Jump to content

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


bflat
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Carlos said:

 

Stealth banning. But do you know what else is pathetic? Making a claim and ignoring where it has been soundly addressed.

 

well, its a pretty poor show no doubt

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alexa said:

"Tesla video".

 

Wow, what complete bilge water. The low Earth orbit area has hundreds of satellites including the ISS which can be seen from the ground. It is astonishing that you quote people talking about space and orbits when you absurdly deny its existence! It is even more absurd that you post a video championing the efforts of Tesla yet deny one major thing he had no trouble in understanding - space. Maybe take your silly off topic meme's to the Flat earth meme thread and start explaining and give answers to the inconvenient posts you are running away from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Carlos said:

Maybe take your silly off topic meme's to the Flat earth meme thread and start explaining and give answers to the inconvenient posts you are running away from.

 

 I would but you'd only class them as ridiculous as per.............        so whats the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, alexa said:

 

 You mean like all these 🤣

 

286458107_asattalite.PNG.66f67d27c7e64c46fb4fd76b0993ab7f.PNG

 

The observation meme of an incredibly ignorant person. Satellites are tiny. You can see the ISS from Earth with a telescope WHEN you know where it is.

 

Were you to travel the required distance of several thousand miles, to be able to photograph the whole Earth, the satellite would not even be 1/1000th of a pixel!

 

If you just did this mathematically, the surface area where these satellites orbit is average 400 miles up. Take the radius of the Earth and add 40 miles equals 4368 miles. Surface area: 4 pi r squared  

 

4 * 3.142 * 4368 *4368 = 239 million square miles. One satellite in every 14,000 square miles, and they are all travelling at 17,000mph.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, alexa said:

 

 I would but you'd only class them as ridiculous as per.............        so whats the point.

 

To show that you have no answer to them. Even the basic stuff. Your "explanation" for Sunset and movement was gibberish and you refused to elaborate with a more in depth explanation. You cannot because you are afraid to be wrong.

 

Explain a lunar eclipse. 

Explain how the Sun moves - simultaneously visible over half the Earth(!) always the same size and always the same speed regardless of how far away it is. 

And the Moon, it does the same thing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Carlos said:

 

https://forum.davidicke.com/index.php?/topic/5513-the-reality-of-our-physical-plane-v2/page/85/&tab=comments#comment-155060

 

Answer this please. You brought it up about half a dozen times so how come you no longer care about it?

WxBcsrJCCnqYtpyh6fC7gb-650-80.jpg

can you explain the disparity between the times ? madras is 10.20 am then hopkinsville is 2.26 pm --- 4 hrs

but the globe picture you posted has the U.T marking out the map... the 1hr difference between madras and hopkinsville is slightly confusing

2017_eclipse_globe.jpg

 

Now we are told the shadow speed is the same as the moon speed but the recorded speeds are different which i guess is the relative speed of planet spin + moon velocity + earth curvature distance .... but... ermmm why is the speed so different when the curvature is constant * (roughly). i recognise your point that the moon shadow would move laterally across a globe and the observed shadow would move apparently faster however i cannot restress these recorded shadow speeds

why the variation? surely they should be roughly constant.

 

WxBcsrJCCnqYtpyh6fC7gb-650-80.jpg

 

additionally the moon moving on an orbit at 3700km/h would, as told, produce a shadow the same speed and thus you say the earth diameter would easily be covered in 3 hours, roughly but you have forgotten about the moons position after 3 hrs relative to the sun and earth , because this is all about the shadow. the shadow would fall outside the diameter of the earth due to its position on its orbital path.

 

🤷‍♂️

 

 

Edited by zArk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, zArk said:

can you explain the disparity between the times ? madras is 10.20 am then hopkinsville is 2.26 pm --- 4 hrs

but the globe picture you posted has the U.T marking out the map... the 1hr difference between madras and hopkinsville is slightly confusing

 

 

Simple, America has 3 individual time zones - these are local times.

 

636374656623407514-2017-solar-eclipse-ti

 

15 hours ago, zArk said:

Now we are told the shadow speed is the same as the moon speed but the recorded speeds are different which i guess is the relative speed of planet spin + moon velocity + earth curvature distance .... but... ermmm why is the speed so different when the curvature is constant * (roughly). i recognise your point that the moon shadow would move laterally across a globe and the observed shadow would move apparently faster however i cannot restress these recorded shadow speeds

why the variation? surely they should be roughly constant.

 

 

When is the curvature constant? ONLY when it reaches around the closest point, meanwhile the shadow is decreasing in latitude the entire time. 

 

15 hours ago, zArk said:

additionally the moon moving on an orbit at 3700km/h would, as told, produce a shadow the same speed and thus you say the earth diameter would easily be covered in 3 hours, 

 

No it would not! The Earth from the Moon has an angular diameter of 2 degrees at around perigee. The Moon Moves close to 0.5 degrees per hour on its 5 degree elliptical path. That's four hours.

 

15 hours ago, zArk said:

but you have forgotten about the moons position after 3 hrs relative to the sun and earth , because this is all about the shadow. the shadow would fall outside the diameter of the earth due to its position on its orbital path.

 

No it would not. Four hours. The entire Earth Moon system moves in unison in Solar orbit.

 

 

Edited by Carlos
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Carlos we are back at the start albiet with clarification of a couple of details

 

Quote

To put that into perspective - it is like taking the sunrise in England and the Sunset in Thailand and concluding that the daylight figures don't add up

absolutely not a perspective or an applicable simile

 

your own posted picture of the eclipse is deceivious in that it doesn't timestamp the Total Eclipse path start and end

we know that the official data states total eclipse start 15.55 UT and end 20.55 UT

 

please revisit your perspective because the drawing doesnt fool me

 

2017_eclipse_globe.jpg

 

try again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, zArk said:

@Carlos we are back at the start albiet with clarification of a couple of details

 

No we aren't. You are doing everything in your power to avoid admitting your error in believing any old youtube horseshit. "A couple of clarification"!!? I debunked your whole claim.

 

You said the Moon speeds were wrong. I showed how they vary. You said the Moon passes over in 3 hours - I proved it is 4. You claimed the eclipse lasted 5 hours and I showed you why that is not the case. I explained exactly how the youtube user has made one mistake after another in great detail. You pretty much ignored it all. You just ignored that last post completely!

 

1 hour ago, zArk said:

absolutely not a perspective or an applicable simile

 

You have a truly awful grasp of spatial dynamics. It is exactly like my ANALOGY.

 

 

1 hour ago, zArk said:

your own posted picture of the eclipse is deceivious in that it doesn't timestamp the Total Eclipse path start and end

 

 

It isn't DEVIOUS or deceptive it just shows what it shows! It isn't a picture of the times, but it does show that the UMBRA is the exact times claimed and not bloody 5hrs.

It also shows the PENUMBRA visible on the left boundary of the start and the right boundary of the end. Exactly as it should.

 

1 hour ago, zArk said:

we know that the official data states total eclipse start 15.55 UT and end 20.55 UT

 

No. I know what these times mean. You clearly do not.

 

The first screenshot shows the PARTIAL eclipse where it views the PENUMBRA begins at 15:55 UT. The TOTAL eclipse, the line we have been constantly referring to starts at 16:48.

On the second screenshot once again the PARTIAL eclipse where it also views the PENUMBRA ends at 20.55. The TOTAL eclipse ends at 20.02.

 

Total eclipse path lasts 3hrs 14 minutes.

Partial eclipse path lasts 5hrs.

 

start.jpg%C2%A0

 

 

NOW, I hear you go - 5hrs? How can the Moon's shadow be on the Earth 5hrs - it isn't! It is on the Earth a maximum of 4hrs. In theory in the exact right circumstances an eclipse could be visible (full and partial) for just under 6hrs.

 

The Moon occupies 1/2 a degree of angle and moves 1/2 a degree per hour.

 

It can form a partial eclipse visible on Earth anything up to 1hr before it is able to cast a shadow. You are simply seeing the Moon move across the Sun, the shadow is falling behind the Earth. And of course it can form a partial eclipse visible on Earth anything up to 1hr after it is able to cast a shadow. You are simply seeing the Moon move across the Sun, the shadow is falling in front of the Earth.

 

 

1 hour ago, zArk said:

please revisit your perspective because the drawing doesnt fool me

 

Everything fools you dude. You think the eclipse is caused by an invisible flying biscuit🙄

 

1 hour ago, zArk said:

try again

 

It seems futile given your evasive tactics, your fear of admitting you are wrong and a really poor grasp of physics and dynamics.

 

Try a new tactic, answer my post properly and honestly point for point, try not to be vague and evasive and try not to worry about being so wrong.

 

Here - in lighter blue, see the left of the image and the right of the image. They are before and after the shadow begins. They are simply the visible portions of the partial eclipse:

 

path2d-380.png

Edited by Carlos
added image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carlos said:

You said the Moon speeds were wrong. I showed how they vary. You said the Moon passes over in 3 hours - I proved it is 4. You claimed the eclipse lasted 5 hours and I showed you why that is not the case. I explained exactly how the youtube user has made one mistake after another in great detail. You pretty much ignored it all. You just ignored that last post completely!

 

i just showed your deceptive globe eclipse drawing omitted the total eclipse start and end times which were in 2017

15.55 and 20.55

thats 5 hrs.

 

2 hours ago, Carlos said:

Here - in lighter blue, see the left of the image and the right of the image. They are before and after the shadow begins. They are simply the visible portions of the partial eclipse:

no thats incorrect and your picture backs me up

 

the PATH OF TOTAL ECLIPSE ...read that again @Carlos its not saying partial eclipse

the total eclipse began at 15.55UT and 20.55UT the picture creator just didnt draw a red line to the start point or the end

 

2 hours ago, Carlos said:

Try a new tactic, answer my post properly and honestly point for point, try not to be vague and evasive and try not to worry about being so wrong.

 

new tactic ... your the one posting deceptive pictures and jumping on the omission of red time lines. 

 

there is no confusion the total eclipse is recorded as 5hrs beginning to end. 143.7 degrees

puts the globe theory well and truly in big trouble with itself

 

do you wish to argue with yourself or just with the data @Carlos

2017_eclipse_globe.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/29/2020 at 8:41 AM, Carlos said:

 

And your first statement is completely wrong anyway - we can SEE 100% of the visible spectrum of light - hence its name! But even so, we can certainly detect/perceive everything else on the rest of the spectrum - the part you are probably referring to. This discussion concerns things within the visible spectrum. 

 

As for your argument you could apply that to every single exchange on this forum and it would still be wrong. Don't worry about starving children, just develop your consciousness save the causation for mystical beings in other realities.

False. Ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

7 hours ago, zArk said:

i just showed your deceptive globe eclipse drawing omitted the total eclipse start and end times which were in 2017

 

 

My diagrams were not deceptive that is a totally stupid claim. The reason they were shown was to show areas of partial eclipse BEYOND where the shadow began and ended. They weren't there to establish times. To do that I used YOUR damn video!! Nothing deceptive in taking YOUR data and showing why the youtube fool was wrong.

  

7 hours ago, zArk said:

 omitted the total eclipse start and end times which were in 2017

15.55 and 20.55

thats 5 hrs.

 

I believe you are either one of life's very poor readers of you are deliberately being evasive. Let me get the screen shots from YOUR video and we will read them again. Sadly I suspect this is where you realise you are completely cornered and go quiet or just repeat your nonsense. Now are you actually brave enough to answer question by question honestly.

 

I doubt it, but here goes.

 

QUESTION 1:

 

eclipse-duration.jpg

  

That is a screenshot from YOUR video, does it or does it not point to the start and end of the shadow on Earth?

 

QUESTION 2:

 

Every single diagram shows that thin line to be the shadow path of FULL eclipse - is that a correct statement? If not fully explain why not.

 

QUESTION 3:

 

The source of your video comes from Xjubier - here is another of their videos. 

 

http://xjubier.free.fr/site_movies/TSE_2017_Simulation_1024x768.mp4

 

Since I cannot embed the damn thing, the question is this -

 

start-full.jpg

 

Does the screen shot show the shadow appearing on Earth at 15:55 or 16:48?

 

 QUESTION 4:

 

Does this screen shot show the shadow disappearing off of the edge of the Earth at 20:02?

 

eclipse-end.jpg

 

Question 5:

 

Can you see on the first still, the leading edge and on the last still the trailing edge?

 

THAT IS THE TIME DISCREPANCY! Where the PENUMBRA is visible before the shadow arrives and after it leaves.

 

7 hours ago, zArk said:

no thats incorrect and your picture backs me up

 

 

I guess your ignorance is simply something I cannot get through. I gave you an explanation a schoolchild would understand - you ignored it.

  

7 hours ago, zArk said:

the PATH OF TOTAL ECLIPSE ...read that again @Carlos its not saying partial eclipse

 

 

That is correct. The thin line is the path of the shadow in FULL eclipse.

 

  

7 hours ago, zArk said:

the total eclipse began at 15.55UT and 20.55UT the picture creator just didnt draw a red line to the start point or the end

 

 

NO IT DID NOT!! 

 

I've put easy to read great big yellow circles around where it says FULL eclipse start and end.

 

start.jpg

 

7 hours ago, zArk said:

new tactic ... your the one posting deceptive pictures and jumping on the omission of red time lines. 

 

 

Pathetic dude. There was nothing deceptive about it. Again I used YOUR video and YOUR data for the time. 

7 hours ago, zArk said:

there is no confusion the total eclipse is recorded as 5hrs beginning to end. 143.7 degrees

puts the globe theory well and truly in big trouble with itself

 

You are nothing BUT confusion dude. You think it's an invisible space pizza causing it and not the Moon. You are incapable of reading simple diagrams and explanations. Incapable of seeing that the time line is the FULL shadow and that the PENUMBRA is visible before and after the shadow passes across the Earth. It is tilted at 23 degrees.

 

The globe is not a theory.

 

7 hours ago, zArk said:

do you wish to argue with yourself or just with the data @Carlos

 

 

Neither, I am arguing primarily with you and your rather poor understanding of basics that have been simplified to a degree where a small child could see them.

 

All you have is denial. I almost guarantee you will avoid those questions.

 

Edited by Carlos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Carlos said:

The shadow arrived on the surface at 16.48 UT and left at 20.02 UT - duration 3hrs 14 minutes.

 

ah well, the shadow arrived at 15:55 UT and left at 20:55 UT

 

i appreciate your attention to detail on the video when the voice over says "total eclipse time 5hrs"

but you must apply that stringent critique to your own stuff

 

the shadow is a shadow whether partial or full, once the shadow hits the earth then the eclipse begins

 

so i agree the statement "total eclipse time 5hrs " could be construed as misleading

but

i also say your statement "the shadow arrived on the surface" is misleading

 

partial eclipse, total eclipse doesnt matter specifically because its when the shadow hits the earth thats the important bit for the purpose of determining the shadow length in degrees across a spinning globe and the time length of it hitting the earth

 

Edited by zArk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zArk said:

ah well, the shadow arrived at 15:55 UT and left at 20:55 UT

 

 

The "shadow" of the PENUMBRA covers an area I already explained to you, why are you so afraid to read and actually learn something. All you are doing is demonstrating really poor spatial awareness. The Moon will be visible in a partial eclipse when the full shadow is perpendicular either side of Earth, up to a region of just under the 1/2 degree of its size, an area that takes it one hour to travel.

 

I explained how this is possible. The Earth is 2 degrees across from the Moon, it travels at 1/2 degree an hour. It can cast an eclipse path shadow on the Earth a maximum of 4hrs and either side a partial for up to 1hr. Total 6hrs.

  

1 hour ago, zArk said:

i appreciate your attention to detail on the video when the voice over says "total eclipse time 5hrs"

but you must apply that stringent critique to your own stuff

 

 

Your voice over is from a person who has made literally dozens of basic errors. Not least reading what he is clicking on! My posts stand up to critique from those who are reasonable, honest and able to take in data. If they are wrong show me where. YOU IGNORE MOST OF THEM COMPLETELY.

 

  

1 hour ago, zArk said:

the shadow is a shadow whether partial or full, once the shadow hits the earth then the eclipse begins

 

 

The Moon penumbra "shadow" which is effectively a varying diminishing of the extremely bright Sun is very big:

https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/35635/during-an-eclipse-how-big-is-the-shadow-of-the-moon-on-the-earth#:~:text=Typically%2C the umbra is 100–160 km wide%2C while,km. Source%3A Geometry of a Total Solar Eclipse

Typically, the umbra is 100–160 km wide, while the penumbral diameter is in excess of 6400 km. Source: Geometry of a Total Solar Eclipse

 

https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/partial-solar-eclipse.html#:~:text=During a partial solar eclipse%2C the Moon's umbra,a place close to one of the poles.

"During a partial solar eclipse, the Moon's umbra or antumbra, the shadow's center portion, is cast into space just above the polar regions, missing Earth by a narrow margin. This means that partial solar eclipses, while potentially being visible at all latitudes, usually center around a place close to one of the poles."

 

 

CAN YOU READ!?

 

It's very big and doesn't involve the Moon casting a full shadow on the Earth.

 

1 hour ago, zArk said:

so i agree the statement "total eclipse time 5hrs " could be construed as misleading

but i also say your statement "the shadow arrived on the surface" is misleading

 

NO IT IS NOT!! The Penumbra casts a "shadow" - a less brighter area - and it is 6400km wide.  

  

1 hour ago, zArk said:

partial eclipse, total eclipse doesnt matter specifically because its when the shadow hits the earth thats the important bit for the purpose of determining the shadow length in degrees across a spinning globe and the time length of it hitting the earth

 

 

Wow , what a sad response. Absolutely useless understanding and a complete refusal to address posts that explain this simple, simple stuff!

 

ANSWER THESE 3 questions!

 

eclipse-duration.jpg

  

That is a screenshot from YOUR video, does it or does it not point to the start and end of the shadow on Earth?

 

QUESTION 2:

 

Every single diagram shows that thin line to be the shadow path of FULL eclipse - is that a correct statement? If not fully explain why not.

 

QUESTION 3:

 

The source of your video comes from Xjubier - here is another of their videos. 

 

http://xjubier.free.fr/site_movies/TSE_2017_Simulation_1024x768.mp4

 

Since I cannot embed the damn thing, the question is this -

 

start-full.jpg

 

Does the screen shot show the shadow appearing on Earth at 15:55 or 16:48?

 

 QUESTION 4:

 

Does this screen shot show the shadow disappearing off of the edge of the Earth at 20:02?

 

eclipse-end.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Carlos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@zArk To summarise:

 

1. We have two lines showing the Full eclipse from YOUR video.

2. We have a screen shot showing the points your video is claiming to analyse time wise.

3. These clearly show the full eclipse shadow.

4. We have a video showing the Moon starting/ending to cast its full shadow on the times claimed.

 

NONE of this is unlikely. The major errors are your video and your automatic belief of such bad errors.

Edited by Carlos
added word
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you all don't mind me joining in but I would like to share two videos that I have seen recently that really got the brain thinking. I'm not a flat earther, but I am willing to consider theories of what our planet/plain actually is because without actually going up into space, o doubt the validity of NASA's evidence due to their occult connections and Werner Von Braun.

 

Now the video is a hypothesis only, so there is zero evidence that this is the correct answer, however, the evidence presented is quite compelling and is actually totally different to what I have seen from flat earthers which I have never really accepted the theory behind. In fact, you will see from the following presentations that it's actually a variant of flat earth as you will see:

 

 

 

 

So what do you think about that then? 😉

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

there is zero evidence that this is the correct answer

 

 

 

Doesn't help. But it's not even as good as that. There is colossal evidence that we live on a round planet and that it is impossible to be flat or in some daft crater.

 

https://penguinsfalloff.blogspot.com/2017/06/as-internet-debates-go-one-concerning.html

 

That applies to any variation of a non planet Earth. 

38 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

So what do you think about that then?

 

Not as good as tedious.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Carlos said:

 

 

Doesn't help. But it's not even as good as that. There is colossal evidence that we live on a round planet and that it is impossible to be flat or in some daft crater.

 

https://penguinsfalloff.blogspot.com/2017/06/as-internet-debates-go-one-concerning.html

 

That applies to any variation of a non planet Earth. 

 

Not as good as tedious.

 

Tough crowd. You clearly didn't read what I said but thanks for the reply. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

Tough crowd. You clearly didn't read what I said but thanks for the reply. 

 

No, not a tough crowd at all. You put up two videos that are quite absurd in their claim. I didn't address the other stuff you said:

 

NASA is not involved in the occult, there are numerous other space agencies, thousands of privately owned satellites and I'm not sure what Von Braun has to do with anything. As far as I can tell he was the baby eating Nazi who helped build the big rocket. If you really want to discuss in good spirit, list what bits you found compelling. I watched and flicked and found it daft.

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...