Show Posts

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.

Messages - EarthNotFlat

Pages: [1] 2  Next >
Not to mention the original title was "Universal Acceleration DEBUNKED", you changed it too "Universal Acceleration - How does the ISS stay up?" when in fact my evidence can be used to make multiple points, which im making right now.
Indeed, if you want to make threads about how right you are, rather than start discussions, do so in the Angry Ranting board.

If you'd like to propose an alternative thread title, feel free to PM me.

As for your 100 attempts at digressing from the subject: I'm sure they're riveting, but I'm not going to have multiple concurrent conversations in one thread.

You didn't provide a slither of evidence to support your theory, nor did you answer why your arguments are so vague meanwhile I presented more evidence and calculations than I should have. this is my last post on this thread for now. Bye

Even if it can stay up, that still doesn't explain how it can continue moving around the Earth without needing fuel (on an FE model it could never go in a straight line without hitting the "dome" or just leaving the Earth entirely).
The exact same way literally anything maintains an orbit. Great to see that you've completely altered your question, though.

Not true again, I made a new question because your answer to the first one simply discussed the possibilty of an event happening, not that it actually does (insufficient evidence). An "orbit" is a circular path around an object, how does it stay up is just as big of a question as how does it maintain the curve. Not to mention the original title was "Universal Acceleration DEBUNKED", you changed it too "Universal Acceleration - How does the ISS stay up?" when in fact my evidence can be used to make multiple points, which im making right now.

You're saying "the exact same way" tell me what this way is and prove it. It can't be the same way the Sun and the Moon maintain an orbit since in your mode, those are far enough way that the atmosphere wouldn't have that big of an effect, however, the ISS is only 400 km high, so the atmosphere WOULD affect it, even if it didn't fall, it would still slowdown, this is part of my original question, you only answered the "How does it stay up" part, not how does it maintain its path. I often ask a different question if im looking for weak/inconsistent answers, since both questions have to be answered in non-contradictory ways.

Additionally, if the UA keeps the ISS up in the air and it "doesn't need fuel to maintain a curved path", then why would it need refuelings at all, in my original post, I mentioned that the ISS does get refuelings, your responses so far don't answer that at all, and there's no denying that these happen because the ISS's height goes up and down in a cicle.

And finally, if the Earth is flat, I would like a scale model of this with the actual distances and values, these wouldn't be hard to calculate if the Earth truly were flat, so where are they? (not saying they don't exist, just that I've never seen any, most FE models I run into only explain 1 thing and 1 thing only). I'd also like evidence to support these models if you actually present them because you didn't present any values for the "line" that separates "Non-UA Space" and UA Space, unless evidence is provided, I will not simply accept these as if they were fact. Both the globe model and the Fe model explain this phenomenon, 1 Presents modern evidence and calculations, the other one relies on quotes from hundreds of years ago and vague explanations. Look at how many calculations and explanations I put into my original post and then look at how vague and unscientific your replies are, I don't see a single number.

This thread is one of the best examples of FE vagueness

Yes, I will hear and consider your explantions, if you provide evidence and calculations that support your claim.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Red Moon
« on: May 12, 2019, 04:52:38 PM »
Here's an explanation given by a flat earther on how the moon is red

If the Flat Earth Model were true and the Earth were flat and accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s^2, then how does the ISS stay up for years with only a few refuelings per year, meanwhile an airplane or a helicopter cant even stay up for a few days?
The ISS is located sufficiently high above the ground to also be affected by UA. Meanwhile, helicopters and aeroplanes don't go to space.

Please, read up on the basics before you waste people's time. Also, refrain from declaring yourself the victor in the thread title - imagine how much that says about your willingness to have an honest and open debate.

In that case, where is the "line" where the UA starts to affect objects? Even if it can stay up, that still doesn't explain how it can continue moving around the Earth without needing fuel (on an FE model it could never go in a straight line without hitting the "dome" or just leaving the Earth entirely).

What does this have to do with UA, as opposed to any other type of Flat Earth gravity (ie. infinite plane with finite gravity), exactly? It sounds more like you are just asking about how the ISS stays up rather than anything to do with any type of gravity.

Per the question; since we do not have access to space to study its properties, or the technologies used, it is a pointless question for us.

You don't need to have acecss to space to study its properties, you can conclude that there is no type of high efficiency fuel being expelled because you do not see chemtrails nor explosions during a lunar or solar transit of the ISS. There is no other way that the ISS could move in a "curved" path on an FE model other than if it was releasing exhaust (like a rocket when it performs the ROLL program), and from what we can see, the exhaust doesn't come out constantly, which is required in order for the ISS to move in a curved path, If it has a force pulling it to the center, then you have to integrate that into your model and explain how it works and with evidence.

I only mentioned the UA because its the only type of FE gravity that I've come across.

Hello fellow flat Earther's

So i am new to Flat Earth and totally believe that the earth is in face FLAT and the NASA / US government lie about how the earth is round and etc with their CGI images

But it has also lead me to believe their is an ICE wall at the end of the earth. North Pole / South pole      ( West Pole / East Pole ) i say this West Pole / East Pole because of NASA was to put this on the "Globe" it would just prove the earth is flat but do they ???? nope as it has to purpose. They ingrain into your brain the North / South pole. But nothing of west / east ????.

To even get a ticket to the North / South will set you back a good 15,000 USD and then to go deeper your looking about 50,000 - 100,000. Either on a ship / plane all the windows are closed // blanked out so you can not see anything. You need to go on a website that is owned by the US Government CIA / FBI / NSA.

What i don't get is people at the "Top" and i say "Top" with the highest possible ranking in the world "Elite Circle" of people. Higher than Elon Musk / Government's NASA / Richest people in the world with the money. Just above them. They control everything that goes on in the world. They have the latest technology advantages years and years ahead of anything on earth. They give it to the military and classify it until a "leak" happens you have people like Edward snow-don that give "hope" to the people. They want you to believe in this round earth blah blah blah Bull****.

You don't ever ever see ANYTHING drop from "space"

When you see NASA rockets fly up they curve and go straight in a line they DO NOT Go straight up. And magically as they are going in a line they are in space :) LMFAO

I don't know what else to say. Their is only so long they can keep this hidden for. Until whatever their messing with comes and fu***s with them. It will be too late then.

Its your life and you think what you want. You know whats right and whats wrong don't let some government that want to brainwash you to think a certain way !

Let me know your thoughts

P.S: I could of gone way deeper into this. But nothing about the IceWall was ever up on here

For the Earth to be flat, not only would the US government have to lie, but wo would EVERY other government.

You presented zero evidence for the ice wall, the prices you presented are also false, here's this:

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2 questions about flat earth
« on: May 07, 2019, 10:35:05 AM »
Im a round earther, however I have to be fair about this, yes, time would slow down a lot near the speed of light, but according to FEers, everything else is also accelerating around you, meaning that their time passes at the same speed as yours, meaning that special relativity doesn't disprove the Flat Earth. Don't get me wrong tho, im NOT supporting flat earthers.

This is already in the FAQ

There are other things that disprove the UA, such as the ISS and the fact that gravity is slightly weaker around the Equator, which on an FE model, doesn't make any sense, however its true.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 25 Questions for Flat Earthers!
« on: May 05, 2019, 06:28:53 PM »
The Tunguska event was not visible from London.

But it was.

A photograph with an exposure time of 20 seconds taken at 10.5 p.m., July 1, 1908 by George Embrey of Gloucester.



“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.  It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset.  The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals.  Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night.  It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct.  An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow.  The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year.  I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight.  I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.

Yours faithfully,
Katharine Stephen.
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.”

Let us remember that the first newspaper report about the explosion itself ONLY appeared on July 2, 1908 in the Sibir periodical.

A report from Berlin in the New York Times of July 3 stated: 'Remarkable lights were observed in the northern heavens on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, the bright diffused white and yellow illumination continuing through the night until it disappeared at dawn...'

On July 5, (1908) a New York Times story from Britain was entitled: 'Like Dawn at Midnight.' '...The northern sky at midnight became light blue, as if the dawn were breaking...people believed that a big fire was raging in the north of London...shortly after midnight, it was possible to read large print would be interesting if anyone would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.'

The letter sent by Mrs. Katharine Stephen is absolutely genuine as it includes details NOBODY else knew at the time: not only the precise timing of the explosion itself (7:15 - 7:17 local time, 0:15 - 0:17 London time), BUT ALSO THE DURATION OF THE TRAJECTORY OF THE OBJECT, right before the explosion, a fact uncovered decades later only by the painstaking research of Dr. Felix Zigel, an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation.

Your model doesn't explain Tunguska either, it was in Siberia, meaning that it was thousands of kilometers away from London, so it shouldn't be seen

But it does.

The telluric currents (ether) were activated by the formidable explosion of the two ball lightning spheres created by Tesla, the light of the explosion was seen instantaneously from London.

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

it very well be that the GPS satellites are already taking the Sagnac Effect into account.

They do not.

They take the rotational CORIOLIS EFFECT into account.

However, there is also AN ORBITAL CORIOLIS EFFECT, which is 30 times greater than the rotational CORIOLIS EFFECT, for the LISA satellite, which is not being registered/recorded by the GPS satellites.

This means that the Earth does not orbit the Sun.

There is no evidence presented for an orbital Coriolis Effect, so thats a baseless claim. Im kind of confused here, your "Orbital Coriolis Effect" concept is for the GPS satellites' orbit around the Earth or the Earth's orbit around the Sun? Either way, you didn't give any evidence for this, so it doesn't matter anyways.

Here's my explanation of the Tunguska Event, the effect is exaggerated since the orbital simulator i used doesn't account for atmospheric drag, that would make the crater way smaller and also make the fragments brighter when they burned up in the atmosphere, making them easier to see. My math also isn't precise, but neither is yours, you get the general idea. How am I supposed to know the exact trajectory and velocity of something that happened over 100 years ago and the only observations were eye witnesses? (The photograph was after the explosion, so it doesn't give any data regarding velocity and trajectory of the object) Also ether was proven not to exist by the Michelson–Morley experiment in 1887, so the rest of your argument is automatically debunked.

About the LISA satellite, its a gravitational wave observatory.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 25 Questions for Flat Earthers!
« on: May 05, 2019, 04:56:36 PM »
I also debunked your 1-11

You did not address the Tunguska event, the orbital GPS.

Please research these topics, using the links I provided: you will discover that you cannot explain these issues.

I didn't address the Tunguska event because you need to provide evidence that it was in fact seem from London (please present it in a form that is specific, not just a list of hundreds of other posts and just tell me to find the needle in the hay stack). I didn't address your response to the orbital GPS because its not a very relevant question, since it wouldn't be hard to set up GPS on if the Earth were Flat, this question was mainly posed to look for potential inconsistencies in the FE Model.
 Your model doesn't explain Tunguska either, it was in Siberia, meaning that it was thousands of kilometers away from London, so it shouldn't be seen, for the same reason that in your model, a boat just 4 miles away can't be seen. You also did not answer why we can see the Moon during the day during a Gibbous, you just threatened me and then linked to a huge page, I will probably adress the Tunguska event today, but I will not research them on your links because they're crazy long.

EDIT: The Tunguska event was not visible from London.

EDIT 2: I didn't actually research this, however from just looking at it, it very well be that the GPS satellites are already taking the Sagnac Effect into account. Btw, the way GPS works is that they triangulate your position by knowing how long your signals take to reach each satellite.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 25 Questions for Flat Earthers!
« on: May 05, 2019, 04:45:20 PM »
12-25 + further answers

Read my AFET: (21 pages, over 600 messages, all of the answers you were looking for; the unipolar/UN map is the wrong map, use the bipolar map; you can also search for other answers within my messages)

As for the SN 1987A, use google search: SN 1987A

I actually boiled it down to just 5, but im not wasting 2 hours of my time looking through and seeing the parts that answer these questions, just send me a small paragraph and your evidence and ill accept that. I also debunked your 1-11 in the time that it took you to post this 2nd message.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 25 Questions for Flat Earthers!
« on: May 05, 2019, 04:04:05 PM »

1. The Shadow Moon is transparent.

Let us examine the two anomalies observed during the lunar eclipses.

During a lunar eclipse, it has been observed that the Earth's shadow (official science theory) is 2% larger than what is expected from geometrical considerations and it is believed that the Earth's atmosphere is responsible for the extent of the enlargement, but it is realized that the atmospheric absorption cannot explain light absorption at a height as high as 90 km above the Earth, as required by this hypothesis (as several authors have noted).

"It was also argued that the irradiation of the Moon in the Earth's shadow during the eclipse is caused by the refraction of sunlight in the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere. However, the shade toward the center is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight.

That is, the pronounced red colour in the inner portions of the umbra during an eclipse of the Moon is caused by refraction of sunlight through the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere, but the umbral shadow towards the centre is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight."

The existence of the shadow moon was discussed/predicted by the most eminent astronomers of the 19th century:

That many such bodies exist in the firmament is almost a matter of certainty; and that one such as that which eclipses the moon exists at no great distance above the earth's surface, is a matter admitted by many of the leading astronomers of the day. In the report of the council of the Royal Astronomical Society, for June 1850, it is said:

"We may well doubt whether that body which we call the moon is the only satellite of the earth."

In the report of the Academy of Sciences for October 12th, 1846, and again for August, 1847, the director of one of the French observatories gives a number of observations and calculations which have led him to conclude that,

"There is at least one non-luminous body of considerable magnitude which is attached as a satellite to this earth."

Sir John Herschel admits that:

"Invisible moons exist in the firmament."

Sir John Lubbock is of the same opinion, and gives rules and formulæ for calculating their distances, periods.

Lambert in his cosmological letters admits the existence of "dark cosmical bodies of great size."

The subquarks constantly being supplied to form the telluric currents come in two flavors, as already discussed:

One of the dark bodies which orbit above the Earth emits the laevorotatory subquarks, the antigravitational subquarks, as proven by the Allais effect.

Logically, the invisible moon emits the dextrorotatory subquarks; in fact read this extraordinary work:

In fact, cosmic waves have far greater penetrating power than the man-made gamma radiation, and can even pass through a thickness of two metres of lead. The highest frequency possible, that is, the shortest wavelength limit is equal to the dimension of the unit element making up space-time itself, equal to Planck length, radiating at a frequency of 7.4E42Hz.

As you might be thinking already, the radiation pressure exerted by such high frequency radiation, in the top part of the EM spectrum, would be a perfect candidate for the gravity effect, since such radiation would penetrate ANY matter and act all over its constituent particles, not just its surface. The radiation can be visualised as a shower of high energy EM waves imparting impulses of momentum to all bodies in space. It also explains the great difficulty we have to shield anything from such force. The energy of each individual photon is a crucial component of the momentum necessary to create pressure for gravity to be possible. The shadow of incoming high energy EM wave packets can be pictured as the carriers of the gravitational force, the normal role assigned to the theoretical graviton. Hence, gravitons have been theorised due to the lack of knowledge of radiation pressure and radiation shadowing, and that's why they will never be detected. If photons represent the luminance of electromagnetic radiation, then, gravitons represent the shadowing and can be considered as negative energy waves, lack of photons or photon-holes.

This radiation shadowing is being emitted by the heavenly body which does cause the lunar eclipse: read the phrase - that is why they will never be detected.

"Gravitons represent the shadowing and can be considered as negative energy waves, lack of photons or photon-holes".

The Shadow Moon, the source of the dextrorotatory subquarks causes the lunar eclipse.

We know for sure that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse, here is the Allais effect:

2. The resultant orbital lag between the sun and the moon causes the phases of the moon; here is the book of the luminaries (one of the oldest textbook on astronomy) explaining the phases of the moon on a flat earth:

3. Asteroids are located outside of the dome. However, the dome has openings (called windows in the Book of Enoch); sometimes asteroids can pass through these windows.

4. All satellites/ISS use the Biefeld-Brown effect to orbit above the surface of the Earth.

5. You better not touch this one. (four consecutive messages)

The orbital SAGNAC EFFECT is not being recorded by the GPS satellites.

6. The Aurora Borealis cannot be explained by an external stream of plasma/ions that are injected into the Earth's magnetic field.

The auroral displays are caused by the celestial object that orbits above the North Pole region.

NASA Scientists Agree — Polar Ion Fountains Fill the Earth's Magnetosphere

"The perception started to change in the mid-1980s following the Aug. 3, 1981, launch of two Dynamics Explorer satellites designed to study the magnetosphere near the Earth. DE-1 carried Chappell's Retarding Ion Mass Spectrometer (RIMS), designed to measure the population of the plasmasphere, a torus or donut of low-energy in the inner magnetosphere.

To Chappell's surprise, the real find was around the north pole where RIMS measured gases flowing upward from the ionosphere into space."

Aurora is the sister of Luna and Sol. Also called Eos: sister of Helios (the sun) and Selene (the moon).

It only orbits above the North Pole, and the must be a counterpart orbiting the South Pole, which causes the Aurora Australis.

Greenland and parts of northern Canada and Russia experience light from the sun via Earth’s Aurora.

The hollow earth hypothesis suffers from the same problems as does the spherical earth theory: the curvature and the static gravitational field.

Aurora is documented in the various legends around the world: it is the "inner sun" of the hollow earth theory.

It also provides light in the northern and southern pole regions during some periods of the year.

Aurora, sister of the Sun and of the Moon:

7. You should never mention this one also, since then you'll have to explain the Tunguska explosion: (two consecutive messages)

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

8. see #6

9. The Sun activates the quarks in the telluric waves. That is how you get light and heat near the surface of the Earth.

10. The color of Ketu, the Shadow Moon is red, the color of the Black Sun (the heavenly body which causes the solar eclipse) is a very deep red.

11. You should better leave this one untouched as well. (two consecutive messages)

Even if this "Shadow Moon" was transparent, like glass, you should still be able to see it, if it is completely invisible, then it couldn't block out light in the first place. The rest of your claims about #1 are baseless and present no calculations and simply quote stuff with no sources, the blaze lab is a source for the "EM waves" argument, but there are still other places where you claim that it is official science, and thus you need to provide sources. I looked up dextrorotation, which is related to polarized light, but you presented it as a "subquark", with zero evidence for their existence. Even if I accept their existence, that doesn't explain why the "Shadow Moon" doesn't block out the Sun too, if the Sun is opposite the Moon and the Shadow Moon goes under the Moon, then the Lunar eclipse would occur when the Moon would only be half lit from below, which doesn't match observations. If the Shadow Moon was between the Sun and the Moon when they're opposite eachother, then, if through some effect, the Shadow Moon made the Moon turn red, then it would still only be half lit from below, since the light still comes from the Sun, its not refraction either since no straight line drawn from the Shadow Moon could ever connect it with any point on the half side of the Moon thats facing away from the Shadow Moon, and the observer from below would be in the night, meaning that he should see a Full Red Moon, but he'd only see a Half Moon.

You're then mentioning quotes from the 1850s with no evidence that they're real, even if they were, 150 years ago we believed in wrong stuff, for example, that light needed a medium to travel through, ether, which was proven to not exist in 1887, the next thing about the subquarks and the cosmic waves have nothing to do with lunar eclipses, you mention dextrorotatory subquarks making up the shadow moon, even if lunar eclipses are caused by a "Shadow Moon", where does that Shadow Moon go when there is no lunar eclipse, what is its orbit around Earth in your FE model? Is your "Shadow Moon" transparent like you said in the beginning, or is it black? Too many inconsistencies.

What is this so called "orbital lag", you did not explain what that is, what it is caused by, nothing. Your "Book of Enoch" reference isn't going to do, you can't quote things from ancient people who knew nothing about science compared to us today, not just astrophysics, but also medicine, biology, and every other science and then expect these quotes to be true. Most of that is probably religious.

Ion propulsion (using the Biefeld-Brown effect) only provides tiny amounts of acceleration,, which is why we don't use it, you also provided no evidence to support your claim so we're moving on.

Im not gonna respond to your answer to number 5, since its not that big of a question, more of a stretch to push the number to 25, it just doesn't matter that much for Flat Earth Debunking purposes.

6. I didn't mention the Aurora Borealis, also why are you trusting NASA only when what they say fits your world view? :/ You didn't answer how Antarctica gets 24 hour sunlight, you did make some points on The North Pole, but not the actual question, im gonna leave you with the word "Strawman"

7. This is another strawman, im not claiming that light couldn't reach London from the Sun due to curvature or "reflection", Im going to assume that you are right, and that it was night for London at the time of the Tunguska explosion, but either way you still don't have evidence that it was seen from London, and thus your conclusion is meaningless.

8. Nope, #6 explains the Aurora Borealis which is caused by different particles than the cosmic rays, you'll have to explain the "Oh My God Particle", because as far as I know, auroras dont cause explosions, even if I give you this point, your explanation was for the North Pole, not for Antarctica, besides, your #6 claims about it being in "legends" around the world, doesn't mean anything, those were made by ancient people who didn't know astrophysics, and thus, that claim doesn't help you at all.

9. And what are those? quarks are subatomic particles that make up neutrons and protons, what are the "telluric waves", and why doesn't this same phenomenon happen at a greater altitude? And where's your evidence of all this? You didn't present any yet.

10. Where's your evidence? Where does this "Shadow Moon" go when its not a lunar eclipse? What's its orbit around Earth? Why doesn't the "Shadow Moon" also block out the stars during a lunar eclipse?

11. Also a strawman, i didn't mention the ISS transit, i only mentioned Mercury's and Venus's.

You're constantly bringing up terms like "quarks" and "Shadow Moon", when these things don't mean anything unless you build a physical model that can explain the astronomical phenomena with the same precision as the globe model, afterall, our model has a lot of predictive capability backing it up. Where's your evidence that "negative energy waves" exist?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 25 Questions for Flat Earthers!
« on: May 05, 2019, 12:54:13 PM »
ill be happy with a 1 sentence answer as long as there are no contradictions between answers
How about questions number 1, 7, 10, 11 and 16?
Fine. Although this is not going to make for a good thread.

1) Lunar eclipses on a flat earth are explained here.
7) Well they aren't always directly opposite. Sometimes the moon does catch the sun. This is because the moon orbits in a circle and the sun varies its orbit depending on the time of year.

10) is explained here
16) There is a thread open right now about this.

So everything is right there. Either a forum search or a google search.

We are happy to go into the finer details of topics, but just giving people intro explanations again and again is very unrewarding. Do some research, find the thing you disagree with and bring that.

You said you didn't want to spend 2 hours writing a paragraph for all 25, however for some of these 5, you just straight up put a link, where is the "Do your own research" :/

Your explanation of 7) is flawed for the following reasons:

1. I did not claim that they are always opposite, I just DONT have access to an IMAGE of the FE MODEL, so I had to assume the models on youtube to be the real ones

2. The screenshot you showed did not show the Moon, therefore it is incomplete. Please explain how the same Moon Phase would be visible for everyone on Earth.

Your explanation of 1) only shows examples where, due to atmospheric refraction, the Sun and Moon can both be seen in the sky during an Eclipse, im looking for a PICTURE, because just like you dont have time to go through 2 hours of research, hell no am i reading an article with countless assumptions (it says the Earth is flat right a the start but doesn't prove it), there is no universal FE model, they all only depict 1 phenomenon at a time.
I said i'd take a 1 paragraph answer with 1 video, do that and build a model which explains the seasons and the moon phases at the same time, then we'll talk.

The explanation of 11) doesn't explain the Venus transit, and it only shows the perspective of 1 observer, not from the half of Earth where the Sun, and therefore the Mercury Transit, could be seen. The globe model has no problem explaining it:

The Earth and Mercury are both spheres which have elliptic orbits around the Sun, with Mercury's having an eccentricity of 0.2, when Mercury passes precisely between the Earth and Mercury, it casts a shadow on the Sun as seen from Earth, since the Sun and Mercury are both far away, the angles from Earth's surface barely change the position of Mercury's shadow on the Sun, where was in your FE Model, the extreme angles would mean that the shadow's position on the Sun would change drastically over distances of just a few thousand kilometers. The video also throws in words like "Perspective" but doesn't explain how it would actually work (im talking about the part where they say the Sun appears to rotate clockwise or whatever)

About 10) How tf does light "strectch out" just because it takes longer to go around the Earth? Do you mean like a Doppler effect? If you scroll down, you see an FE Model where the sun and the Moon are ALWAYS opposite, even if we assume that that is during Spring/Fall, it debunks your claim on 7) because we can see the Moon during the day even in those Seasons of the year. Give me a model that has the Sun and the Moon going around the Flat Earth over an entire year, bc rn it appears that you DONT have such a model, and that is why they only show either the Seasons and no Moon or Day/Night, or Day/Night and the Moon ALWAYS opposite the Sun, but no Seasons, Here's why:

Only watch the first 15 minutes.

16) - The thread you linked me only talks about a few specific stars, not why they are almost all different.

Please also respond to my thread on how the ISS stays up, its been a day with no response, if there is no response soon, im going to assume you don't have an explanation for it.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Quick question...
« on: May 05, 2019, 07:52:27 AM »
According to the FE Model, what is this dome made of? And how does it support its own weight? And if its also accelerating, then it will be experiencing weightlessness relative to Earth, and thus you would easily be able to give it a push with a rocket and it would eventually go far away into space.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 25 Questions for Flat Earthers!
« on: May 05, 2019, 07:28:43 AM »
Are you happy with one sentence answers for each with no sources or references?

I'm guessing not.

So 25 questions each requiring, shall we say a paragraph, with researched references. Let's say each takes just 5 minutes to formulate.

Do you think it is reasonable that anyone should put over 2 hours into a reply for you when everyone gives their time here for free? I don't. How about you pick ONE question and make a thread about that ... like everyone else who visits here does?  ::)
So that you don't have to answer them?  How convenient! Either way I've already made a thread about ONE of those questions. It is right here:

That one was made BEFORE this one.

It took me less than an hour to formulate all 25, and yes, ill be happy with a 1 sentence answer as long as there are no contradictions between answers, for the longer ones like Moon Phases and Lunar Eclipses, It has to be more since those ones are longer and the larger problems of the FE Model

Thork has a good point.  Even better, don't waste anyone's time and just use the search feature of the site to look up previous discussions on the 25 topics.  They most likely each have several threads each.

Ok, fine, I will choose ONLY 5 questions, although you can answer the other ones if you want.

How about questions number 1, 7, 10, 11 and 16?

I included more bc the more questions there are, the more apparent the inconsistencies in the FE model become.

Flat Earth Theory / 25 Questions for Flat Earthers!
« on: May 04, 2019, 07:55:41 PM »
1. On a Flat Earth Model, how can the Earth ever get in between the Sun and the Moon to cause a Lunar Eclipse? It cant be a 3rd celestial body because that object would also block out the stars, which doesn't match observations. If the moon emits its own cooling light, then why do we see it black during a Solar Eclipse?

2. How do the Moon Phases even work on a Flat Earth Model? On an FE Model, the Moon and Sun would be so close to Earth that the angles would be very extreme, and the Moon phases would be different for observers all over the world, again, it doesn't match observations.

3. How do you explain Impact Craters if there is a dome which is impenetrable? If the asteroids are inside the dome, then why don't we ever see them passing in front of the Sun or Moon?

4. How does the ISS stay up? (see my ISS thread first)

5. How does GPS work if Space Agencies are bogus?

6. How does Antarctica receive 24 Hour Sunlight?

7. Why can you seem the Moon during the day but not the Sun during the night if they are both said to orbit the Flat Earth and are sometimes opposite eachother? According to your explanation of seasons, the Sun can get quite close to the center of the Earth, meaning that if you're in the day zone and you can see the Moon during a Gibbous or a Crescent, you should also be able to see the Sun from the night zone, but you don't. Here's a video of the Moon during the day:

8. Where do the Cosmic Rays in Antarctica come from?

9. If the Sun is close to Earth, how are corpuscular rays parallel? (Don't say that they aren't parallel, they only appear to converge the same way that railroad tracks appear to converge)

10. How does the Moon go Red during some Lunar Eclipses?

11. How do Mercury and Venus pass infront of the Sun for everyone on Earth? How do they even transit the sun at all if they are said to be in the dome behind the Sun?
Venus Transit -
Mercury Transit -

12. How do planes fly close to the south pole in a reasonable amount of time? In your model, this would take crazy long!

13. How does the Coriolis effect work on a Flat Earth?

14. If the Sun is small and close to the Earth, why does it get cooler when you go up towards it?

15. If the Earth is flat and everything is a huge conspiracy, then why would they leave such an obvious clue in the UN Logo?

16. How do see different stars in the southern and northern hemisphere, if the stars are said to be on the dome? If that were the case, you could see all the stars from anywhere on Earth.

17. Where does the Sun's energy come from on an FE Model? If its fusion energy, then how does the Sun do it?

18. Why does gravity slightly decrease when you go to a high place or closer to the Equator?

19. Why are NONE of your models to scale or with actual calculations? If the Earth truly were Flat, it shouldn't be hard to make an accurate model.

20. What are the stars made of and why do they shine? (Similar question to the Sun one, however if stars are that very close to Earth, they should be as bright as the Sun if they were the same)

21. How does precession work? Why was Thuban the North Star back in Ancient Egypt, but now its Polaris?

22. What is the firmament made of and why is it impenetrable, if the Earth were flat, you should be able to go up there and make observations.

23. How do you explain SN 1987A?

24. If the Moon landings and all footage from space was fake and NASA is trying to pass it off as real, then why didn't they include the stars?

25. How do you explain the Doppler shift in starlight due to an Exoplanet's gravitational pull?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Update: Earth-Moon-Sun Trajectory equations
« on: May 04, 2019, 04:27:31 PM »
You have made reference to literally nothing which says or suggests that the three body sun-earth-moon problem can exist as a stable system.
Can you just clarify what you mean by a stable system?  The Moon has been orbiting the Earth and the Earth orbiting the Sun for billions of years.  Is that not evidence of a stable system?

You can see that the Moon is in orbit around the Earth just by observing it with your own eyes. As the Moon moves eastwards against the stars and the phase pattern matches the increasing and then decreasing angular elongation between the Sun and the Moon during the course of a month so natural and logical conclusion to come to is that the Moon is in orbit around the Earth. 

It might be the case that the 3 body problem has never been solved on a piece of paper but it sure seems to be working in the sky. So long as we can predict exactly where the Moon and Sun are going to be at any one moment during any year then why is it significant if an unsolved 3 body problem an issue to you?  You want evidence.  The sky is your source of evidence.  You can see what I and everyone else can see. If ancient astronomers could figure it out using nothing more than their own eyes then I'm sure we can give it a go as well.

Even tho Im a round earther, I have to be fair about this, the fact that ancient astronomers could figure it out isnt totally true, Ptolemy, for example, believed in the geocentric model.

I do agree on all of your other points tho

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Quick question...
« on: May 04, 2019, 04:02:39 PM »
Tbh the FE model's Universal acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 isnt that hard to debunk:

If the Earth's surface is accelerating upward, what counts as the Earth's surface? If the natural terrain and rocks count, then rocks in the crust or mantle shouldnt feel any pressure on them, since they are ALL accelerating at the same rate in the same direction, they aren't accelerating relative to eachother. Metamorphic rocks form due to pressure and temperature, if they didnt feel pressure, they couldn't form, yet we've seen them.

However, if only the very bottom layer of Earth is accelerating upward, then Its debunked here:

About the dome Earth im just going to leave it with: "the southern hemisphere and the northern hemisphere see different stars, if the stars were on the dome, then you should see all of them no matter where you are on Earth, which doesnt match obesrvations", i would like a link to the entire official flat earth model, so I can start tearing it apart.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The length of the day on a flat earth
« on: May 04, 2019, 03:47:57 PM »
My mistake. I noticed that I posted it in the wrong thread. I moved it here.

In Rowbotham's graph, you still have the same problem. I've attached the picture with modifications. Let's take the green circle: it represents the daylight of the sun during southern summer at a specific spot. While the sun goes along the red arc, the blue spot gets daylight. But again, this red arc represents only a quarter of the sun's full path. So you get daylight for 6h, and the 18h left are night... during summer... which is not what we observe.

In fact, if you wanted a longer day than night (during southern summer), the spot light would be huge. So big, in fact, that the north pole would always be within the spot. Thus there would never be night in the north pole (and other northern part of the world) while it's summer in the southern hemiplane, which is not what we observe.

Plus, the only way to enlarge the spot would be to have the sun at a higher altitude. But then, it would be colder, not warmer during winter... which is not what we observe.

How can you explain that...?

The expanded explanation is that the spotlight changes shape throughout the year due to refraction and the varrying height of the sun throughout the year.

First, if no atmosphere existed, no doubt the light of the sun would diffuse over the whole earth at once, and alternations of light and darkness could not exist.

Secondly, as the earth is covered with an atmosphere of many miles in depth, the density of which gradually increases downwards to the surface, all the rays of light except those which are vertical, as they enter the upper stratum of air are arrested in their course of diffusion, and by Snell's Law bent downwards towards the earth; as this takes place in all directions round the sun--equally where density and other conditions are equal, and vice versâ--the effect is a non-uniform area of sun-light.

For a striking example of Snell's Law we simply need to put a straw into a glass of water:

As we can see, the light from behind the glass is bent downwards as it passes through the thick medium of the water. While this is an extreme example, it shows that light is malleable, able to bend and conform based on existing conditions. When the light of the sun moves from the vacuum of space into the atmosphere of the earth it is gradually compelled downwards into the surface. The refractive index of air is a bit less than water, and so the effect will me more gradual, taking place over tens of thousands of miles instead of abruptly like the above image.

This considered, lets designate some facts.

Fact: Cold air is denser than warm air, and has therefore a greater refractive index.1

Fact: The sun is higher over the earth in its Northern Annulus and closer to the earth during its Southern Annulus.2

During Equinox the sun is positioned over the equator, the majority of its warmth spread over the ring of the equator. The sun is at it's middle point between hemispheres. The atmosphere in this area around the equator is at its highest temperature and therefore, since warm air has less of a refractive index than cold air, light can progress further through the atmosphere without bending towards the ground. This results in the spotlight of the sun conforming to the shape of the hottest areas. The end result gives the spotlight of the sun an oval shape taking up roughly one half of the earth:

When the Sun is over the North and at its highest altitude the spotlight is small and circular. This is because the sun is far from the earth and not heating the atmosphere up very much. At this time the entire Southern Hemisphere is in its Winter, and since cold air is denser than warm air, the refractive index is higher and light cannot proceed without being redirected into the earth. Since the earth is colder, the light is restricted to a smaller circle where summer exists in the North.

When the sun is over the South and close to the earth the sun is heating up the Southern Hemisphere, giving the spotlight a wide crescent shape. The shape is a crescent because when the sun is over the South it is winter in the North and the sun's light cannot penetrate the density of the Northern Hemisphere's winter.

The shape of the spotlight defines the time it will take for the sun to set. If the spotlight is small, the sun will appear to pass over the earth quickly. If the spotlight is large, the sun will take appear to take a longer time to pass over the earth. In the above illustration the Sun's spotlight is neither small or large - but at it's median.

1 Fourth paragraph in the Wikipedia article on Mirages
2 See the Sun's Analemma which demonstrates the height of the sun over the course of the year.

In your illustration, the red area is less than half of the total area of your flat earth drawing, so if you're saying that that's the spotlight, then it doesn't match observations.
I know of a video that explains and debunks how the seasons and night and day work on a flat earth, its a response to globebusters:

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Theory gravity
« on: May 04, 2019, 12:22:05 PM »
Not only that, the concept of "Earth's surface" is very arbitrary, do buildings count as part of the Earth's surface?

If they do, then we should be able to build all the way up until the "dome", since no pressure would be felt as they are accelerating just as fast as the Earth.

But Earth's surface itself shouldn't feel any force on it, since its ALL accelerating up at the same rate, this would mean that there is no pressure, which goes against evidence collected from rock samples down below Earth's surface, and if ONLY the surface experiences UA and things under it don't, then these rocks should fall endlessly through space and Earth would be an arbitrarily thin layer, which is obviously wrong. This isn't definitive proof that the UA is false, but I do have some definitive proof in my ISS discussion

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sincere Question About Ice Wall...
« on: May 04, 2019, 12:05:12 PM »
Conclusion: Antarctica is NOT an Ice Wall.

Im also going to add the fact that if you fly a plane over Antarctica on a globe, you'll leave Antarctica eventually, where as on a Flat Earth Model, you'd hit the dome or you'd just keep going forever through Antarctica

(please give me a link to the official FE model so i can start tearing it to bits and pieces)

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity
« on: May 04, 2019, 11:58:50 AM »
I prove gravity real in this topic:

Pages: [1] 2  Next >