[Tron]

Oh, sorry 😋.  I think we can use physics, it's just the layout of things FErs question (as I can tell).

[stack]

When MetaTron says the satellite is not high enough to see the entire earth, is that due to not being able to see over the horizon?

No it's like having your face to close to the clock numbers so you can only see part of the clock at once unless you spin around

You did see the satellite image I posted before, right? It's far enough away to capture the entirety of Earth in one frame - The GOES 16 maintains a similar altitude as the Himawari 8, 35,780.2 km (22,232.8 mi). What do you think about the GOES imagery?

[Tron]

22k miles sounds like it would be high enough so I'll keep considering it.  Otherwise the animations look very cool, very fluid.

[stack]

22k miles sounds like it would be high enough so I'll keep considering it.  Otherwise the animations look very cool, very fluid.

In using the word "animations" are you implying that they are fake images?

Here's a non-animated image, caption, "A full disk image from GOES-17 captured from its new orbital position at 137.2 degrees west longitude. (11/2018)"



What's your take on this image? Real or fake?

[Tron]

Stake it's a real image, but even NOAA admits they composite some of its features.... But no, I wasn't saying its fake.  I was talking about their short clips of moving clouds and such. 

[stack]

Stake it's a real image, but even NOAA admits they composite some of its features.... But no, I wasn't saying its fake.  I was talking about their short clips of moving clouds and such.

Yes, they composite a lot of features, e.g., colors, bands, but not shape:



But what I'm asking is how does this work with your notion of a flat south pole centered earth? And your map? You know, like when presented with an image(s) of a spherical non-south pole centered non-flat earth. And don't be cagey, be specific.

[Tron]

Look at the first image.  You'll maybe notice or 'interpret' this photo as a glimpse into a flat Earth.  When you look at the daylight section notice how spherical it appears compared to the nighttime side which looks  almost like a bowl.  Look specifically at the termination line b/w night and day.. It looks like a shell is ending before you fall into a deeper and recessed Earth.   

I think the atmosphere is reflecting the light which makes it look spherical.  During night the Infrared image almost pierce's through the atmosphere (especially in the absence of light) and reveals a different perspective on Earth.

[stack]

Look at the first image.  You'll maybe notice or 'interpret' this photo as a glimpse into a flat Earth.  When you look at the daylight section notice how spherical it appears compared to the nighttime side which looks  almost like a bowl.  Look specifically at the termination line b/w night and day.. It looks like a shell is ending before you fall into a deeper and recessed Earth.   

I think the atmosphere is reflecting the light which makes it look spherical.  During night the Infrared image almost pierce's through the atmosphere (especially in the absence of light) and reveals a different perspective on Earth.

I don't really understand your interpretation. The actual issue is if you look at any of the images, where's the other half of earth? Where's Europe, Asia, Australia? If you think that it's actually an image of flat earth, where did all of those continents run off to? And how is the image(s) not centered on the South Pole?

[Tron]

I don't know, I'm still considering it..

[jimster]

MetaTron,

This is the third thread where you have given up explaining FE in the last few days. "I have nothing to contribute", "I don't know", etc. If you look at RET, you can find answers to all these questions, consistent with physics, known facts, and a world where ships and planes reach their destination based on RET. You can understand how north star/sextant/latitude, equatorial telescope mount, gyrocompass, etc work, gps satellites, eclipse, so many more. You will no longer have to propose that NASA is a conspiracy, so many things will be consistent and make sense.

Or you can believe FE and have many things that make no sense, can't be explained, require additions or changes to physical laws.

[Tron]

I don't mind looking into new ideas.  I have faith that ultimately I might be able to find a level of knowledge that does explain alot.  Perhaps I need to brush up more on RE ideas (and Wiki ideas) to learn more.

[jimster]

MetaTron,

In mathematics, there are many impossible things people do "thought experiments" with. Non-Euclidean geometry, for instance. Or Klein bottles, the 3d version of a Mobius strip. It passes through the side of the bottle without making a hole. These are fun for mathematicians, and sometimes provide insight into real world problems. BUT ... they know they are not "real" as in they do not apply to day to day reality.

REs here do that all the time, they do logical conclusions bvased on flat earth. Sometimes just to flex their logic muscles, sometimes to do "proof by contradiction". Assume the earth is flat, see what this wuld mean, then observe that it can't possibly be true. You have done this yourself in recent threads, only when you get to the point of "this can't be true", instead you just stop, as I described in my prior post.

Keeping an open mind is a great idea. Are you open to the possibility that the earth is round? There is a simple answer to why you haven't been able to explain the problems with FE.

South pole centric FE, for instance. Where is the north star? Navigators have used it for thousands of years. On north pole FE, the southern cross is a problem, on south pole FE, the north star is a problem. In each case, they must be located at every point around the disk. On RE, no problem, the geometry works.

[Tron]

I explained the mechanics of star trails in the thread "stars above the night sky".  I haven't worked out the details yet, but you can't say that's because everything is wrong..

[stack]

I explained the mechanics of star trails in the thread "stars above the night sky".  I haven't worked out the details yet, but you can't say that's because everything is wrong..

We're not talking about star "trails", we're talking about the North Star, Polaris. Your explanation in that other thread was, "The stars and constellations are actually members of the Asteroid belt!" Which isn't really an explanation, more of a simple assertion.

The question here is where is Polaris on your map?

[Tron]

I don't know.  It's a little complicated and I haven't worked out the details yet. 

[stack]

I don't know.  It's a little complicated and I haven't worked out the details yet.

I appreciate that you haven't worked it out yet. But it's not a detail. Polaris has been the most important star for navigation (in the northern hemisphere) for 1000's of years. It's a big deal. It's not complicated at all in RE. It's right there, for all to see, hovering approximately above the North Pole.
You can't seem to get real distances, continents are missing in full disc satellite images and you don't know where Polaris is. That's pretty much the whole shootin' match in terms of criticality regarding your model and map. None of which are details. They are massive inconsistencies.

So start at the top, figure out where Polaris is and then we can move forward from there.

[scomato]

I don't know.  It's a little complicated and I haven't worked out the details yet.

I appreciate that you haven't worked it out yet. But it's not a detail. Polaris has been the most important star for navigation (in the northern hemisphere) for 1000's of years. It's a big deal. It's not complicated at all in RE. It's right there, for all to see, hovering approximately above the North Pole.
You can't seem to get real distances, continents are missing in full disc satellite images and you don't know where Polaris is. That's pretty much the whole shootin' match in terms of criticality regarding your model and map. None of which are details. They are massive inconsistencies.

So start at the top, figure out where Polaris is and then we can move forward from there.

I think what’s happening with MetaTron (and FE in general) is that they attempt to bend (pun intended) facts about the universe around their beliefs, instead of the other way around, like a normal person. If belief in FE comes first, facts second, then of course you will run into a million errors everywhere you go. A beliefs-first approach won’t get you anywhere, whether you’re a scientist or a bartender and everything in between.

Compare this to hypothesis testing, where the very first step is forming an antithesis to your belief (the null hypothesis) that you must then disprove. FE never makes it this far, it poses the hypothesis (that the Earth is flat) and just runs with it.

The second problem is the bizarre refusal to reject the hypothesis when it is proven incorrect, often what I see is FEs coming up with yet another theory, like a game of conceptual whack-a-mole.

FE theory leads to Celestial Dome theory which leads to Universal Acceleration theory which leads to no-Gravity theory which leads to.. who knows where the rabbit hole will go. On Reddit I saw something about NASA conspiring with the Clinton Foundation to traffic Haitian orphans to Antarctica.

[Tom Bishop]

The second problem is the bizarre refusal to reject the hypothesis when it is proven incorrect

What did you prove to be incorrect? Please link the appropriate Wiki page and your argument side by side which irrefutably debunks it so we can see it and make any necessary adjustments.

[SteelyBob]

The second problem is the bizarre refusal to reject the hypothesis when it is proven incorrect

What did you prove to be incorrect? Please link the appropriate Wiki page and your argument side by side which irrefutably debunks it so we can see it and make any necessary adjustments.

Well, in recent threads you yourself have agreed that the sun isn’t 3000 miles above the earth, but that’s still in the wiki. I seem to recall that you said it was 6500 miles high, and although I clearly disagree with that too, it would be good if you could actually change it to reflect your own views as a starting point. I would hazard a guess that your diameter estimate is also wrong if the height is different?

Elsewhere we have clearly demonstrated that the EA explanation of light rays cannot be correct as per the wiki - if that was how light rays travelled from the sun then the sun’s ‘footprint’ would be a circular shape on the FE, which does not make sense when you compare it with actual day/night location information.

When confronted with this you then wheeled out a very amateur shaky torch vs glass dome video and said this might be what happens, without addressing the fact that refraction of course depends on light rays travelling straight through media of constant density, which is completely odds with bendy light as per EA. Moreover, the ‘sun’ in that video is nowhere near being overhead the ‘earth’ - another thing that the wiki is at odds with. Given that the stars are allegedly at the same height as the sun, they too presumably are not actually above the earth?

Can we look forward to a wiki update?

[Tom Bishop]

The second problem is the bizarre refusal to reject the hypothesis when it is proven incorrect

What did you prove to be incorrect? Please link the appropriate Wiki page and your argument side by side which irrefutably debunks it so we can see it and make any necessary adjustments.

Well, in recent threads you yourself have agreed that the sun isn’t 3000 miles above the earth, but that’s still in the wiki. I seem to recall that you said it was 6500 miles high, and although I clearly disagree with that too, it would be good if you could actually change it to reflect your own views as a starting point. I would hazard a guess that your diameter estimate is also wrong if the height is different?

Elsewhere we have clearly demonstrated that the EA explanation of light rays cannot be correct as per the wiki - if that was how light rays travelled from the sun then the sun’s ‘footprint’ would be a circular shape on the FE, which does not make sense when you compare it with actual day/night location information.

When confronted with this you then wheeled out a very amateur shaky torch vs glass dome video and said this might be what happens, without addressing the fact that refraction of course depends on light rays travelling straight through media of constant density, which is completely odds with bendy light as per EA. Moreover, the ‘sun’ in that video is nowhere near being overhead the ‘earth’ - another thing that the wiki is at odds with. Given that the stars are allegedly at the same height as the sun, they too presumably are not actually above the earth?

Can we look forward to a wiki update?

I fail to see where you have shown anything to be incorrect.

The sun distance page specifically says that the 3000 mile figure does not account for EA. If you had linked to the page in question side by side to the argument you made you would have found that you were incorrect and not the Wiki.

The rest of your arguments are based on speculative inferences about nature which you think is proof. The Wiki doesn't discuss much of what you are discussing, so it can't be incorrect. Much of that are assumptions which you have created, not what the Wiki has actually stated to be the case.

Again, please link a Wiki page and show the argument, side by side, where it has been shown incorrect. You will likely find that you assumed too much and that it is you who is, actually, incorrect.