Mega Thread The Flat Earth Mega thread.

[Upgrayedd]

Australia is fake?

Classic journalism, It was clearly a pisstakechain facebook meme which now out of context has hit the papers,

 

[bourbons]

You're well on your way to see the current heliocentric model for its horseshit.

There is no flat Earth model, not yet.

People here admit science doesn't have the answers, yet expect flat earthers to give them keys to the cosmos and the meaning of life at the same time,
with no budget
No resourses
3 years of research
Fighting against 500 years of indoctrination.

The question isn't if the world is flat, the question is what is real.

Think you misunderstood me, I more meant the culture and belief around the flat earth thing is kinda fascinating. Re: the science, surely its not an even ledger - while we don't know everything (gravity etc.), there'd be more 'science' supporting globe than flat yeah?

Anyway I was just wondering about that 1 specific aspect re: the reach of sunlight, as it seems to be a pretty major hole in FE theory that's never addressed, at least not in the videos I've watched.

 

[NEGAN]

Think you misunderstood me, I more meant the culture and belief around the flat earth thing is kinda fascinating. Re: the science, surely its not an even ledger - while we don't know everything (gravity etc.), there'd be more 'science' supporting globe than flat yeah?

Anyway I was just wondering about that 1 specific aspect re: the reach of sunlight, as it seems to be a pretty major hole in FE theory that's never addressed, at least not in the videos I've watched.

If you take heliocentric concepts and try and apply it to flat Earth it's not going to fit.

I am not really a flat earther just believe the heliocentric model as currently presented is horseshit, but like you I am facinated by the movement.

 

[bourbons]

If you take heliocentric concepts and try and apply it to flat Earth it's not going to fit.

I am not really a flat earther just believe the heliocentric model as currently presented is horseshit, but like you I am facinated by the movement.

Wouldn't say light is a heliocentric concept though, we have a lifetime of personal small scale observations that tells us how it generally behaves. Not sure why any properties would be inherently different depending on the shape of the surface it's falling on.

 

[NEGAN]

Wouldn't say light is a heliocentric concept though, we have a lifetime of personal small scale observations that tells us how it generally behaves. Not sure why any properties would be inherently different depending on the shape of the surface it's falling on.

The current way you think of the sun is though.

Eg. If a light source at the top of the roof lights up the whole floor in a dark room bring the light source closer to floor and it lights up a lot less of the floor. Especially if the light source is not a sphere.

The sun being smaller/closer is a flat Earth concept. Not saying this is how it is but this is the concept they are working into their model.

 

[bourbons]

The current way you think of the sun is though.

Eg. If a light source at the top of the roof lights up the whole floor in a dark room bring the light source closer to floor and it lights up a lot less of the floor. Especially if the light source is not a sphere.

The sun being smaller/closer is a flat Earth concept. Not saying this is how it is but this is the concept they are working into their model.

Its not just based on the way we 'think' of the sun though - you can see the thing, you can look at it in reasonable detail via filters/telescope and see that there are no 'sides' or shades on it that would produce the effect you're talking about with the non-sphere light source moving closer to the floor.

Also doesn't make sense from a sunrise/sunset viewpoint - if it was a flashlight type thing pointed down and is just moving around a path with 'sides' shading it from parts of the earth's surface, you wouldn't see the sun 'rise' up from the horizon in the morning. It would first appear as a sliver already well above the horizon and the sliver would then get bigger as the day goes on.

 

[NEGAN]

Its not just based on the way we 'think' of the sun though - you can see the thing, you can look at it in reasonable detail via filters/telescope and see that there are no 'sides' or shades on it that would produce the effect you're talking about with the non-sphere light source moving closer to the floor.

Sorry I am not sure what your saying here? But I will have a crack.

I am not saying it has sides or anything even if you have a globe light and bring it closer to the floor the light still gets concentrated to a smaller surface area. Especially if you shrink the size of the light source.

Also doesn't make sense from a sunrise/sunset viewpoint - if it was a flashlight type thing pointed down and is just moving around a path with 'sides' shading it from parts of the earth's surface, you wouldn't see the sun 'rise' up from the horizon in the morning. It would first appear as a sliver already well above the horizon and the sliver would then get bigger as the day goes on.

There is no flashlight, they are really in hypothesis stage and playing around with certain aspects to build this model.

With the current flat Earth model there is nothing set in stone, even though a flat earther may claim they know, they really don't.

They are using the AE projection and building it up from there.

Where it's at is no measurable curvature according to the pythogoris therom or no mesurement of rotation ( though this is hotly debated) and it's not as 1 sided as you think.


The sunrise and sunset is something that I thought was never possible on a flat Earth but after some research into it they have convinced me it "could" be possible.

 

[bourbons]

Sorry I am not sure what your saying here? But I will have a crack.

I am not saying it has sides or anything even if you have a globe light and bring it closer to the floor the light still gets concentrated to a smaller surface area. Especially if you shrink the size of the light source.

It kinda has to (have sides) if we're to believe that full dark nighttime is happening on Earth because the sun is only casting light in a tight radius downwards. If you bring an uncovered globe closer to the floor yes more light will be concentrated directly below it, but it will still light up the surrounding surface to some degree. I guess you could argue that it will drop to no light at some stage (if you had an ordinary house globe in a room 500m long for example) but that still doesn't work because

1. The drop off in light would be far more gradual than we experience during a sunset
2. The physical size of the sun in our sky indicates that it would light up a surface as big as a flat earth no problem (not talking distance here or absolute size of the sun, just the relative size as it appears to us that we can see with our own eyes)

There is no flashlight, they are really in hypothesis stage and playing around with certain aspects to build this model.

With the current flat Earth model there is nothing set in stone, even though a flat earther may claim they know, they really don't.

They are using the AE projection and building it up from there.

Where it's at is no measurable curvature according to the pythogoris therom or no mesurement of rotation ( though this is hotly debated) and it's not as 1 sided as you think.


The sunrise and sunset is something that I thought was never possible on a flat Earth but after some research into it they have convinced me it "could" be possible.

This is what I don't get and why its kinda fascinating to me - if there's no model and still so many unknowns with FE, surely there are less unknowns and unexplained issues with the globe theory? And related to that, the other thing I'd be interested in a reasonable answer to is just why? Who is paying the trillions of dollars per year it would take to maintain this conspiracy and what do they gain out of it? So far the only thing I've seen on that are some discombobulated incoherent arguments about all us suckers continuing to pay tax or something lol.

Back to the sun, I've been reading and watching videos on and off for a week and haven't come across anything that explains sunrise/sunset on a FE even in the slightest, if you have any recommendations post them up.

 

[NEGAN]

It kinda has to (have sides) if we're to believe that full dark nighttime is happening on Earth because the sun is only casting light in a tight radius downwards. If you bring an uncovered globe closer to the floor yes more light will be concentrated directly below it, but it will still light up the surrounding surface to some degree. I guess you could argue that it will drop to no light at some stage (if you had an ordinary house globe in a room 500m long for example) but that still doesn't work because

1. The drop off in light would be far more gradual than we experience during a sunset
2. The physical size of the sun in our sky indicates that it would light up a surface as big as a flat earth no problem (not talking distance here or absolute size of the sun, just the relative size as it appears to us that we can see with our own eyes)



This is what I don't get and why its kinda fascinating to me - if there's no model and still so many unknowns with FE, surely there are less unknowns and unexplained issues with the globe theory? And related to that, the other thing I'd be interested in a reasonable answer to is just why? Who is paying the trillions of dollars per year it would take to maintain this conspiracy and what do they gain out of it? So far the only thing I've seen on that are some discombobulated incoherent arguments about all us suckers continuing to pay tax or something lol.

Back to the sun, I've been reading and watching videos on and off for a week and haven't come across anything that explains sunrise/sunset on a FE even in the slightest, if you have any recommendations post them up.

If you really want me to go into it I will but it's alot to take in.


As far as why?

Its the last question that you should be asking and only ask if you can accept i That this concept could be possible. If not, no point of asking it.

But the possible range of answers are

-Hiding free energy
-Keeping in the mindset of being nothing but a spec of dust. Keeps you in the system we currently have. Keeps you obeying
- hide god or a creator
- power and control over religion and politics.

 

[bourbons]

If you really want me to go into it I will but it's alot to take in.

I was more thinking just post some decent resources if you know of any but if you'd rather lay it out yourself go ahead, I'm game if you are

As far as why?

Its the last question that you should be asking and only ask if you can accept i That this concept could be possible. If not, no point of asking it.

But the possible range of answers are

-Hiding free energy
-Keeping in the mindset of being nothing but a spec of dust. Keeps you in the system we currently have. Keeps you obeying
- hide god or a creator
- power and control over religion and politics.

No. 2 makes no sense and seems to be at odds with no. 3 and 4 - wouldn't you be more obedient/compliant if you knew that there was some cosmic force or system responsible for your existence? Being nothing encourages anarchy rather than discouraging it - whats the point, nothing matters anyway etc.

Would be interested in hearing more about the free energy angle.

 

[NEGAN]

I was more thinking just post some decent resources if you know of any but if you'd rather lay it out yourself go ahead, I'm game if you are



No. 2 makes no sense and seems to be at odds with no. 3 and 4 - wouldn't you be more obedient/compliant if you knew that there was some cosmic force or system responsible for your existence? Being nothing encourages anarchy rather than discouraging it - whats the point, nothing matters anyway etc.

Would be interested in hearing more about the free energy angle.

ok give me some time.




To me it makes the most sense. But that's niether here or there it really is irrelevant if you are not at the stage that it is possible we have been lied to. But it requires deep thinking into the phylosophies that a heliocentric model brings.

 

[exe ex machina]

 

[Nothing]

At least the video was short. Cmon GG, this is rubbish. The USAF guy makes some sweeping comments and the assumption is that it's gospel. That's your evidence?

 

[Heisenberg_]

At least the video was short. Cmon GG, this is rubbish. The USAF guy makes some sweeping comments and the assumption is that it's gospel. That's your evidence?

Just another crazy person reading too much into a nothing comment to suit his wrong conspiracy, absolute garbage video.

 

[aflcliche]

How do constellations change position?

 

[iBeng]

How do constellations change position?

NASA moves their star projector around.

 

[Toump Ass]

How do constellations change position?

Here you go!

It's from the same guy who did the video GG.exe just posted.

Some great stuff on his channel.

"The Scripture says the Earth is fixed in Place. God's Word is always true over the silly science of mankind.

Can't argue with that logic!

 

[NEGAN]

Oh gg

This guy is a clown and has been mocked by majority of flat earthers.

This guy came up with some stupid packman model.

He is in the category of mad Mike Hughes.

 

[exe ex machina]

Oh gg

This guy is a clown and has been mocked by majority of flat earthers.

This guy came up with some stupid packman model.

He is in the category of mad Mike Hughes.

You want me to vet videos before posting them??

 

[NEGAN]

You want me to vet videos before posting them??

Nah I do it sometimes too don't worry.

He has some good points but he is in the people trying to cash in on the Fe movement.

Does way more harm than good.

His pac man model is just ugggh totally set back the movement with that horseshit...teleporting sun.


There is one guy who claims to have come up with a working Fe map, I actually trust this other guy, as he is smart but he is like a mad scientist...but extremely smart. He set to release it in a couple of months. I will let you know.

 

[exe ex machina]

Nah I do it sometimes too don't worry.

He has some good points but he is in the people trying to cash in on the Fe movement.

Does way more harm than good.

His pac man model is just ugggh totally set back the movement with that horseshit...teleporting sun.


There is one guy who claims to have come up with a working Fe map, I actually trust this other guy, as he is smart but he is like a mad scientist...but extremely smart. He set to release it in a couple of months. I will let you know.

I meant vet video creators. I am sure there are many FE'ers who are deliberately setting the movement back. Or just crackpots trying to get in on a trending movement and gain some fame by introducing their kooky ideas.

Please do tag me when the other dude releases his map

 

[NEGAN]

I meant vet video creators. I am sure there are many FE'ers who are deliberately setting the movement back. Or just crackpots trying to get in on a trending movement and gain some fame by introducing their kooky ideas.

Please do tag me when the other dude releases his map

Nah I meant i used to post stuff I didn't vet.

But it's blowing up now and every man and his dog is trying to cash in or Nasa funboys getting salty and pretending to be flat earthers.

 

[NEGAN]

It kinda has to (have sides) if we're to believe that full dark nighttime is happening on Earth because the sun is only casting light in a tight radius downwards. If you bring an uncovered globe closer to the floor yes more light will be concentrated directly below it, but it will still light up the surrounding surface to some degree. I guess you could argue that it will drop to no light at some stage (if you had an ordinary house globe in a room 500m long for example) but that still doesn't work because

1. The drop off in light would be far more gradual than we experience during a sunset


2. The physical size of the sun in our sky indicates that it would light up a surface as big as a flat earth no problem (not talking distance here or absolute size of the sun, just the relative size as it appears to us that we can see with our own eyes)

Sorry bud I totally forgot about our conversation.

1. I am not sure why you think this? Do you see a terminator line in the sky?



2. No it doesn't. They are saying the Earth is flat not small. In terms of physical size of the sun I am not sure how you would define physical size unless you use heliocentric concepts.

For starters the way they used to calculate the distance for sun in the current heliocentric model is all wrong due to light bending (refraction). The way we see the sun in the sky is not the position of the sun's angle due to the light for the two observers bending,
So the triangle calculation is wrong.

You can't account for standard refraction to triangulate the sun's position in the sky by 2 observers.



Ball Earthers tried to use this refraction to account for the longer distances as to why people could see beyond the supposed curve of the Earth (changed the Earth curvature calculator to include standard refraction due to to fe debunking the 8 inches per mile squared). But it backfired and only strengthen the position of the flat Earth. Refraction also strengthens the position of the flat Earth model as to how we can possibly see a setting sun (Only part of the reason in the current fe model hypothesis).

Not only this the same calculation can be made for the moon. You could say the moon is 93 million miles away too.

This is what I don't get and why its kinda fascinating to me - if there's no model and still so many unknowns with FE, surely there are less unknowns and unexplained issues with the globe theory?

It's 3 years old, no funding. I don't know what you expect. The heliocentric model has developed over 1500 years or so and had funds poured into it in the past few decades and is still not finished and requires magic and unfounded facts to work. It was only pushed through schools in the last 100 years or so and then pushed even harder with the backing of Nasa.

 

[bourbons]

Sorry bud I totally forgot about our conversation.

1. I am not sure why you think this? Do you see a terminator line in the sky?

View attachment 500062

2. No it doesn't. They are saying the Earth is flat not small. In terms of physical size of the sun I am not sure how you would define physical size unless you use heliocentric concepts.

For starters the way they used to calculate the distance for sun in the current heliocentric model is all wrong due to light bending (refraction). The way we see the sun in the sky is not the position of the sun's angle due to the light for the two observers bending,
So the triangle calculation is wrong.

You can't account for standard refraction to triangulate the sun's position in the sky by 2 observers.

View attachment 500042

Ball Earthers tried to use this refraction to account for the longer distances as to why people could see beyond the supposed curve of the Earth (changed the Earth curvature calculator to include standard refraction due to to fe debunking the 8 inches per mile squared). But it backfired and only strengthen the position of the flat Earth. Refraction also strengthens the position of the flat Earth model as to how we can possibly see a setting sun (Only part of the reason in the current fe model hypothesis).

Not only this the same calculation can be made for the moon. You could say the moon is 93 million miles away too.




It's 3 years old, no funding. I don't know what you expect. The heliocentric model has developed over 1500 years or so and had funds poured into it in the past few decades and is still not finished and requires magic and unfounded facts to work. It was only pushed through schools in the last 100 years or so and then pushed even harder with the backing of Nasa.

Sorry forgot to reply last week.

1. Thats the whole point - no 'line' in the sky, so the sharp demarcation between light and shadow shown in your image can surely only be caused by light falling on a sphere.

2. I'm defining the size of the sun in relation to out field of vision, or 'size' of the sky if you like. I'm not suggesting that anyone is saying the Earth is small, just that sunrise/sunset doesn't work in the fully observable way it does all over the world unless you're talking about a sphere.

Pretty sure there are also FE vids on YouTube more than 3 years old. Bit disingenuous to suggest its only 3 years old when, as we've been told in this thread, flat earth was the predominate theory among ancient civilizations the world over. When you think about it this way its even weirder - FE theory has effectively been around far longer than the alternative, yet still has more holes than globe.

 

[NEGAN]

Sorry forgot to reply last week.

1. Thats the whole point - no 'line' in the sky, so the sharp demarcation between light and shadow shown in your image can surely only be caused by light falling on a sphere.

2. I'm defining the size of the sun in relation to out field of vision, or 'size' of the sky if you like. I'm not suggesting that anyone is saying the Earth is small, just that sunrise/sunset doesn't work in the fully observable way it does all over the world unless you're talking about a sphere.

Pretty sure there are also FE vids on YouTube more than 3 years old. Bit disingenuous to suggest its only 3 years old when, as we've been told in this thread, flat earth was the predominate theory among ancient civilizations the world over. When you think about it this way its even weirder - FE theory has effectively been around far longer than the alternative, yet still has more holes than globe.

When I say 3 years old I meant revived 3 years ago and became main stream. The information coming out about it is not funded in any way shape or form ....they are not going to have a fully functional model at this point in time and to expect them to do so is well it's just not going to happen.

When the heliocentric model was put in place while there were smart people working on it, it pushed on the masses who could barely spell their own name without any proper verified work or proof. the proof they had both worked on a flat Earth as well as a sphere.

Eratosthenes- measuring sunlight angles down a well experiment, also works on both a flat Earth and spherical earth.

Ships sailing over a horizon disappearing bottom first also works on a flat Earth.

Sailing "around" the world can also be done on a flat earth


The only way that the current heliocentric model was comfirmed as legitimate, is well by Nasa and Vatican both organisations I personally find highly dubious. Now without trying to go into the batshit crazy or religious side of things you have to question why the most powerful telescopes in the world are owned by the Vatican and the co owned Nasa Vatican telescope is named Lucifer but I will leave this discussion it's neither here or there.

The current heliocentric model for all it's funding still is only 4% known and 96% dark energy/matter....dark energy and matter is a scientific term for we don't have a freaking clue so we will make shit up. So me personally wouldn't be comparing holes in a model.

Where it's at for flat earth is no measurable curvature which is the foundation they are building upon I am willing to wait it out see what they come with as I said it's only in it's infancy when it comes to the revival.

In terms of the sun on a flat Earth concept there a few factors to consider.

Refraction

As previously discussed light bends in thick atmosphere. Both flat earthers and ball earthers agree on this point we know light bends through dense medium.(as a side note speed of light a constant eh?)





Now in a flat Earth concept the light coming from the sun would be at it's peak refraction let's say during sunrise and sunset due to where the light would be pass through the thickest part of the atmosphere as we see.


2. Perception

We know with perception things sink into the ground the further away they get. Put a camera on a flat road and have someone run away from the camera and you will notice that the runners legs will disappear first the further they get.

3. Atmospheric magnifaction/looming/ Fata Morgana.

Another scientific term brought up by well ball earth scientists to explain away why we can see further than we should.

All what I have said is shown in the 4 min video below.



No before you go saying used a magnifying lens this is what the scientist as well used to describe the atmosphere as well described as a lens in scientific publications.

Now I must stress I am not saying this is how it is and how it all works and is absolute. What I am trying to say is for me personally what I thought impossible now has been opened up to maybe it's possible.