Jump to content

Flat Earth: the last thread about this subject on this forum


Grumpy Owl
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, zArk said:

I consider all these [southern] anomalies in the Heliocentric interpretation indicative of the Flat earth.

 

Dunedin, New Zealand 15.5 hours darkness/light  solstice. Southern NZ population is over a million people.

 

How can you explain this for me again?

 

 

flat-earth.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, alexa said:

 

Thanks zarkov, Can't refute this 👍

All that experiment eventually proved was that the speed of light is constant in any direction, I'd keep praying if I were you, you'll have to jag something sooner or later

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, oddsnsods said:

 

Dunedin, New Zealand 15.5 hours darkness/light  solstice. Southern NZ population is over a million people.

 

How can you explain this for me again?

 

 

flat-earth.gif

well that CGI is completely disingenuous

 

heres a proper rendition of the spread and reach of light.

i think the yinyang light spread is pretty much the correct display

 

n.b i think the actual map is weird

 

feLighshape.jpg.9a5fe9a1cab8db73044b4a4cf89203fb.jpg

 

 

Hows about we all think about why the Antarctic is so cold compared to the Artic.

 

Considering the Helio model both receive similar time in the Sun due to the tilt

 

 

angleofplanet.jpg.2a572809ef0ff283a7dcc88b1b10603d.jpg

 

Antarctic Average temp -49* C

Arctic Average temp -5*C

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zArk said:

well that CGI is completely disingenuous

 

heres a proper rendition of the spread and reach of light.

i think the yinyang light spread is pretty much the correct display

 

n.b i think the actual map is weird

 

feLighshape.jpg.9a5fe9a1cab8db73044b4a4cf89203fb.jpg

 

 

Hows about we all think about why the Antarctic is so cold compared to the Artic.

 

Considering the Helio model both receive similar time in the Sun due to the tilt

 

 

angleofplanet.jpg.2a572809ef0ff283a7dcc88b1b10603d.jpg

 

Antarctic Average temp -49* C

Arctic Average temp -5*C

 

 

 

 

Makes sense to me zArk. 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zArk said:

heres a proper rendition of the spread and reach of light.

i think the yinyang light spread is pretty much the correct display

Pull the other one ,it has bells on it

Since there is no horizon ,it is just the distance our eyes can see ,how far can we see then ,you make the statement therefore you must know, I'm interested

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, peter said:

How far can you see with your own eyes,I didn't mention a camera and quite doesn't cut it

Well I can see the moon, so in Helio world,  I can see 240,000 miles and I can see stars which means I can see light years

 

Is that your point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, zArk said:

Well I can see the moon, so in Helio world,  I can see 240,000 miles and I can see stars which means I can see light years

 

Is that your point?

You know what my point is,to your non  horizon standing at sea  level

Avoiding the question I see ,that's not like you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, peter said:

You know what my point is,to your non  horizon standing at sea  level

Avoiding the question I see ,that's not like you

no i dont. Peter when posing a question to others it is expected that you make your point and invite others to refute it

 

You seem to forget to make your point

 

I am just pointing out that you tell me off for not addressing your question,

yet as i am unable to ascertain what your point is, my responses will inevitably will miss your preconceived expectations of what my response should be.

 

rather than waste post after post just state your assertion and ask a question based upon that assertion

 

n.b i see above there are a couple of posts missing??? very odd

 

 

Edited by zArk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

i am posting this to support the YinYang shape of the light created on earth.

An EM field affects the gases in the sky and photons are emitted. As the EM field moves away the gases slowly stop emitting photons leaving a tail like trail behind the moving EM field.

Edited by zArk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, peter said:

Since there is no horizon ,it is just the distance our eyes can see ,how far can we see then ,you make the statement therefore you must know, I'm interested

 

woah, for clarity , there is no fixed horizon [as the sphere model claims a curve ] instead there is an apparent horizon.

we have been over this in this thread and other threads, Peter. 

Perspective , convergence etc etc

 

It is light that enters our eyes, we decode the information. Our eyes do not reach out to the object, it is the light that comes to oneself. Some objects reflect light, some objects produce light.

 

So as light comes to our eyes we can decode it however if light is coming from various sources (reflected or produced) at a distance, the light converges and it is difficult for ourselves to decode the mashup of light. If though, a camera with a long focal length is used , the convergence appears at a further distance away from the camera.

Edited by zArk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, alexa said:

We can't go further than low earth orbit, so how the hell did we get to the moon ?

 

 

 

 

dont fret they are re-calculating the 'atmosphere' and placing the Moon within it.

Like the recalculation of the Sun distance, they will shift around things to accommodate problems people raise.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, zArk said:

dont fret they are re-calculating the 'atmosphere' and placing the Moon within it.

Like the recalculation of the Sun distance, they will shift around things to accommodate problems people raise.

 

 

 Yes, I did notice that they had done this, about a year ago wasn't it ? Talk about making it all up as they go along 😅

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't recall a time when I ever believed in a spinning ball earth, maybe it's b/c I was so useless at math's, I just went along with my senses. I reckon most kids are like this until they become well and truly indoctrinated with the lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alexa said:

 Yes, I did notice that they had done this, about a year ago wasn't it ? Talk about making it all up as they go along 😅

apparently it was discovered when the data from SWAN was re-checked

40 years later ....

 

40 years..... forty is a magic number

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, zArk said:

apparently it was discovered when the data from SWAN was re-checked

40 years later ....

 

40 years..... forty is a magic number

 

Yes next to 33 (in plain sight) which puts us at the North Pole, also Mt. Hermon which is located on the 33rd parallel north which is where the 200 angels fell and coincidentally has a UN base there.

 

CafVT7RWAAAT7ve.jpg.dd37b9972de02b12bd5722f0cf2517db.jpg

 

1601450599_aun999.jpg.677071140681fa6504ee416a53226795.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, zarkov said:

Found this interesting - hopefully not already posted.

Scientific Proof THE EARTH DOES NOT MOVE Michelson–Morley Experiment 1

 

Ahh they then received the Nobel prize in physics in 1921... Erm no wait that was Einstein after his general relativity theory covered up the glaring problem for Heliocentrism  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zArk said:

Ahh they then received the Nobel prize in physics in 1921... Erm no wait that was Einstein after his general relativity theory covered up the glaring problem for Heliocentrism  

 

Ha! Einstein, nothing but a glorified puppet for the establishment 😅

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, zArk said:

 

woah, for clarity , there is no fixed horizon [as the sphere model claims a curve ] instead there is an apparent horizon.

we have been over this in this thread and other threads, Peter. 

Perspective , convergence etc etc

 

It is light that enters our eyes, we decode the information. Our eyes do not reach out to the object, it is the light that comes to oneself. Some objects reflect light, some objects produce light.

 

So as light comes to our eyes we can decode it however if light is coming from various sources (reflected or produced) at a distance, the light converges and it is difficult for ourselves to decode the mashup of light. If though, a camera with a long focal length is used , the convergence appears at a further distance away from the camera.

avoidance again, ok taking perspective ( standing on the shore looking out to see ) and convergence etc into account how far are we able to see a ship with the naked eye before it disappears over your non existent horizon

I hope that's clear enough

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...