Jump to content

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


bflat
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, amy G said:

You still seem angry to me.

 

I made a very big post above answering all your points and providing examples for pictures in space etc. It was fairly obvious your first response was a diversion but that's 3 times now.

 

Why are all you people so afraid? I have content above that you have ignored. The thing is, you can run and hide behind your computer screen and refuse to answer things but that is real sad. How can anyone believe this crap and be afraid to answer simple things?

 

Just now, amy G said:

A mathematician (I prefer math nerd) knows that if the sun simply moves in a circle above, that that is 360 degrees.

 

And a math nerd knows that it takes 24hrs. And a school child can divide 360 by 24hrs and conclude it MUST move 15 degrees per hour.

 

Just now, amy G said:

Now, if you would like to show us proof of axial or orbital speeds, I would be interested in continuing this discussion.

 

You are not a mathematician. I have content above that you have ignored. Must I repost it all for you to ignore again?

 

Just now, amy G said:

Or, you could show us proof that earth is a planet, yes?

 

I gave you a list of questions, some images and some observations that cannot be explained on a flat earth but perfectly fit in with a planet. Above, kindly address it.

 

Just now, amy G said:

Or that a southern hemisphere exists? You could begin by showing us something as simple as the distance along the 45th parallel, both north and south are even close to the same length, fair?

 

I do not need to explain that it exists, you have to explain different starfield rotation directions. Examples easily found online and of course easily dismissed by you as fake. You also have to explain why the Moon is inverted in Australia.

 

Just now, amy G said:

There certainly are many difficult questions that would actually be worth discussing. These are just a few that I have looked into.

 

You're avoiding them all. Above. Content. Address it.

 

How come the Sun doesn't get smaller when it sets?

How come it is the same size wherever it is viewed at whatever angle, time of day, time of year?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, alexa said:

There is another theory why people would lie about the earth being round. Because it's a way to hide other land.

 

 

This could be the answer to what Admiral Byrd revealed in his infamous interview.

 

I also came across the original article from The Hawaiian gazette, January 11, 1907. I found this fascinating.

 

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83025121/1907-01-11/ed-1/seq-2/

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@amy G  Hey, what's the problem?

 

"Hopefully, we are all here in search of truth and that's really all I need to say about that." - amy G.    Is that not the case here?

 

"What fascinated me most was the fact that there was legitimate discussion." - amy G.  Is this not discussion?

 

 

LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS routinely ignored by flat earthers in all "legitimate discussion".

 

Why does the Sun appear to be the same size all over the "flat earth" regardless of its distance to the observer?

 

Everything gets smaller towards the vanishing point. But you always have to look up to the sun - yellow line - how can it set or rise? Same with the Moon.

The Sun at zenith has an angular diameter of 0.5 degrees of arc. Wherever it is it stays the same size.

Bearing in mind the "1 mile corridor" where, you know, things get smaller as they get farther away.

The sun rises and sets without changing size - explain this.

 

cletus.jpg

 

 

Wherever you are on the "flat earth", the angular distance the sun covers per hour is 15 degrees. No matter what elevation, what time of year or time of day, no matter where you view it from. On a flat earth that is impossible. Explain this.

 

Pictures from Space:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=apollo+pictures+of+Earth&form=HDRSC2&first=1&scenario=ImageBasicHover

 

Zoom in to individual pictures:

https://quickmap.lroc.asu.edu/?extent=50.3348544,-23.6121387,90,-15.4187484&proj=10&layers=NrBsFYBoAZIRnpEoAsjYIHYFcA2vIBvAXwF1SizSg

 

Oh and just in case you claim that was done with a telescope, the far side of the Moon:

https://quickmap.lroc.asu.edu/projections?extent=-90,-25.8276945,90,25.8276945&proj=7&layers=NrBsFYBoAZIRnpEoAsjYIHYFcA2vIBvAXwF1SizSg

 

 

The bottom of all the buildings has disappeared. How is this possible on a flat earth?

Sure you cannot "see forever" but what trick of light cuts the bottoms off just as you would expect on a curved surface?

Chicago_2.jpg

 

Some Mathematics for you:

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/4/2020 at 6:37 AM, amy G said:

proof of either axial or orbital speeds has never been presented, and that we have in fact seen multiple horizons that simply cannot exist on a ball with a radius of 3,963 miles.

You still haven't answered the questions I asked, are you sure your not Bflat incarnate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, amy G said:

This could be the answer to what Admiral Byrd revealed in his infamous interview.

 

I also came across the original article from The Hawaiian gazette, January 11, 1907. I found this fascinating.

 

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83025121/1907-01-11/ed-1/seq-2/

 

 

All this shit was brought up about 60 pages ago , how about something original

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/4/2020 at 6:37 AM, amy G said:

proof of either axial or orbital speeds has never been presented, and that we have in fact seen multiple horizons that simply cannot exist on a ball with a radius of 3,963 miles.

You still haven't answered the questions I asked, are you sure your not Bflat incarnate

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Carlos said:

Your mistake is the same blundering one you keep making. By the way, YOUR source for times is NOT correct, it is longer than 5hrs for the visible partial to start and end. It is actually 5hrs 18 minutes. But that's not where you are wrong, you keep insisting that the visibility of the partial contributes to the total shadow on Earth time. It does not.

 

 

ECLIPSEdataTIMELINE.jpg.59457af388210d85caea11984ff939c3.jpg

 

the only way that the end of eclipse can exist on earth at 20:55UT is if the earth is not spinning otherwise adhering to globe theory the end point at the atlantic is too far gone.

 

but then you began to argue linear speed, diameter of the earth etc and finished with the umbra

 

so we're back here. linear speed doesnt only include total solar eclipse, its the eclipse in entirety

 

the fact is the data doesnt match globe theory. we need some serious mental gymnastics here

Edited by zArk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@zArk  Answer my damn post! Answer the simple questions!

 

 

 

 

 

You even ignored my reminder:

When can I expect you to answer the post posted yesterday at 8.49? Because it wraps up all the nonsense I keep having to revisit. 

 

Your understanding of basic lunar motion is the problem. Your video had dozens of errors but even when explained to you, you still hang on to it by the fingernails. This simple diagram explains it for anyone - yet you arm-waved it away for some ridiculous reason that it wasn't to scale and didn't have the Earth rotating:

 

 

OIP.jpg

 

 

Diagram 1 Partial eclipse, is the Moon before the shadow hits Earth. Reduced light from the Penumbra hits the Earth's surface up to an hour before the FULL eclipse and 1hr before the Moon casts a shadow.

 

Diagram 2 FULL eclipse, is the 3hrs 14 minutes where the Moon travels across the face of the Earth.

 

Diagram 3 Partial eclipse, is the Moon after its shadow has left the Earth's surface. Reduced light from the Penumbra hits the Earth's surface up to an hour after the FULL eclipse and 1hr after the Moon casts a shadow.

 

The reason for this 1hr is that the Moon moves 1/2 a degree per hour and after that time the width of the penumbra 6400km will not be visible, ie. end of partial eclipse.

 

Edited by Carlos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Carlos said:

When can I expect you to answer the post posted yesterday at 8.49? Because it wraps up all the nonsense I keep having to revisit. 

lol i have a life fella, i will read and respond but after back tracking pages to find your previous posts and then reassert the point where you tried to depart from the issue at hand

 

it takes time to deal with these things and rushing ahead with essay like posts is a bit too eager for myself

Edited by zArk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and again this diagram is a right mess which distorts globe model

as i said you got pissy with the angular velocity issue and ran to the linear velocity

and this diagram shows what a crock of shit the globist defenders have to resort to

below shows (as per globe theory)

a. the moon travelling 8 days

b. the earth not spinning

c. the earth travelling 60 days on its orbit round the sun

 

all resulting in a stupid, ludicrous representation of a 5 hour eclipse

 

now i say again, its rejected because it is stupid, inaccurate and clearly pathetic throw of the dice for the failing sphere argument

OIP.jpg

 

 

Edited by zArk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, peter said:

You still haven't answered the questions I asked, are you sure your not Bflat incarnate

As I wrote in my first post:

I'm not here to argue with anyone. The petty arguing that has captured this thread is a shame, and it is not necessary. I don't see this on threads on other topics here... hmmm. Hopefully, we are all here in search of truth and that's really all I need to say about that.

 

I have read the old thread and this one too and I have seen your posts enough to know that that is just not something I wish to get involved with.

 

Now, if you wish to discuss proof of either axial or orbital speeds which have still never been presented or the horizons that simply cannot exist on an oblate spheroid (better?) with a radius of 3,963 miles, that would interest me.

 

What I mentioned to @Carlos applies to you as well.

 

If you would like to show us proof of axial or orbital speeds, I would be interested in continuing this discussion.

 

Or, you could show us proof that earth is a planet, yes?

 

Or that a southern hemisphere exists? You could begin by showing us something as simple as the distance along the 45th parallel, both north and south are even close to the same length, fair?

 

Beyond that, this could be done for the 60ths, the 75ths, etcetera.

 

You could show anything orbiting anything, you could show us a Antarctica as a land mass on the bottom of our world, demonstrate water conforming to the outside of any container and not the inside, whether the object exhibits axial speed or not.

 

As far as "bflat incarnate?" I have only in been in this for a few months, but thanks.

 

I am sorry if you haven't got the answers you wanted, but perhaps you got the answer you needed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, peter said:

All this shit was brought up about 60 pages ago , how about something original

Brought up or not, it is fascinating to me and no one has really dealt with it.

 

Have you made sense of Byrd's statement regarding a continent the size of America on the other side of Antarctica? Does that even make sense to you if we lived on the globe that we have all seen since early childhood? And would not additional land/resources be reason enough for them to hide this from us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, amy G said:

The petty arguing that has captured this thread is a shame, and it is not necessary.

all youre gonna get at this juncture

the material is extremely divisive and makes people extremely defensive

misinterpretation of posts can easily cause flaming and frustration

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, amy G said:

I am sorry if you haven't got the answers you wanted, but perhaps you got the answer you needed?

I certainly did

PS I would be interested of your opinion about gravity

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something weird happened when I logged in....  it looked to me like only bflat s first post on this topic remained...the rest having been deleted...The delight at thought this thing was gone and poor Peter and Carlos could breathe a sigh of relief was incredible. 

But no.

Here it is...alive and well and pushing us over the edge (!!!)..

As you were. 

 

 

Edited by kj35
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kj35 said:

Something weird happened when I logged in....  it looked to me like only bflat s first post on this topic remained...the rest having been deleted...The delight at thought this thing was gone and poor Peter and Carlos could breathe a sigh of relief was incredible. 

But no.

Here it is...alive and well and pushing us over the edge (!!!)..

As you were. 

 

 

You are right, this thread has changed my outlook ,now I'm now only capable of sarcasm.

Who was it that said never argue with an idiot they will bring you down the their level and beat you with experience 🤔

I'm done ,back to the moon

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, amy G said:

Brought up or not, it is fascinating to me and no one has really dealt with it.

 

Have you made sense of Byrd's statement regarding a continent the size of America on the other side of Antarctica? Does that even make sense to you if we lived on the globe that we have all seen since early childhood? And would not additional land/resources be reason enough for them to hide this from us?

 

G Flat no ones buying your BS on this forum, no matter how many times you repeat.

 

581238main_USA_Antarctica_size-orig_full

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, peter said:

You are right, this thread has changed my outlook ,now I'm now only capable of sarcasm.

Who was it that said never argue with an idiot they will bring you down the their level and beat you with experience 🤔

I'm done ,back to the moon

Well depending on which perspective you are coming from, you won't have to travel more than 3000 miles to get there. Bonus! That's if it's actually there, or solid, can be landed on or has a dark side at all. I'm lost. 🤔🤷🏻‍♂️

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/5/2020 at 4:57 PM, Carlos said:

 Talking of the moon, where's the flag and all the other stuff they left behind?

 

 

Edited by Diesel
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

Well depending on which perspective you are coming from, you won't have to travel more than 3000 miles to get there. Bonus! That's if it's actually there, or solid, can be landed on or has a dark side at all. I'm lost. 🤔🤷🏻‍♂️

Sorry I was referring to the moon thread by kj35

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

1 hour ago, oddsnsods said:

 

G Flat no ones buying your BS on this forum, no matter how many times you repeat.

 

581238main_USA_Antarctica_size-orig_full

 

 

Admiral Byrd was referring to Australia when he made that statement? Over 4500 miles away? It looks like the flat earth community can welcome another. 😍

 

1 hour ago, kj35 said:

I nearly nearly did a "amy g' s writing style seems familiar" post

I am honestly not worthy, but these comments are encouraging. I have actually only been down this rabbit hole for a few months.

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...