1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain
« on: December 21, 2017, 12:21:25 PM »
Looks good to me
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Read this section of the wikipedia page on twilight and see if you can wrap your head around the fact that THE SUN DOES NOT TRAVEL STRAIGHT ACROSS THE HORIZON IN MOST CASES:
And how do you move position and get any further from the centre, when the sun is 93 million miles away? No matter where you are, you are always in the centre on a round earth.
[/quote]That isn't aligned with the polar axis, is it?If on around earth you aligned a sundial with the polar axis, and you lived North of the equator, you'd often never even get a shadow on your sundial. The sun would be underneath the dial 6 months of the year. Try harder.
Nope.
If on around earth you aligned a sundial with the polar axis, and you lived North of the equator, you'd often never even get a shadow on your sundial. The sun would be underneath the dial 6 months of the year. Try harder.
No, go and look up the definitions yourself. Understand what those things are. I pasted a big blue diagram above already. Its not hard.
No. A google search will show you ornamental sundials, not functioning ones. The sun does not move 15 degrees from east to west from where ever you view it. You are looking at a sundial. It is showing where the shadow falls. That shadow is not uniformly 15 degrees because the sun doesn't travel uniformly 15 degrees per hour from east to west. It is amazing that you don't even believe your eyes when entrenched in your round earth beliefs.
Are those hour lines all 15 degrees?
To be fair, the “my stomach feels that I’m falling” proof is no proof at all. Could be your stomach is merely no longer feeling the effect of being pushed up.
Here is a pic of the total eclipse. The solar corona is visible. It is clearly visible that the Sun radiates energy in all directions.
The existence of a Shadow Object is empirically observed. We see a shadow, therefore there is an object to cause it. The existence of the Shadow Object is a certainty.
There is no indication that this Shadow Object is the earth itself, and the Round Earth Theory has not provided evidence to show that it is.
Per the effect that stops the sun from shrinking, this effect has been documented with several examples which directly shows the effect in action. There is an effect in nature, which is observed to cause light sources in the far field to be consistent in size.
The Universal Accelerator is also empirically derived. When we step off of a chair and watch the surface of the earth carefully we can see the mechanism of an upwardly moving earth. We see that the earth moves upwards. A mechanism is directly observed, in contradiction to the mechanisms of "bendy space" and "puller particle" which have never been observed.
The diagram assumes certain p[r]operties of the sun. If the light from the sun were exiting its surface in a direction that was only outwards from its center, like a point light source, the shadow would be solid.
point light source!?!?!?!? After years of "studying" FE theory that's what you have?!?!?! point light source... ... ... ...
I won't waste our time in asking for any proof to support that supposition. Instead, I'll suggest that you already have in your possession the empirical evidence (which FEers seem to prize and cherish, after all) to refute your own proposition. You have, I'm somewhat certain, actually seen the sun, or at least a photo of it (taken by an FEer). Did it appear as a point source? In my own experience it almost never does.
Nowhere did I say that the sun was a pointed light source. Pay attention to the details next time.
The majority of a consumer credit score (in the US) is based on revolving debt to credit ratio.
I’d also suggest looking up what an analogy is and what a false equivalence is.
As pointed out by Tom before, the evidence for the shadow object is the lunar eclipse. There has to be something blocking the light of the sun, and since it can't be the Earth or any of the planets, there must be something else up there that has never been seen doing it. Ergo, shadow object and evidence for said object.
I’ve never understood how a good zetetic can support the idea of a Shadow Object in the first place. Zeteticism is supposed to be all about observation, but the wiki admits “The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun” (emphasis added)As pointed out by Tom before, the evidence for the shadow object is the lunar eclipse. There has to be something blocking the light of the sun, and since it can't be the Earth or any of the planets, there must be something else up there that has never been seen doing it. Ergo, shadow object and evidence for said object.
The diagram assumes certain poperties of the sun. If the light from the sun were exiting its surface in a direction that was onky outwards from its center, like a point light source, the shadow would be solid.
According to FE theory, the Earth is a plane accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8ms^-2. This will create the effect of gravity.
Right, terminology mistake.
OP: Are you proposing that all the force we think of as gravity is celestial gravitation, and that none of it is UA?
I agree with the opening post. Instead of reaping all the confusion caused by UA, why not just postulate that the flat earth is many times bigger than our known world so that the gravity "lines" are for all intents and purposes parallel and vertical for us (in other words, so that gravity acts essentially straight down for all of us)?
This is part of the reasoning behind the infinite flat Earth theory.