Jump to content

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


bflat
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

your claim is that because you can't see the object which is too faint to be seen in daylight

 

its clear with your eyes , the sun is shining , the object is between the sun and the earth, the object that creates the eclipse should also have a halo pre and post eclipse

 

in the picture i posted the object is passing over the suns edge but theres no outline of the entire object

 

real world examples show that the object shape should be seen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, amy G said:

@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.

 

I suggest you go back and read my post properly - then address it! It has EVERYTHING to do with refraction.

 

It's a little annoying to make thorough debunking posts that get completely ignored with basically a restating of the same claim!

 

 

6 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.

 

There are 3 images of the buoy - variable horizon.

 

Nothing falsifies the radius concerning refraction. I gave you some reading material that you clearly have avoided.

 

BUB BYE FLAT EARTH!

 

habitat-hillhouse-540x298.jpg

 

You avoided that as well. Where is the bottom of the oil rig? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, zArk said:

its clear with your eyes , the sun is shining , the object is between the sun and the earth, the object that creates the eclipse should also have a halo pre and post eclipse

 

Nope. That is bollocks.

 

19 minutes ago, zArk said:

in the picture i posted the object is passing over the suns edge but theres no outline of the entire object

 

What picture and where is it from? If it is an eclipse you would just see the limiting of the Sun not the Moon.

 

19 minutes ago, zArk said:

real world examples show that the object shape should be seen

 

What utter nonsense. What real world example mimics the Power of the sun and a non-illuminated object passing in front of it!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@amy G Kindly answer the difficult posts.

 

6 hours ago, amy G said:

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.

Your "awakening"? Does it include ignoring provable reality?

 

HOW FAR AWAY DO YOU CLAIM THE SUN TO BE?

 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, zArk said:

 

THE POWER OF THE SUN COMMANDS YOU

 

Ok, well that's just trolling. Are we done then?

 

YOU: You should be able to see the Moon during the day when it is new.

ME: No you shouldn't it is only reflecting faint Earth shine that makes the shadowed area just visible at night.

YOU: Why is it a black disc.

ME: The Sun corona makes the eyes unable to see Earth shine. With a camera though, stacking multiple images enables it to be seen......

 

TSE_2016_srd.jpg

 

YOU: It's faaaake.

 

Why bother then? I mean what is the point. God knows how many people you think are in on this utterly nonsensical claim of yours.Amateur astronomers number in the millions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a video composed of many photographs taken by the Parker Probe early in 2019 as it hurtled round the Sun at sometimes in excess of speeds at 200,000 km per hour or more.

 

 

 

It's the nearest we can get to a Sun's eye view at present with Earth first coming into view finishing with Venus, with Mercury just behind Jupiter in front of the immense expanse of the galactic ecliptic which looks like a dark cloud extending from low left to high right.

 

It's from a single point so it's an apparent view of things in space in the same way we have an apparent view of space from our own back yard.

 

Apparant view is not the same as the real view which we can only model or hold of as an idea of in our heads.

 

Edited by serpentine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

YOU: You should be able to see the Moon during the day when it is new.

ME: No you shouldn't it is only reflecting faint Earth shine that makes the shadowed area just visible at night.

 

it should have the suns light shining around it creating a black/dark disc pre and post eclipse

 

this black/disc suddenly appears at the start of eclipse and disappears immediately at the end of eclipse

 

this is illogical. the object must be viewable prior to the the crossing and after the crossing.

 

the earth moves .2 degrees  on its orbit around the sun during eclipse

 

so the moon moves relative to the Sun slightly more than 0.2 degrees on a orbital path

 

the observed effect is complete disappearance to appearance and the back to complete disappearance

 

absolute nonsense. this is not demonstrable at all.

 

lets not forget this manufactured fake picture

 

Total+solar+eclipse.jpeg

 

just admit @Comedy Time this picture is fake to support your stance that the new moon is unseen until eclipse.

you cant have both

Quote

ME: The Sun corona makes the eyes unable to see Earth shine. With a camera though, stacking multiple images enables it to be seen......

 

oh you do want both. you want a moon that can be seen in eclipse but completely unseen before or after

 

fs an angular change of 0.2 degrees to the sun !

Edited by zArk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, zArk said:

 

it should have the suns light shining around it creating a black/dark disc pre and post eclipse  NOPE

 

this black/disc suddenly appears at the start of eclipse and disappears immediately at the end of eclipse YEP the suns rays are blocked.

 

this is illogical. the object must be viewable prior to the the crossing and after the crossing. Nope not illogical - your understanding is fairly inept.

 

the earth moves .2 degrees  on its orbit around the sun during eclipse  So does the Moon.

 

so the moon moves relative to the Sun slightly more than 0.2 degrees on a orbital path. In parallel with the Earth as one.

 

the observed effect is complete disappearance to appearance and the back to complete disappearance NOPE. The observed effect is a non reflective body blocking the Sun.

 

absolute nonsense. this is not demonstrable at all. Your opinion is the absolute nonsense bit.

 

lets not forget this manufactured fake picture It's a layered multiple image stacked shot. It's not fake.

 

just admit @Comedy Time this picture is fake to support your stance that the new moon is unseen until eclipse. It isn't fake and your position is real comedy time.

 

you cant have both YES you can.

 

oh you do want both. you want a moon that can be seen in eclipse but completely unseen before or after Which is exactly the case. You're seeing the Moon blocking the Sun's rays.

 

fs an angular change of 0.2 degrees to the sun ! So what!

 

I'm actually getting really bored with this absurd line of "debate".  You are denying that which billions on this planet understand in simple detail.

Edited by Comedy Time
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

I'm actually getting really bored with this absurd line of "debate".  You are denying that which billions on this planet understand in simple detail.

 

seeemples peeeps

 

red text HOLY CRAPOLA its getting verrrrry serious now

 

 

waaaah so what !!!!

8 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

The observed effect is a non reflective body blocking the Sun.

 

except it doesnt block the sunlight prior or post a 2.5 degree angular change .. fs

9 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

ets not forget this manufactured fake picture It's a layered multiple image stacked shot. It's not fake.

 

its a layered mutliple image that cant be produced prior or post eclipse .. jeeze

11 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

you want a moon that can be seen in eclipse but completely unseen before or after Which is exactly the case. You're seeing the Moon blocking the Sun's rays.

thats exactly what would occur post and prior eclipse ... the moon would block sun light and be a black disc in the sky or do you advocate this

 

1sundirect.jpg.88332d78919014997ec0993a644aefc1.jpg

 

i.e the new moon isnt seen because its shadow is beyond the earth prior to the eclipse and beyond the other side post eclipse

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone whos seen an eclipse with their own eyes is a lying mason or completely delusional..the moon doesn't exist!

Like anyone whos seen a meteor shower..

Or Starlink miles of electrical cable LED's being toed by nuclear reactor powered drones..satellites arnt real remember! I got pics of high altitude weather balloons in the antarctic that doesnt really exist to prove it also!

Or anyone whos saw Comet Neo recently.

The Aura Borealis is also fake.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question about point of attention.

Icke always is saying point of attention having an experience called ...

 

So what does point of attention mean? I know what it means in German but does it mean the same in English.  Like all eyes on me.

I am from Austria by the way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah... I really don't want to argue or to get involved with any of the negative energy associated with this discussion. If there are any honest globe believers on this thread who would not mind taking a  minute to explain the implications of this video to @peter and at @Carlos/@Comedy Time, it would at least be ethical.

 

@peter, I understand your confusion based on the timestamps you posted. In essence, what you are claiming is that there exists a geometric horizon based on a sphere's radius (r) of just under 4000 miles. You are also claiming that a geometric/apparent horizon exists far beyond that point, but in front of the windmills, yes? You are doing this as we can all see the actual horizon miles beyond the windmill, true?

 

Does this help you to understand why that video was posted?

 

@Comedy Time, refraction of an object relative to the visible horizon is irrelevant here. I hope that either a fellow globe believer such as

@screamingeagle, @Basket Case, @Grumpy Owl, @serpentine, @oddsnsods, etc.

can explain this better or that what I wrote above helped as I could not have written it in a more perspicuous way.

 

I am sorry from my heart if this causes anger in any of you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, zArk said:

1sundirect.jpg.88332d78919014997ec0993a644aefc1.jpg

 

i.e the new moon isnt seen because its shadow is beyond the earth prior to the eclipse and beyond the other side post eclipse

wasn't one of your arguments against Comedy Time  the diagram wasn't drawn to scale therefore incorrect, yet here you are doing exactly the same thing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, amy G said:

Ah... I really don't want to argue or to get involved with any of the negative energy associated with this discussion. If there are any honest globe believers on this thread who would not mind taking a  minute to explain the implications of this video to @peter and at @Carlos/@Comedy Time, it would at least be ethical.

 

@peter, I understand your confusion based on the timestamps you posted. In essence, what you are claiming is that there exists a geometric horizon based on a sphere's radius (r) of just under 4000 miles. You are also claiming that a geometric/apparent horizon exists far beyond that point, but in front of the windmills, yes? You are doing this as we can all see the actual horizon miles beyond the windmill, true?

 

Does this help you to understand why that video was posted?

 

@Comedy Time, refraction of an object relative to the visible horizon is irrelevant here. I hope that either a fellow globe believer such as

@screamingeagle, @Basket Case, @Grumpy Owl, @serpentine, @oddsnsods, etc.

can explain this better or that what I wrote above helped as I could not have written it in a more perspicuous way.

 

I am sorry from my heart if this causes anger in any of you.

 

 That's not what I'm claiming at all ,once again you are confused,but more likely you are just trying to confuse the issue just in case I decide to explain it , and I will I'm just letting you stew for a while and believe me it is so blatantly bloody obvious,but I'm sure you know that, if there was no problem you would have asked me to explain straight away ,you or Zark  couldn't get in quick enough.

Could you also stop virtue signaling,it's not a good look

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At 3:17 in to the video,you can see an in focus picture of the so called cardinal  buoy, but behind it we see three ocean bound wind turbines ( they are not windmills Gflat) , now notice the focus on each turbine, since the picture is of the buoy,  the turbine that is most in focus is the closest and the one that is out of focus the most is the furthest away, now note that the hub of the turbines are at all different heights , the most out of focus is the lowest and the most in focus is the highest, to me that indicates curvature .

However the fe crowd will come back with those turbines are built to a standard and the ocean bottom being different heights will explain this anomaly, I will agree they are built to a standard, if you notice at the bottom of the pylon holding up the turbine there is a small cross member on each one, that is a mooring point for maintenance craft so they can unload gear and personnel to work on the turbines and as such all have to be the same height above the water , if you notice in the picture they also get lower with the more out of focus they become and the most out of focus is visible on the surface of the water. There is only one explanation for this apparent artifact and that would be curvature

So in my opinion anything after this point in the video has to be bullshit, by the way in my day a black swan was a big bird with a long neck that swam in lakes and dams, I know because there is some across the road

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, peter said:

wasn't one of your arguments against Comedy Time  the diagram wasn't drawn to scale therefore incorrect, yet here you are doing exactly the same thing

no i refused the diagram becauase it protrayed the moon moving 8 days, the earth moving 60 days and the earth didnt spin

 

this diagram is helping comedy time explain how the moon is playing hide and seek before and after eclipse

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, zArk said:

no i refused the diagram becauase it protrayed the moon moving 8 days, the earth moving 60 days and the earth didnt spin

 

this diagram is helping comedy time explain how the moon is playing hide and seek before and after eclipse

 

 

well good for you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zArk said:

its not about me, its about the theory not fitting the observation ✝️

Well if that's your conclusion ,good luck to you , is the cross so alexa will give you a smiley face

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@bflat @amy G I have already posted a video of Isle of Man wind turbines, which is probably the same phenomena as you are trying to explain in your long video I should imagine.

Globe or Flat I dont see the point in keep posting different videos expecting different results, thats.. insanity.

Flat Earth videos just seem to rely on naive people who dont understand or care to get to know the science. Like the two oil rigs.. yet like to use science whenever it suits their narrative..its tedious. So you have to get in some big debate to prove an obvious. Like the moon actually being the object what covers the sun during an eclipse.

Im still waiting for any of you to explain a sunset or even a video with your p1000 that shows the sun still on the horizon lol.

  • 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...