Jump to content

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


Grumpy Owl
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, Beaujangles said:

 

Your forum is it? FYI I am 'trotting  along' in this thread as I choose. Maybe you should learn to jump hurdles you dont like and not stop and have a snit fit instead. 

 

How about get on topic & stop whining because you have a personal issue, im flattered tho..pun not intended.☺️😘

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, oddsnsods said:

 

How about get on topic & stop whining because you have a personal issue, im flattered tho..pun not intended.☺️😘

 

 

Heads up..was reading the thread and made an observation... still following thread as it interests me. When ready to post I shall. However, to date I haven't been convinced of either flat of global earth. The jury is still out for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, oddsnsods said:

Did I not make that clear in my post?

the past few pages show how the argument you post has error after error and incorrect use of the helio model i.e

  • counting the hours the wrong way,
  • tracking the sun clockwise from one position but anti-clockwise from other and comparing,
  • calculating distance between points incorrectly
  • using moon images from the wrong times
  • using inconsistent moon images to compare
  • incorrectly stating easily searchable daylight hours for cities

etc etc

and now shifting from Stanley the falklands to South Africa

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, oddsnsods said:

Your miniature moon on its little circuit, that changes dependent on the cracks in the dome you say, also takes the same time to travel the northern as well as southern.

wrong wrong wrong

  1. the manifesting image of the moon
  2. not cracks but damage, scarring
  3. time and distance i explained adequately as the originating source continues at a constant spin speed. It moves through the 360 degrees in the same time and so does the refracted image regardless of circumference size

 

i have repeated this a number of times in the recent thread and its getting boring correcting your posted arguments.

Edited by zArk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Beaujangles said:

 

 However, to date I haven't been convinced of either flat of global earth. The jury is still out for me.

 

Trust me, your on the right track when your in the middle of the road.

It's where most FE's start out.

Once you know, see, sense & feel that the earth is flat with Antarctica circumnavigating it, there's no going back.:classic_biggrin:

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, zArk said:

 

🤷‍♂️ the sun would still be tilted in the Helio model

 

its a crap video using crap Frankenstein science

 

No you just tried to fault anything you could from the video as always, you do this with every post like youve actually made a point. This is disinfo tactics..you cant respond to the points being made but dont wish to lose face of course.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_equinox

 

It's_All_So_Tiresome.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, zArk said:

the past few pages show how the argument you post has error after error and incorrect use of the helio model i.e

  • counting the hours the wrong way,
  • tracking the sun clockwise from one position but anti-clockwise from other and comparing,
  • calculating distance between points incorrectly
  • using moon images from the wrong times
  • using inconsistent moon images to compare
  • incorrectly stating easily searchable daylight hours for cities

etc etc

and now shifting from Stanley the falklands to South Africa

 

 

 

 

Utter shit as usual.

You really arnt worth any energy to me, I will just carry on exposing your lies.

Like you ever answer a straight question in any of your posts.

You just fire off more questions..

Two can play that game.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, oddsnsods said:

No you just tried to fault anything you could from the video as always, you do this with every post like youve actually made a point. This is disinfo tactics..you cant respond to the points being made but dont wish to lose face of course.

thank you for recognising consistency

 

i have been taught to double check everything as i am offered it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, zArk said:

stars.jpg.647bf572618f0eab640689e17459d2ab.jpg

You have obviously never looked through a scope at stars or planets or if you had it must have had a very poor mirror because that looks like nothing  I've observed . We have all seen those bullshit pictures before by the way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, gregory-peccary said:

No. When Copper Knickers used the very accurate observations of Tycho Brahe to prove heliocentrism the speed of light was not something he would have understood or known about.

 

How did they come up with the speed of light being at 186,400 per sec ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

Empedocles (c. 490–430 BC) was the first to propose a theory of light and claimed that light has a finite speed. He maintained that light was something in motion, and therefore must take some time to travel.

Aristotle argued, to the contrary, that "light is due to the presence of something, but it is not a movement".

Ole Rømer first demonstrated in 1676 that light travels at a finite speed by studying the apparent motion of Jupiter's moon Io.

In 1865, James Clerk Maxwell proposed that light was an electromagnetic wave, and therefore travelled at the speed c appearing in his theory of electromagnetism.

In 1905, Albert Einstein postulated that the speed of light c with respect to any inertial frame is a constant and is independent of the motion of the light source.

 

As for how they measured it:-

1862 Léon Foucault, using a rotating mirror got 298000±500 metres per second

1907 Rosa and Dorsey, using Electro Magnetic constants got 29971

0 metres per second

1926 Albert A. Michelson, using a rotating mirror got 299796 metres per second

 

Things got ever more accurate after that.

 

Follow the link for a long intro to the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, gregory-peccary said:

Empedocles (c. 490–430 BC) was the first to propose a theory of light and claimed that light has a finite speed.

 

WOW as early as this. So these ancient folk weren't as ignorant as we thought they were.

 

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...