- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Hi Mike,
So, to you, FIRMAMENT just means SKY?
Molten glass is strong in what way?
Nothing like framework?
Any witnesses?
T8: “According to the theory, the sun goes under the disk. So it orbits the Earth above and below.”
Not at all. The sun remains always above the earth as it runs its circuit from “one end of the heavens to the other”.
Gene: “…why does the day light keep changing back and forth through out the year, north pole for instances goes from almost complete darkness to nearly complete light…”
This video runs through an entire year on the flat earth. Notice how the sun circles closer to the center (the North Pole) during the northern summer months, thus providing more heat in the US, England, Russia, etc. But then it moves outward during the winter months of those northern countries, bringing more heat to the southern locations like Australia, New Zealand and Argentina.
Just watch for a few minutes, and you should get the idea.
T8: “What is the URL to the image? Or how big is it?
I haven’t ever attempted to upload an image that was too big, so I am curious as to what the limit is. And I may be able to increase that.”
It is a 1.27 mb image on my phone. Your site says “Maximum file size allowed is 512 KB”. No worries, as I’ve figured out I can just upload my stuff to my YouTube channel, and post the link here… like I did yesterday.
T8: Hi Mike. To stop quoting quotes that have been quoted by someone else’s quote that another quoted, well that was disabled.
Pierre comes to mind. 🙂
T8: All you need to do now is select the relevant text that which you wish to copy or Add Media if you wish to quote an image and post that. But wrap that text and/or image to be quoted in the b-quote tag (button) if in Text mode or “ button in Visual mode.
That’s all, huh? I’ll get back to you after my college computer class. 🙂 No worries, I’m getting things figured out.
Mike…the fact that there is a difference time period of light anywhere on earth at the “same” time. And these light angles can be measured at any point on earth at the same time shows that the earth is round and moving on an axes.
Moving a light back and forwards across a flat plane would not give you the same results, because the light angles would be changing completely different on a flat surface then a round surface. The light angles could only work as the do, if the earth is not only spining in one drection but also moving around the light source in a definite direction the same time, which show us the sum is located at a specific place and stays there, in relation to the earth, while the earth is spining one way, and moving in an orbet another way. Also it proves it is round because of the constant predictable changing of the light angles as it spins.
We have thousand of pictures from satilites, space station and even movies showing the earth spinning on its axes through space. As satellite survalince shows. I find it hard to believe you got roped into these goofy flat earth therioies Mike.
Peace and love to you and yours. ……gene
Mike: First up, have any of you ever personally witnessed any earth curvature with your own eyes whatsoever in your lifetime?
T8: No. Never. I have accepted the Heliocentric view based on the scientific evidence presented to me.
Thank you for being the only one to actually answer my question. The fact is that nobody had ever seen the alleged curvature of our alleged ball planet until NASA presented us with the original Big Blue Marble image in 1972. We’ll get to NASA later, but for now let’s suffice it to say that before alleged space travel, the idea that we lived on a spinning ball was only theory – and a relatively recent one at that. In 1931, Swiss physicist, Dr. Auguste Piccard, was the first man to reach the stratosphere (10 miles up) in his own invented balloon. He reported, “It seemed a flat disk with an upturned edge.” These days there are all kinds of people and balloons going much higher than Piccard did, but no matter how high these non-NASA objects and people go, the only curve we see is from fish-eye lenses. I’ve included a couple examples of balloons 20 miles high showing no curve. And here’s a 20 second clip of Neil DeGrasse Tyson explaining why none of us non-NASA people can see the curvature…
And that brings me to my first piece of evidence. This picture of the Chicago skyline was taken from Michigan… 52 miles away. According to the ball earther’s own curvature formula (which any of you can look up for yourselves), that amounts to 52 x 52 x 8 inches, for a total of 1800 feet of Chicago that should be hidden by the curvature of the earth. Willis Tower is the tallest building in Chicago, at 1729 feet. So every bit of every building we can clearly see in this photograph should be 100% hidden behind the curve of the earth. Yet there they all are… short ones, medium ones, tall ones.This is actual observational scientific evidence that refutes the theoretical mathematics of Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, and all the others. And trust me, this is just one piece of evidence out of literally thousands. I’ll leave you with a quote from Nicola Tesla (a person who actually contributed inventions to our world). He was referring in this case to the mathematical theory of relativity proposed by Einstein (a person who didn’t contribute anything but number crunching mish mash that less than 1% of the population of the world claims to even understand).
“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”
Here is the world record holder for distance photography. The peak in the center is 2.7 Km tall, and 392 Km away. We’re not told the height of the photographer, but if he took the photo from ground level, we’d be talking about 12 Km of curvature that should be hiding the 2.7 Km tall mountain. And even if he took it from the very top of the mountain on which he was standing, we’d be looking at 5 Km of curvature hiding the 2.7 Km tall mountain. Yet we can
clearly see that mountain in the photo… all of it.Hi Mike,
Where are the details from the cameraman?
So from what height was the photograph taken?
Was it taken with a telephoto lens or not?
How much does light diffraction alter the appearance?
Nick, that kind of information can be found for both of my last posts by using a search engine, as both photos are quite famous now in the flat versus round debate. I’ve forgotten all the details, but I think Nowicki said he was only 10 feet above the lake. In the second one, the height wasn’t mentioned, but I’ve addressed that.
Hi Mike,
So you decry the efforts of scientists while offering unsupported pseudoscientific personal observations?
All in valiant defence of religious literalism?
Is the sky the firmament?
Still listening.
Hi Mike,
So you decry the efforts of scientists while offering unsupported pseudoscientific personal observations?
Still listening.
You mean like the scientists who tell us the universe exploded from nothing, life began accidentally from non-living matter, and eventually evolved into you and I having this discussion? Do you decry the efforts of those scientists, Nick? Or do you applaud them for their interpretations of the evidence, and decry the Biblical creationist “pseudo-scientists” who show evidence for a 6000 year old earth and intelligently designed living organisms?
You say you’re listening, but are you really? Because you haven’t even attempted to offer a VALID rebuttal to anything I’ve posted here, and you’re acting like a little child whose having their ball taken away from them. And nobody likes it when their ball is taken away, right? How about you stop with the inane condescending tripe for a minute, and actually consider what I’m showing you. Do you imagine there’s some magical way to see Chicago from 52 miles away – over 1800 feet of curved lake water? If so, let’s hear it. If not, then just accept that we are seeing Chicago in that photo, which would be impossible if the earth was a ball 25,000 miles in circumference. Because the observational evidence fits my theory as is. Since you are the one with the theory it DOESN’T fit, you are the one practicing pseudoscience, and also the one who needs to come up with a VALID explanation as to WHY the observational evidence doesn’t fit your theory.
Kathi: I agree with you Anna, it can’t be both flat and round.
What exactly were you agreeing with? 🙂 Anna didn’t actually say anything. Anyway, it can indeed be both flat and round. Circles are both flat and round. And the earth is described as a “circle” in scripture. I think you meant it cannot be both flat and spherical.
I titled this thread “Flat Earth?”, but I have no idea of the earth’s shape. I have, however, become overwhelmingly convinced it’s not the spinning ball we’ve been told – and for many very good reasons.
Hi Mike,
Don’t get upset so easily.
Surely you knew it would be a hard sell for you here?
We have had queues of snake oil salesmen here and we have to ask the hard questions.
We respect you but test the evidence .
miia: I see Mike’s reasoning… that if the Earth was flat, and the stars were designed purely for lighting the flat Earth (as I believe they were anyway – much like a room with lights)… then it would shock many.
We are led to believe the Earth is a ball like all the other planets, in a huge universe where Earth is merely a speck of dust, or even invisible in size comparison.
This is not something i have ever thought about. Perhaps my old man is on to something aye! Who knows.
You get the picture. An enclosed “terrarium” world would make it impossible for anyone to doubt there was an intelligence behind it. Your old man was ahead of the times. I only began looking into it a few months ago, and I briefly explained how it first affected me in a short video I made…
It’s hard to have even a cursory look into it and not come out a flat earther, and from the way our numbers have grown in the past 2-3 years, I’d say it’s the same for most people. Check Google for all kinds of articles about it, like these …
https://nypost.com/2017/12/13/interest-in-the-flat-earth-conspiracy-theory-is-skyrocketing/
https://www.economist.com/node/21731776/comments
https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/11/daily-chart-21
There are millions of us all over the world. Why? Because millions of people who were indoctrinated into a very absurd theory since childhood have finally taken a moment to actually look into it. That’s all it really takes.
Nick: Hi Mike,Don’t get upset so easily.
Surely you knew it would be a hard sell for you here?
We have had queues of snake oil salesmen here and we have to ask the hard questions.
We respect you but test the evidence .
I’m actually expecting it will “sell” just fine, because I know the caliber of intelligent truth-seeking people who are members here. And that’s all you have to be, Nick… a truth-seeker. So where are we at right now? We agree that nobody on this site has ever actually seen the curve. And I’ve shown two photos (out of literally thousands) that show objects that shouldn’t be able to be seen if the earth was a ball 25,000 miles in circumference. I could keep showing photos like that if you think it would help. I could try to upload the one I took yesterday of Superstition Mountain from 55 miles away. It should be partially hidden by 2000 feet of curvature, but we could see all but the very bottom because of the trees and such in the foreground.
Ah, I was able to find a Microsoft Image Resizer, and it worked. Above is my image from yesterday. I’ve also got a video of the event showing I was at ground level, and that I was 55 miles (approx) away from the mountain in the photo.
Hi Mike,
So from where you are standing the earth seems to be flat.
And intelligent people all around the earth are agreeing.
hmmm.
Yeah, it’s like that all over the world. But you can’t just say, “Well, that particular place must be flat”, because you’ll have to make up the curve somewhere else, right? Anyway, I took some closer photos of the mountain today from a couple miles away.Superstition Mountain is 4000 feet tall. At 55 miles (55 x 55 x 8), there should be 2016 feet hidden by curvature. That’s slightly more than half of it. It doesn’t look that way to me. It looks like I can see the vast majority of the whole thing. What do you see?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
