I think you need to clean your camera lens. Their appears to be some dirt on it.
Why can't venus go in front of the sun?
Maybe if roundies didn't present clearly staged or doctored 'evidence' to try and make a point your lot would have more credibility too
If you don't except your camera lens was dirty then did you consider it was a 'sun spot'? Or maybe the photo didn't take correctly and there is data missing? Your asking this on a flat earth forum? What exactly do you expect??
Some look dirty, some look like they could be sun spots and others look like there is data in the image totally missing or photoshopped. What's your point?
Some look dirty, some look like they could be sun spots and others look like there is data in the image totally missing or photoshopped. What's your point?
So every person that took the photos faked them?
If something has a non zero probability of occurring then yes. Every person could have faked them
So every person that took the photos faked them?
If something has a non zero probability of occurring then yes. Every person could have faked themSeems pretty arrogant to me, claiming that EVERYONE who took a photo you can't explain must have faked them.
But I also said that both sides of the argument could be technically correct (only as far as the term flat or globe goes) if we do exist primarily in a 2D universe
I'm just not arrogant enough to pretend I have the answer
Why can't venus go in front of the sun?
well, then it would mean that (according to the FE) that Venus is only about 1,500 miles away from the surface of the Earth ..... correct ?
The question is WHY? Why do they do these really complex moves - which just happen to precisely mimic what they'd do if they were going around the sun in a simple ellipse?
If we're not accepting religious explanations (as indeed we should not) - then WHY do they make these crazy complicated motions?
This is the hardest part of FET astronomy - not whether things like transits, eclipses, seasons, etc could happen - it's a question of what simple natural laws predict these motions?
As we are empericists, the only acceptable empirical answer to this query is that the motions are visible to us, but the mechanisms are unknown.
As we are empericists, the only acceptable empirical answer to this query is that the motions are visible to us, but the mechanisms are unknown.
The question is WHY? Why do they do these really complex moves - which just happen to precisely mimic what they'd do if they were going around the sun in a simple ellipse?The planets in FE are also going around the sun in a simple ellipse.
As we are empericists, the only acceptable empirical answer to this query is that the motions are visible to us, but the mechanisms are unknown.
I'm sorry - but that's simply not true. You propose "mechanisms" for all sorts of observations - your Wiki is full of them.
For example - you observe that the sun sets - and you go one step further and say that the reason is "perspective" - so right there, you used your observation of the setting sun to come up with a "special" kind of perspective as a mechanism.
I asked why (if this is perspective) the sun doesn't get much smaller at the horizon because it's further away...and you tell me that the light of the sun is too bright and the laws of perspective don't apply...so again, you came up with a new mechanism (perspective works differently for bright light) to explain your observation.
If you truly did what you just claimed - then you'd have to say "I observe that the sun sets - but I'm an empiricist - so I'm not in the business of explaining why it does that."...just as you observe the motions of the heavenly bodies but claim not to be in the business of explaining why they move as they do.
This is what gets FET into trouble - by failing to meticulously search for underlying mechanisms for everything you see, you get into contradictions - but you don't go the extra mile to fix that.
If something has a non zero probability of occurring then yes. Every person could have faked themI watched the transit. Easily viewed through simple compact binoculars and a #14 welding mask lens. Took pictures of it too and didn't need to fake them.
Maybe if roundies didn't present clearly staged or doctored 'evidence' to try and make a point your lot would have more credibility tooYes, you have always seemed to be a "Shape Shifter", but do we have to evolve more just to know the shape of the earth?
You do not know my beliefs - I'm neither FE or RE. I do not believe humanity has evolved to a point where we understand the true nature of the universe?
Not tricky at all. In video editing software I can just 'flip horizontal' and voila!!!
Not tricky at all. In video editing software I can just 'flip horizontal' and voila!!!
... Can you provide evidence that we are not living in a flat 2D universe and what we see and experience is a 3D 'holographic' representation? I bet you can not....
... Can you provide evidence that we are not living in a flat 2D universe and what we see and experience is a 3D 'holographic' representation? I bet you can not....
Contemplate a two dimensional universe. The only thing you could see would be straight lines (a dot being considered a short straight line). No shapes whatsoever, just lines, which i suppose may be blurry at a distance, such that you could distinguish which end of a line at an angle is receding or approaching. That you can see a square or a triangle from above - up but not north, is proof that we live in a universe of at least 3 spatial dimensions. Now try to imagine a universe with 4 spatial dimensions. With 1 spatial dimensions. With zero spatial dimensions. Interesting stuff, I recommend reading Flatland, available free online here http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/
I do not believe humanity has evolved to a point where we understand the true nature of the universe
Case in point
Can you provide evidence that we are not living in a flat 2D universe and what we see and experience is a 3D 'holographic' representation? I bet you can not. Therefore if this turns out it the nature of our existence and universe - both sides of the debate (as far as the term 'flat' or 'globe' would be correct but ultimately the earth (and everything else) would be flat.
There simply is not enough evidence out there to prove or disprove this theory which plenty of actual scientists are devoting time and research into.
When people argue for a globe earth they are arrogant in the thinking that they understand the true nature of the universe. You could be wrong.
QuoteI asked why (if this is perspective) the sun doesn't get much smaller at the horizon because it's further away...and you tell me that the light of the sun is too bright and the laws of perspective don't apply...so again, you came up with a new mechanism (perspective works differently for bright light) to explain your observation.
It's not a new mechanism. Samuel Birley Rowbotham reported the effect of enlarging light in 1850. We must assume that the effect has always been with us. It is a magnification effect we can see with bright lights in the distance. Very empirical.
...
Explanations are fine if there is evidence behind those explanations; not pure speculation, as is the norm in Round Earth sciences.
We have discussed the mechanisms we describe very thoroughly. A mechanism is not adopted without empirical evidence behind it. There is empirical evidence for an upwardly accelerating earth, for example, which is why that mechanism is used as an explanation for what keeps us pinned to the surface.
Why can't venus go in front of the sun?
Why can't Venus go in front of the sun?
It means that at the time of observation Venus is somewhere in between the earth and the sun.
There is empirical evidence for an upwardly accelerating earth, for example, which is why that mechanism is used as an explanation for what keeps us pinned to the surface
Here is the contents of the FE Wiki Planets 'Main page'
https://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=Frequently_Asked_Questions&redirect=no
Oops.. Seems a bit blank right now! Does this mean FE Wiki is having a bit of a rethink about how it explains about the planets?
So the planets orbit the sun, and the sun's 700-4000 miles high and inside the dome, and the planets are therefore inside the dome, and Venus sometimes passes in front of the sun, so it's closer than the sun but teeny tiny.
Doesn't that depend on how far Venus is from us when it transits the sun?
Cool. So if it's half the distance to the sun it's 1/2 mile in diameter? Etc, etc.