FLAT EARTH

[posthuman]

Ball-Earthers go on to claim the reason that both sun and moon can be seen at the same time is atmospheric diffraction, but there's no proof of this claim

that's not true.

it would be more accurate for you to say, there is abundant and easily observed evidence for this, but that you reject it all because it conflicts with the lie you cling to.




sit where there is an unobstructed view of the horizon. carefully watch either the sun or the moon on an equinox, and at its zenith, where refraction shouldn't change its apparent location, start a clock. you should have 6 hours before the sun ((or moon)) disappears as it sets. you will find you have about 6 extra minutes. you get this extra time every day, but it will be easier for you to do the math on an equinox.



this reveals the mercy of God, in fact.
because of the substance of what the light is transmitted to you through, you receive light longer than you 'deserve'
Jesus Christ is the light of the world, and He reveals Himself to us with more grace than we warrant.

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

that's not true.

it would be more accurate for you to say, there is abundant and easily observed evidence for this, but that you reject it all because it conflicts with the lie you cling to.

View attachment 197121


sit where there is an unobstructed view of the horizon. carefully watch either the sun or the moon on an equinox, and at its zenith, where refraction shouldn't change its apparent location, start a clock. you should have 6 hours before the sun ((or moon)) disappears as it sets. you will find you have about 6 extra minutes. you get this extra time every day, but it will be easier for you to do the math on an equinox.



this reveals the mercy of God, in fact.
because of the substance of what the light is transmitted to you through, you receive light longer than you 'deserve'
Jesus Christ is the light of the world, and He reveals Himself to us with more grace than we warrant.

I don't deny atmospheric diffraction exists; it's an established phenomena, as you demonstrate. What I reject is that this phenomena can be used without evidence every time, for the multitude of cases where people see beyond where they should be able to see, were Earth a ball.

If globalists truly wanted to demonstrate that the phenomena (i.e. seeing beyond the alleged curve of the horizon) were the result of diffraction, they would measure the density and temperature of the atmosphere at several points for such cases, and this would lend scientific evidence to their claim. That they do not, and the high degree of diffraction that would be required to substantiate their claims, are evidence the phenomena is not due to atmospheric diffraction.

 

[posthuman]

I don't deny atmospheric diffraction exists; it's an established phenomena, as you demonstrate. What I reject is that this phenomena can be used without evidence every time, for the multitude of cases where people see beyond where they should be able to see, were Earth a ball.

If globalists truly wanted to demonstrate that the phenomena (i.e. seeing beyond the alleged curve of the horizon) were the result of diffraction, they would measure the density and temperature of the atmosphere at several points for such cases, and this would lend scientific evidence to their claim. That they do not, and the high degree of diffraction that would be required to substantiate their claims, are evidence the phenomena is not due to atmospheric diffraction.

Six minutes of the sun peeping its top over the apparent horizon and the eclipsed moon doing the same on the opposite horizon under ideal circumstances, because of a combination of refraction and the fact that the umbra of the earth is larger than the angular width of the moon. Fully explained and accurately predicted

Don't lie.

 

[posthuman]

they would measure the density and temperature of the atmosphere at several points for such cases, and this would lend scientific evidence to their claim. That they do not

 

[posthuman]

View attachment 197120

Don't lie.

Explain how this image is possible

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

View attachment 197125

You should know that's not experimental data. The curves are too smooth. I'm talking real science and real data, not theories and perfect mathematical equations.

Don't lie.

Explain how this image is possible

The boat is fairly close, and so can be seen in front of the sea in the background. The sun, however, very far away, is partially obscured by a thick layer of atmosphere. The upper half of the sun is still visible, as the atmosphere is thinner the higher up you go, so the light from this still reaches us. The light from the sun which doesn't reach us (i.e. from the lower part of the sun, which is obscured by the thick atmosphere) is replaced by the light from the ocean (though closer), that does.

Have you ever seen the sunsets where the sun sets above the ocean? These are evidence that it is the atmosphere obscuring the sun, not the sun dropping below the ocean. That the sunset is made to appear to occur at the level of the ocean is just the way God designed it in His wisdom.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

You should know that's not experimental data. The curves are too smooth. I'm talking real science and real data, not theories and perfect mathematical equations.

The boat is fairly close, and so can be seen in front of the sea in the background. The sun, however, very far away, is partially obscured by a thick layer of atmosphere. The upper half of the sun is still visible, as the atmosphere is thinner the higher up you go, so the light from this still reaches us. The light from the sun which doesn't reach us (i.e. from the lower part of the sun, which is obscured by the thick atmosphere) is replaced by the light from the ocean (though closer), that does.

Have you ever seen the sunsets where the sun sets above the ocean? These are evidence that it is the atmosphere obscuring the sun, not the sun dropping below the ocean. That the sunset is made to appear to occur at the level of the ocean is just the way God designed it in His wisdom.
View attachment 197136

These pics are clearly not the same. In one the sun is obscured by atmospheric conditions. The other clearly shows the water line not mist or haze obscuring the sun.

View attachment 197120

 

[posthuman]

You should know that's not experimental data. The curves are too smooth. I'm talking real science and real data, not theories and perfect mathematical equations.

You should know these are built on real data, not made up out of someones pure imagination.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAJegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1SaGSCa95s67eWMUu3cjWm

 

[selfdissolving]

Why do we only ever see one side of the moon?

 

[posthuman]

The light from the sun which doesn't reach us (i.e. from the lower part of the sun, which is obscured by the thick atmosphere) is replaced by the light from the ocean (though closer), that does.

That's baloney.

In your flat model the water is further away than the sun, and night occurs because the sun is far away and shrinks to a dot in the north. Above horizon. Which is also baloney of course. If the further away you look, the more the ground rises up to obscure the sky, like you are saying now, the whole sky should be ocean and ice wall.

You are nuts.

Get a pencil and draw the picture of what you are trying to feed me, if you don't yet understand how nuts you are.

 

[posthuman]

Why do we only ever see one side of the moon?

No matter where on earth you are?

More impossible geometry for flat thinkers.

 

[Susanna]

You should know that's not experimental data. The curves are too smooth. I'm talking real science and real data, not theories and perfect mathematical equations.

The boat is fairly close, and so can be seen in front of the sea in the background. The sun, however, very far away, is partially obscured by a thick layer of atmosphere. The upper half of the sun is still visible, as the atmosphere is thinner the higher up you go, so the light from this still reaches us. The light from the sun which doesn't reach us (i.e. from the lower part of the sun, which is obscured by the thick atmosphere) is replaced by the light from the ocean (though closer), that does.

Have you ever seen the sunsets where the sun sets above the ocean? These are evidence that it is the atmosphere obscuring the sun, not the sun dropping below the ocean. That the sunset is made to appear to occur at the level of the ocean is just the way God designed it in His wisdom.
View attachment 197136

S.M.H.

 

[posthuman]

The upper half of the sun is still visible, as the atmosphere is thinner the higher up you go, so the light from this still reaches us. The light from the sun which doesn't reach us (i.e. from the lower part of the sun, which is obscured by the thick atmosphere) is replaced by the light from the ocean (though closer), that does.

this is what i'm hearing..

 

[posthuman]

IDK

 

[Poinsetta]

View attachment 197154



IDK

Jolly that’s amazing! 😂

 

[tourist]

View attachment 197154



IDK

Are those American miles? Does 'mi' stand for million?

 

[Dino246]

Why do we only ever see one side of the moon?

This is because of a phenomenon called "tidal locking"...

" the situation when an object's orbital period matches its rotational period. A great example of this is our own Moon. The moon takes 28 days to go around the Earth and 28 days to rotate once around it's axis. This results in the same face of the Moon always facing the Earth. " - https://www.spaceanswers.com/deep-space/what-is-tidal-locking/

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

These pics are clearly not the same. In one the sun is obscured by atmospheric conditions. The other clearly shows the water line not mist or haze obscuring the sun.

It is the same phenomena that blocks the sunlight on both occasions. You simply do not realise it, as in the photo I showed, this is occurring above the horizon.

this is what i'm hearing..

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Absurd. Those pictures are clear as to what they are. You can attempt to make excuse all you like.

We do so much on this earth that takes into account the curvature of the earth. Building pipe lines, radio transmission, satellite communication such as phones, and television. Long range target shooting, artillery fire, missile fire, calculating airplane fuel consumption,

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

Absurd. Those pictures are clear as to what they are. You can attempt to make excuse all you like.

It often seems strange when we learn of theories that challenge our world view. For example, when I learned about how gravity was supposed to be the reason that water didn't spin off the ball-Earth, and the real-world example given was a spinning bucket full of water, I wondered why the same experiment couldn't be done with a spinning ball. Now I understand that ball-Earth theory is, as you put it, absurd.

We do so much on this earth that takes into account the curvature of the earth. Building pipe lines, radio transmission, satellite communication such as phones, and television. Long range target shooting, artillery fire, missile fire, calculating airplane fuel consumption,

I think you'd be surprised to learn that none of these things takes into account the curvature of the Earth. Indeed, there have been serious engineering errors when the alleged curvature of the Earth was taken into account.