Nope I selected to look at new post and I'm well versed on the nature of our flat earth. I cannot view the vid at work and Im eagar to get ahead of what ever errors are at play because the earth is flat its an observable and scientific fact.
The summary is, that if the earth were flat the parts that are lit during the day would be different than if it were spherical. This is shown that based on what's lit during the day in order for the earth to be flat the points of origin of the light that lights the lit parts of the earth would have to be many many directional lights in different positions, in order to cover the area that is lit. Not only that these directional lights would have to be constantly moving and Turning on and off. However if you make the earth spherical, then it all points to a single light source and all from a single position. The sun. But really dude all you have to do is realize that the sun rises from the landscape and sets into it. And that the paths we fly in a plane also prove the earth isn't flat. If we were to take these paths in planes on a flat Earth model the plane would be constantly banking and therefore constantly tilted to the side. Also for whatever reason every single pilot would be taking not the straight and quickest path to our destination but for some reason going in a out of the way curve to get there. Not to mention many flights would run out of gas. Why not use actual logic to decide things?
I think you've not been introduced to the concept of the vanishing point and the effects of light through the atmos etc or a very close and much smaller sun before. This argument seems to be oblivious to that unless they attempt to counter those points at all I'm not aware.
Dude, okay cool name... But anyways.. uh first of all you're trying to bend reality to make something fit that just doesn't when there's a very easy logical explanation that everyone else accepts and you don't. But really at this point you could either watch the source material or just not make comments...
Watching the winter solstice and equinox part. I gave serious examination in spite of the presenter providing no sources for his information in the first part. However now they are clearly using math to create these animations and not actual data points. If they are willing to pass that on in the later half it starts to draw the first half even into greater doubt. Ultimately I have to utterly disregard this as they have supplied no evidence at all. This proof is the analogous adaptation of ESPN sports analysis to the flat-globe earth debate. This is not evidence. Please start by proving gravity. Gravity doesn't exist.
While gravity is still a "theory" as are all science, it has pretty compelling evidence. How are you able to deny it? Are the other planets flat as well? Are they fake? If they're real then how do they stay in orbit or even what do they orbit if the sun isn't as explained? If gravity is fake then why don't we continue to float when we jump?
We are not a planet. We are a plane. Above us is a firmament with little lights embedded. Some fixed, some move. The movers are the planets, comets, and shooting stars. That however is to advanced for you to accept. You don't put the roof on before you lay the foundation. lets stick with the foundation. You say science cannot disprove gravity then. Well what if I told you none of your observations of anything require gravity to explain them. They are all explained with the law of relative density, magnetism, and through the addition of energy creating a thrust vector it's natural course due to the law of relative density.
The law of relative density is exactly what gravity is based on. So are you under the belief that there is a creator? A being created this world? Or it happened scientifically?
A being created this world? Or it happened scientifically?
They are not mutually exclusive.
So are you under the belief that there is a creator?
That is irrelevant to the nature of the earth. If one form or another compels you to logically conclude one subsequent belief or the other is not the matter at hand when proving out the nature of the earth.
The law of relative density is exactly what gravity is based on.
Gravity is supposed to exist in the vacuum of space which keeps that proposed cosmology in order. In the conception of relative density when you reach the height where the density is 0 then thrust terminates and velocity would drop. You have nothing to push off of.
Amateur rocket... eventually reaches point it has nothing to push off of... and oh look at the other camera on the last third of the video. Fish eye lens shows earth going convex or concave but when in the center it's flat. NASA does not permit non fish eye cameras on their flights either, but you can find other armature drones and weather balloons and rockets with human aperture cameras showing flatness. The big takeaway from the last third is the horizon is always at eye level.... the vanishing point extends further out as height increases. The vanishing point is a fixed angle where the human eye loses sensitivity as things become so small and compacted. As height increases from the plane greater distances can be seen.
view the rest of the comments →
RickFlairWOOOOOO ago
bold claims... The earth has been flat for a long long time. Can you summarize the findings?
qwop ago
Are you a bot? You responded almost instantly with a cookie cutter comment. It's a 4 minute video. That's the summary.
RickFlairWOOOOOO ago
Nope I selected to look at new post and I'm well versed on the nature of our flat earth. I cannot view the vid at work and Im eagar to get ahead of what ever errors are at play because the earth is flat its an observable and scientific fact.
Fateswebb ago
The summary is, that if the earth were flat the parts that are lit during the day would be different than if it were spherical. This is shown that based on what's lit during the day in order for the earth to be flat the points of origin of the light that lights the lit parts of the earth would have to be many many directional lights in different positions, in order to cover the area that is lit. Not only that these directional lights would have to be constantly moving and Turning on and off. However if you make the earth spherical, then it all points to a single light source and all from a single position. The sun. But really dude all you have to do is realize that the sun rises from the landscape and sets into it. And that the paths we fly in a plane also prove the earth isn't flat. If we were to take these paths in planes on a flat Earth model the plane would be constantly banking and therefore constantly tilted to the side. Also for whatever reason every single pilot would be taking not the straight and quickest path to our destination but for some reason going in a out of the way curve to get there. Not to mention many flights would run out of gas. Why not use actual logic to decide things?
RickFlairWOOOOOO ago
I think you've not been introduced to the concept of the vanishing point and the effects of light through the atmos etc or a very close and much smaller sun before. This argument seems to be oblivious to that unless they attempt to counter those points at all I'm not aware.
Fateswebb ago
Dude, okay cool name... But anyways.. uh first of all you're trying to bend reality to make something fit that just doesn't when there's a very easy logical explanation that everyone else accepts and you don't. But really at this point you could either watch the source material or just not make comments...
RickFlairWOOOOOO ago
Watching the winter solstice and equinox part. I gave serious examination in spite of the presenter providing no sources for his information in the first part. However now they are clearly using math to create these animations and not actual data points. If they are willing to pass that on in the later half it starts to draw the first half even into greater doubt. Ultimately I have to utterly disregard this as they have supplied no evidence at all. This proof is the analogous adaptation of ESPN sports analysis to the flat-globe earth debate. This is not evidence. Please start by proving gravity. Gravity doesn't exist.
Fateswebb ago
While gravity is still a "theory" as are all science, it has pretty compelling evidence. How are you able to deny it? Are the other planets flat as well? Are they fake? If they're real then how do they stay in orbit or even what do they orbit if the sun isn't as explained? If gravity is fake then why don't we continue to float when we jump?
RickFlairWOOOOOO ago
We are not a planet. We are a plane. Above us is a firmament with little lights embedded. Some fixed, some move. The movers are the planets, comets, and shooting stars. That however is to advanced for you to accept. You don't put the roof on before you lay the foundation. lets stick with the foundation. You say science cannot disprove gravity then. Well what if I told you none of your observations of anything require gravity to explain them. They are all explained with the law of relative density, magnetism, and through the addition of energy creating a thrust vector it's natural course due to the law of relative density.
Fateswebb ago
The law of relative density is exactly what gravity is based on. So are you under the belief that there is a creator? A being created this world? Or it happened scientifically?
RickFlairWOOOOOO ago
They are not mutually exclusive.
That is irrelevant to the nature of the earth. If one form or another compels you to logically conclude one subsequent belief or the other is not the matter at hand when proving out the nature of the earth.
Gravity is supposed to exist in the vacuum of space which keeps that proposed cosmology in order. In the conception of relative density when you reach the height where the density is 0 then thrust terminates and velocity would drop. You have nothing to push off of.
https://youtu.be/KK6NdOTFXdw
Amateur rocket... eventually reaches point it has nothing to push off of... and oh look at the other camera on the last third of the video. Fish eye lens shows earth going convex or concave but when in the center it's flat. NASA does not permit non fish eye cameras on their flights either, but you can find other armature drones and weather balloons and rockets with human aperture cameras showing flatness. The big takeaway from the last third is the horizon is always at eye level.... the vanishing point extends further out as height increases. The vanishing point is a fixed angle where the human eye loses sensitivity as things become so small and compacted. As height increases from the plane greater distances can be seen.