Recent Posts

1
Flat Earth General / Re: What are stars?
« Last post by Hmmm on Today at 01:48:39 PM »
serpettejake, well, i have a whole translation/interpretation of a crazy 'artificial sky' hypothesis. It expands and includes the Hologram Moon theory.
And it simply says that the sun, moon, stars and the planets are probably all high-tech spheroid(or of other form) robots, machines flying, hovering, orbiting around earth  at predefined or varying altitudes  and   projecting plasma or hologram cloak (or other combined technology) around, from within themselves.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6625.msg121365#msg121365

Although my interpretation/translation focuses on the sun, it states, that almost everything in the sky is an artificial, technologically-made network(or net) system of objects(or sub-systems) working together  to create and maintain  false terrarium-like environment.
Just look at the new rising IoT technology, or simply look at traffic lights, lighting system outside on the streets of a city - it's all working together perfectly as one complex fully-controllable electrical mechanism!
I think what we have on the ground level  reflects  what we have on the sky level - "As above so below" principle in-place!!

I've seen countless videos of the sun having a dark dot specifically in the middle.
Or where the sun was blinking, flickering, flashing, like it was giving off something similar to morse code.
Or "Nibiru videos", where two suns are shown.

I will give you two clickable youtube search queries, which nicely filter the videos to show only the things you'd wanna see:
Sun blinking, youtube query.
Sun with a dark spot in the middle, youtube query.

Here is another interpretation of the 'fake sun' hypothesis:
http://www.wildheretic.com/is-the-sun-a-light-bulb/




2
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: explanation? please
« Last post by Wonderlander on Today at 01:35:57 PM »
So if Earth is flat are all the other planets in our solar system also flat? What about the moons and the Sun?
3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is and isn't proof
« Last post by JocelynSachs on Today at 01:29:36 PM »
The answer to the above thought experiment is that you are adopting certain rules to perspective that have never really been demonstrated.

It's not a thought experiment. It's a practical, empirical, falsifiable experiment that you can perform yourself. I did not reference a single pre-existing 'rule of perspective'. Nor does one have to involve the horizon; the same experiment can be performed referencing only 'overhead'. If you would prefer I'll go back and make that change so you can stop worrying about planes approaching the horizon etc, which aren't relevant here.

The argument I'm making is straightforward:

1) Viewing circular shapes from significantly off-axis (ie, at a distance to the side that is not small compared to the distance away) makes them look elliptical.
2) Star trails are visually circular at all latitudes, therefore from 1) we cannot be viewing them from significantly off-axis.
3) If moving from the pole to the equator does not constitute moving 'significantly off-axis' then stars must be very distant - many times further away than the size of the earth.
4) If stars are many times further away than the size of the earth, and the earth is flat, then Polaris would necessarily be visible directly or almost directly overhead from everywhere on earth (in the same way as a streetlamp will remain overhead if you stand beneath it and move only a few inches to each side)
5) Polaris appears more than 45 degrees from overhead to most observers.
6) This is a contradiction; something in the above sequence must be incorrect. The only speculative element is the claim that the earth is flat, ergo that is necessarily the faulty claim.

Some ways you could falsify the experiment:

* You could demonstrate that the record does not appear visually elliptical when photographed from the same angle as Polaris appears to you in the sky.
* You could demonstrate that increasing the distance to the record whilst maintaining the same viewing angle causes the record to appear more and more circular:

* You could demonstrate that Polaris is in fact visible overhead or nearly overhead at low latitudes.

4
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Speed of light
« Last post by Rama Set on Today at 01:28:07 PM »
I'm terribly sorry, but Einstein's theory of General Relativity is entirely dependant upon gravity, and the time-stretch effect of fast-moving objects is dependant entirely upon the gravity of said objects- it's a multiplicative effect. Hence, Einstein's theory is only applicable to a round-earth, generally accepted model and is not compatible with anything to do with the Flat Earth theory or a model of the Universe in which gravity does not exist. A Flat Earther cannot use the theory of Relativity as a method of proving their theory of Universal Acceleration, that's preposterous.

Time dilation, ruler contraction and relativistic mass change are not solely dependent on gravity. The Special Theory of Relativity showed that it is also an effect of approaching the speed of light.
5
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Speed of light
« Last post by Mark_1984 on Today at 12:53:23 PM »
Yes, I’ve asked that before. Unsurprisingly, I didn’t get an answer.

You've missed my point.  Your Wiki quotes Einstein's theories of relativity and special relativity as the reason why the earth does not exceed the speed of light under the UA theory.  However, these theories are intertwined with Einstein's theories about gravity.  You can't have one without the other.  Therefore, either Einstein is correct, and gravity exists, or Einstein is wrong and there is no gravity, but then the speed of light is no longer a constant.  And we know from observations that the speed of light is a constant.

I'd be interested to hear a clear explanation.

More to the point, you Wiki quotes Einstein's theory of relativity as the explanation for why UA doesn't exceed the speed of light.  However, Einstein's theories explain gravity as a distortion space/time.  This only work with a spherical earth, and explains why the earth is spherical, why the atmosphere doesn't get sucked into space, why the water doesn't fall off the south pole, etc.  Why are you 'cherry picking' the parts of his theories that suit you, but are ignoring the parts you don't like.

Junker and I are referencing Einstein's Equivelence Principle.
6
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Speed of light
« Last post by RoundEarthedFellow on Today at 10:32:19 AM »
I'm terribly sorry, but Einstein's theory of General Relativity is entirely dependant upon gravity, and the time-stretch effect of fast-moving objects is dependant entirely upon the gravity of said objects- it's a multiplicative effect. Hence, Einstein's theory is only applicable to a round-earth, generally accepted model and is not compatible with anything to do with the Flat Earth theory or a model of the Universe in which gravity does not exist. A Flat Earther cannot use the theory of Relativity as a method of proving their theory of Universal Acceleration, that's preposterous.
7
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How can the sun be a spot light?
« Last post by Mark_1984 on Today at 08:14:36 AM »

Indeed. I'll try and get ROUND to seeing if I can come up with a simpler concept.....Sure it's around sphere somewhere.....

That’s funny !  Worth risking a low content warning from Junkers !
8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Another mass shooting...
« Last post by Lord Dave on Today at 07:11:08 AM »
Knives are pretty easy to use tbh


Yeah but hitting insta kill spots is hard.  A knife is easy enough to stab with but unless you hit a vital spot like hear or neck or an artery, they'll probably life for a good hour and recover with medical treatment.


Guns do way more damage.
9
Flat Earth General / Re: What are stars?
« Last post by mtnman on Today at 05:26:32 AM »
Can someone please explain what stars are? ???

It is unknown what the stars are. That is not empirically demonstrable.
Yes, a complete mystery, just like the distance from New York to Paris.
10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Does the moon also cast a "flashlight" beam?
« Last post by mtnman on Today at 05:23:41 AM »
Where does it say that the sun's light is a "flashlight" beam?

Quote from your Wiki
Quote
As an analogy for the enlarging of the sun at sunset, lets imagine that we are in a dark room with a flashlight. We shine the light upon the wall, creating a distinct circle of light.


The sun shines light in all directions.

Oops, Tom hasn’t been paying attention in class  :P
Nice catch Mark!