Flat Earthers

[KnowMe]

Look at this flat Earth map. Now envision a flight from Santiago Chile to Sydney Australia.

On a Globe, you wouldn't fly over any land except maybe a Pacific Island. But airlines aren't going to make nearly a double distance trip over the vast ocean. So they would partially fly over Peru, Central america, and maybe even Western USA. You could also calculate air speed with supposed distances on a globe vs. a flat Earth map.

Or, a boat would be even better, easier, and possibly have less deceptive results. Have you ever read about those stories where some dude spent MONTHS and a few cases well over a YEAR floating around the south Pacific lost? I know even a globe it's huge but it still defies logic to think they wouldn't hit land or see a passing vessel.

I for one would like to know. Not sure why it would be important, except to the extent that it is part of satan's great deception.

Ocean currents, if adrift on a vast ocean, your at the mercy of currents, and those are not always leading a boat to shore, if adrift it’s possible to get caught in a current that goes around and round in the middle of the ocean, there many currrents in ocean at top middle and bottom.

 

[KnowMe]

it's night is in the wrong place??

something about the moon:
half the earth can see the moon at any given time.
everyone on the whole earth sees the same phase of the moon on any given night/day cycle, and it changes in a regular way.

look at those snowglobe models. try to imagine how to color in the lit side of the moon so that someone right under it sees it exactly the same way as someone on the opposite side of the map.. say i'm directly underneath it looking straight up, and i see a half moon. what does someone way to my left see? a half moon. what does someone way to my right see? the same half moon.
could someone draw that for me?

There’s problem with the snow globe for sure, another thing why do the models don’t have the other planets that any one can see with a telescope and sometimes with the naked eye. and I’ve never seen a posted flat earth image or video other than models and drawings.

space X is going to be sending paying people to space to look for themselves with out nasa, when that happens look for all those photos of the planet to start popping up on social media, the day is coming real soon people won’t have the excuse to blame nasa is faking it. the private space journey is becoming a reality.

 

[KnowMe]

He glows in the dark

even when it's night you can see Him

 

[posthuman]

the day is coming real soon people won’t have the excuse to blame nasa is faking it. the private space journey is becoming a reality.

NASA isn't the only spacefaring agency in the world anyhow. Japan, Europe, China, Russia, India....

its beautiful to me tho, that all you need to do is look at the sun and the moon and consider. you don't need to know all these other evidences, and you don't need to be in the modern, machine age. you only need to see the two great timepieces God set for us, watch how they move, and think clearly.

 

[KnowMe]

NASA isn't the only spacefaring agency in the world anyhow. Japan, Europe, China, Russia, India....

its beautiful to me tho, that all you need to do is look at the sun and the moon and consider. you don't need to know all these other evidences, and you don't need to be in the modern, machine age. you only need to see the two great timepieces God set for us, watch how they move, and think clearly.

I know right, I think if a flat earther had a telescope and sat on a beach and point it sea level across the ocean no doubt they will not see the land across the ocean not even with the Hubble telescope. curved minds what can I say.

 

[Poinsetta]

So is the earth flat or round??? Asking for a friend. If it is flat it is wide flat if it is round it bounces off and or slides off. None of these ways work. The earth is a line. Separating two different persons one on each end. They can never meet and it gets longer and longer. The earth is a line.

 

[Dino246]

So is the earth flat or round??? Asking for a friend. If it is flat it is wide flat if it is round it bounces off and or slides off. None of these ways work. The earth is a line. Separating two different persons one on each end. They can never meet and it gets longer and longer. The earth is a line.

Who fed you that line?

 

[Poinsetta]

I am East and He’s the West. Lol. 😄

 

[Poinsetta]

Who fed you that line?

Its an equator 😂

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

So is the earth flat or round??? Asking for a friend. If it is flat it is wide flat if it is round it bounces off and or slides off. None of these ways work. The earth is a line. Separating two different persons one on each end. They can never meet and it gets longer and longer. The earth is a line.

It's honestly quite hard to tell. Everything we measure on Earth seems to indicate it's flat - the ability to see beyond where the horizon should obstruct our vision, laser beams over water being detected long after the curve of the horizon (if the curve exists) should have obstructed them, ball-Earth theories about eclipses being demonstrably false etc.

But NASA and Co. have done a good job of propagandising ball-Earth, and it's a fairly big conspiracy if that's what it is. The average man or woman is unable to fathom an evil capable of creating, selling and maintaining such a lie. There are also issues around the heavenly bodies - for the sun to disappear over the horizon, one would think it would need to be further away than it is, the alleged 24h days in Antarctica's Summer (which conflict with early explorer accounts), apparent mismatch of Flat Earth maps to reality...

However, I think it's fair to say a lot of what was taken as ball-Earth gospel 10 years ago has been demonstrated to be false today. As with Creation Science vs. Evolutionism, given time, more of the heliocentric-ball-Earth theory may be disproven.

 

[posthuman]

It's honestly quite hard to tell. Everything we measure on Earth seems to indicate it's flat - the ability to see beyond where the horizon should obstruct our vision, laser beams over water being detected long after the curve of the horizon (if the curve exists) should have obstructed them, ball-Earth theories about eclipses being demonstrably false etc.

if the earth was flat you should see the edge of it from anywhere on the surface. atmospheric diffraction explains all the things you mention; seeing a little bit farther confirms the shape of the sky - if the earth was flat you could turn your telescope to the horizon and see all the way across the ocean to the next continent.

flat earth can't explain eclipses at all and the spherical model both perfectly explains and predicts eclipses down to the instant they begin and end and the coordinate they are visible from.

you're spreading deception & lies, thinking ((or at least pretending)) you're doing the opposite.

go watch the sunset tonight.

 

[posthuman]

if you put the estimated mass of the universe into the Schwarzschild equation, you get a black hole with an event horizon around the estimated size of the universe.


___________________________________

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

if the earth was flat you should see the edge of it from anywhere on the surface.

This is not true. The atmosphere is not transparent. That's why mountains go blue from a distance, and can be invisible from the same distance on some days.

atmospheric diffraction explains all the things you mention; seeing a little bit farther confirms the shape of the sky - if the earth was flat you could turn your telescope to the horizon and see all the way across the ocean to the next continent.

This is not true. Atmospheric diffraction doesn't explain all the things I mentioned. It can explain micro effects, but not the macro effects regularly observed. As indicated before, the atmosphere is not transparent, so you can't see the next continent. You often can't even see a mountain right in front of you, if it is only tens of kilometers away.

flat earth can't explain eclipses at all and the spherical model both perfectly explains and predicts eclipses down to the instant they begin and end and the coordinate they are visible from.

Flat Earthers typically admit that eclipses can't fully be explained, which is honest. Ball-Earth theory endeavours to explain it, but this attempt is demonstrably false, by the phenomenum of selenelions, where both the sun and eclipsed moon can be seen at the same time. In ball-Earth theory, the Earth is supposed to be in the middle of the sun and moon (i.e. 180 degrees between Earth, sun and moon), so ball-Earth theory does explain eclipses, but it explains them in a way that is falsified by the (rare) occurence of selenelions (i.e. clearly not 180 degrees between Earth, sun and moon, yet we still have a lunar eclipse).

you're spreading deception & lies, thinking ((or at least pretending)) you're doing the opposite.

My refutation of your comments above demonstrate your words may be an example of the very thing you caution against, however well-intentioned these may have been. So do be careful before laying an accusation.

 

[posthuman]

Ball-Earth theory endeavours to explain it, but this attempt is demonstrably false, by the phenomenum of selenelions, where both the sun and eclipsed moon can be seen at the same time.

false.


a selenelion is

• predicted down to the minute it can be observed and the mile where it can be observed by the standard model
• impossible on a flat-earth model
• a macro-effect of atmospheric diffraction
• more visual evidence the earth is round

the earth's shadow is slightly larger than the apparent diameter of the moon, and the apparent location of the moon & sun low in the horizon is slightly different than their actual location due to diffraction. under the right circumstances, you can see the sun very low on the horizon in one direction and the moon very low on the opposite horizon beginning to be eclipsed.

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

a selenelion is

predicted down to the minute it can be observed and the mile where it can be observed by the standard model

Celestial predictions are independent of Earth-shape model.

impossible on a flat-earth model

It can't be, as Flat Earth admits its model doesn't explain eclipses.

a macro-effect of atmospheric diffraction

Macro-effects of atmospheric diffraction are a basic excuse used by ball-Earthers to explain most every inconsistency in the theory, instead of just admitting, "Yeah, we can't explain that." It's almost as bad as magic gravity.

more visual evidence the earth is round

None of the sort. It falsifies the ball-Earth eclipse model that attempts to explain it, and the flat-Earth model doesn't (yet) try.

the earth's shadow is slightly larger than the apparent diameter of the moon, and the apparent location of the moon & sun low in the horizon is slightly different than their actual location due to diffraction. under the right circumstances, you can see the sun very low on the horizon in one direction and the moon very low on the opposite horizon beginning to be eclipsed.

If one can see both the sun and the moon, this clearly means they're not at 180 degrees, disproving the ball-Earth theory of eclipses.

 

[posthuman]

 

[posthuman]

It can't be, as Flat Earth admits its model doesn't explain eclipses.

in other words, it confesses that it is not, and cannot possibly be true.

yet it keeps promoting itself.

this is called knowingly exchanging the truth for a lie.

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

Nice diagram. But clearly not to scale. If it were to scale, you would see the flaw in the atmospheric diffraction excuse.

I mean, ball-Earthers could use a similar diagram to demonstrate that you should be able to see one continent from another (if the non-transparency of the atmosphere were negated).

 

[posthuman]

Nice diagram. But clearly not to scale. If it were to scale, you would see the flaw in the atmospheric diffraction excuse.

I mean, ball-Earthers could use a similar diagram to demonstrate that you should be able to see one continent from another (if the non-transparency of the atmosphere were negated).

have a nice delusion; i'm getting on with my day.

hope you stop lying soon

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

in other words, it confesses that it is not, and cannot possibly be true.

Nope. It simply says, "we don't know, but we're not going to guess, and then keep making new excuses to revalidate our first guess, when you prove it wrong". (Like ball-Earth theory uses the excuse of atmospheric diffraction to try to prop up its theory of eclipses, that is falsified by selenelions).