Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, gregory-peccary said:

Precession:-

Astronomical epochs - Calendar Wiki

 

The earths axis of rotation moves in a circle that takes about 24,000 years to complete.

It is why the Sphinx was built in the age of Leo, bull cults were common around the world in the age of Taurus, the fish became a symbol of the christians in the age of Pisces, and why astrologers can't decide if we have yet entered the age of Aquarius.

There is a lot of esoteric literature about precession and the 24,000 year cycle.

Polaris is the current pole star but in 10,000 years or so it will be Vega.

 

We live on a globe earth.

DOH!

 

I'm sorry but in what way does anything you just said prove that we live on a globe spinning at 1000km per hour around a sun doing the same around something indistinct somewhere else, cummulating in a motion approaching 1,000,000 mph traversing trillions of mile of space? Hint: Polaris.

 

Everything you describe can be also modelled on a 'dome firmament' although that is not what II necessarily subscribe to. The distances of the stars is STILL assumption, or what most people accept being a guess.

 

What is the esoteric literature your refer to please?

 

What are your sources for the assertion about the indecision of the Astrologers, and BTW who are they?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The “Nature of Reality” forum was recently hosting a thread where heated discussion was taking place regarding our plane, “a flat, nonrotating Earth” as nasa themselves reference multiple times in mul

I dont think that flat earth is a thing. But either way - why does the shape of the world matter? If its a flat sphere or a globe - there is no difference for us in our daily lifes, is it?

Posted Images

The esoteric literature is half of my library! I'll dig out some titles.

As for astrologers - any of them, from newspaper frauds to the 'real thing'. They just can't decide if Aquarius has started or we are still in Pisces.

As soon as you read my post "This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius" from Hair must have started running through your head! From you other posts you must be old enough to remember it.

 

Feel free to show us a model of the dome firmament that shows the precession.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, gregory-peccary said:

The esoteric literature is half of my library! I'll dig out some titles.

As for astrologers - any of them, from newspaper frauds to the 'real thing'. They just can't decide if Aquarius has started or we are still in Pisces.

As soon as you read my post "This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius" from Hair must have started running through your head! From you other posts you must be old enough to remember it.

 

Feel free to show us a model of the dome firmament that shows the precession.

yup yup I'd like some titles and can give some of my own, thanks. Seriously, I LOVE reading.

 

And AFAIK astrology is the interpretation of the significance of the positioning of celestial bodies in relation to human affairs which does not confirm any conventional or popular theory of the universe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, amy G said:

Feel free to start us off with whatever evidence you have, for or against, this progression of the zodiac. Let's have some fun.

Personal evidence ,well that's a hard one , since the earth is supposed to only move 1 deg every 72 years it would be very hard to notice that in a life time ,so in my opinion this is something you have to show some faith in with regards to the literature.

If you have evidence that it not true I would be willing to listen, you won't change my mind though   

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, peter said:

Personal evidence ,well that's a hard one , since the earth is supposed to only move 1 deg every 72 years it would be very hard to notice that in a life time ,so in my opinion this is something you have to show some faith in with regards to the literature.

If you have evidence that it not true I would be willing to listen, you won't change my mind though   

If you are talking of Polaris, we agree that it has never been shown to deviate an iota from where she has always been, directly above our north pole/center of our plane.

 

 

On 9/28/2020 at 11:48 AM, peter said:

11 you cant seem to remember what a planet is ,mars in particular

I know that what the ancients across time and cultures called wandering stars is what you call planets. I have been trying to get some decent video of Mars recently, but with little luck. Maybe tonight?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanted to add that this is what mars will do every 100 years forever, just like she has always done.

 

mars 100 years

 

Did you have a chance to play with this?

http://gerdbreitenbach.de/planet/planet.html

 

For me, I can no longer believe that this perfect, balanced beauty has actually come from an explosion that occurred billions of years ago, never mind that this can happen as we move simultaneously in multiple directions and and speeds we can not rightfully understand.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, amy G said:

If you are talking of Polaris, we agree that it has never been shown to deviate an iota from where she has always been, directly above our north pole/center of our plane.

At one degree every 72 years you would have to live 3 or 4 lifetimes to notice the slightest change therefore to say Polaris has not deviated an iota is rather a stretch

The Saturn Myth by Tadbolt is a good read concerning this very  subject

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, screamingeagle said:

how the heck did you get hold of that book......

 

try this:

https://ia802800.us.archive.org/7/items/TalbottDavidTheSaturnMyth1980/TalbottDavid-TheSaturnMyth1980.pdf

also available in epub and kindle formats

 

One thing we all have in common on this forum is a feeling that 'something is not quite right'. In this thread we attempt to keep the good stuff and get rid of the downright stupid.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, screamingeagle said:

how the heck did you get hold of that book......

I cheated,downloaded the pdf used caliber to change the file to mobi and put it on my kindle

In other words I ripped it off ,I can't afford $1500 for a second hand coppy

Edited by peter
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Nobby Noboddy said:

 

Oh yeah, couldn't see it at first, totally a globe man.

 

Everything is Upside Down

The positioning of the globe earth is done to place england 0 g.m.t and big ben as the central point.

In the universe model there is no up or down position of the globe in relation to space but for the helio model although there is no up or down sun the earth has to be positioned specifically to the sun for its theory of seasons.

Additionally if oz was the seat of the british and big ben and g.m.t was 0 at canberra i claim the globe earth we would be shown would be oz at north, england down under

Additionally the moon would be right way up 

 

Ahhhh the lunacy of it all

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course North & South poles, play no factor atall Zark.

You never like to talk about the Earths magnetic field & how it works on your universal model?? Whatever the fuck that is lol.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, peter said:

At one degree every 72 years you would have to live 3 or 4 lifetimes to notice the slightest change therefore to say Polaris has not deviated an iota is rather a stretch

I said "it has never been shown to." If any evidence comes to my attention, as always I am willing to consider it.

 

 

  

On 9/28/2020 at 11:48 AM, peter said:

12 water doesn't curve. Never washed a car or seen the effect of surface tension

Okay, we have had to go through this with more than a few posters. This is clearly logically fallacious because of what is known as a false equivalence. Nobody denies surface tension, the point that 'flat earth' makes is clear as day and simple to understand. Large bodies of water do not curve around spheres or any geometric shapes. The physics of water and all liquids is clear. The fluid fill fill whatever container that it is placed in and will lie perfectly flat on top.

 

If there is any demonstration of some other reality where water can be observed sticking to the outside of a ball or any other geometric shape for that matter, please enlighten me. I would really be interested.

 

I know about the belief in gravity and the rest of the official narrative, but I am interested in observable and repeatable reality. We are told, remember, that the Earth is wider at the equator because of this incredible force from the speed of our axial rotation. And yet the same gravity that cannot even hold solid Earth in place is capable of holding loose flowing water on the same ball?

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, amy G said:

Sunset... have fun...

 

How far away is it? 

 

@peterSince this bloke responds to you, could you ask them the following.....

 

1. If we imagine a scenario where the Sun is on the equator at the lowest height it is feasibly possible to be, at 89.999 degrees to zenith how far away is it?

2. Why is the Moon inverted in the Southern hemisphere?

3. What is a Lunar Eclipse?

4. Can you show a flat earth map that works? Or one that is close enough. It's in 2 dimensions so there should be no projection issues as found with a sphere.

 

If no map works, in what crazy universe can one believe something without being able to explain the basics!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, amy G said:

We are told, remember, that the Earth is wider at the equator because of this incredible force from the speed of our axial rotation. And yet the same gravity that cannot even hold solid Earth in place is capable of holding loose flowing water on the same ball?

 

Billions of years of centrifugal force. It's small but over time accumulates. The Earth can and does hold everything in place, water attracts to the centre of mass. Why are your questions so useless?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, amy G said:

The fluid fill fill whatever container that it is placed in and will lie perfectly flat on top

no it wont I can even remember that experiment in science at school

 

5 hours ago, amy G said:

I know about the belief in gravity and the rest of the official narrative, but I am interested in observable and repeatable reality. We are told, remember, that the Earth is wider at the equator because of this incredible force from the speed of our axial rotation. And yet the same gravity that cannot even hold solid Earth in place is capable of holding loose flowing water on the same ball?

There is a bit of a difference between a ball and the earth , I see once again you are using terms to confuse the issue, and your statements have been dealt with in your previous incarnation as B flat and the answers wont change

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, amy G said:

If there is any demonstration of some other reality where water can be observed sticking to the outside of a ball or any other geometric shape for that matter, please enlighten me. I would really be interested.

well get hold of a solid object in the shape of a ball the size  of the earth, put water on it and see what happens , because that's what we are talking about here,  your analogies make a rather superfluous argument

Edited by peter
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, peter said:

no it wont I can even remember that experiment in science at school

 

There is a bit of a difference between a ball and the earth , I see once again you are using terms to confuse the issue, and your statements have been dealt with in your previous incarnation as B flat and the answers wont change

Many in the flat earth community use similar dialogue and terminology. This should not be a surprise as many of us have read from the same authors. Much of the writing was done between around 1840 and 1920. I would love to reccommend actual books for you if you are really interested in this topic and the truth that is out there. Look, we've been doing great. Forget "ball" and insert shape of your choice. Surface tension has nothing to do with this. That is the ultimate point.

 

That, and gravity cannot hold terra firma, think of that equatorial bulge, yet holds all large standing bodies of water perfectly. Would not all this water already at least be on the equator?

 

2 hours ago, peter said:

well get hold of a solid object in the shape of a ball the size  of the earth, put water on it and see what happens , because that's what we are talking about here,  your analogies make a rather superfluous argument

I believe with everything that modern science supposedly does, that they would by now at least be able to demonstrate their theory that they still teach as fact.

 

 

7 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

Why is the Moon inverted in the Southern hemisphere?

If you have honestly have still not figured this out, I am sure that any of the mod team can explain it to you in one try. We have been through this.

 

@Basket Case, can you throw me a bone on this one?

 

 

 

Okay, we are almost there!

On 9/28/2020 at 11:48 AM, peter said:

14 there are no satellites

I think you and I both know where we are, but let me clarify my position. There are real satellites, many times they fall to earth still attached to balloons and nothing is orbiting anything.

 

This one topic could and probably should be its own thread. The sheer amount of disinformation with satellites alone, tells those who have looked into this topic just how important it is to our masters to keep their heliocentric psyop alive.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, amy G said:

If you have honestly have still not figured this out, I am sure that any of the mod team can explain it to you in one try. We have been through this.

 

Oh I've "figured out" the daft explanation, the only one flat earthers CAN rely on. I just want you to show where "we have been through it", so I can tear it to shite.

 

1. If we imagine a scenario where the Sun is on the equator at the lowest height it is feasibly possible to be, at 89.999 degrees to zenith how far away is it?

2. Why is the Moon inverted in the Southern hemisphere?

3. What is a Lunar Eclipse?

4. Can you show a flat earth map that works? Or one that is close enough. It's in 2 dimensions so there should be no projection issues as found with a sphere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, amy G said:

That, and gravity cannot hold terra firma, think of that equatorial bulge, yet holds all large standing bodies of water perfectly. Would not all this water already at least be on the equator?

why would it? surly you a versed with the theory of gravity as according to you your flat earth enlightenment was a recent aberration,therefore you would well know the answer to your own question  and all the other ones you posed during this thread

Edited by peter
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Grumpy Owl changed the title to The Flat Earth Thread: The reality of our physical plane (v2)

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...