Topic: Flat Earth - page 790. (Read 1095196 times)

Yea but the seasons are explanined as the earth is on an elliptical orbit around the sun, and the earth is tilted 23 degrees on the vertical axis.

But this is also faulty, because if the axis is tilted, then because its is not wobbling, i guess there would be permanent summer on the southern hemisphere.

Also due to this, the heat on the southern hemisphere would be much higher than it is on the northern, which is not true, here is a heat map where I marked the equator with a green line.






You can see that its not just that the southern hemisphere doesnt have permawinter (probably a lot of australians know how cold winters are sometimes), but its average temperature exactly where the tilt is, is actually lower than it is where its farther from the sun.

South Africa would get direct 90 degree sun rays directly,and the temperature there has to be like 70 degrees celsius in the summer for this theory to work, so it is crap really.

So I guess the 23 degree tilt theory is a big pile of donkey crap, it doesnt make sense.

Not quite. If you consider it as the rays of the sun hitting the Earth directly, a spherical mass would receive a more concentrated amount of heat in the middle, rather than the northern and southern areas.

Besides, how exactly does the heat prove a flat world? If that was the case, would the heat not be the same all-round?

The evidence supporting a flat, stationary world is overwhelming and growing daily. Go pro sponsored just about ever thing taking a camera to high attitude, but the fish eye lens had its days too.

BTW
If Earth were a spinning ball heated by a Sun 93 million miles away, it would be impossible to have simultaneously sweltering summers in Africa while just a few thousand miles away bone-chilling frozen Arctic/Antarctic winters experiencing little to no heat from the Sun whatsoever. If the heat from the Sun traveled 93,000,000 miles to the Sahara desert, it is absurd to assert that another 4,000 miles (0.00004%) further to Antarctica would completely negate such sweltering heat resulting in such drastic differences. 

What is the point, though? Really, to keep a huge conspiracy about the world we live on secret. All that work and effort to hide... what? It logically doesn't make much sense.

What if the telescope and advanced lense manufactorers directly make lenses that hide any clue about flat earth?

Did you thought about that. I mean if they know 100% that their telescopes will be used by amateur astronomers looking at celestial bodies, then they would build their telescopes to be misleading, and not show the images correctly, especially the digital telescopes. They could hide this way the flat earth, and any clues that would lead towards it.

Whats your opinion on that?

Two of then are JVC recorders (seriously), one is a 200 digital zoom CCTV camera and the third getting very close to what you see with the Nikon Coolpix P900 which he claims is the best available now.
There is some top quality stuff being made this days, the trusted home JVC recorder had his days.
https://youtu.be/M96sODkMeYM?t=480

If there's a flat earth, then gravity towards the outer sides would be really strange. Would be cool to study that kind of world, though!

I meant "hiding" in the sense that the research is surpressed, and even if we know it by 80 years, no major study has been done to implement this technology in new forms of energy.

I mean here is a potential free energy source, and nobody , not a single investor, not a single energy company has picked up the idea and research a way to implement it as a power source.

That in itself is a conspiracy. I even read on wikipedia that there were some scientists that researched it, and they took the grants away from them and fired them from the project, and shut it down. That must raise some eyebrows doesnt it?

Right you have a point here, cherry picking data is also very common in conspiracy theories.

If you look at the overall pictures: lightspeed, refraction , quantum mechanics, etc.

You realize that the globe model is more probable, but still I would not dismiss the flat earth theory neither, its interesting at least to explore these facts, and bring more critical thinking to people.

People should always question things and critical thinking is always good.

---

For example if you look at the lightspeed, flat earthers say that the sun is 3000 miles away, but with lightspeed you can count how far it is by just measuring it, both you can measure the lightspeed in case that one is not genuine, and using that you can measue how far the sun is.

Then with quantum mechanics, you know that the expanding universe with globe objects in it is the plausible one, while the flat earth barely has physics to it. Yes they can claim that density is causing the mechanical events, instead of gravity, but when you go to the quantum side, then flat earth makes less sense.

Or at least these are my observations, but i`m open minded to both theories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence

I guess if by "hiding" you mean "we've been aware of this for more than 80 years," then I guess.

Here's the thing:  I understand the logic to the idea that you absolutely need to see something for yourself in order to believe it.  But you should also understand the logic behind the requirement for internal consistency of a model in order for that model to be valid in the first place.

Flat earth modeling is done from observations of isolated events, after which explanations are given to these events that completely contradict other explanations; moreover, they (if they're especially ambitious) try to cherry-pick little snippets of physics or mathematics to support their models and either butcher them completely, or fail to synthesize them with all other knowledge of these fields.  This should be evident when the only thing that appears to be a real consensus among all flat earthers is the map.  Everything else is more-or-less up for grabs.

The problem with relying upon simple explanations to our observations is when we can use experiments or concrete mathematics to disprove them.  For example, the simplest explanation to a mirage is that the mirage is actually there, i.e. we see it, therefore it is there.  But mirages are explained through a deeper understanding of light, temperature gradients, angle of perception, etc.  Aiming for a simple explanation is fine, but that explanation must account for all of the data.  In another example, if we were the size of bacteria and were standing on a basketball, the horizon of the basketball would certainly appear flat, but that doesn't make it so.

We have millions upon millions of very, very intelligent people who either study in fields or work in industries relevant to information regarding a spherical earth.   In contrast, we have a few bloggers and YouTubers who virtually never demonstrate through trigonometry, geometry, physics, experimentation, etc., but rather only observation and weak thought-experiments who contend that all of the stuff they don't understand is wrong.  Now *that* should be suspicious!

I dont know about this, it could be a sonoluminescence stuff in the waters above, however it can just be a crappy camera that has bad lenses.

There arent many videos zooming on stars (i wonder why) however in the few i found, the star looks normal, how do you explain this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeVIUC8WpfQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvef_2ak8-s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGlUuIpr8Jg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtvcy0krnoU




Wow thats amazing, its really fascinating how well the oil companies hide these technologies so that we will have to use their polluting oil instead of transcending into this new form of free energy.

You don't know a single thing about trigonometry, geometry, mathematics, perspective, line of sight, or anything actually relevant to anything, do you?

Here's what you did, and by now I'm virtually 100% convinced of it:  1)  You heard all of this flat earth crap, 2) you have no background in any of this stuff, so you just heard more and more of it and started to take other flat earthers' word for it, 3) found more and more flat earthers' who also don't have a clue about anything just spewing this easily refutable garbage, and 4) never at any point bothered to research any of it for yourself to find out if it was actually true.  

At 35,000 feet the angular difference to the horizon on a spherical earth is about 3%.  Stop spreading this crap.

Guys first of all, we have hundreds of years worth of  lies with no prove at all that the earth is a sphere.
The book of Enoch and the Bible have thousands of references for a flat stationary home.


No you want I challenge you.
Correct.
It's a pity she does not spin, imagine jumping in a balloon hover for a hour then set down you would have travelled 1600km on the equator. (Landing could be a challenge)
Yep its magic going around circles lead's you back to the starting point at some stage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzRlsvWj8Hc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzWHqooAJtM

Guys first of all, we have hundreds of years worth of research proving that the earth is round.
Furthermore if the earth was flat we would fall off the edge.
Airplanes fly around the earth because it is round. That is why if you were flying at a speed fast enough, you would chase the sun around the world and never see night.
Also if you started travelling from the point you are at in a straight line you would definitely come back to the same point.

So much to learn.

If you take the bible references with the waters above and below a lot off things are possible.
Stars are not Sun's.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZLf52DQjPc

Is it nuclear fusion?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWO93G-zLZ0

The age of awakening all working together and thinking ourselves instead of getting spoonfeed we will discover anew.

I dont know, i dont have an explanation to it, but it seemed very strange and suspicious.

I heard some theories where the stars were holes in the firmament from where the light comes out, but it is not always open. It may sound crazy, but if the Earth is flat then there is no better explanation that comes to my mind currently.

I`m a very rational person, but i`m also very open minded, so unless I see proof or counterproof, I cannot determine which is true and which isnt.

 Some people claim to have seen the curvature of the Earth out their airplane windows. The glass used in all commercial airplanes, however, is curved to remain flush with the fuselage. This creates a slight effect mixed with confirmation bias people mistake for being the alleged curvature of the Earth. In actuality, the fact that you can see the horizon at eye-level at 35,000 feet out both port/starboard windows proves the Earth is flat. If the Earth were a ball, no matter how big, the horizon would stay exactly where it was and you would have to look DOWN further and further to see the horizon at all. Looking straight out the window at 35,000 feet you should see nothing but "outer-space" from the port and starboard windows, as the Earth/horizon are supposed to be BELOW you. If they are visible at eye level outside both side windows, it’s because the Earth is flat!

In either case, the stars are there.  We know they are there because we have both seen them.  What exactly are you thinking about when you look at that rocket video?  Do you think the stars are no longer there or something?  There's nothing suspicious about this whatsoever.  It's an amateur launching a rocket, and stars aren't captured on video; this is not only what we expect to happen, but it's consistent with all other similar videos in which a large body (e.g. the earth/moon) would reflect enough light so as to wash out the rest of the stars, like if you're standing on the moon.

I`m on the 8th floor, trust me there is no light here if i go out at night on my balcony, the street light below have a radius of maximum 10-20 meters, why i`m at about 50m altitude, the sky is usually black at night, and i saw it last night, there was no clouds nor nothing, just pollution.

So if it is the smog in the city, fine.

But why I can see it in the countyside, yet not outside space, its still a mistery, and this light pollution effect doesnt doesnt seem enough proof.