has a working model!" and until today, I didn't have a good answer.
That "model" demand is a distraction, and I've called it out as such. One does not have to have a model that explains everything to prove some of the foundational contentions / facts / observations. That's the scientific method. You start with facts and observations, and then the model comes as a hypothesis to explain all the known facts, and each model can get either confirmed or refined or invalidated. Globe Model has been completely invalidated by observation and evidence. This demand for a model comes from begging the question, the assumption, that the Globe Model is valid in the first place. It's not. That's the starting point for FE, that the Globe Model is invalidated. Now where one goes from there is a different issue.
We can say that evolution and Big Bang are garbage ... even if we don't have complete detailed explanations for some phenomena here or there.
In terms of a model, there are working hypotheses out there, some better than others. But FE do not have the money and the scientific apparatus to do a proper investigation of the real model ... not the access to places like Antarctica where the answers could likely be found. But if you do a Google search on "scientists are baffled", you'll see 139,000 results. Their theories are constantly being invalidated.
I find that observation after observation, experiment after experiment demonstrate a lack of curvature where it should be, and I find the Glober "explanation" of "refraction" to be utterly inadequate, and an act of desperation, a deus ex machina that they wheel out to address all these problems. But the two-way laser experiments and many other considerations make "refraction" an impossibility to explain all the observations and experiments. It just doesn't work. NOW, if someone wanted to hypothesize that we live on a globe, but it's 100x larger than science claim, that would work to explain this particular piece of evidence. But they would then have to look for other observations or conduct other experiments to either confirm or deny that hypothesis. FE is in the same place. If someone wanted to hypothesize that the earth's electromagnetic field bends light predictably around the globe, that too might work. Then THEY would go off in search of evidence to either confirm or deny the hypothesis. I'm open to speculations like this, and then it would be a question of evaluating the evidence for or against each one of these. But I'm not open to people who dogmatically cling to their model as part of the scientific orthodoxy and assume it to be true, filtering out any contrary evidence, and accepting as evidence anything that MIGHT be interpreted that way, out of confirmation bias.
-
Unproven Pseudoscience Myths
1. Dark Matter
And they keep clinging to their "gravity" explanation for the cosmos, which has been struck fatal blows, and their last act of desperation to salvage it was to invent Dark Matter.
On top of everything else, the Webb telescope pictures (if you accept them as real) disprove Big Bang completely, and a number of top physicists have claimed exactly that. But they keep promoting Big Bang (especially to the younger kids in schools) as proven fact.
-
I don't think I've seen this discussed here and maybe it should be its own topic but has anyone looked into the square earth theory(ies) both with and without "pac man" edges?
Biblically it talks about 4 corners of the earth quite often and this was the basis for some investigating this theory. There were some who were working on a model for it and explaining how it could work. I want to say the Youtube channel that talks about this theory the most is called "desnez" but I could be wrong on the spelling. He posited that the square was inside the circle and not non-existent or outside the circle.
QVD did have a point about the typical FE model not really working in some aspects. A guy named Flat Earth A**hole actually had (still has?) the best work on this and he brought up a good point that FEers need a better model (he himself is a FEer.) Instead of me explaining why it doesn't work that well I think checking his material out might explain it better with illustrations and such. I think this is what us FEers should be working on. I'm thinking the key to unlocking a better model might be to make it where Jerusalem is at the center of the earth (isn't this defined by The Church somewhere?) and map it out from there. The typical FE model does not have Jerusalem at the center.
-
Every day we observe the Sun “rising” and “setting” and it basically stays the same size and disappears over the horizon. With the FE theory the Sun would necessarily have to slowly get smaller until it disappears out of sight. WE DON’T observe that EVER. Someone posted a video a while back showing some guy in his kitchen trying to make a FE model that demonstrates the setting Sun. It was beyond ridiculous.
If you prefer a “snow globe” model, you must explain how some places on Earth are dark and some are are light at the same moment. This everyday observation BEGS to be explained.
I know a while back some FEer on here didn’t even realize that the Moon’s phases were caused by the Sun’s light hitting the moon. They thought it was caused by shadows on the moon! This NEEDS to be explained on a FE model because we observe this every single day and it is easily demonstrated on the GE model. Do you see why a model is essential to have?
-
I've seen more evidence for FE being widespread 100 years ago, than I've seen evidence that it was taboo 100 years ago.
Most of what I (and you) know about globe vs. flat earth we learned from MSM, modern scientists, public school, Bugs Bunny, countless media and cartoons, etc.
We have to realize where our ideas came from.
One thing I'm convinced of, is that human beings, with their short life span, can be molded very quickly. Things can fade out of living memory in only a handful of decades -- around 50 years. Before long, ALL KNOWLEDGE of a given time period (dress, attitudes, beliefs, lifestyle, culture) comes from Hollywood movies, official textbooks, and those who write the history books. Keep that in mind. I certainly am.
You said: “Did you know how popular Flat Earth was just 80 or 100 years ago? It was almost common knowledge.”
Please show the evidence that FE was almost common knowledge 80 to 100 years ago.
-
Sorry, I won't hold your hand.
If that list of dozens of contradictions and un-fillable holes in the Globe model don't pose a problem for you,
"I'm not gonna take away your Globe, bro. Peace."
-
Every day we observe the Sun “rising” and “setting” and it basically stays the same size and disappears over the horizon.
This is incorrect. Many videos show the sun noticeably decreasing in size as it "sets". That's impossible if the sun is 93 million miles away. Those videos that don't show it getting appreciably smaller are due to the fact that as it gets lower, you're looking through lower atmosphere, which has more humidity, and the humidity has a magifying effect. But if you're looking across deserts with low humidity, there are many videos showing the sun shrinking to a very tiny speck before disappearing. Other videos show the sun fading away before even hitting the horizon.
So, in the videos where the sun is getting noticeably smaller, either there's something in the lower atmosphere causing it to appear to shrink, or else, in the ones where it doesn't get much smaller, there's soemthing in the atmosphere magnifying it. Humidity causes magnification in all cases. You can see sometimes that the moon can appear gigantic when it's low over the horizon, due to humidity in the air and looking through the atmosphere.
When you make the statement as the one above, you're just saying that and clearly haven't studied the phenomenon or looked at the evidence, lots of photographic / video evidence showing the contrary, where the sun gets significantly smaller. You just say that because you think it's evidence for your position and you want it to be true.
-
This is incorrect. Many videos show the sun noticeably decreasing in size as it "sets". That's impossible if the sun is 93 million miles away. Those videos that don't show it getting appreciably smaller are due to the fact that as it gets lower, you're looking through lower atmosphere, which has more humidity, and the humidity has a magifying effect. But if you're looking across deserts with low humidity, there are many videos showing the sun shrinking to a very tiny speck before disappearing. Other videos show the sun fading away before even hitting the horizon.
So, in the videos where the sun is getting noticeably smaller, either there's something in the lower atmosphere causing it to appear to shrink, or else, in the ones where it doesn't get much smaller, there's soemthing in the atmosphere magnifying it. Humidity causes magnification in all cases. You can see sometimes that the moon can appear gigantic when it's low over the horizon, due to humidity in the air and looking through the atmosphere.
When you make the statement as the one above, you're just saying that and clearly haven't studied the phenomenon or looked at the evidence, lots of photographic / video evidence showing the contrary, where the sun gets significantly smaller. You just say that because you think it's evidence for your position and you want it to be true.
Lad, no offense (you know I like you!) BUT, you are deluding yourself into believing what is not true. Many sunsets show just the opposite. Many times the Sun appears much larger when it is “setting”.
You must realize that many if not most of those videos that are posted on YouTube are deceptive in one way or another. My advice is to skip the videos and go outside and see nature for yourself. See how the Sun “sets” and how the moon is illuminated by the Sun’s light. Sometimes they both appear at the same time during the day and you can observe this for yourself.
-
Sorry, I won't hold your hand.
If that list of dozens of contradictions and un-fillable holes in the Globe model don't pose a problem for you,
"I'm not gonna take away your Globe, bro. Peace."
That’s fine with me. Believe as you wish, it’s not dogmatic. 😀
-
That's impossible if the sun is 93 million miles away.
Round Earther here, and you're correct the Sun isn't 93 million miles away. They've exaggerated the distance of the Sun from the Earth and the size of the rest of the cosmos by perhaps as much as 85%. I think Pliny the Elder estimated the Sun to be about 19 times as far away from Earth as the Moon. I'm not sure how he came up with that number. If that's anywhere near the round figure for space, it's about 4,517,820 miles.
The reason the Sun appears so big is because the Earth's atmosphere captures and magnifies its light and heat. If it were not for the Earth's atmosphere, the Sun would be smaller and less intense and we could see stars all day long. As it is now, the Sun's real angular diameter in the sky, not it's mysterious glow or corona affect, is the same as the Moon's, which is uncanny and the reason eclipses work out so well like they do. Lunar eclipses by the way occur in 3-D space, of course, and add to the simple proof that the Earth is a sphere.
-
Round Earther here, and you're correct the Sun isn't 93 million miles away. They've exaggerated the distance of the Sun from the Earth and the size of the rest of the cosmos by perhaps as much as 85%. I think Pliny the Elder estimated the Sun to be about 19 times as far away from Earth as the Moon. I'm not sure how he came up with that number. If that's anywhere near the round figure for space, it's about 4,517,820 miles.
The reason the Sun appears so big is because the Earth's atmosphere captures and magnifies its light and heat. If it were not for the Earth's atmosphere, the Sun would be smaller and less intense and we could see stars all day long. As it is now, the Sun's real angular diameter in the sky, not it's mysterious glow or corona affect, is the same as the Moon's, which is uncanny and the reason eclipses work out so well like they do. Lunar eclipses by the way occur in 3-D space, of course, and add to the simple proof that the Earth is a sphere.
Even if the sun were 4,517,820 miles away from the earth, wouldn't it appear to always be the same size, given that it's supposedly so far away? But the sun, in reality, gets smaller in appearance as it goes away from us, and this indicates to me that the sun is not far away at all, but quite close and above the earth. It's not absolute proof, but just evidence to me.
Flat Earth Sun travel across sky - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjWTJrSoP2g)
-
The perception of the Sun that we experience from the surface of the Earth is greatly affected by the Earth's atmosphere that captures and magnifies the sunlight. I think Aristotle wrote the earliest recorded work that we still have today on meteorology. How the Sun appears in the sky is also a question of atmospherics.
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all believed the Earth to be a sphere that was at rest, perfectly balanced in the middle of the ends of the Heavens, and not moving. It was considered to have its equipoise because it's perfectly sphercial in the middle of the spherical ends of space, which balances it out against all the distance in sides in a mysterious mathematical way. They sort of left it at that.
-
The perception of the Sun that we experience from the surface of the Earth is greatly affected by the Earth's atmosphere that captures and magnifies the sunlight. I think Aristotle wrote the earliest recorded work that we still have today on meteorology. How the Sun appears in the sky is also a question of atmospherics.
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all believed the Earth to be a sphere that was at rest, perfectly balanced in the middle of the ends of the Heavens, and not moving. It was considered to have its equipoise because it's perfectly sphercial in the middle of the spherical ends of space, which balances it out against all the distance in sides in a mysterious mathematical way. They sort of left it at that.
Well, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle could have been wrong. They were only human, after all, and not infallible.
-
Not long ago I noticed the sun looked huge at sunrise, and I don't think it was just because it was close to the trees as a size reference.
-
Reality:
(https://i.imgur.com/9ARnOKK.png)
There is no effect that would make objects, or light/light rays/photons, obstruct your view if it was on a flat surface. Only a curved surface explains this observations.
I don't believe that the photo on the right is 130 miles away. It looks photoshopped anyway. Here are quite a few photos taken of Mt. Rainier from Seattle, which is 100 miles away.
How is it possible that your above photo can be 130 miles away, when most of the mountain is still showing from 100 miles away in Seattle?
1,184 Seattle Mount Rainier Photos and Premium High Res Pictures - Getty Images (https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/seattle-mount-rainier)
-
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all believed the Earth to be a sphere that was at rest, perfectly balanced in the middle of the ends of the Heavens, and not moving. It was considered to have its equipoise because it's perfectly sphercial in the middle of the spherical ends of space, which balances it out against all the distance in sides in a mysterious mathematical way. They sort of left it at that.
Is there a picture/model which illustrates their view?
-
Well, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle could have been wrong. They were only human, after all, and not infallible.
At least they weren't engaged in heresy, the egregious one in which Copernicus, Gilbert, Galileo, Kepler and Newton were involved.
-
Is there a picture/model which illustrates their view?
I think Ptolemy illustrated it. Pierre d'Ailly for one wrote "Ymago Mundi" that was a guide for Columbus and showed the Earth as a sphere. Just consider that any point in space, as small as it can be, is spherical for a perfect relation of depth to all the sides of space, that are all around everywhere as far as things can go, and for all the points alike.
Start with one side of Pi, then another that is its opposite and build it all up from there. Space buils up from Pi, and so it goes ad infinitum, imho. So the analysis of the sides of Pi should solve it.
At midday the Sun is opposite another point in space that is midnight since all the hours of the day are around the Earth equally all the time. Midnight and midday are at opposite sides of the hours and the exprience of time is also the experience of space. It's like the dance of the hours and the dance of the circle.
The Sun also has three characteristics in altitude, azimuth, and ascension as it goes by the surface of the Earth. This means there is another perpendicular plane in the east and the west, also throughout the middle, and where it ascends and descends, as it lights up half of the Earth at a time in the progress of its orbit.
Where does the Sun go at midnight in relation to a flat Earth? It seems there's a problem in the development and relation of the full extent of sides in a flat Earth scenario, since the Sun lights up half of it all the time. If nobody can find the end of the West why does the Sun descend over the bar of the horizon at sunset? The Sun doesn't make an infinite journey in a day, and the relationship between midnight and midday is not infinite either. So these limits have to start working out some way somewhere.
In a round Earth, one can say the surface of the Earth is "uniform", but in a flat Earth it seems the surface is not uniform since they say everbody's on one side. In that case, one may wonder what is the surface of the Earth like where the Sun never shines?
-
The Bible has a number of geocentric verses but these from Wisdom are maybe overlooked. They both support the geocentric view since heliocentrism makes disorder out of motion and the proportion of space.
11:21 but thou hast ordered all things in measure, and number, and weight. sed omnia mensura et numero et pondere disposuisti.
11:23 For the whole world before thee is as the least grain of the balance, and as a drop of the morning dew, that falleth down upon tho earth. quoniam tamquam momentum staterae sic ante te est orbis terrarum et tamquam gutta roris antelucani quae descendit in terram
All the oceans are like a drop of water and all the surface has the same equal relation to the center which is spherical. In a flat Earth all the surface doesn't have the same measured relation to the center.
-
Not long ago I noticed the sun looked huge at sunrise, and I don't think it was just because it was close to the trees as a size reference.
Not sure if this is a sarcastic comment, but thngs can get magnified when they're low on the horizon depending on the atmosphere you have to look through to view it.
-
Even if the sun were 4,517,820 miles away from the earth, wouldn't it appear to always be the same size, given that it's supposedly so far away? But the sun, in reality, gets smaller in appearance as it goes away from us, and this indicates to me that the sun is not far away at all, but quite close and above the earth. It's not absolute proof, but just evidence to me.
Flat Earth Sun travel across sky - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjWTJrSoP2g)
Thanks. This video debunks the notion that the sun never gets smaller when it's setting. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't ... although I've seen a guy who made a video showing that it gets a little bit smaller no matter what, even if it's not "smaller enough" to make it obvious, where he took still shots and measured the size of the sun.
So, it's clearly demonstrated that things can get magnified when viewed through the atmosphere. As objects get lower on the horizon, you have to look through MORE atmosphere to see it. But what kind of atmospheric distortion would cause the sun to APPEAR to get smaller? Only thing you can say is that when it was higher in the sky, it was being magnified, but then when it got closer to the horizon it was magnified less and less ... but that's the opposite of what we normally see, such as with the moon being larger near the horizon.
David Weiss has taken some video from a drone where the sun never sets but merely fades away.
I've seen video from the weather balloons (those at about 120,00 feet), and when it's in the right position, the sun does clearly appears to be headed TOWARD the balloon and getting larger. You'd expect a lot less atmospheric distortion at 120,000 feet.
And, then, it's been pointed out with those weather balloons at 120,000 feet that from one end of Kansas to another you would expect 120,000 feet of curvature, the same amount as the altitude of the weather balloons. That's an enormous amount of curvature that is not evident anywhere. You would clearly see the horizon line dip below eye level.
About 16 seconds into this simulator video is what it would look like at 120,000 feet, but the horizon line remains at eye level.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08-YbvOCwGw
That's why Nei deGrasse Tyson had to do damage control with his "that stuff is flat" video, where he had to claim that you couldn't see any curvature at 120,000 feet (where it used to be claimed that it could be seen from commercial airplanes at 30,000 feet). Now that amateur balloons have gotten up to the 120,000 feet level, they couldn't hide behind doctored NASA images anymore with the wide angle lense. So he had no choice but to claim that curvature would not be visible at all at 120,000 feet (as per the Red Bull jump).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkWcvXLjquk
-
Thanks. This video debunks the notion that the sun never gets smaller when it's setting. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't ... although I've seen a guy who made a video showing that it gets a little bit smaller no matter what, even if it's not "smaller enough" to make it obvious, where he took still shots and measured the size of the sun.
So, it's clearly demonstrated that things can get magnified when viewed through the atmosphere. As objects get lower on the horizon, you have to look through MORE atmosphere to see it. But what kind of atmospheric distortion would cause the sun to APPEAR to get smaller? Only thing you can say is that when it was higher in the sky, it was being magnified, but then when it got closer to the horizon it was magnified less and less ... but that's the opposite of what we normally see, such as with the moon being larger near the horizon.
David Weiss has taken some video from a drone where the sun never sets but merely fades away.
I've seen video from the weather balloons (those at about 120,00 feet), and when it's in the right position, the sun does clearly appears to be headed TOWARD the balloon and getting larger. You'd expect a lot less atmospheric distortion at 120,000 feet.
And, then, it's been pointed out with those weather balloons at 120,000 feet that from one end of Kansas to another you would expect 120,000 feet of curvature, the same amount as the altitude of the weather balloons. That's an enormous amount of curvature that is not evident anywhere. You would clearly see the horizon line dip below eye level.
About 16 seconds into this simulator video is what it would look like at 120,000 feet, but the horizon line remains at eye level.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08-YbvOCwGw
That's why Nei deGrasse Tyson had to do damage control with his "that stuff is flat" video, where he had to claim that you couldn't see any curvature at 120,000 feet (where it used to be claimed that it could be seen from commercial airplanes at 30,000 feet). Now that amateur balloons have gotten up to the 120,000 feet level, they couldn't hide behind doctored NASA images anymore with the wide angle lense. So he had no choice but to claim that curvature would not be visible at all at 120,000 feet (as per the Red Bull jump).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkWcvXLjquk
Good info above. I agree that 120,000 feet of curvature would be more evident than what is shown in the video you posted. That makes sense. Interesting that Neil smoke de Grasse Tyson had to do damage control about it! That's just more proof that he has try to reinforce the myth of a globe earth.
-
Even if the sun were 4,517,820 miles away from the earth, wouldn't it appear to always be the same size, given that it's supposedly so far away? But the sun, in reality, gets smaller in appearance as it goes away from us, and this indicates to me that the sun is not far away at all, but quite close and above the earth. It's not absolute proof, but just evidence to me.
Flat Earth Sun travel across sky - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjWTJrSoP2g)
The issue with this video being definitive is that you have the confounding factor of glare. Notice that when the sun gets closer to the horizon in the video, it not only gets relatively smaller, but it also changes shape (becomes more uniformly round), and also gets a lot more sharp-edged. When it appears to get "bigger" higher in the sky, this increased diameter may not represent the true apparent increase in diameter, but the glare of the sun's light on the camera lens or other components of the optical equipment, as well as glare from clouds, dust etc. This creates a diffuse "fringe" of light around the sun, making it look bigger than it actually is.
When the sun is lower in the sky, the argument would be it is shining through the atmosphere etc. edge-on, which filters the light, eliminates the glare, and produces the correct diameter, while if it is higher in the sky, the glare masks the true diameter and gives the impression of increasing size as it gets away from the horizon.
It is easy to replicate this effect: simply place a bright flashlight on something stable, take a few steps away, and try to take a cellphone photo of the light directly head-on. The resulting bright white, diffuse patch of light with soft edges doesn't reflect the true size of the flashlight bulb/reflector, but rather the glare of the intense light on the lens of the camera. If you dim the light (place tissue paper or translucent plastic over the flashlight's bulb end), the glare is decreased, and now you can see the flashlight's true smaller diameter.
However, there is a simple way to definitively prove whether the sun decreases in size or not as it rises or sets: a telescope fitted with a solar filter. This cuts out the glare and just shows the "disc" of the sun. It wouldn't even need to be a big or expensive telescope; just one with a safe solar filter. You could photograph it at the same magnification throughout the day and see if it changes in size. In fact, the classic simple "pinhole" projection box method might even work; you could measure the diameter of the sun along the projected background with a ruler and see if it changes during different times of the day.
Is anyone aware of someone using this method (solar telescope or projector) and measuring if the sun's objective diameter increases or decreases with its position in the sky?
-
At least they weren't engaged in heresy, the egregious one in which Copernicus, Gilbert, Galileo, Kepler and Newton were involved.
Well, yes, but I'm not sure that Plato, Socrates or Aristotle would ever be considered as heretics for any reason since they lived long before the existence of the Catholic Church.
I don't know much about Plato or Socrates, but from what we know about Aristotle, through St. Thomas, he was of course a keen and astute observer of human nature and the natural word. But observing human nature is different than observing the shape of the earth. Other humans are in close proximity, and the shape of the earth is not. We are just little specks compared to the size of the earth. The only way to try to observe the shape of the earth in the days of Aristotle was through direct observation and mathematical calculations. It was easier to be mistaken back in his day, and there still aren't really good ways to try to observe the shape of the earth in our time. We can really only find evidence. Just my opinion.
-
The issue with this video being definitive is that you have the confounding factor of glare. Notice that when the sun gets closer to the horizon in the video, it not only gets relatively smaller, but it also changes shape (becomes more uniformly round), and also gets a lot more sharp-edged. When it appears to get "bigger" higher in the sky, this increased diameter may not represent the true apparent increase in diameter, but the glare of the sun's light on the camera lens or other components of the optical equipment, as well as glare from clouds, dust etc. This creates a diffuse "fringe" of light around the sun, making it look bigger than it actually is.
When the sun is lower in the sky, the argument would be it is shining through the atmosphere etc. edge-on, which filters the light, eliminates the glare, and produces the correct diameter, while if it is higher in the sky, the glare masks the true diameter and gives the impression of increasing size as it gets away from the horizon.
It is easy to replicate this effect: simply place a bright flashlight on something stable, take a few steps away, and try to take a cellphone photo of the light directly head-on. The resulting bright white, diffuse patch of light with soft edges doesn't reflect the true size of the flashlight bulb/reflector, but rather the glare of the intense light on the lens of the camera. If you dim the light (place tissue paper or translucent plastic over the flashlight's bulb end), the glare is decreased, and now you can see the flashlight's true smaller diameter.
However, there is a simple way to definitively prove whether the sun decreases in size or not as it rises or sets: a telescope fitted with a solar filter. This cuts out the glare and just shows the "disc" of the sun. It wouldn't even need to be a big or expensive telescope; just one with a safe solar filter. You could photograph it at the same magnification throughout the day and see if it changes in size. In fact, the classic simple "pinhole" projection box method might even work; you could measure the diameter of the sun along the projected background with a ruler and see if it changes during different times of the day.
Is anyone aware of someone using this method (solar telescope or projector) and measuring if the sun's objective diameter increases or decreases with its position in the sky?
Yes, glare could be an issue, and it would be good to try filming this observation of the setting sun with a solar filter on the camera lens. But still, we can in any case see that the core of the sun can be seen to be getting smaller in the video. It's possible that there was a solar filter on the lens of camera of the guy who filmed the setting sun.
I could be wrong, but I don't agree that it would be easy to replicate this with a flashlight, since nothing in physical existence can compare with the brightness of the sun.
-
Yes, glare could be an issue, and it would be good to try filming this observation of the setting sun with a solar filter on the camera lens. But still, we can in any case see that the core of the sun can be seen to be getting smaller in the video. It's possible that there was a solar filter on the lens of camera of the guy who filmed the setting sun.
Unfortunately, they could not have used a solar filter in that footage, as a true solar filter is like looking through a welder's glass (it is so dark and calibrated for such a bright light, all you can see is the disc of the sun, no sky, clouds, trees, ocean horizon, etc. everything else is black) It needs to be that dark in order to cut out the glare.
I could be wrong, but I don't agree that it would be easy to replicate this with a flashlight, since nothing in physical existence can compare with the brightness of the sun.
I was thinking about this myself and decided to try an experiment. Below are the results. Flashlight was photographed with and Android phone 4 feet away in a lit room. The green linear object to the right is a standard 12 inch ruler. It shows that the glare from a bright light can give the illusion of larger diameters in what is reality a much smaller subject. It might be interesting to experiment with different thickness, sizes, and shapes of the paper filter to see what kind of gradations in apparent size change might occur.
All this shows is that glare can increase the apparent size (and therefore "closeness") of an object. Measuring the sun's diameter with a solar telescope or a pinhole set-up would be the definitive answer.
(https://i.imgur.com/8ah8odx.jpg)
-
There are many similar videos with or without filters ... for anyone willing to search with a open mind.
But in that video, the size difference is way too big to be explainable with some filter nonsense.
-
There are many similar videos with or without filters ... for anyone willing to search with a open mind.
But in that video, the size difference is way too big to be explainable with some filter nonsense.
With all due respect Ladislaus, I've looked at many videos online of this apparent increase and decrease of the sun's size, and I have never encountered any that use a true solar filter. There are many different filters that can be fitted to cameras/telescopes etc., but only a solar filter will actually cancel out the glare and provide an objective image of the sun's edge and surface. In a filter like this, the background will be completely black, and the sun will be white, bluish, or light yellowish.
Yes, the difference in size in the video is extreme, but as that simpe flashlight experiment above shows, glare can produce a dramatically larger appearance to a bright object in some circuмstances. Image A in the image I posted (where the light is uncovered) is significantly larger than the true size of the flashlight, all due to glare. I honestly don't see why a solar filter would be considered "nonsense" if it is removing that bias of the glare and more correctly showing the size of something.
Just to be completely clear, I'm not being confrontational here; I'm just legitimately interested in this and am asking everyone if it's ever been done that way before. Have you encountered any videos where a true solar filter was used and docuмented the change in size of the sun?
-
With all due respect Ladislaus, I've looked at many videos online of this apparent increase and decrease of the sun's size, and I have never encountered any that use a true solar filter. There are many different filters that can be fitted to cameras/telescopes etc., but only a solar filter will actually cancel out the glare and provide an objective image of the sun's edge and surface. In a filter like this, the background will be completely black, and the sun will be white, bluish, or light yellowish.
Yes, the difference in size in the video is extreme, but as that simpe flashlight experiment above shows, glare can produce a dramatically larger appearance to a bright object in some circuмstances. Image A in the image I posted (where the light is uncovered) is significantly larger than the true size of the flashlight, all due to glare. I honestly don't see why a solar filter would be considered "nonsense" if it is removing that bias of the glare and more correctly showing the size of something.
Just to be completely clear, I'm not being confrontational here; I'm just legitimately interested in this and am asking everyone if it's ever been done that way before. Have you encountered any videos where a true solar filter was used and docuмented docuмented the change in size of the sun?
Here you go, one example
https://youtu.be/CNtvQbGigqA
-
Here you go, one example
https://youtu.be/CNtvQbGigqA
Thank you for sharing DigitalLogos. One thing I'm noticing in the video though is that despite the title, the filter he used is technically not a true astronomical solar filter. You can still clearly see the clouds, trees, and horizon in the pictures. It is a very dark filter no doubt, but not anywhere as dark as a true solar filter, in which you wouldn't see that unlit detail (unless it was directly crossing the sun's face). Therefore, there is still glare bleeding through it that could be affecting the measurement and is blurring the edges. Even when the clouds are not passing the face of the sun, you an see the texture in them clearly, which you would not see in a solar filter. In a true solar filter, the background is pitch black and the photographed sun's edges are razor sharp, as in this guy's example:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/tYrFzRVHg1I
I'll keep an eye out for new examples that might use a true solar filter, and in the future, if someone has the equipment, this would be an interesting experiment to perform and report on.
-
Here's a video by a flat earther that shows footage made by an anti-flat earther, but that footage actually shows the sun to be getting smaller as it sets, and that's using a filter:
Anti-Flat Earth Time Lapse Solar Filter Footage (AGAIN) Shows Sun Shrinking at Sunset - Bing video (https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=video+footage+of+sunset+with+filter%2c+time-lapse&docid=603483526911252965&mid=940C8FA95C10339EFCB0940C8FA95C10339EFCB0&view=detail&FORM=VIRE)
I've been viewing footage today of sunsets that show (with a filter) that the sun does not change size, but they feature the sun setting at a sideways movement, and not directly overhead. Not sure how that's a factor.
The guy who makes the video that I posted above asked...."Don't we all just want the truth"? I think that's a good thing to ask. We just want the truth. Not some NASA or тαℓмυdic version of truth.
-
I've been viewing footage today of sunsets that show (with a filter) that the sun does not change size, but they feature the sun setting at a sideways movement, and not directly overhead. Not sure how that's a factor.
If the sun is overhead, you're actually looking through less atmosphere between you and the sun. When it's lower on the horizon, there's much more atmosphere. By the time you get to 30,000 feet or so, about 7+ miles, the atmosphere is very thin. But if you look toward the horizon, the sun his hundreds of miles away and you're looking at it through lots more atmosphere. If there's any humidity in said atmosphere, it's going to magnify the sun, to about the same size, regardless of the distance. Rob Skiba did some experiments that demonstrate this, where his depiction of the sun reduced in size as it move away from the camera. But he interposed a lens between the camera and "the sun" and it didn't change at all in size as it moved backwards (and also appeared to set). Moisture/humidity magnify objects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-PhStb6mTQ
It's no accident that some of the best video of shrinking sun was taken across a desert.
This is also why the moon can look gigantic when it's low over the horizon. This was in fact Aristotle's explanation for the so-called "moon illusion" ... and he was right. Modern science has thrown out the theory that it's just an optical illusion in our brains, but that is debunked by the fact that you can take pictures of the moon at the same zoom level above and then on the horizon and they come out at different sizes. So NASA now claims they "don't know" why the moon is larger over the horizon. They know full well, but don't want to admit the Aristotle explanation because that contributes to debunking the NASA globe propaganda.
-
If the sun is overhead, you're actually looking through less atmosphere between you and the sun. When it's lower on the horizon, there's much more atmosphere. By the time you get to 30,000 feet or so, about 7+ miles, the atmosphere is very thin. But if you look toward the horizon, the sun his hundreds of miles away and you're looking at it through lots more atmosphere. If there's any humidity in said atmosphere, it's going to magnify the sun, to about the same size, regardless of the distance. Rob Skiba did some experiments that demonstrate this, where his depiction of the sun reduced in size as it move away from the camera. But he interposed a lens between the camera and "the sun" and it didn't change at all in size as it moved backwards (and also appeared to set). Moisture/humidity magnify objects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-PhStb6mTQ
It's no accident that some of the best video of shrinking sun was taken across a desert.
This is also why the moon can look gigantic when it's low over the horizon.
That's a fascinating experiment in that the magnification of the lens (as you said) causes the sun to appear to set and not change size. And that magnification represents water in the atmosphere. That makes sense.
-
Today I went out after work and bought 2 different magnifying lenses. One was like the flat sheet (3x) that the fellow in the video used and the other was a 4” (10x) round glass one. My 16 and my 11 year old sons helped me do the experiment. The results were as I anticipated. Using the flat magnifier, the object just became much larger and more blurry as it moved away. Using the large round magnifying glass, the object appeared clearer and nearly unchanged as it was moved away.
I suggest that those who promote FE conduct their own experiments instead of relying on YouTube videos from people they know nothing about. If you will recall, last year I went to a lake and conducted an experiment using two different telescopes demonstrating that I couldn’t see an object that would be visible 20 miles away if the Earth was indeed flat. It was ignored and excuses were made. Sadly I seem to be one of the few on this forum who is willing to get off their backside and try to find answers. :facepalm:
-
I suggest that those who promote FE conduct their own experiments instead of relying on YouTube videos ...
I suggest you approach the subject with an open instead of brainwashed by modern science. Your participation in this discussion is utterly pointless, as you've already made up your mind and not willing to look at any evidence to the contrary.
-
Sadly I seem to be one of the few on this forum who is willing to get off their backside and try to find answers. :facepalm:
You're not trying to find answers. You've already dismissed FE out of the gate.
-
If you will recall, last year I went to a lake and conducted an experiment using two different telescopes demonstrating that I couldn’t see an object that would be visible 20 miles away if the Earth was indeed flat. It was ignored and excuses were made.
Your pictures were worthless and provided no evidence of anything. We explained very clearly why that was the case, but you dismiss them as "excuses" (unable to actually refute what was said). Yet another case of your simply begging the question, searching for "evidence" to back up your predetermined position on the matter, and ignoring arguments against it by gratuitously dismissing them as mere "excuses".
-
I suggest you approach the subject with an open instead of brainwashed by modern science. Your participation in this discussion is utterly pointless, as you've already made up your mind and not willing to look at any evidence to the contrary.
(https://i.imgur.com/mT4jKkO.jpg)
:laugh1: It’s just the opposite, it’s you who are brainwashed and fooled by a bunch of shills on the internet. It seems that you are too scared to discover that you just might be wrong.
I am the one who is willing to do experiments myself. I am the one wanting to make sure that I’m not mistaken.
Are you afraid to find out that you’ve been fooled by some con artist in YouTube video? Quit wasting your time watching videos and do the experiment yourself. Don’t be afraid of being proved wrong.
-
Well, yes, but I'm not sure that Plato, Socrates or Aristotle would ever be considered as heretics for any reason since they lived long before the existence of the Catholic Church.
I don't know much about Plato or Socrates, but from what we know about Aristotle, through St. Thomas, he was of course a keen and astute observer of human nature and the natural word. But observing human nature is different than observing the shape of the earth. Other humans are in close proximity, and the shape of the earth is not. We are just little specks compared to the size of the earth. The only way to try to observe the shape of the earth in the days of Aristotle was through direct observation and mathematical calculations. It was easier to be mistaken back in his day, and there still aren't really good ways to try to observe the shape of the earth in our time. We can really only find evidence. Just my opinion.
It must be apparent that it's not a necessity for the Earth to be flat for it to be established and still as the Bible says. But there is a necessity in the relation of geometry to all physical circuмstances. It's this necessary relation of geometry to all physical circuмstances that leads me to the rounder and round as can be Earth opinion.
-
It must be apparent that it's not a necessity for the Earth to be flat for it to be established and still as the Bible says. But there is a necessity in the relation of geometry to all physical circuмstances. It's this necessary relation of geometry to all physical circuмstances that leads me to the rounder and round as can be Earth opinion.
What about this geometry?
(https://i.imgur.com/p0O20b6.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/WDDTecT.png)
Using sextant you measure an angle to Polaris, the GP can be thousands of miles away from the ship, you then draw a circle of equal altitude, ie horizontal circle which means level. So celestial navigation at sea is #1 proof Earth is level
-
SEXTANTS... PROVING FLAT EARTH SINCE 994 A.D.
9min 35sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/SVgBj5GeLLN2/
(https://i.imgur.com/OLAAwzI.png)
-
I think the sense of proportion in space there is off. The curved adjacent of the roundest Earth is very gradually developed at a rate of mere inches per square mile in any direction, which leaves plenty of room for the development of straight lines out into to deep space in connection to viewing the distant stars. And also apparent straight lines along the surface as the Earth may be regarded as a sphere of vanishing flatness. The flatness vanishes in all directions because of the gradually developed curved adjacent.
Columbus and all the old navigators were in substantial accord with Ptolemy, whose star charts they used, which were acknowledged to be based on the notion of the natural sphericity of space and the Earth, even if the maps were projected in a graphic plane.
The sky in which we discover the rotation of the stars is not flat, of course. The very issue of rotation of any object in space, besides the stars, brings up this matter of tangential and ubiquitous sphericity.
(https://i.imgur.com/Pp7Tqlb.png)
So they would have one believe there is 3-D perspective in art and nature and even in this picture, yet the sextant would prove the Earth is flat? The sextant itself is a fully 3-D object, as are the eyeballs that would use it, which are as round as round can be, being spheres. The eyeballs are also largely composed of water as is the Earth, and in that way eyeballs and the Earth have two characteristic similarities in sphericity and wateriness.
The Earth can be failry considered a flat plane like stick people can be considered people, but that's just on paper. The stars have altitude which is from another intersecting plane in 3-D. Besides altitude they have azimuth and ascension which show that the sky is 3-D. The sextant doesn't contradict any measurements of ascendant, descendant, zenith, or nadir which demonstrate two intersecting planes in 3-D. This sextant argument is like saying since my geometry test was on paper there isn't a golf ball, a baseball, or a volley ball, and therefore the Earth is flat.
-
Apparent straight lines along the surface of the Earth are not a problem since they develop curvature at a rate of inches to miles in any direction, and disappear in the greater curve. Straight lines are important in demonstrating the nature of sides and their full development in equal proportions around the Earth which, imho, is a sphere of vanishing flatness.
-
They said "banjo".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8EKOEN8d-U
-
It must be apparent that it's not a necessity for the Earth to be flat for it to be established and still as the Bible says. But there is a necessity in the relation of geometry to all physical circuмstances. It's this necessary relation of geometry to all physical circuмstances that leads me to the rounder and round as can be Earth opinion.
Can geometry explain how water can cling to a ball? You might be able to explain this using geometry, but I haven't seen that it can be done.
-
Can geometry explain how water can cling to a ball? You might be able to explain this using geometry, but I haven't seen that it can be done.
Of course, the claim is that gravity causes this, but gravity has never been proven. In fact, more and more physicists are questioning the very existence of gravity. Not only do we have this problem, but when adjacent to the allegedly-nearly-infinite vacuum of space, not only would the atmosphere not stay on the planet, but the water would also vaporize. This can be easily demonstrate with a home-made vacuum chamber that has only a small percentage of the vacuum "power" that space would have.
-
Of course, the claim is that gravity causes this, but gravity has never been proven. In fact, more and more physicists are questioning the very existence of gravity. Not only do we have this problem, but when adjacent to the allegedly-nearly-infinite vacuum of space, not only would the atmosphere not stay on the planet, but the water would also vaporize. This can be easily demonstrate with a home-made vacuum chamber that has only a small percentage of the vacuum "power" that space would have.
True, gravity has not been proven. And, as you say, there's the problem of the vacuum of space (which cannot really be infinite IMO) taking away the atmosphere and water. Neither of which can be explained, as far as I know, using geometry.
I don't think that everything in physical circuмstances can to be related to geometry, as Donachie says. To me, this is because the first mover (God) is not physical, and not all of His creation can be boiled down to math. Some of it is still a mystery, and probably always will be. A flat land earth with a dome and then Heaven above the dome makes the most sense to me, but I understand that a lot of Catholics don't agree with that.
-
True, gravity has not been proven. And, as you say, there's the problem of the vacuum of space (which cannot really be infinite IMO) taking away the atmosphere and water. Neither of which can be explained, as far as I know, using geometry.
I don't think that everything in physical circuмstances can to be related to geometry, as Donachie says. To me, this is because the first mover (God) is not physical, and not all of His creation can be boiled down to math. Some of it is still a mystery, and probably always will be. A flat land earth with a dome and then Heaven above the dome makes the most sense to me, but I understand that a lot of Catholics don't agree with that.
Donachie is fixated on the "sphere" being the perfect shape, but modern science's appliation of this has to do with gravity, that things naturally congeal into balls when gravity is the driving factor.
I on the other hand am 100% convinced the earth is Flat. Just too much evidence out there invalidating the globe. As for there being a firmament and waters above it (vs. space), that I hold to be certain de fide, as every single Church Father without exception believed this and interpreted Sacred Scripture that way (its obvious sense). I don't hold the flatness of the earth's surface to be of faith, but the firmament and the waters above most certainly are.
-
Donachie is fixated on the "sphere" being the perfect shape, but modern science's appliation of this has to do with gravity, that things naturally congeal into balls when gravity is the driving factor.
I on the other hand am 100% convinced the earth is Flat. Just too much evidence out there invalidating the globe. As for there being a firmament and waters above it (vs. space), that I hold to be certain de fide, as every single Church Father without exception believed this and interpreted Sacred Scripture that way (its obvious sense). I don't hold the flatness of the earth's surface to be of faith, but the firmament and the waters above most certainly are.
Yes, modern science has to rely on the idea of gravity (which they take as a fact).
Something I noticed on that Rob Skiba video you posted yesterday, in relation to water vapor in the atmosphere. He said that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere contains enough water to cover the whole earth in one inch of water. I seem to recall in the past that the globe earthers (or some of them) believe that the Bible reference to the 'waters above' means the water vapor in the atmosphere. But then that leaves the issue of where the waters come from for the Great Flood in Noah's time. We flat earthers generally believe that those waters came from the 'waters above' the dome. It couldn't have come from water vapor if there's only enough water to cover the earth in one inch of water. Of course one theory is that the water came from below the earth, but that doesn't seem quite right to me. What do you think?
-
Not sure if this is a sarcastic comment, but thngs can get magnified when they're low on the horizon depending on the atmosphere you have to look through to view it.
The sun can appear to change in size depending on the atmosphere, but lasers never curve, so the earth must be flat, and distant skyscrapers and mountains must always be visible until they aren't.
-
The sun can appear to change in size depending on the atmosphere, but lasers never curve, so the earth must be flat, and distant skyscrapers and mountains must always be visible until they aren't.
Nice try. But those who conducted a laser experiments performed them in cold, low humidity conditions, took all the measurements, made calculations regarding potential refraction and, as I've pointed out many times, Dr. John D performed two-way laser experiments, where you had them going in both directions. If conditions in one direction caused the laser to refract down (due to increasing density), the laser in the other direction would curve up due to decreasing density and refract over the top. His experiments were conducted live-streamed and were pre-announced so that witnesses could be present.
On top of that you falsely strawman the position claiming that lasers NEVER curve down. Nobody ever said they can't. Problem for Globe is that the lasers consistently follow the curve of the earth, repeatedly, in experiment after experiment (including the impossible two-way laser experiment).
And ... the longer the distance, the less probable the refraction pseudo-argument (consisting of just throwing the word out there). With those pictures taken from 200-300 miles away, you'd have miles of curvature. To be able to experience that, the rate of refraction would have to be perfectly consistent during the entire 200-mile path. Otherwise, some things in between would refract less, some things more, resulting in a badly distorted, and most likely hidden/missing, image. If anything along the 200+ mile path refracted just a little bit less, it would obstruct the view of the light that was allegedly bending behind it.
Refraction is so statistically improbable as an explanation that it's laughable. If someone were to present some other theory, such as that the charge of the earth consistently bends light around it, then I'd pay attention. But no such theory has ever been proposed, and it's never been demonstrated that electric charge or gravity can bend light ... except to a very miniscule extent (when they measured a tiny deviation of light near the sun, or so they say, in a claim that this proves relativity).
Here's the glober argument:
MAJOR: Earth is a globe.
MINOR: Refraction CAN bend light to some extent.
CONCLUSION: If any objects can be seen from "too far" away (given curvature math), it must be due to refraction.
THEREFORE: Earth is a globe.
There's never an attempt to run the numbers and to prove that refraction IS causing this phenomenon, just an assumption that if refraction could theoretically explain it, then this must be the explanation, since we know for sure that the earth is a globe. This is dishonest and is begging the question. So the earth is proven a globe by assuming that the earth is a globe. Preposterous.
-
Here you have an example of "refraction" working on a "schedule".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1BCY_r1w4I
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c84mZepL1KQ
-
Can geometry explain how water can cling to a ball? You might be able to explain this using geometry, but I haven't seen that it can be done.
Geometry is coincidental to all of physics, and the coincidental is as meaningful as the circuмstances, which are not meaningless. For the variety of clinging effects there has to be contact obviously. Waterproof surfaces tend not to allow clinging so it also depends on the surface matter.
Rain is falling down to the center of the Earth as it falls to the surface where it lands. All the rain falls in the same direction down to the center of the sphere, like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/BeMyG9Y.png)
Waterdrops are spherical, and in a true sphere the distinction between up or down is arbitrary, depending on location, but the direction to the center is not.
-
Of course, the claim is that gravity causes this, but gravity has never been proven.
.
Yes, that's right. Sometimes when I jump off my roof, I go up, other times I go down.
-
.
Yes, that's right. Sometimes when I jump off my roof, I go up, other times I go down.
:facepalm: This is the level of thinking we see from some of you people, and it tells us everything we need to know. And when I let go of a helium balloon sometimes it goes down instead of up.
There's a phenomenon whereby on earth we notice that denser objects go toward the earth, and less dense objects rise up ... despite "gravity". What causes it is disputed, and many top physicists now hold that gravity doesn't exist. Gravity as an explanation for cosmology has been completely debunked, and they have had to invent "dark matter" to explain away the problems.
There's electromagetism, density, thermodynamics ... all manner of possible explanations for the phenomenon, but gravity has never been proven to exist. You could even ask your buddy Neil de Grasse Tyson. There's a lecture posted online from an MIT professor of physics who says that electromagnetism is the force that explains this "down" phenomenon on earth, and that gravity is too weak to have anything to do with it.
-
Geometry is coincidental to all of physics, and the coincidental is as meaningful as the circuмstances, which are not meaningless. For the variety of clinging effects there has to be contact obviously. Waterproof surfaces tend not to allow clinging so it also depends on the surface matter.
Rain is falling down to the center of the Earth as it falls to the surface where it lands. All the rain falls in the same direction down to the center of the sphere, like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/BeMyG9Y.png)
Waterdrops are spherical, and in a true sphere the distinction between up or down is arbitrary, depending on location, but the direction to the center is not.
I'm not seeing how that is evidence for a ball earth. Or are you trying to explain gravity? Do you believe that because rain falls downward, this indicates a force of gravity, and that's what keeps the water in place on the surface of a supposed ball earth? ? Or something like that? The problem I have with that is that water on the surface of the earth is very, very heavy, but rainclouds are not.
-
I'm not seeing how that is evidence for a ball earth.
It's more of a philosophical thing for him based on the Aristotelian notion that the sphere is the "perfect shape".
-
The problem I have with that is that water on the surface of the earth is very, very heavy, but rainclouds are not.
That's a matter of density and buoyancy.
-
It's more of a philosophical thing for him based on the Aristotelian notion that the sphere is the "perfect shape".
Yeah, I don't really understand that though. Why the earth in itself has to be a sphere because that's the perfect shape.
As you already know, the ancient Hebrews, who knew Genesis in Scripture, thought about the entire system of the earth/firmament/waters above/Heaven and Sheol below as a sphere shape, not the earth all alone as in the ball model which does not account for Heaven above, and Sheol below.
The ball earth model seems to depict the earth as a stand alone object, and it isn't evident in that model that Heaven exists above, or that a supreme Creator created it for us, nor does it correspond well to Scripture.
-
I'm not seeing how that is evidence for a ball earth. Or are you trying to explain gravity? Do you believe that because rain falls downward, this indicates a force of gravity, and that's what keeps the water in place on the surface of a supposed ball earth? ? Or something like that? The problem I have with that is that water on the surface of the earth is very, very heavy, but rainclouds are not.
No to the Bank of Engand and Newton's theory of "gravity". Besides modern physics admitting that it's the "weakest force" and weaker than a little refrigerator magnet, Newtonian gravity's not any lateral force. It doesn't move anything sideways. And the distinction between the vertical and horizontal in a true sphere is arbitrary. So if it's not a lateral force, it's not a vertical one either. Besides that, weight by itself, which constitutes what one could call Augustinian "gravity" in contrast to the Newtonian, does not constitute a source of motion. They can put a 500 pound anvil in a field and it'll never move, unless something that can move it, moves it.
So if the Moon goes laterally around the Earth, which it does along the ecliptic, it must not be "gravity". It's something else, like "celestial impetus" ...
One thing to consider is where the Sun is at midnight. It's specifically on the opposite side of high noon. It doesn't keep going further west after sunset ad infinitum. It recedes from the straight-line attempt at cosmic infinity, at the end of the day, by curving around in a circle ...
Everything in space is on the other side of infinity, or infinity's on the other side of everything in space, and the full division of sides in two planes is like a cube, and the full rotation of the cube is like a sphere. Divide the day by six hours, and that's like 90 degrees, and there are the four sides of the square of the ecliptic that makes circles in rotation. The poles cut it from another plane for the 3-D roundness and full rotation in the sphere of space.
Raindrops are too heavy to remain suspended in air, and rain falls down to Earth, imho, because it's at the center, from the same reason of evidence that the Earth's in all the signs of the zodiac, in the middle, and under the clouds the same way all the time. The clouds, the stars, and the rain all point in to the Earth. They always will recede from a straight-line attempt at infinity and point in to the Earth out of a curve. It's elemental condensation and Aristotle thought that was how the Earth was formed spherically in the first place, through condensation.
-
Raindrops are too heavy to remain suspended in air, and rain falls down to Earth, imho, because it's at the center, from the same reason of evidence that the Earth's in all the signs of the zodiac, in the middle, and under the clouds the same way all the time. The clouds, the stars, and the rain all point in to the Earth. They always will recede from a straight-line attempt at infinity and point in to the Earth out of a curve. It's elemental condensation and Aristotle thought that was how the Earth was formed spherically in the first place, through condensation.
So Aristotle believed that the earth was formed spherically, through condensation, and is this what you believe as well? How old do you believe the earth to be?
-
So Aristotle believed that the earth was formed spherically, through condensation, and is this what you believe as well? How old do you believe the earth to be?
That seems to me the same as how modern science would describe the creation of the earth and planets.
What I wonder is, when considering the force of gravity in a sphere, would the force of gravity be sufficient to keep matter compressed in the core keeping the core solid, or would the gravity of the matter between the core and surface cause the core to be of low density, even naturally a cavity making a place for hell? I think the core would probably still be compressed such that there would be no cavity, not that hell needs to be a cavity; being submerged in lava would be bad enough.
-
That seems to me the same as how modern science would describe the creation of the earth and planets.
What I wonder is, when considering the force of gravity in a sphere, would the force of gravity be sufficient to keep matter compressed in the core keeping the core solid, or would the gravity of the matter between the core and surface cause the core to be of low density, even naturally a cavity making a place for hell? I think the core would probably still be compressed such that there would be no cavity, not that hell needs to be a cavity; being submerged in lava would be bad enough.
Of course, I don't believe in gravity, but hold that it's more about electromagnetism. I just don't believe that things get super solid in the middle of a sphere due to "gravity". Even if particles were to cling to each other due to gravity (which we don't see happening in nature ... when did a pile of gravel suddenly turn itself into a boulder?), what's causing them to cling more tightly in the center than anywhere else? There would seem to have to be some other external force causing the compression. None of that makes any sense to me. Since nobody has ever dug more than 9 miles deep, this notion of there being some molten iron "core" in the earth is completely speculative.
-
No to the Bank of Engand and Newton's theory of "gravity". Besides modern physics admitting that it's the "weakest force" and weaker than a little refrigerator magnet, Newtonian gravity's not any lateral force. It doesn't move anything sideways. And the distinction between the vertical and horizontal in a true sphere is arbitrary. So if it's not a lateral force, it's not a vertical one either. Besides that, weight by itself, which constitutes what one could call Augustinian "gravity" in contrast to the Newtonian, does not constitute a source of motion. They can put a 500 pound anvil in a field and it'll never move, unless something that can move it, moves it.
So if the Moon goes laterally around the Earth, which it does along the ecliptic, it must not be "gravity". It's something else, like "celestial impetus" ...
One thing to consider is where the Sun is at midnight. It's specifically on the opposite side of high noon. It doesn't keep going further west after sunset ad infinitum. It recedes from the straight-line attempt at cosmic infinity, at the end of the day, by curving around in a circle ...
Everything in space is on the other side of infinity, or infinity's on the other side of everything in space, and the full division of sides in two planes is like a cube, and the full rotation of the cube is like a sphere. Divide the day by six hours, and that's like 90 degrees, and there are the four sides of the square of the ecliptic that makes circles in rotation. The poles cut it from another plane for the 3-D roundness and full rotation in the sphere of space.
Raindrops are too heavy to remain suspended in air, and rain falls down to Earth, imho, because it's at the center, from the same reason of evidence that the Earth's in all the signs of the zodiac, in the middle, and under the clouds the same way all the time. The clouds, the stars, and the rain all point in to the Earth. They always will recede from a straight-line attempt at infinity and point in to the Earth out of a curve. It's elemental condensation and Aristotle thought that was how the Earth was formed spherically in the first place, through condensation.
You believe that the moon goes laterally (sideways?) around the earth. And if it's not 'gravity' it must be something else like 'celestial impetus.' Well, yes, 'celestial impetus' is one way to term it. It can also be thought of as God causing its orbit, but of course I believe that the moon and sun orbit above the earth, and not sideways around it along the ecliptic of a ball. We don't really know how it works exactly, but that's okay.
I agree that the sun doesn't keep going west after sunset ad infinitum. The sun seems to have no interest in, as you say, a straight-line attempt at cosmic infinity. But then, being located and rotating above the earth, it's obvious that it does not make an attempt at going in the direction of 'cosmic infinity.' Of course it doesn't.
Is everything in space really at the other side of infinity? Or is it in a closed system, such as the one that we flat-earthers believe in? We hear a lot about infinity, but I don't believe it exists. Though of course fake NASA photos might suggest otherwise.
I would agree that raindrops are too heavy to remain suspended in air. Even snowflakes, which are not spherical, but mostly hexagonal, fall to earth, though not always in a straight line. Yes, the clouds, stars and rain do point in to the earth. Actually, that would make sense on a flat earth plane.
-
Of course, I don't believe in gravity, but hold that it's more about electromagnetism. I just don't believe that things get super solid in the middle of a sphere due to "gravity". Even if particles were to cling to each other due to gravity (which we don't see happening in nature ... when did a pile of gravel suddenly turn itself into a boulder?), what's causing them to cling more tightly in the center than anywhere else? There would seem to have to be some other external force causing the compression. None of that makes any sense to me. Since nobody has ever dug more than 9 miles deep, this notion of there being some molten iron "core" in the earth is completely speculative.
The reason behind the solid core theory, in my opinion, is that due to the huge size of the earth, all the matter trying to come together via each particle's individual gravitational pull would end up causing the matter on the surface to push against the matter below until what is in the center is under the most compression. Basically like being the guy on the bottom of a dog pile in football.
-
This is precisely why you need a model:
(https://i.imgur.com/2Qr4Eth.jpg)
“At any given time, there is an equal area of the Earth that is experiencing daytime, and that is having a night time. The reason is that the sun is very far, and it would illuminate a hemisphere of the Earth, and leave the other dark.
If we plot which areas of the Earth that are getting sunlight on an azimuthal equidistant map centered on the north pole, the sun would appear to illuminate a somewhat elliptical area during the northern hemisphere summer, and a lopsided Bat-Signal shaped area during the winter. During the equinox, the sun would appear to illuminate a half-circle area.
This fact is not a problem because the azimuthal-equidistant is a map, and like any other map, it has distortions. An area of the map closer to the center represents a larger real-world area compared to the same map area farther from the center.
On the other hand, flat-Earthers insist the azimuthal-equidistant map is the map of a flat-Earth, devoid of any distortions. And this is a problem for them. They would have to invent just another ad-hoc ‘explanations’ how the sun illuminates such an impossible area. Their ‘lamp-shade’ or the ‘spotlight’ explanations fail to explain it.”
-
This is precisely why you need a model:
(https://i.imgur.com/2Qr4Eth.jpg)
“At any given time, there is an equal area of the Earth that is experiencing daytime, and that is having a night time. The reason is that the sun is very far, and it would illuminate a hemisphere of the Earth, and leave the other dark.
If we plot which areas of the Earth that are getting sunlight on an azimuthal equidistant map centered on the north pole, the sun would appear to illuminate a somewhat elliptical area during the northern hemisphere summer, and a lopsided Bat-Signal shaped area during the winter. During the equinox, the sun would appear to illuminate a half-circle area.
This fact is not a problem because the azimuthal-equidistant is a map, and like any other map, it has distortions. An area of the map closer to the center represents a larger real-world area compared to the same map area farther from the center.
On the other hand, flat-Earthers insist the azimuthal-equidistant map is the map of a flat-Earth, devoid of any distortions. And this is a problem for them. They would have to invent just another ad-hoc ‘explanations’ how the sun illuminates such an impossible area. Their ‘lamp-shade’ or the ‘spotlight’ explanations fail to explain it.”
Yes I agree. Even though I'm a flat earther I've tried mentioning this to other flat earthers elsewhere and I just get called a shill even though us flat earthers need a better model, I think the key might be putting Jerusalem in the center and working from there. I can't remember if it was here or elsewhere but there were people even saying the 24 hour sun was a hoax when I know people that have been there and can attest to it being the case and they're not shills either, just normal people. Flat Earth has a lot of propoganda to it as well and talking points that don't always make sense under close scrutiny but people just blindly hash out the flat earth talking points without really looking at all sides. That's why I was positing earlier in the thread that flat earthers need to focus on this over the other stuff (even though the other stuff is important.)
It may sound like I'm anti-flat earth but I'm more anti blind flat earthers than flat earth itself. Many flat earthers give flat earth a bad name because of some of a lot of their attitudes. Refreshingly though there are some flat earthers, like myself, and a couple here, that can admit that flat earthers don't have all the answers and try to work on explaining things that make full sense and are willing to look at both sides objectively.
-
This is precisely why you need a model:
(https://i.imgur.com/2Qr4Eth.jpg)
“At any given time, there is an equal area of the Earth that is experiencing daytime, and that is having a night time. The reason is that the sun is very far, and it would illuminate a hemisphere of the Earth, and leave the other dark.
If we plot which areas of the Earth that are getting sunlight on an azimuthal equidistant map centered on the north pole, the sun would appear to illuminate a somewhat elliptical area during the northern hemisphere summer, and a lopsided Bat-Signal shaped area during the winter. During the equinox, the sun would appear to illuminate a half-circle area.
This fact is not a problem because the azimuthal-equidistant is a map, and like any other map, it has distortions. An area of the map closer to the center represents a larger real-world area compared to the same map area farther from the center.
On the other hand, flat-Earthers insist the azimuthal-equidistant map is the map of a flat-Earth, devoid of any distortions. And this is a problem for them. They would have to invent just another ad-hoc ‘explanations’ how the sun illuminates such an impossible area. Their ‘lamp-shade’ or the ‘spotlight’ explanations fail to explain it.”
I believe that the sun is actually smaller than the one depicted in the diagram in your above post. You may say that that would not make any difference, but I think it would.
-
This is precisely why you need a model:
(https://i.imgur.com/2Qr4Eth.jpg)
“At any given time, there is an equal area of the Earth that is experiencing daytime, and that is having a night time. The reason is that the sun is very far, and it would illuminate a hemisphere of the Earth, and leave the other dark.
If we plot which areas of the Earth that are getting sunlight on an azimuthal equidistant map centered on the north pole, the sun would appear to illuminate a somewhat elliptical area during the northern hemisphere summer, and a lopsided Bat-Signal shaped area during the winter. During the equinox, the sun would appear to illuminate a half-circle area.
This fact is not a problem because the azimuthal-equidistant is a map, and like any other map, it has distortions. An area of the map closer to the center represents a larger real-world area compared to the same map area farther from the center.
On the other hand, flat-Earthers insist the azimuthal-equidistant map is the map of a flat-Earth, devoid of any distortions. And this is a problem for them. They would have to invent just another ad-hoc ‘explanations’ how the sun illuminates such an impossible area. Their ‘lamp-shade’ or the ‘spotlight’ explanations fail to explain it.”
Apart from the fact that the pictures above are not particularly accurate (you accept them as accurate because you believe it backs your theories, and are ... as always ... just begging the question), there is a very good explanation on FE model for the larger illumination around the edges in the Winter scenario, namely that the light reflects around the firmament at the edges. So, a major problem with your crayon drawings here is that the "24-hour sun" scenario reflected in your pictures is a fraud ... with one fraudulent video after another exposed as a hoax attempting to demonstrate this phenomenon. Since only "approved" individual are allowed anywhere south of 60 degrees, we have no independent confirmation of that. That "December 21" scenario is what Globalists claim is a problem for FE ... except that is has never been independently verified. My guess would be that it's most likely a moon-shaped curve with about 1/3 of "Antarctica" in darkness at the very least rather than the 24-hour sun nonsense.
Just more distraction. Your globe "model" is invalidated by the finding that the earth does not curve according to the expected math, but there's no way to refute this, so you just continue to bluster about "models" ... while simply assuming that the "globe model" works and is accurate, which is false. It's precisely because the globe model has been invalidated by experiments that we're searching for a new model, whereas you cling due to your brainwashing to the "accepted" model.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXaad0rsV38