Flat earth

Discussion in 'TT - Public' started by Moonpony, Jul 15, 2017.

  1. Moonpony

    Moonpony Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2017
    Posts:
    95
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Of course, simple explanations aren't as sophisticated as the whizz-bang, scientamagistical explanations of whirling globes.

    Christians have no business taking Masons at their word, either.
     
  2. Aeoli Pera

    Aeoli Pera Admin Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2016
    Posts:
    1,576
    Thanks Received:
    472
    I'm determining whether dodging simple, direct questions is an ideological imperative in your religion or a personality feature. Great rhetoricians know you never concede ground on even the smallest, most obvious points- the correct response is to dodge, reframe, ignore, and refocus on deconstructing the opposition. In your case I've concluded it's merely a cognitive preference, and not a semi-conscious tactic (e.g. taqiyya).
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  3. Aeoli Pera

    Aeoli Pera Admin Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2016
    Posts:
    1,576
    Thanks Received:
    472
    Said the guy who never saw the sun set below the horizon. Freemason Jew lies!
     
  4. Son of Distant Trebizond

    Son of Distant Trebizond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2016
    Posts:
    90
    Thanks Received:
    48
    Tex is a flat-Earther? I thought he was a fairly straight-down-the-line heliocentrist, albeit with unconventional views about the properties of the Sun.

    Is this what you mean by 'non-curvature of water'? Do you believe this is a property intrinsic to water that permits the deduction that any body of water of any kind must be perfectly Euclidean-flat? Would you expect curvature over wide expanses of land? Would that leave you with a knobbly-Earth theory?

    How do you know? I'll wager that well over 99% of what you've seen of the Earth's surface was, in fact, dry dry land. Your Postmodernism Game's Weak.

    As Apercus has alluded, you seem unwilling to even try to follow the most basic of physics arguments, dismissing principles known for centuries or even millennia as hoaxes that have poisoned our book-fettered brains. You contrast this with your open-minded willingness to look at reality directly, without resort to unnecessary theorising. This is unfortunate, because it leaves us with almost no means of engaging in discussion with you.

    Here then, are some questions and a follow-up proposal:
    What kind of demonstration would you suggest to rule out optical phenomena as accounting for the anomalous visibility of distant landmarks over water? Conversely, if optical phenomena are in fact responsible for the effect, what kind of demonstration would be able to convince you of this fact?

    I thought a bit about what kind of experiment would be sufficiently 'commonsense' and 'non-theoretical' as to potentially convince you one way or another, so let me know if you accept my premises, and what you therefore think of my suggestion.

    1) In a flat-Earth model, the day and night cycle are determined by the path of the sun: 'Day' is the time period when the Sun is on the inhabited(?) side of the Earth-disk, and 'Night' refers to the period when the Sun is on the other side of the disk.

    2) 'Sunrise' and 'Sunset' are therefore the moments when the Sun initially appears over the edge of the disk, and when it recedes back over the opposite edge. Flat-Earthlings would notice the sun emerging over one horizon at the beginning of the day, then watch it sink back over the opposite horizon at the end. This does fit in with what any one observer sees on any given day.

    3) However, because slipping past the horizon is a single event in the flat-earth model, everyone on Earth would witness this event simultaneously. An observer in China or on the Antarctic ice-wall will watch the sunset at the exact same moment as an observer in England.

    Fair so far? Here's the proposal, then:

    In the internet age, instantaneous communication with more or less any part of the globe is easy. It should hence be straightforward to verify simultaneity of sunsets using distant observers. I understand you live in England. Therefore, I propose you film the next sunset and livestream the event. An American member of the forum can do the same from their position, and you can check for discrepancies. If the Flat Earth model is correct, you should both witness the sunset at the same time, due to it being a single event in the course of the day. If the Earth is in fact spherical, you'd expect there to be substantial differences in sunset time, due to nightfall being a local event travelling around the Earth at a constant rate.

    I suppose there has to be an assumption of good faith on the part of both parties, but I understand some of you guys have known each other for quite some time. I leave that up to you.

    What do you say?
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2017
  5. Moonpony

    Moonpony Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2017
    Posts:
    95
    Thanks Received:
    13
    The sun revolves above the earth. It does not set "behind" the horizon, it just goes out of view the same way a plane flying away from you would eventually appear to go "behind" the horizon, at the point of convergence. I will link a video later demonstrating this. The idea the sun is going behind curvature is what you think you see, but what you actually see is a relatively nearby object moving over you above, then remaining at the same altitude, going further and further from you. The reason the Sun can dip "below" the horizon is is because it is a large enough object that due to perspective, its base can converge out of sight at the horizon whilst the rest of it remains visible.
     
  6. Moonpony

    Moonpony Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2017
    Posts:
    95
    Thanks Received:
    13
    [​IMG]

    Path of the sun over the flat earth
     
  7. Son of Distant Trebizond

    Son of Distant Trebizond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2016
    Posts:
    90
    Thanks Received:
    48
    ’T is yours a Bacon or a Locke to blame,
    A Newton’s genius, or a Milton’s flame:
    But, oh! with One, immortal One, dispense,
    The source of Newton’s light, of Bacon’s sense.
    Content, each emanation of his fires
    That beams on earth, each virtue he inspires,
    Each art he prompts, each charm he can create,
    Whate’er he gives, are giv’n for you to hate.
    Persist, by all divine in man unawed,
    But learn, ye Dunces! not to scorn your God.’
     
  8. Moonpony

    Moonpony Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2017
    Posts:
    95
    Thanks Received:
    13
    The whole purpose of the globe model is to displace intelligent design with atheistic "big bang" theory.

    It's a deeply backwards philosophy that relies on invoking the occult ("Gravity") to account for the obvious physical impossibility of water sticking and curving around a spinning ball.

    It is my position that flat earth is not only the real cosmos, but the only possible cosmos if the laws of physics mean anything at all. Even 'Gravity' cannot make an atmosphere behave in the way that it does.

    Starting at an unprejudiced viewpoint (ie, starting from a position of "I don't know" rather than "I know the earth isn't flat and I intend to shut this interloper up") it is self evident that the heavens revolve around the earth, and that the earth is flat.

    It is only when the deception of "Gravity" and heliocentrism is invoked that suddenly your mind begins making rationalisations.

    Here's a demonstration of how sunsets work for Aeoli:

    I place a penny on my desk, representing the sun.

    Dropbox - File 19-07-2017, 17 43 28.jpeg | https://www.dropbox.com/s/vycohv0detcf4fm/File%2019-07-2017%2C%2017%2043%2028.jpeg?dl=0


    Dropbox - File 19-07-2017, 17 43 53.jpeg | https://www.dropbox.com/s/jgm9j41d7oa1ltl/File%2019-07-2017%2C%2017%2043%2053.jpeg?dl=0


    I look down my desk, as if I were looking across the open ocean at a sunset.

    I take two photos. The first is from an elevated position. Because I am elevated, I am able to see further than I would if I was closer to the ground. The flat plane extends out to meet eye level (Obviously not possible on my narrow desk). I imagine "I am seeing the sunset later than I would if I were stood on the floor, because I can see further over the earths curvature". Infact, I am simply looking down on a flat plane, and because of my elevation I am able to see more before it converges into a horizon.

    Dropbox - File 19-07-2017, 17 44 12.jpeg | https://www.dropbox.com/s/lbz5gmjy4qdmsuo/File%2019-07-2017%2C%2017%2044%2012.jpeg?dl=0


    The second photo is when I have walked 'downstairs' to a lower viewing angle.

    Because of perspective, I imagine, 'the bottom of the sun (penny) is disappearing behind the earths curve).'

    Dropbox - File 19-07-2017, 17 44 29.jpeg | https://www.dropbox.com/s/0ardtpe35ec9yvk/File%2019-07-2017%2C%2017%2044%2029.jpeg?dl=0

    What is infact happening is that due to perspective, at eye level, directly in your line of sight, the image converges. It is at this convergence point where the penny appears to sink "beneath" the earths curvature. The Sun, like the penny, is large enough that at its altitude you can see the bottom of it sink "behind" the curvature of the earth as it moves further and further from you.

    My desk, like the ocean, is a demonstrably flat plane. I can put a ruler across my desk to demonstrate it is a flat plane, the same way lighthouses with fresnal lenses are visible to boats when it should be shot off into space instead over the earths "curvature."

    In this photo of the Penny Sunset, the white surface of my desk is still visible between the brown wood desk edge and the penny. Yet, the penny appears to sink "below the horizon".

    Is my desk curved? No, of course not.

    Did I hacksaw up a penny to make this? No, of course not.

    The behaviour of light on the ocean is demonstrably consistent with light on a flat plane, not light over a curved sphere. The idea that the world is a spinning ball is a superstition created and perpetuated by Masons in order to make sure the world remains in a dark age of ignorance, where we have to rely on Scientamagisticians like Neil Degrasse Tyson for "truth."

    They absolutely and categorically do not want you researching for yourself, thinking for yourself, and performing simple experiments for yourself which invalidate their false, scientamagistical, occult, atheistic worldview. You might start thinking you are a special human being who has been privileged by a creator to live in this realm, and who doesn't need NDT or Obama or any one of their neurolinguistic programmers to survive and prosper.

    The reason I keep banging on about curvature is because contradictions do not exist - they indicate a false premise. If curvature does not exist on standing water, then the theory of the earths oceans sticking to and curving around the ball earth must be bunk. Water in a lake does not have special magical properties that make it Not Curve unlike ocean water. If the oceans curve around the ball earth, then so must all water, at an easily measurable 8 inches to the square of the mile.

    The fact you can see the Rogers Dome from 30 miles away - and the ENTIRE Rogers Dome, not simply the top of it, when by all rights it should be fully hidden by water "curving around the earth" - Means that all other flaws in the flat earth model must be through other means rather than ball-earth heliocentrism, because the premise of the ball earth is already made bunk.

    In Isaac Newtons' day, powerful cameras, lasers, hot air balloons and high altitude planes did not exist. We now have these things and amatuers are sending up balloons to over 100,000 feet (big numbers like Scientamagisticians use). At what point does the "ball earth" fall away from view, like it should? It doesn't, it just keeps on extending out like the flat plane that it is.

    Heliocentrism has been with us for millenia. If the earth was a ball, they would have found the curvature by now.

    I know you Ball-Earthers hate physical evidence and demonstrations (of which I have posted multiple examples, all of which remain unrefuted), but here it is, the "sun setting behind the earths curvature."
     
  9. Moonpony

    Moonpony Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2017
    Posts:
    95
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Demonstration the horizon on a flat plane:

     
  10. Lorien

    Lorien Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2016
    Posts:
    162
    Thanks Received:
    129
    I have found something out about this video. The key is to study the details and to do some math. Shocker, huh.

    Observe the CN tower. It's the middle building in this diagram.

    Note that the height up to the big bulge is 350m, and the height of the spire above the bulge is 200m. But in the video, the bulge is in the exact middle of the tower, as if there's 150m missing on the bottom. And 150m is almost exactly how much the round earth predicts will be obscured. How about that. Now you're still not supposed to see all those buildings which are shorter than 150m, but the point is that in any case the view of the city is severely distorted.

    In another video by the same person, the horizon occults as much of the city as it's supposed to on a round earth. Well, almost.

    My conclusion from this is as follows, and you tell me what you think about this. Sometimes you can see much more beyond the horizon than you'd expect on a round earth, but sometimes you see way less than you'd expect on a flat earth. Some sort of atmospheric distortion involved. Now why would you assume that the distortion is always going in the direction of proving your particular view? You can't. Rather I would say that distorted data is not admissible as evidence for either.
     
    • Thank Thank x 1
  11. Vejiortan

    Vejiortan Geheimrat Baron

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2016
    Posts:
    2,304
    Thanks Received:
    1,196
    Either this or both mainstream and flat earthers are wrong.
     
  12. Mycroft Jones

    Mycroft Jones The TM/FM Station Baron

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Posts:
    301
    Thanks Received:
    113
    To "see" curvature, or lack thereof, you have to look at a point 600 miles away. I was able to simply calculate this with trigonometry once I learned about refraction of light. Did you know, astronomers don't trust any observations taken within 15 degrees of the horizon? Even the best mathematics can't compensate for the distortions.

    How do you "see" something 600 miles away on the horizon? You don't. Atmospheric haze, fog, distortion etc is too strong. Not even the Hubble telescope can do it. Yes, the Hubble can look straight DOWN through the atmosphere. But not across 600 miles at sea level. In other words, curvature of the earth isn't something you can prove or disprove by watching things disappear over the horizon.

    The Hebrew word "raqia" to describe the firmament is the same word as referring to a copper plate beaten out. Have you ever seen how a copper bowl is "beaten out"? It is a nice bowl, but it has lots of tiny indentations. Watching that video above, which showed the shimmer of the haze and the texture of the atmospheric distortion, I was struct by how similar it is to the pattern of small dents in a beaten copper bowl. So the Bible was being literal when it describes our atmosphere as "firmament". Just not in the way anything thought.
     
    • Thank Thank x 3
  13. BiceBiceBice

    BiceBiceBice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2016
    Posts:
    735
    Thanks Received:
    336
    Lets see what old Tex says about this:

    P.S. Yes, my old friend Pat Kinney became a globo-warmthinkist. What is really amusing is that when we were going to school, Pat was lauded as a savant and clearly gifted student where I was largely ignored as some kind of slack-jawed, feebleminded village idiot he had picked up as a sidekick. It was only later in life that the truth came out - I had a clinically tested IQ of 183 and was probably the brightest person who had ever attended Midlothian or for that matter, any other school I was in during my chaotic and transient childhood. Nobody knew it back then. Most people I know think the same of me today - I'm a shuffling, dribbling dullard who probably should be under the care of a nurse. To be honest, I have always liked it. I know how Clark Kent feels about anonymity. It is good to be ignored and overlooked by others. It is much underrated and often the path of least resistance. If people find out you are an exceptional person and do not agree with their peculiar politics it enrages them and makes them hate you a lot. Nobody cares what a village idiot thinks on any subject and a cretin is merely despised.
     
  14. Mycroft Jones

    Mycroft Jones The TM/FM Station Baron

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Posts:
    301
    Thanks Received:
    113
    Not sure about Tex, if he is just takin the piss or not. Shortly after the flat earth thing, he came out with his "Blacks in America are actually the original native Indians" post. Even for him, flat earth and negro indians are pretty extreme positions. Wonder if he's being intercepted, and these posts are by someone looking to discredit him among his core audience (everyone else already ignores him). Would give credence to the "holoweb" idea.
     
  15. Moonpony

    Moonpony Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2017
    Posts:
    95
    Thanks Received:
    13

    [​IMG]

    Just don't try and measure a drop of over 30 miles, Goy. It's impossible. You can't see it, the light refraction is too strong.

    Go back to your Barony and stop posting nonsense.
     
  16. Apercus

    Apercus Benefactor of Humanity Baron

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Posts:
    595
    Thanks Received:
    391
    Asserting things to be "obvious" or "self-evident" is a terrible way to argue.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Mycroft Jones

    Mycroft Jones The TM/FM Station Baron

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Posts:
    301
    Thanks Received:
    113
    Sad attempt to look like he knows trigonometry, even sadder attempt to reframe by ignoring the most important point: atmospheric refraction of light. Does he have an IQ of 80, or is he being dishonest?
     
  18. Moonpony

    Moonpony Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2017
    Posts:
    95
    Thanks Received:
    13
    However it is self evident from the fact that no experiment has been able to use "gravity" to lift so much as a speck of dust to a wrecking ball.

    It is self evident from the fact that no change has been observed in the star constellations regardless of the earth "travelling through space".

    It is self evident from the stationary Polaris which must be moving perfectly in synchronisation with the earths "orbit".

    It is self evident from water being unable to curve and always collapsing as liquids do into being a level surface.

    But don't let simple stuff bother you. Just keep on with the scientamagistics! In this weird and wonderful B movie world with black holes and space stations and satellites being bashed up by space junk and bending, curving oceans and water that doesn't run uphill but should...

    Planning to protect Neanderthals for Millenia but duped by Sir Isaac Newton in a deceit that even now requires scientamagistical support of mythical, mathematical follies of "dark matter" and other dogmatic, hyperintellectual, angels on the head of a pin type stuff.

    Cya in the next life, sickos. Enjoy your rainbow stew.
     
  19. Brilliand

    Brilliand Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Posts:
    541
    Thanks Received:
    131
    I see the difference between geocentrism and heliocentrism as a matter of interpretation. There is, as far as I know, no true center; you can arbitrarily pick any place or thing as the center, and the math all works out fine. Different centers may be better-suited to different purposes, in terms of making the math easy (I've definitely been in situations where treating myself as the center of the universe produced the simplest math).
     
  20. Ulixes Orobar

    Ulixes Orobar Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2017
    Posts:
    147
    Thanks Received:
    33
    OK. I just want to address two of your points. (And, by, "address," I mean sperg out over.)

    The Big Bang theory does not necessarily imply atheism. God could have caused the Big Bang. One also could say the following: "I don't know what caused the Big Bang, but I choose to believe in God." Whether or not the Big Bang theory is true and whether or not God exists are two separate issues.

    Also, very few adults will come to the shape-of-the-Earth issue without any prior beliefs. Very few adults will look at the heavens and the Earth with a sense of clueless bafflement as to how they operate; they will interpret their experiences of these things in light of what others have taught them. What you need to do is this: demonstrate that your model accounts for their experiences more thoroughly and more simply than do other models.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page