Jump to content

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


bflat
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, zArk said:

 

youreserious.gif

 

Trolling is really quite tedious. Perhaps if you understood the subject your automatic and rather ignorant response may not kick in. Using multiple layers to enhance an image is quite a common technique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, zArk said:

 

didnt make up the images unlike the picture you posted with the overlayed moon.

 

you ask , i give you a response... you deride and insult

 

pretty standard for a cult member

 

So it's not an insult to label me a "cult member"? 

Your explanation for the eclipse NOT being the Moon is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen. Congratulations. I see you are in full off topic trolling mode with that stupid music video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, zArk said:

the ignorant though are taught a specific belief of a culture and take it on as if it is their own and fact < --- these people are blind and limited in their perception

 

 

No. The ignorant go on youtube and ignore facts.

 

3 hours ago, zArk said:

you see the idea of geocentrism cannot be disproved but it is guest in the house of heliocentrism. the orthodoxy puts up with it and usually excludes it

 

Nonsense, it was disproven even before the telescope! It's not "put up with" it is rightly laughed at, because it is an indicator of profound ignorance.

 

3 hours ago, zArk said:

fanaticism is very very dangerous orthodox science is the same as orthodox religion because it has the same controllers pulling the strings

 

It is not fanaticism to understand the motion of the planets around the Sun. There are no controllers pulling any strings on this subject. Well, possibly the flat earth controllers are!

 

3 hours ago, zArk said:

both make sure to instill fear, belittlement, subservience and repetition. however we control and create our environment and the collective emotional harmony or antagonism is played out in nature

 

Okie dokie, but flat earth believers run away from reality and come up with ludicrous and easily disproven crap. What is your goal here? To convert the masses to your belief system?

Mine is to stop those on the fence from falling into the abyss of ignorance.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carlos said:

No. The ignorant go on youtube and ignore facts.

like the fact that the Moon prior to the observed solar eclipse and afterwards cannot be seen

 

it is more likely that the observed sun is a refracted image through a barrier and the blanking out of the image is done by another object refracted through the barrier

 

so what is being directly observed is an ethereal image of objects in a completely different position from the image

 

an image refracted onto the opposite dome wall. both objects are actually behind the observed phenomenon on the opposite side behind the dome wall

 

so the moon isnt seen before or after the eclipse because its only a refracted image, the actual moon is behind the viewer elsewhere

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/11/2020 at 7:08 PM, bflat said:

Let us look together at the first statement:

"You are spinning at 1000 mph."

 

Now, prove that statement to be true without using multiple logical fallacies and we can discuss.

 

foucault3.jpg

 

 

https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/flat/round-spin.htm

 

Your question is like the one in Monty Python - what have the romans done for us?! There is so much proof it is monumental how you can arm wave it away. It involves a cast of millions and millions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, zArk said:

like the fact that the Moon prior to the observed solar eclipse and afterwards cannot be seen

 

Not by the naked eye it is too dim with no reflected light except Earthshine, against the Sun. But the path it takes and the times involved follow a 100% verifiable direction that takes it across the face of the Sun.

 

Just now, zArk said:

it is more likely that the observed sun is a refracted image through a barrier and the blanking out of the image is done by another object refracted through the barrier

 

No dear, it's not more likely. That is preposterous. You should really try to get out more. All the above could be detected by anyone, yet not astronomer disputes the way eclipses work - there's quite a few around the world🙄

 

Just now, zArk said:

so what is being directly observed is an ethereal image of objects in a completely different position from the image

 

Are you actually mental? Is this some sort of game you are playing? Sun and Moon.

 

Just now, zArk said:

an image refracted onto the opposite dome wall. both objects are actually behind the observed phenomenon on the opposite side behind the dome wall

 

13Qe.gif

 

 

Just now, zArk said:

so the moon isnt seen before or after the eclipse because its only a refracted image, the actual moon is behind the viewer elsewhere

 

No. The Moon isn't visible because a) it is daylight b) it has no solar reflection c) it is competing with something 400,000 times brighter than a full moon.

 

You should develop a stand up comedy routine, because on this subject you are actually taking the piss.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, zArk said:

 

there is no perfection. the earths spin plus moon shadow max velocity completely collapses the entire theory

the recorded eclipse data destroys spherist theory

 

This is exactly where your youtube flat earther is going wrong:.

Two things:

 

Number one is that the Moon orbits 5 degrees above and below the plane of the ecliptic, so the axial tilt of the Earth varies according to its orbit.

 

Number 2 is all to do with relative speeds. For example, If you look at a roundabout spinning at 50mph at the edge and you are say 50 yards away, when you see the nearest point to you it is moving at 50mph. However at the left and right hand sides of the circle it is not, because although it is travelling 50mph, it is coming TOWARDS you. This relative speed varies for the entire visible semi-circle.

 

circle.jpg

 

WxBcsrJCCnqYtpyh6fC7gb-650-80.jpg

https://www.vcalc.com/wiki/MichaelBartmess/Rotational+Speed+at+Latitude

 

 

eg. Madras Oregon at 44.6 degrees is moving at 740mph If viewed from the equatorial plane. But since I have already proven that things move relatively slower when viewed sideways on(edge of the circle) its relative speed to the Moon is drastically different to that straight on. It is both affected by the axial tilt effectively giving the same effect vertically and the fact that we are seeing it on the edge of that circle coming towards us horizontally.

Edited by Carlos
dupe typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carlos said:

 

No. The Moon isn't visible because a) it is daylight b) it has no solar reflection c) it is competing with something 400,000 times brighter than a full moon

And yet you posted a solar eclipse picture with the moon inside it

 

Explain why the moon is ok inside the sun but cant be shown outside it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Carlos said:

Number one is that the Moon orbits 5 degrees above and below the plane of the ecliptic, so the axial tilt of the Earth varies according to its orbit.

 

Number 2 is all t

And it doesnt work out

It cant beat the spin of the earth as per sphere theory.

143degrees in 5hrs ....lol

 

And then once the moon travels distance in 3 hrs its not in alignment with sun ---earth so it cant cause an eclipse for the other hours

 

Opppps another failure of the model

Talk about shooting itself in the foot

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zArk said:

And yet you posted a solar eclipse picture with the moon inside it

 

Explain why the moon is ok inside the sun but cant be shown outside it?

 

Well duhhhh, the SUN is now no longer blasting light everywhere! Now effectively almost dark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zArk said:

And it doesnt work out

It cant beat the spin of the earth as per sphere theory.

143degrees in 5hrs ....lol

 

And then once the moon travels distance in 3 hrs its not in alignment with sun ---earth so it cant cause an eclipse for the other hours

 

Opppps another failure of the model

Talk about shooting itself in the foot

 

 

Wow, you ignored virtually my whole post. Are you afraid? Will address this tomorrow when I get on my PC.

Edited by Carlos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, zArk said:

an image refracted onto the opposite dome wall. both objects are actually behind the observed phenomenon on the opposite side behind the dome wall

But space doesn't exist so how can the object be behind the domed wall

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2020 at 1:23 AM, zArk said:

 

there is no perfection. the earths spin plus moon shadow max velocity completely collapses the entire theory

the recorded eclipse data destroys spherist theory

How , would you like to explain that statement or are you just quoting some idiots words you think sounds good

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, peter said:

But space doesn't exist so how can the object be behind the domed wall

 

 I believe what zArk is talking about are images as you are right, there is no space, only water, the sun and the moon and all the stars are in the dome/firmament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, alexa said:

 

 I believe what zArk is talking about are images as you are right, there is no space, only water, the sun and the moon and all the stars are in the dome/firmament.

That's not what he said ,you cant have it both ways

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, alexa said:

 

 I believe what zArk is talking about are images as you are right, there is no space, only water, the sun and the moon and all the stars are in the dome/firmament.

 

That is your belief. While established science is open to question, it offers a good explanation for how solar and lunar eclipses work.

 

So according to your belief, how do solar and lunar eclipses appear/work if the sun, moon and stars are just 'in the firmament'?

 

And please don't reply with some YouTube video, try and explain in your own words please.

 

And perhaps you could try and tell us what exactly is outside of this 'firmament' if there is no space?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, peter said:

But space doesn't exist so how can the object be behind the domed wall

multiple domes

 

this is reflecting sphere sciences projection of multiverses

 

there are multiple domes and multiple concentric lands

 

there is not one flat earth idea for the reason i said a few posts back

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Carlos said:

 

Well duhhhh, the SUN is now no longer blasting light everywhere! Now effectively almost dark.

 

you mean the light is suddenly able to wrap around the sphere and illuminate just enough for some video production to tease out the image of the moon

 

but when the moon is either side , frankly i am unable to clear discover at what point prior to eclipse the moon disappears i assume dusk of that day, 

either side clear of the Sun we are unable to see it or have photos produced showing the moon in approach to the eclipse position or moon departing eclipse position

 

jeeze, you fellas in sphereland . you believe the image below because its an expectation grounded in the fundamental belief of heliocentrism but the maths dont add up for the sun moon conjuction, the declared motion of the moon and earth do not support the observed eclipse and now spherists are saying

 

you cant see the moon before or after the eclipse because the Sun is just soo damn bright! fs

 

Total+solar+eclipse.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Grumpy Owl said:

 

Does it scientifically explain the passage of the moon across the sun? I don't recall it doing so.

 

Clearly this discussion is going nowhere.

 

 

 

No sorry Grumpy Owl it doesn't, I'll leave this for all these so called Scientists.

But the good news is .......... it does so in 'The Book of Enoch' If you can get your head around it.

 

https://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/enoch/ENOCH_3.HTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, zArk said:

 

you mean the light is suddenly able to wrap around the sphere and illuminate just enough for some video production to tease out the image of the moon

 

 

No!! That isn't how photography works at all. It enables a wide aperture to be used and a fast ISO to capture more light. The atmospheric lights scattering is what occludes the visible Moon. When that disappears AND the Sun's direct light, there is just enough to capture the Moon with just it reflecting Earth shine.

 

5 hours ago, zArk said:

jeeze, you fellas in sphereland . you believe the image below because its an expectation grounded in the fundamental belief of heliocentrism but the maths dont add up for the sun moon conjuction, the declared motion of the moon and earth do not support the observed eclipse and now spherists are saying

 

 

We're all in sphereland, some are just a little bit confused about it! The maths add up perfectly I demonstrated how your youtube dumbo was wrong and you basically ignored the entire post.

 

5 hours ago, zArk said:

you cant see the moon before or after the eclipse because the Sun is just soo damn bright! fs

 

Well duh. Not only that but the Moon has zero sunshine on it and there is atmospheric scattering. A day before the new Moon one photographer managed to capture the barest sliver of the crescent Moon - I shan't post it - your stock defence is to claim some sort of bollocks about everything being fake.

 

 

 

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, unlocked and locked this topic
  • Grumpy Owl unlocked this topic
  • Grumpy Owl locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...