Jump to content

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


bflat
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

The laser in theory can be skipping over the sea but this is 100% light refraction. I want you to go to your video at 4.12 and look at how this dead straight laser can easily be bent through simple temperature gradients and density variations in the sky. If you like I can give you some great mathematics pages that show the looming effects that this is.

Been there done that , but don't work, they remind me of a computer ,bullshit in, bullshit out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good morning everyone. It looks like some missed the point of the video I posted. Please notice where the horizon is in the picture below. I hope we agree that the horizon is behind both platforms as it is clearly visible.

 

https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Screenshot_20200311_200146-540x247.png

 

The above observation was taken from a camera placed just one foot over the water, but to drive this point home, let's assume a camera height of six feet. Mathematics dictates that the horizon must be at three miles for this observation... no more, no less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only person that missed something was you

How do we know that the parameters that you postulate with regards to the above picture are correct we only have your word for it , and given past experience I find them rather tenuous at best .

To put it bluntly , I don't believe a word you say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, amy G said:

Good morning everyone. It looks like some missed the point of the video I posted. Please notice where the horizon is in the picture below. I hope we agree that the horizon is behind both platforms as it is clearly visible.

 

https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Screenshot_20200311_200146-540x247.png

 

The above observation was taken from a camera placed just one foot over the water, but to drive this point home, let's assume a camera height of six feet. Mathematics dictates that the horizon must be at three miles for this observation... no more, no less.

 

Image source please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

How would you know? 

 

 I do know that the earth is not spinning at 1,000 mph around the sun traveling through space at......... only knows what ridiculous speed.

I do know that sun is not 92,955,807 miles  away.

I do know the moon is not 234,474 miles away

 

The earth is stationary and fixed and it is the sun, the moon & the stars that travels in the celestial realms except for Polaris which remains fixed.

All your sciences are false fed to you by none other than the Jesuits & the Masons. Period..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alexa said:

 

 I do know that the earth is not spinning at 1,000 mph around the sun traveling through space at......... only knows what ridiculous speed.

I do know that sun is not 92,955,807 miles  away.

I do know the moon is not 234,474 miles away

 

The earth is stationary and fixed and it is the sun, the moon & the stars that travels in the celestial realms except for Polaris which remains fixed.

All your sciences are false fed to you by none other than the Jesuits & the Masons. Period..........

 

But HOW do you know this for yourself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Grumpy Owl said:

 

But HOW do you know this for yourself?

 

The Bible & Gods word, there are over 200 verses in the Bible that states how the earth is a circle, stationary & fixed, & how it is the sun that moves and not the earth.

 

Let God be true but every man a liar. Romans 3-4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, alexa said:

 

The Bible & Gods word, there are over 200 verses in the Bible that states how the earth is a circle, stationary & fixed, & how it is the sun that moves and not the earth.

 

Let God be true but every man a liar. Romans 3-4

 

How do you know the Bible is any more truthful than a science textbook?

 

No-one really knows who the 'original authors' of the Bible are. And the original texts have been translated, misinterpreted, and even rewritten over the years to suit the agendas of kings and rulers of the time.

 

It is true that scientific discoveries could also equally be misinterpreted and rewritten to suit certain agendas. And science should be challenged and questioned, and backed up with verifiable evidence. But equally, so should the Bible, or any other religious book for that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, alexa said:


The Bible & Gods word, there are over 200 verses in the Bible that states how the earth is a circle, stationary & fixed, & how it is the sun that moves and not the earth.

 

Let God be true but every man a liar. Romans 3-4

 

The Bible you say?  Hell's bells, did the superior being dictate it then? Did he sit atop a cloud bellowing down his information? Or did he whisper in these lucky people's ears and tell them this? In modern times, people who "talk to god" tend to pick up automatic weapons and revisit their old schools!

 

It's a load of silly old men writing down their nonsense:

https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Grumpy Owl said:

And science should be challenged and questioned, and backed up with verifiable evidence. But equally, so should the Bible, or any other religious book for that matter.

 

Yes I agree, God/the Bible does state this

 

1 Thessalonians 5:21

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

They are visibility curves for the partial eclipse on the left and right edges. My diagram that demonstrates this was dismissed by you. The two points I made were not addressed by you.

 

the diagram wasnt true to spherist model. in your diagram the moon moved on its orbit 8 days, the earth on its sun orbit 60 days and the earth didnt spin.

 

at the end of the eclipse, as per the data, the sun has gone down. there is no visibility. there is no shadow. the point in the atlantic, as per spherist model, has rotated eastward and now the sun is beyond its horizon. your diagram is not adhering to the spherist model

 

Quote

The shadow is very wide as we can see by the green line. That width extends beyond where the shadow ends (into space).

 

in your model the shadow is made by the moon crossing the sun. therefore it is the solar eclipse. there is no calculable way in the sphere model for the end of the solar eclipse to exist where it does.

 

as i said, the spherists want to ignore the start and end of the eclipse as not real , not counting as a proper eclipse. the reason the spherists include the start and end of the eclipse is because they are tied to the Saros calculations and must apply the entire eclipse to their globe. when the fact of 'no more runway' rears its head... straight to denying the eclipse

 

9 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

This is your understanding of what we are seeing. That is the problem.

 

no, 'we' , the royal we? , is seeing an eclipse of the Sun but spherists are trying to shoehorn it into their model. it doesnt fit

 

9 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

partial eclipse is visible after the shadow is cast beyond the Earth

 

the eclipse only exists when it is observed on earth o_0 thats the point, aint it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, zArk said:

the diagram wasnt true to spherist model. in your diagram the moon moved on its orbit 8 days, the earth on its sun orbit 60 days and the earth didnt spin.

 

It was there to illustrate a point about the visibility of the penumbra. But you know that and besides the MP4, you have repeatedly failed to address, shows the path exactly.

 

9 minutes ago, zArk said:

at the end of the eclipse, as per the data, the sun has gone down. there is no visibility. there is no shadow. the point in the atlantic, as per spherist model, has rotated eastward and now the sun is beyond its horizon. your diagram is not adhering to the spherist model

 

Yeah, this is your perception problem. The sun has gone down where the FULL eclipse shadow disappears at the times stated. BUT the penumbra is still visible afterwards. All that left and right hand area is, is the part of Earth that sees only a penumbra BEFORE and AFTER the shadow disappears. 

 

Why don't you stop wasting my time and address that post I gave you a week ago? The MP4 video shows it quite clearly.....

 

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

 

At 15:46 the penumbra becomes visible in the area seen on the large shadow. 

At 16:48 an hour later, the FULL shadow begins to pass over the Earth.

At 20:02 3hrs 14 minutes later the FULL shadow disappears off the edge of the Earth.

Meanwhile the penumbra is still visible.

It finally disappears at 21:04. There's your 5 hrs 18 mins eclipse duration.

 

All exactly as it should.

 

9 minutes ago, zArk said:

as i said, the spherists want to ignore the start and end of the eclipse as not real , not counting as a proper eclipse. the reason the spherists include the start and end of the eclipse is because they are tied to the Saros calculations and must apply the entire eclipse to their globe. when the fact of 'no more runway' rears its head... straight to denying the eclipse

 

That is just complete nonsense. It all fits exactly. There are no speed or time discrepancies, no visibility issues. It does exactly what it says it should.

 

9 minutes ago, zArk said:

no, 'we' , the royal we? , is seeing an eclipse of the Sun but spherists are trying to shoehorn it into their model. it doesnt fit

 

Yes it does. The problem is your understanding. If there were issues, any one of the millions of astronomers would scream out loud and become famous.

 

9 minutes ago, zArk said:

the eclipse only exists when it is observed on earth o_0 thats the point, aint it.

 

Yep. The FULL eclipse is visible when the shadow is being cast on the surface. The partial eclipse is visible before and after this for reasons that are so obvious I cannot believe you are unable to see them.

 

Now would you PLEASE watch the bloody MP4 and let the 50 ton penny drop into place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

 

It was there to illustrate a point about the visibility of the penumbra

Which it can only do by moving the moon 8 days and the earth 60 days

 

So its nonsense therefore any explanation based upon that for the case of a 5hr eclipse is ludicrous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

Why don't you stop wasting my time and address that post I gave you a week ago? The MP4 video shows it quite clearly.....

Lol youre a funny guy. Another cgi . Youre entire science is hinged upon cgi

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

Now would you PLEASE watch the bloody MP4 and let the 50 ton penny drop into place

50 ton of bollocks

 

Its the picture of a sphere apparently rotating westward after pausing for a bit. 

The moon sun position not even shown

 

Its the crown jewel of heliocentrism , its the money shot

 

Earth , moon, sun

 

An impossible combo of size distance movement and the fecker cant be arsed to show it in its glory

 

Obviously too much for the spherists

 

The moon moving 2.5 degrees to earth spin 75 degrees and angular change to sun ...... 1/5 of a degree .

 

Get real and stop with the silly cgi deceivious

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zArk said:

Which it can only do by moving the moon 8 days and the earth 60 days

 

So its nonsense therefore any explanation based upon that for the case of a 5hr eclipse is ludicrous

 

NO NO NO. It does the same thing in reality and is impossible to draw to scale. It just illustrated that when the shadow us off Earth you can still see the penumbra.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zArk said:

Lol youre a funny guy. Another cgi . Youre entire science is hinged upon cgi

 

 

Evasion noted once again. How else does one illustrate this!

Get Stellarium and stop wasting my time. You've had this explained in numerous very simple posts....and you refuse to respond to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zArk said:

 

It is as it is. It is we that observe it 

The observed data is what doesnt fit with your sphere model. 

 

Yes it does. Here. 

 

Alternative 1:

Every single astronomer, cosmologists, physicist, student who has ever studied this is either too dumb to work it out or hiding things. There is an ongoing global conspiracy to lie, deceive and obfuscate involving a cast of unimaginable numbers for hundreds of years.

 

Alternative 2:

You are wrong and don't know want you are talking about.

 

 

Tough one that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zArk said:

50 ton of bollocks its the picture of a sphere apparently rotating westward after pausing for a bit. The moon sun position not even shown its the crown jewel of heliocentrism , its the money shot Earth , moon, sun An impossible combo of size distance movement and the fecker cant be arsed to show it in its glory Obviously too much for the spherists The moon moving 2.5 degrees to earth spin 75 degrees and angular change to sun ...... 1/5 of a degree. Get real and stop with the silly cgi deceivious

 

"50 ton of bollocks". 

  • Like 1
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...