Jump to content

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


bflat
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, zArk said:

and the moon moves 0.5 degree orbit

solcareclipse.jpg.924bbb5f93329c203b3b4e0bace99583.jpg

 

see the tiny moon just infront of the earth .. in 5 hrs it moves 0.5 degrees on its orbit .... the earth moves 0.2 degrees on its orbit

shadow1.jpg.eeb38166a1cb6e73b3927477054e0b87.jpgshadow2.jpg.9d308d4aca5e3164f56bf97fc72e41d8.jpg

 

 

 

 

You are the problem. The moon is moved closer to show how its shadow moves. The problem with any graphic is that it is impossible to replicate scale. Large sun and far away moon make the same path and shadow. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and we must revisit the disappearing moon prior and post eclipse

 

you say scattering light i say .. if you can say you see the dark outline of the moon during an eclipse then the moon should have a dark outline prior to the eclipse, it should be a black disc prior and post eclipse but its not there. its not seen, its not identified, its not discovered using high tech

 

its not the moon causing the eclipse

 

your model says its the moon but your model doesnt fit with the observed data. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

 

It isn't  the shadow! How many more times. It is the area where the penumbra can be viewed. At most it is an area of slightly less sunshine. 

 typically refuting the start and end of the eclipse to maintain your model because the spherists didnt predict the eclipse or its path ... that was done by much cleverer people . people who didnt make up crappy pappy sphere nonsense. the Saros cycle details the eclipse and spherists must use it to pretend they predict it but also deny the start and end

gah ... its pathetic

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

14 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

It is the area where the penumbra can be viewed.

the bloody umbra is too small in the cgi models .. look at the data.

look at your sun size, distance, the moon size distance and then the size of the umbra.. its ridiculous

the observed real doesnt match the sphere model at all

 

 

 

Edited by zArk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, zArk said:

and we must revisit the disappearing moon prior and post eclipse

 

you say scattering light i say .. if you can say you see the dark outline of the moon during an eclipse then the moon should have a dark outline prior to the eclipse, it should be a black disc prior and post eclipse but its not there. its not seen, its not identified, its not discovered using high tech

 

its not the moon causing the eclipse

 

your model says its the moon but your model doesnt fit with the observed data. 


This is laughable..
Of course the Moon causes the eclipse.
l've seen 2 eclipses.
1 full.
1 partial.
The idea that the Moon should be seen as dark before it fully blocks the Sun is total non-sense.
Not only is this caused by scattered light but also contrast.. 
Just because you can't OBSERVE the moon prior to and after an eclipse doesn't mean it's NOT there..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, peter said:

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

Hi peter, I wish I had added in my first post that besides not being here to argue, that I am really hesitant to even post here because of this type of angry, attacking, accusatory and very negative energy.

 

Ignore everything, research nothing and believe whatever you like, but for someone who has been on these topics for months nearly round the clock as some self-professed expert on the heliocentric vs. the flat earth argument, I find it impossible that you do not know the origin of that picture.

 

Actually, it is likely because all that you and the other heliocentrists do here is plagiarize your favorite debunking sites. There is no debunk for this. Every attempt has ended in disaster. No known refraction of any kind moves a horizon in this way.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

 

Image source please.

See my response to peter above.

 

And that is no problem as it has been replicated and mirrored all over the internet. But now that you seem to understand the problem, will you offer an honest to the video you hand waved away?

 

 

 

I don't think the horizon problem can be made any more understandable.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, amy G said:

See my response to peter above.

 

And that is no problem as it has been replicated and mirrored all over the internet. But now that you seem to understand the problem, will you offer an honest to the video you hand waved away?

 

 

 

I don't think the horizon problem can be made any more understandable.

 

I see you have ignored what I said about the video ,you obviously learned your  debating style from B flat, now you are going on about negative energy and aggression , oh you poor dear, sorry for pointing out some rather glaring problems with your evidence. There there ,chin up , wipe away the tears,I promise I won't do it again

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, amy G said:

See my response to peter above.

 

And that is no problem as it has been replicated and mirrored all over the internet. But now that you seem to understand the problem, will you offer an honest to the video you hand waved away?

 

 

 

I don't think the horizon problem can be made any more understandable.

 

 

Nice video, look I can't fault the person who made it - I'll assume they are honest. For anyone who doesn't understand what light does at the edges of the horizon it can be very appealing. Sadly it has an easy explanation. You can dismiss it all you like but it is exactly what is going on. Refraction. If you look at how the Buoy varies in what is behind it, that should give you an inkling of how temperature and air density affect light. The problem is YOUR understanding.

 

Your video:

https://flatearth.ws/horizon-distance

 

horizon-distance.jpg

 

"Ignore everything, research nothing and believe whatever you like"

Some reading for you to improve your understanding.

https://www.metabunk.org/curve/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction#Terrestrial_refraction

https://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirsims/mirsimintro.html

https://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirsims/loom/loom.html

 

 

Regarding your request for responses to YOUR stuff, I have about 100 posts on this thread that require explanations. I could summarise them all YET again or you could start playing fair with decent and honest debating and go back and respond.

 

QUESTION

How far away is the Sun from any observer when it is 10 degrees above the horizon? Flat earthers say it is 3000 miles ABOVE the Earth, so on the flat Earth its is 3000 miles above the point being observed.

 

Here, let me help you out.......

http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm

A=5 degrees

a=3000 miles

 

Distance to Sun equals 34,300 miles!!

 

Can you see the problem with the flat Earth?

Edited by Comedy Time
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours 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.

 

Nope. Mathematics dictates that on a perfect sphere and under zero refraction that would be the case. The far one is a little different when the picture is taken with different air temperatures:

 

habitat-hillhouse-540x298.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, zArk said:

and we must revisit the disappearing moon prior and post eclipse

 

you say scattering light i say .. if you can say you see the dark outline of the moon during an eclipse then the moon should have a dark outline prior to the eclipse, it should be a black disc prior and post eclipse but its not there. its not seen, its not identified, its not discovered using high tech

 

its not the moon causing the eclipse

 

your model says its the moon but your model doesnt fit with the observed data. 

 

One of the least intelligent observations I have ever seen. The "dark outline" is the non reflecting Moon blocking a bright object. When the non reflecting Moon is not in the way, it is non reflecting and not visible. If you doubt this stunningly obvious fact then you should seek out an optician. See the bit you can't see? No. You can't see the bit you can't see can you! The bit you can't see keeps getting bigger until you can't see any of it.

 

mM1QPvM.jpg

 

daytime-occultation-of-venus-ingress-dec

 

Amazingly, when the atmospheric scattering of the Sun is gone, ie. at night you CAN often see the Moon because then we see the very faint Earth shine.

 

9 hours ago, zArk said:

its not the moon causing the eclipse / your model says its the moon but your model doesnt fit with the observed data. 

 

This debate is done. You are repeating yourself and answers have been given that explain it all in copious detail. Go and read them all. Stop relying on videos made by charlatans who make money out of the gullible public.

 

Edited by Comedy Time
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, zArk said:

 typically refuting the start and end of the eclipse to maintain your model because the spherists didnt predict the eclipse or its path ... that was done by much cleverer people . people who didnt make up crappy pappy sphere nonsense. the Saros cycle details the eclipse and spherists must use it to pretend they predict it but also deny the start and end

gah ... its pathetic

 

Keep them toys in the pram dude😄.  The problem is you and your much "cleverer" people being unable to understand things that even small children would see.

 

The MP4 shows the way it works.

 

9 hours ago, zArk said:

the bloody umbra is too small in the cgi models .. look at the data.

look at your sun size, distance, the moon size distance and then the size of the umbra.. its ridiculous

the observed real doesnt match the sphere model at all

 

start-full.jpg

 

You are talking "50 tons of bollocks". Penumbra looks perfect size. Look at the point on the globe where the FULL shadow arrives JUST as daylight begins. It is WEST of the first viewable area of the Penumbra

 

shadow.JPG.dd413c57425c9c18023dcb0052401ea5.JPG

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, amy G said:

No known refraction of any kind moves a horizon in this way.

Who says ,you?. Come on ask me to explain what the video actually shows at the time markers I quoted. nothing to plagiarize (a brilliant word obviously  used in this case to cast a derogatory cloud over not just me but all of my ilk) just simple observation

By the way stop upsetting me I don't no how I will cope ,I'm now deeply offended ,how dare you call me an expert.

And speaking of plagiarization , isn't that what your side has done constantly throughout this whole sordid affair to bolster your argument, our side  resorted to debunking sites after about 60 pages of having their explanations ignored ,taken out of context or answered with some dumb ass video that had no bearing on the matter at hand,they just couldn't be bothered anymore, not to mention any questions from this side never being answered. So come on ask me whats wrong with the video

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Basket Case said:


This is laughable..
Of course the Moon causes the eclipse.
l've seen 2 eclipses.
1 full.
1 partial.
The idea that the Moon should be seen as dark before it fully blocks the Sun is total non-sense.
Not only is this caused by scattered light but also contrast.. 
Just because you can't OBSERVE the moon prior to and after an eclipse doesn't mean it's NOT there..

 

that cannot be substantiated as the moon can be viewed in a daylight sky other times

the sphere model says the moon becomes seen only when it crosses the edge of the sun and is only viewed as a black object. the remaining part of the moon is not viewable at all. there is no light outline , no nothing

 

SECLP2.jpg.8010de574e6c279b88164f698202a4af.jpgsECL1.jpg.84f2869d95b71076494129c103cfc7a7.jpgSECLP3.jpg.7a0ba4940a29785ead5afe0039098c55.jpg

 

no light outline for the object crossing the sun.

the moon is not there. it is something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

 

 

shadow.JPG.dd413c57425c9c18023dcb0052401ea5.JPG

 

 

 

 

the distance of Sun to Moon with its size dictates that the umbra should be 16 times the size it is observed.

the preumbra / umbra crap is made up by spherists to hide the start end eclipse points

the observed total eclipse size does not match spherist calculations

 

and try to find a decent CGI or a to scale model demonstrating the observed data with spherist calcs, eh?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by zArk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, zArk said:

The distance of Sun to Moon with its size dictates that the umbra should be 16 times the size it is observed.

the preumbra / umbra crap is made up by spherists to hide the start end eclipse points

 

Comedy time. Show your maths for this.

All you are doing is whirling your arms around denying everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, zArk said:

that cannot be substantiated as the moon can be viewed in a daylight sky other times

the sphere model says the moon becomes seen only when it crosses the edge of the sun and is only viewed as a black object. the remaining part of the moon is not viewable at all. there is no light outline , no nothing

SECLP2.jpg.8010de574e6c279b88164f698202a4af.jpgsECL1.jpg.84f2869d95b71076494129c103cfc7a7.jpgSECLP3.jpg.7a0ba4940a29785ead5afe0039098c55.jpg

 

no light outline for the object crossing the sun.

the moon is not there. it is something else.

 

So your claim is that because you can't see the object which is too faint to be seen in daylight absent of any solar light, it must be something else that is invisible, undetectable, the same size and variable size as the Moon (annular eclipses!) and an object never photographed in the entire history of astronomy. Also, every astronomer, scientist, above average sky observer, well they are all inept or covering this up. That about right? As if:classic_rolleyes:.

 

Just by watching the position of the Moon as it wanes and its daytime position progressing each day, you can see that it passes in the spot where the eclipse occurs.

 

What ARE those pictures. Source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Comedy Time

Sorry, but you still missed the point. This hasn't anything to do with refraction. This is about a horizon that needs to be at a certain distance based on mathematics that is accepted worldwide, but is actually observed at a substantially farther distance.

 

You are caught up with the bouy. The horizon is behind it. If the buoy is being refracted upwards as you suggest, than this is even worse for the globe as it falsifies the radius to an even greater degree.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Basket Case said:

93 million miles makes that a little tricky.. 

I used to believe this, but no longer do. Are you familiar with any proofs of the sun's distance and are you comfortable with any of them? This is one of the issues that I 're-researched' and played a large role in my awakening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, amy G said:

You are caught up with the bouy. The horizon is behind it. If the buoy is being refracted upwards as you suggest, than this is even worse for the globe as it falsifies the radius to an even greater degree.

How?

I'm still waiting for you to ask me to explain whats going on in the black swan  video at the time stamps I mentioned and the buoy has nothing to do with it

Edited by peter
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...