Jump to content

The Flat Earth Thread: The reality of our physical plane (v2)


bflat
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, peter said:

Amy g No 8 the sun and the moon,

let me just say from the outset which will be no surprise but I do believe in the standard model with regards to our solar system and galaxy.

The moon , I believe it is as they say it is with regards to size and distance however I don't think it is a natural earth satellite, there are just too many inconsistencies and anomalies, one would expect to find with a natural  body  ( this could lead us into a different discussion at a later date as to why).

The main reason I do believe in the standard model which has been around for a very long time now, it is a very good predictor, it is used to accurately to predict many of the observational artifacts we encounter , eg sun set sun rise ,eclipses ,both solar and lunar, tides, positions of planets when and where etc etc , now if we had a flat earth and no space or gravity etc, there must be a working model that is able to incorporate all the above mentioned things ,but there isn't ,the FE side of the discussion seems to be only capable of stating why a globe doesn't exist and not why a Flat earth dose exist.

Now if the solar system is as the model suggests, the size and distance of the sun is paramount as you would need to have an object that big to exert enough gravitational force to keep the respective planets on their particular orbital paths

The clincher for me that the model is correct was the discovery of Neptune which is the third largest planet in the solar system and was discovered by ,Galle in 1846 and is the only planet to be discovered by a mathematical prediction( by Verrier) as to it's presence due to the fact that Uranus had a slight wobble in its orbit around the sun . now if the model was not correct or bloody close to it the prediction about the existence of Neptune would not have been possible and therefore not discovered till much later I imagine, this occurrence would give credence to the existence of gravity

PS I know I said I wouldn't look up web sites however I did for the discovery of Neptune as I just wanted to confirm the date

I understand what you are saying, but I thought we were discussing size and distance for the moon and the sun?

 

On 9/30/2020 at 9:13 PM, peter said:

8 The sun and the moon are the same distance away and therefore actually the same size

I'm not sure what you're looking for here. They appear to be the same size and distance. The only evidence I am aware of that this is not the case is from known liars. If you have anything else on this, I'm truly interested.

 

Did you want to comment anymore on the moon's size and distance? I would love to know if you believe the moon to be nearly 1/4 million miles away and the sun to be 400 times larger and exactly that many times farther away and if there is any proof of any of that that can be relied upon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, amy G said:

... I would love to know if you believe the moon to be nearly 1/4 million miles away and the sun to be 400 times larger and exactly that many times farther away and if there is any proof of any of that that can be relied upon

 

 

Not a question of belief but simple observations and calculations as mentioned many pages previous.

 

 

 

This calculation holds true for any intelligent species on a planet with a moon of it's own orbiting a star whether or not they dodged education.and is therefore more universal than the Bible which only holds true for Earth.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, serpentine said:

Not a question of belief but simple observations and calculations as mentioned many pages previous.

No, a belief as it was all based in unproven assumptions. And please don't ask me to list them all. I really do not have that kind of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Grumpy Owl said:

 

I would advise you (and everyone else) to stick to debating the topic at hand instead of complaining openly about other members.

 

 

Why do you and the other moderators always protect those who are blatantly trying, to bait, gaslighht and silence discussion aimed at reaching the truth.

 

Many people have noticed exactly the same and are starting to doubt the authenticity of David Icke as a result.

 

Something stinks about this forum.

2 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

 

 

 

Why is debating on this forum such bloody hard work🙄

 

 

Because you deliberately make it that way as anyone with half a brain cell on active duty (to use David Icke's parlance) can see.

 

Just like you did under your previous names of Carlos and Rupert.

 

Edited by Reet Hard
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking through my books from David Icke on his views on flat earth.

 

This from chapter one the biggest secret 

 

Just as the planets of the solar system revolve around the Sun, so the solar system revolves around the centre of the galaxy. It appears that we are reaching a life-changing point in that and other cycles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Reet Hard said:

Why do you and the other moderators always protect those who are blatantly trying, to bait, gaslighht and silence discussion aimed at reaching the truth.

 

Many people have noticed exactly the same and are starting to doubt the authenticity of David Icke as a result.

 

Something stinks about this forum.

 

 

The only thing that stinks about this forum are people who ignore moderators 'soft warnings' and stop discussing the topic at hand and rise to the 'baiting and gaslighting' and start attacking other members.

 

"Debate the opinion, don't attack the person"

 

Now, back on topic please...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, amy G said:

No, a belief as it was all based in unproven assumptions. And please don't ask me to list them all. I really do not have that kind of time.

 

The only assumption that needs to be made is that on a predictable occasion a moon passes between a planet and a star and on a predictable occasion the planet passes between the moon and the star.

 

The rest is easy to follow maths.

 

Has anyone ever seen the Sun pass between the Moon and the Earth?    🌜🌞  🌍

Edited by serpentine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://iili.io/2V5TCJ.md.jpg

 

I took this with my new toy, but nasa can't take one of Earth?

 

And there's more...

 

9 minutes ago, serpentine said:

 

The only assumption that needs to be made is that on a predictable occasion a moon passes between a planet and a star and on a predictable occasion the planet passes between the moon and the star.

 

The rest is easy to follow maths.

 

Has anyone ever seen the Sun pass between the Moon and the Earth?    🌜🌞  🌍

You don't understand what I am talking about and I am fine with that. Simply put, bathing assumption in logical fallacy does not work.

 

1 hour ago, Reet Hard said:

Why do you and the other moderators always protect those who are blatantly trying, to bait, gaslighht and silence discussion aimed at reaching the truth.

 

Many people have noticed exactly the same and are starting to doubt the authenticity of David Icke as a result.

 

Something stinks about this forum.

Because you deliberately make it that way as anyone with half a brain cell on active duty (to use David Icke's parlance) can see.

 

Just like you did under your previous names of Carlos and Rupert.

 

Thank you for saying what everyone else has noticed.

 

@Grumpy Owl

Are you going to post the debunks on the thread you locked and kept up top "for reference?" And is there a subforum where members can discuss these matters?

Edited by amy G
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, amy G said:

I'm not sure what you're looking for here. They appear to be the same size and distance. The only evidence I am aware of that this is not the case is from known liars. If you have anything else on this, I'm truly interested.

 

Who are these known liars and how are you so well informed that they are lying?

If they are the same distance, can you explain how the blazes a solar eclipse casts a 93 mile Umbra at the equator and it is stretched 621 miles near the poles?

 

https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/umbra-shadow.html

If the Moon is at its closest to Earth (its perigee) during the eclipse, the Moon appears larger in the sky. In that case, the umbra's path across the Earth's surface typically has a width of roughly 150 km (93 mi) at the Earth's equator. At higher latitudes, the Sun's rays hit the Earth's surface at a shallower angle, so the umbra's size grows accordingly. During some total solar eclipses, the umbra's path width reaches over 1000 km (621 mi) at the poles. 

 

Can you draw me the ray diagram for it? The Sun MUST be at least 93 miles wide to cast the minimum shadow. Can you work out it's distance using some "math"? Or not, because it will extinguish your claim in one swift flash of mathematics!

 

Quick reminder about perspective and things above eye level.....for anyone who is confused.....

 

cletus.jpg

 

3 hours ago, amy G said:

Did you want to comment anymore on the moon's size and distance? I would love to know if you believe the moon to be nearly 1/4 million miles away and the sun to be 400 times larger and exactly that many times farther away and if there is any proof of any of that that can be relied upon

 

https://rsgb.org/main/technical/space-satellites/moonbounce/

https://w6trw.com/tag/eme/

https://www.chris.org/cgi-bin/jt65emeA

 

......millions of hits.......

 

They bounce radio waves off of the Moon. It takes 2.5 seconds to receive the signal back. Do the maths!

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, amy G said:

https://iili.io/2V5TCJ.md.jpg

 

I took this with my new toy, but nasa can't take one of Earth?

 

Sure they can, you just wave them away.

 

8 minutes ago, amy G said:

nd there's more...

https://youtu.be/SG-EJCW7czQ

 

 

 

zOMG. A shoreline a couple of miles away 32 inches of curvature, unknown elevation. That's amazing:classic_rolleyes:🌎

8 minutes ago, amy G said:

You don't understand what I am talking about and I am fine with that. Simply put, bathing assumption in logical fallacy does not work.

 

Neither does ignoring evidence and believing nonsense.

 

8 minutes ago, amy G said:

Thank you for saying what everyone else has noticed.

 

You aren't the spokesperson for "everyone" and I would suggest that quite a few have noticed your deliberate evasion, your spamming and lack of sincerity.

 

8 minutes ago, amy G said:

 

@Grumpy Owl

Are you going to post the debunks on the thread you locked and kept up top "for reference?" And is there a subforum where members can discuss these matters?

 

You didn't debunk anything and you have no say on MY thread. I really hope it bugs you, sitting there stopping others from falling into the abyss - you have wilfully evaded honest debate and obfuscated the crap out of this thread.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, amy G said:

If I can do that, I think it's time we see a plane landing upside down in Australia.

 

Let me get this straight. You have discovered how to take a picture of the Moon and think that means the world is flat? Planes land in Australia.

 

When people from the Northern hemisphere get off......they see the Moon is the wrong way up...

 

maxresdefault.jpg

 

Come on, do it. Put up your explanation. I'm dying to tear it to piecesrabugento1.gif (48×42)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, amy G said:

You don't understand what I am talking about and I am fine with that. Simply put, bathing assumption in logical fallacy does not work.

 

 

 

You made an erroneous assumption about my level of understanding which is reasonable as not even British Intelligence would keep local and central library reading records of a working class oik like myself from more than 4 decades ago.

 

What's more interesting is why anyone would use a flat earth thread to philosophize on the nature of human understanding.

Edited by serpentine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, serpentine said:

What's more interesting is why anyone would use a flat earth thread to philosophize on the nature of human understanding.

Even more interesting is how people on the beach are still taught that the boat in this video that I just uploaded is hidden behind an imaginary curve.

 

 

 

Watch closely when I zoom out. You shold be able to clearly see the boat disappear from the bottom up which exactly what perspective dictates. I have spent a decent amount of time trying to explain how we see the world. This should clarify further.

 

Edited for video link not working

Edited by amy G
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, amy G said:

Even more interesting is how people on the beach are still taught that the boat in this video that I just uploaded is hidden behind an imaginary curve.

 

Watch closely when I zoom out. You shold be able to clearly see the boat disappear from the bottom up which exactly what perspective dictates. I have spent a decent amount of time trying to explain how we see the world. This should clarify further.

 

Is this some sort of Joke? The bottom of the boat is missing. But hey if you want to zoom in on boots that are beyond the horizon.....

 

iceberg2.jpg

 

 

Or entire videos that you are afraid to respond to:

 

 

 

Edited by Comedy Time
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, amy G said:

Even more interesting is how people on the beach are still taught that the boat in this video that I just uploaded is hidden behind an imaginary curve.

 

 

Even more interesting apart from  the usual sidestep, the gear in your possession and the video explaining the calculations is the information listed here to attempt proper calculations.

 

https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/in/uk/cheltenham

 

https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/in/uk/london

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, amy G said:

Thanks for the interest guys.

@serpentine

I do not understand what your links have to do with the now proven fact that no one has ever seen a ship go beyond a geometric horizon. We can now consider that an axiom.

 

 

 

You are in full and quite absurd denial. Dozens of videos now exist showing the very thing your barmy claim disputes. So ridiculous are you being that 3 posts back is that very thing.

 

You have well and truly been owned in this thread. Now you are completely avoiding everything posted.

 

Explain a lunar eclipse. Can someone else ask him to explain it? Maybe he's tired of getting his butt kicked by me!

Edited by Comedy Time
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, amy G said:

'm not sure what you're looking for here. They appear to be the same size and distance. The only evidence I am aware of that this is not the case is from known liars. If you have anything else on this, I'm truly interested.

Well the first comment I would make is even known liars as you say tell the truth as well, what you are implying with that statement is that everything they say is a lie, which is obviously not the case and therefore how are you personally able to discern fact from fiction

 

(The clincher for me that the model is correct was the discovery of Neptune which is the third largest planet in the solar system and was discovered by ,Galle in 1846 and is the only planet to be discovered by a mathematical prediction( by Verrier) as to it's presence due to the fact that Uranus had a slight wobble in its orbit around the sun . now if the model was not correct or bloody close to it the prediction about the existence of Neptune would not have been possible and therefore not discovered till much later I imagine, this occurrence would give credence to the existence of gravity as well)

 

As I said in the original statement above, this proves to me the standard model is correct ,and as such the size of the moon and sun, if it is not correct the existence and position of Neptune would not have been possible to predict mathematically which Verrier did and therefore, if you were going to put forward a model with regards to flat earth ,this would be the first item I would be trying to tackle as it was achieved way back in the mid 19th century and the implications for the existence of space and gravity are rather obvious

 

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Grumpy Owl changed the title to The Flat Earth Thread: The reality of our physical plane (v2)
  • Grumpy Owl locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...