- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
So my own video that I just happened to shoot because I woke up for work and saw something cool in the sky proves – beyond any doubt – that eclipses are not caused by the earth’s shadow on the moon. But it gets worse. In the heliocentric model, you can’t see a full moon in the daytime, because the sun is supposedly 93 million miles farther away from us than the moon, and would therefore necessarily be lighting the back of the moon, not the full front that faces us. To do that, the sun would have to be between us and the moon. Yet we’ve all seen the full moon in the daytime with the sun high in the sky. Here’s one I took November 5th, 2017.
And another I took February 26th of this year.
Nick: But seriously, someone from NZ should arrange tours to the Great Wall of Antarctica.
But if you can believe this it would be easier to believe in Mormonism and Preexistence.
There is no dispute that the wall exists. It’s just that some of us believe the wall encircles the entire perimeter of the AE/United Nations map instead of circling around into a continent.
T8: For me, there is a huge range of evidence for the heliocentric model.
Which piece of evidence can you personally verify? Just list one.
Hi Mike,
If your anecdotal findings cause you to doubt science
why would you think it adds any validity to your ideas?
Paranoia about organised scientific skullduggery too?..
Ed: At approx 20 mi distance at 30 feet height you can see 2/3 of the Sears Tower.
Run the numbers on that
117 feet hidden by curvature. I don’t think you’re going to set any records with that one. 🙂
Gene: …flat earth therioies always disallows any existance of the true photos, from NASHA, ORBITING SATALITES OR FROM SPACE MISSIONS, WHICH SHOWS CLEARLY THE EARTH IS A SPHERE LIKE ALL OTHER PLANETS.
Which of these NASA images conveys the real ball earth, Gene?
I personally like the 2012 one, where North America put on a lot of weight. 🙂
Gene: …I could see across the hugh San Juaquine valley about 150 miles across, all the way to the costal mountains, to the pacific ocean about a 200 mile distence. We had just had a rain and the atmosphere was very cleary, and i could see from that hight the ocean it self…
Boy I wish you had taken a picture of that. You simply would not have been able to see even the very tips of those mountains were the earth really a ball 25,000 miles in circumference.
Gene: But as we decended down the horizion would seem to be closer and closer, why, because i was moving down and the refacted light which goes in a straight line was going over my head as i decended.
I’m going to talk a little about refraction, but I don’t have time today. But did you notice that the horizon was always at your eye level – whether you were up on the mountain or down on the ground? The fact that the horizon always rises to a person’s eye level is another piece of evidence that we don’t live on a ball. Because on a ball – no matter how big – the higher you go, the lower the horizon will drop in your view. On a flat plane, the horizon will rise in your view as you rise.
Hey T8, I put Mt Ruapehu and Paekakariki Hill into Google World. It shows 127 miles distance, but looks like it is all over land, whereas your photo looks to be over sea. Do you have the locations right? Just double checking.Mike.., light does go in a straight line, but light can also seem to bend if it is refacted by something between you and its source OF REFLECTION, i still do not believe it actually bends it is just redirected by refraction AND SEEMS TO BEND.
The earth is so large it takes a great distence to calculate its cruve from what seems to be a “flat plain”. But there is a apsolute formula that can be used to calculate it perfectly. The earths roundness can be very accurately calulated, the curve is large it is beyond our normal vision but can be acurately calculated and has been. But from outer space it can be clearly seen from outer space as many thousands of different picture of it clearly show, literely thousands of them. The flat earth therioies only seem to work if you completely disallowed all of them by some kind of conspiracy theory. But fact is we can even see those satlites in space with the naked eye with the right night lite. And very easely with a small telescope.
Have you ever heard of the orange explanation of why the earth seem flat to us. Cut a straight flat piece of an orange off, now look at the flat round cut off part of the orange, from the center of the cut to the outer edge it looks flat, this represents our horizon view limits we are capable of while standing on this earth, even though our horizontal vision is only speck compared to that orange cut of, it looks perfectly flat, no matter which way we turn. Same as our horizon because light moving byond our line of site goes over us so we cant see it, it simply goes over us and the object beyond the horizion can not be seen, this demonstration can be seen on utube.
But the best and easiest proof is the photos taken from outer space back on earth, you or the flat earth therioies can’t get beyond this evidence, because it actually does exist. The only reason we can’t see the curvature of the earth from the earth is because of the size of this huge earth and because we are so small compared to it.
Peace and love to you and yours. …….gene
T8: I know that things can look bigger on the horizon because of the way light is reflected through moisture or something like that.
It’s called atmospheric lensing. You can see it in the photos I posted yesterday too. You’ll notice the shot from 55 miles away shows the mountain magnified as compared to the one I took from a couple miles away.
T8, with the information you gave me, the mountain in the distance should have 1723 meters hidden by curvature.
Mike, if from the perspective of the viewer the sun was hovering just above the horizon and the moon much higher than the horizon, then why couldn’t the shadow be different if the sun was higher on the horizon and the moon lower? When lunar eclipses happen, I assume, (I’m no expert) that the sun and moon could be postioned differently and it is their interaction regardless of their position that proves the eclipse. We have to factor in variation to the shadow. Then add in the different position on Earth of the viewer. He or she could be on top of the world in Norway, near the bottom in New Zealand or on the equator in Ecuador. Perhaps this would give many variations of the shadow as being above, below, to the side, or a full shadow or no shadow. I watched the following video and tried to imagine it from the Earth surface in varying positions. While I may not have the photographic mind of Tesla, it is not hard to assume variation in relation to the various positions of the heavenly objects and the viewer’s position. I find it hard to imagine all the possibilities so I remain humble about what is actually possible in the heliocentric model. For me, I need to prove that the heliocentric model can produce this result which I am not sire how to go about and also prove that the video is 100% genuine.
Also, I note that while it is true that an eclipse is taking place for one viewer, it may not be for another. So is the eclipse true? Of course, but it is not universally true for all people/viewers. So I also conclude that yes the world is flat from one perspective and a sphere from another. If the viewer was travelling really fast, things in the Universe would look different again. Our now moment is not even consistent to everyone else’s moment due to light speed and vast distances in space. Time and perspective is not a constant even though our senses tend to think it is. This opens up interesting scenarios if the viewer travels at the speed of light or close to it for example. But that is another subject, but suffice to say, all reality is only true to the viewer because each viewer is presented with a slightly different reality and all the more the further away they are from each other.
For example, there may be a fire on my street and this is true for my neighbour. But for you, this may or may not be true. So the world is flat when I am walking around the Earth from my perspective. I cannot detect the curve. I assume however, if I was sitting on Mars that I would see a spherical Earth. ANd sure this is an assumption because I cannot afford the fee to Mars as it is currently way to prohibitive to go there.
Again, I am not expecting you to rebut or answer everything I am saying. I’m just putting it out there as general ideas for the discussion or there may be something you can dispel easily.
Gene: The earth is so large it takes a great distence to to calculate its cruve FROM A FLAT PLAIN. But there is a apsolute formula that can be used to calculate it perfectly.
Yes, it is the formula I’ve been using – the one you and anyone else can find on the internet. It is based on the Pythagorean Theorem. I don’t know the mathematics behind it, but I do know that all of the earth curvature calculators online use the same exact formula, and that they are all run by people who believe the earth is a ball. I also know that you can just Google, “What’s the formula for the curvature of the earth?”, and they’ll tell you it’s 8 inches per mile squared. Note that this simplified version only works for up to 1000 miles or so. After that, you have to break out the hard math again. Here, I’ll show you…
Notice the phrase I typed into the Google box. Notice the result. Now if you do the same, you can scroll down the page and find all kinds of earth curve calculators. They will all use the same formula, because it is the only formula for determining the curve on a ball 25,000 miles in circumference. They’ll tell you it’s “simple trigonometry”. 🙂 You’ll also find sites and articles that will walk you through the math step by step, but the end result is always the same.
Gene: But the best and easiest proof is the photos taken from outer space back on earth, you or the flat earth therioies can’t get beyond this evidence, because it actually does exist.
You didn’t tell me which of the NASA earth images you liked best. But let’s assume you’re right, and all those NASA images are real. Would you then agree that before the 1972 Blue Marble image, nobody could know for sure the earth was a sphere?
Hey T8, I put Mt Ruapehu and Paekakariki Hill into Google World. It shows 127 miles distance, but looks like it is all over land, whereas your photo looks to be over sea. Do you have the locations right? Just double checking.
Good question Mike.
When I took the pic, I assumed it was Mount Taranaki which is a volcano further east. Here is a couple of pics I took some years back of that mountain.
I initially assumed the mountain in my photo in question was Taranaki because of the water and because it is common knowledge that you can see it from there on a clear day. Perhaps that makes it more amazing if it is that volcano because it is not as high and further away.
But upon closer examination, I discovered it was Ruapehu instead and I have never heard anyone saying they could see Ruapehu from there, but you can clearly see that it is that one due to the shape. Taranaki is a near conical shaped volcano and is often used a Mt Fuji double in movies that try to depict that volcano before modern times, because there is little urbanisation nearby.
You can for example see that the picture of Ruapehu I posted along with mine, the same contours and overall shape.
So why is there water between me and Ruapehu. My guess is when you seriously zoom into a subject, all the horizontal lines stretch out and the lines between me and the volcano shrink to bring the subject closer. Could someone confirm if this is a known photographic phenomena. There is a bit of water between me and the volcano because I am standing very near the coast. So I assume the water is stretched width way when using the zoom lense.
T8: Mike, if from the perspective of the viewer the sun was hovering just above the horizon and the moon much higher than the horizon, then why couldn’t the shadow be different if the sun was higher on the horizon and the moon lower?
I promise you my friend, what you’re imagining is impossible. Here is a screenshot from your video. I’ve drawn me with the sun coming up behind me, and from my view, the bottom of the moon is shadowed by the earth while the top – not yet blocked by the earth – remains lit. The green arrow points to what I’m seeing as the bottom (dark from the earth’s shadow), and the purple arrow points to what I’m seeing as the top of the moon (still directly lit by the sun).
This time I’m still in the same place, but I’ve colored the moon to how it was when I videoed it that day – shadowed red on top (from my view) and brightly lit on the bottom (again, from my viewpoint).
Do you see it now? There is no way you can make the earth cast a shadow on the part of the moon that is further from the earth, while the sun somehow shines through the earth to light the closer part.
This last one is also a screenshot from the same video, and it is to show you why we would never be able to see a full moon during the daytime. Notice how the day part of the earth is seeing a dark moon, since the sun is on the other side of it.
T8: But upon closer examination, I discovered it was Ruapehu…
So out of 2797 meters, 1723 should be hidden behind the curvature of the earth, leaving only 1074 meters visible to your location. Does it look to you like almost two thirds of that mountain is missing? Because it sure doesn’t to me.
Uh oh, you’ve just presented irrefutable scientific evidence against the ball earth. 🙂
Mike thousand of photos not even from Nasa, but others, they all confirm that the earth is round. You simply can’t get past that even if you ignor the exact calculation formula. IMO
peace and love to you and yours. ……gene
Hi Mike,
So your plan is to disprove science using science?
And you believe what you believe from the ideas of other believers?
You were doing so well before you so so distracted by this time wasting and foolish trivia.
Hi Mike,
If Columbus had had a decent telescope he would have been able to see North America in plain view?
please please please can we see the 150k high wall.
T8, with the information you gave me, the mountain in the distance should have 1723 meters hidden by curvature.
Hi Mike.
Maybe I have produced irrefutable evidence against the ball earth, but that doesn’t worry me because I care only for the truth. But my gut instinct or reaction to brainwashing if it is that is to say the math must be wrong. If it is 100% correct, then I would certainly love to see how this can be explained in the heliocentric model because these mountains are visible and that I can verify for myself.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
