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 - Charming Anarchist

Pages: < Back  1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Planets do not exist
« on: January 17, 2016, 08:26:19 PM »
how do you feel about the moon?
The moon is obviously a reflection of the grand surface of the earth reflecting up upon the reflective surface of the firmament. 
That is why we see the same surface and that is why it is a perfect circle. 

We are probably a tiny point inside one of the craters. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Help me understand
« on: January 16, 2016, 08:50:17 PM »
You may find Orlando Ferguson's map to be more illustrative. It's my personal favourite.
Can you explain the depicted donut-like curvature? 
Is the map suggesting that the earth is thusly curved? and not flat? 

Flat Earth Theory / Planets do not exist
« on: January 16, 2016, 08:46:54 PM »
I do not believe planets exist.  They are reflexions of light. 

And if so, are they also flat?
There are allegations that the 1st few telescopic photographs of Mars looked like the surface of the moon.  I can not find a web source for that claim yet.  Try to search it yourself. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: question about the suns vanishing point.
« on: January 15, 2016, 05:59:22 AM »
Your answer brings up two more questions for me. By what you're discribing the sun gets far enough away that the light is blocked out by air/dust ect. And that is why we don't see it any more. Am I understanding this correctly again?
Correct but there is more. 

I believe the sun's rays gradually die out.  Just like the ripples on a beach will eventually die out to still water, the sun's rays eventually die out.  Even if there were no clouds or dust, I believe you would still get a similar experience.  Light does not travel forever. 

Also, the size of your eye and the receptors on your retina make a difference. 

My questions are this. Should the sun not be brightest while directly over head and get measurably dimmer on either side of its path over head.

What keeps it shinning the same magnitude of brightness up until sun set and rise?
That is the million dollar question --- much more interesting than the true form of the earth, in my opinion. 

The sun is a focal point of energy shining back down from the dome.  The dome is effectively a parabolic mirror.  Lots of folks believe that the earth is the source of our world's energy.  In other words, the sun's rays are a product of the earth's energy shining up into the dome and then back down, focussed into what we perceive to the the sun.  Folks say that the North Pole is the source of the energy.  I am not sure that matters. 

My next question is about the size of the sun. I decided to view the sun, through a sheet of Mylar that I have, several times throughout the day and it remained the exact same size from sun set to sun rise. What causes this to happen?
The size of your eye ball. 

Flat Earth Community / Re: Where's the proof?
« on: January 14, 2016, 03:51:09 AM »
Clearly we are unable to effectively communicate. Send someone who reads what I say.
Who would that be? 

If you do not give a shit, what are you doing here?  Are you trapped in a cell with nothing but a computer that can ONLY access this website? 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: question about the suns vanishing point.
« on: January 14, 2016, 03:42:12 AM »
In the flat earth idea, the sun sets, because the sun gets far enough away that it goes out of sight. is that accurate?
Yes, it is that simple. 
There is more to it.  Light does not travel forever in our air.  It eventually fades.  1 cloud can totally obscure the sun's rays.  Add 2 or more clouds and you are under a giant parasol. 

When I stand at ground level on a beach and the sun sets it goes out of sight meaning it is X distance away which is the distance required for a bright object like the sun to go out of sight (in the flat earth model). I then go into a high rise and can see the sun again but I'm still the same distance away from it where it should no longer be visable. How is this occurring?
That difference in height is enough.  The sun is closer than you think. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: EVIDENCE
« on: January 13, 2016, 05:49:38 PM »
Why has the FES not funded studies to provide the answer to the question you are asking?
---- because folks who fly high enough in the sky risk being shot down.   

Why is it illegal to fly too high in the sky????

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rotations of the stars?
« on: January 13, 2016, 05:29:38 PM »
Why does the stars in the night sky in the North hemisphere rotate counter-clockwise around Polaris, while stars in the South hemisphere rotate clockwise?
Easy:  There is a curved mirror up there. 

Shouldn’t the stars rotate in the same direction no matter were you are on the flat Earth?
--- not if there is more than 1 reflective surface. 

Research???   Is that the same as bleeding the tax-payer dry while sucking at the government trough?

I am asking that if this somewhere else ice wall is surrounding the whole disc world, why has it not yet been found by ships, etc? 
---- because there is no money to be made doing so. 

The antarctic ice shelf has little breaks here and there that allow people to dock ships etc, to gain access to the research stations.
In that case, ask those little people your questions ---- just make sure that you do not tell them you 1st asked flat earthers because they may not want to take you seriously. 

Scientists are a hilarious bunch.  They really think they are entitled to keep playing school-room suck-up while getting paid to play games. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Phases of the Moon
« on: January 08, 2016, 05:53:48 AM »
You have to decide for yourself whether you want to believe the moon is a physical object floating above your head or whether it is holographic projection.   

If you can understand how a rainbow is not a physical object, then you can begin to consider that the moon is just a reflection of light/energy emitted by the earth. 

The wiki makes the assumption that the moon is a physical object.  There is no proof of such and the appearance of the moon lends itself to being a projection. 

The phases you see of the moon projection are easy to understand by experiment. 
Take a glass cake cover and shine a torch light down through it in the dark.  You will see the same moon phase projection as the focus of your light moves in and out from the center of your dome. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How Clouds Once Again Prove Flat-Earth Theory
« on: January 08, 2016, 05:43:12 AM »
Are you seriously suggesting that the Sun is actually right behind those trees?  WTF?
Are you seriously suggesting that the train-tracks actually reach the Sun??  WTF??

Note to honest folks: 
My school taught us that the sun was sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo far away from us that the rays are practically parallel from our perspective.  Why now the flip flop???

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Motion of the Moon
« on: January 08, 2016, 05:34:43 AM »
But it is. People since creation has used the moon to tell which month it is.
How do you define a month? 

Can you not see your circular rhetoric?
What gives??

It's regular and predictable enough

You shills are terrible. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the dome
« on: January 08, 2016, 05:30:31 AM »
Bit of a contradiction there...
Jus saying..

We are not on a globe.  That is certain.  TRUE 
The form of the "dome" and the firmament is uncertain.  TRUE

Flat Earth Theory / What An Amazing Lie?
« on: January 07, 2016, 03:17:31 AM »
The most amazing fact about the earth is the popularity of the lie.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Mathematics of a sphere
« on: January 07, 2016, 03:09:17 AM »
It does not have to be that complicated. 

I appreciate the geometry but there is an easier way to convey the same arguments.  All you have to do is take a straight-edge ruler to a desk globe model of the earth and look for contradictions to real world observation.  You can do it in a dark room with a torch-light if you want to create a dramatic effect. 

Flat Earth Community / Re: Neil Armstrong's alleged space suit.
« on: January 07, 2016, 03:00:12 AM »
Nothing to do with exploding on mount Everest. Nobody has ever climbed it anyway but that's beside the point for now.
You're kidding, right?  ::)
No I'm not kidding.
Wow.  Just, wow.
I am impressed too! 
I never thought of it before but it makes sense.  Thanks for bringing this up!  It helps understand everything else too. 

Note to shills: 
Keep up the good work!   The more you pester, the more gems of wisdom we explore!!! 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Circle of a Sphere
« on: January 07, 2016, 02:50:50 AM »
One would simply be looking at the 'circle of a sphere' on a globe earth. (
You could also be looking down from the top of a tall wide mountain. 

You could have poor eye sight. 

You could have small eye balls which would not allow you to physically discern much very far. 

Heck, you could be standing on your head inside a deep crater for all we know. 

There are lots of possibilities because the "horizon" is not a physical object.  It is a product of perception. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Circle of a Sphere
« on: January 07, 2016, 02:43:45 AM »
Which of these do you believe ?
You can not ask that question. 
You are asking for a definition not a belief. 

Your question makes no sense.  Stop trolling. 

How about YOU define the word and stop talking past everybody??
Tell us what YOU believe you are seeing.

Note to honorable true earthers: 
Do not let the shills confuse debate.  Put the onus on them to define their words with accurate scientific terminology.  Be nitpicky in your demands for precision.  Do not accept any of their axioms that do not make sense to you.   
They will always fail or run away from the challenge because it will obligate them to admit truth. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the dome
« on: January 07, 2016, 02:40:20 AM »
You are asking questions that require imagination.  We are all acknowledging that nobody knows for certain.  We are all speculating and offering physical phenomena from which a comprehensive understanding may arise. 

My ideas and understanding have been all over the map as I discover more from these discussions.  What I thought 6 months ago is totally different from what I understand now. 

For certain, we are not on a globe.

Flat Earth Theory / Question about the doughnut
« on: January 06, 2016, 07:52:54 PM »
The highest point is over the centre but not the centre that we believe there is, as in the north pole  because that's just the outer part of the inner centre or the bottom of the hump, or to be more clear, the Earth is much like a manual orange squeezer.
Double it. 
My thoughts are that the earth is like 1 orange squeezer where we stand and 1 inverted squeezer directly above it pointing down. 

I don't know if any flat earthers believe in this dome idea, but if so, maybe they could explain this ?
Back up a bit and start with what we know. 
We know the sun's path varies.  The sun rises up and down as well as in and out as it turns above the earth. 

My guess is that the shape and dimensions of the "dome" must vary as the sun moves inside. 
I am also of the opinion that the internal structure of the "dome" resembles a hollow donut or an inner tube --- but not exactly.  Imagine inflating/deflating the inner tube until the inner ring compresses and expands, fusing and unfusing, opening and closing with the motion of the sun. 

N.B.:  I use the term "dome" to refer to the reflective surface only. 
I am not advocating for the firmament nor anything beyond the reflective "surface" so to speak. 

For example, how high is the dome over the North Pole ?
My guess is that it is 1 of the lower points on the dome. 

It seems most likely that the North Pole is actually the base of a huge stalagmite and up above is a huge frozen stalagtite hanging above our heads.  The stars we see are a result of the sun's rays passing through both of them.  The bubbles and or inclusions create the illusion of celestial bodies. 

In reality, when we look up at the night's sky, we are seeing the same thing we see flashing in discotheques.  However, we get it from 1 medium above and 1 medium below. 

How high over the southern tip of South America or Africa ?
Over the Equator ?

Pages: < Back  1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8  Next >