Flat Earth proofs
- Thread starter Cosmo
- Start date
On a globe earth, Refraction can cause the optical horizon to move closer to the observer but it cannot extend the optical horizon beyond the limit of the geometric horizon necessitated by a ball earth with a radius of 3959 miles.
Refraction has never been shown to make an object hidden behind physical obstruction to arch up and over the obstruction bringing it back into line of sight of the observer due solely to atmospheric refraction. That is impossible and the fact that this is the best explanation for ALL of the impossible long distance line of sight observations just shows the sheer amount of cope required to defend a clearly broken and thoroughly falsified model.
Your Eyes Reveal The Truth .... Part One
Your Eyes Reveal the Truth .... Part Two / Three & Four https://www.bitchute.com/video/sqKokgG67qeP/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/IV8nwFalocIz/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/yCW8SPfCwsFu/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/sPvnQc5ja6TG/ God's …
www.bitchute.com
Your Eyes Reveal the Truth .... Part Two
Your Eyes Reveal the Truth .... Part One https://www.bitchute.com/video/sqKokgG67qeP/ God's Flat Earth - Odysee https://odysee.com/@Godsflatearth:a Rumble https://rumble.com/vc1bt6-the-flat-earth-theory-a-short-introduction.html God's Flat…
www.bitchute.com
Your Eyes Reveal The Truth ... Part Three
Your Eyes Reveal the Truth .... Part One & Two https://www.bitchute.com/video/sqKokgG67qeP/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/IV8nwFalocIz/ God's Flat Earth - Odysee https://odysee.com/@Godsflatearth:a Rumble https://rumble.com/vc1bt6-the-fla…
www.bitchute.com
Your Eyes Reveal The Truth ... Part Four
Your Eyes Reveal the Truth .... Part One / Two & Three https://www.bitchute.com/video/sqKokgG67qeP/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/IV8nwFalocIz/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/yCW8SPfCwsFu/ God's Flat Earth - Odysee https://odysee.com/@Gods…
www.bitchute.com
Michelson-Morley and Michelson-Gale experiments proved definitively that earth is motionless. Even Einstein himself, and every single one of the most credentialed Heliocentric physicists, cosmologists, and astronomers have repeatedly stated that neither orbital velocity, nor earth’s rotation have ever been proven. Einstein even went as far as to specifically state that Foucault Pendulums DID NOT PROVE ROTATION and that according to General Relativity NEITHER EARTH’S SUPPOSED ROTATION NOR ORBIT CAN BE PROVEN.
Also, according to the inverse square law of light, the ISS should decrease in brightness exponentially as it moves away. it should be 5.5 times less bright at 600 miles viewing distance than it is at 255 miles viewing distance. and it should be 23 times less bright when its 1200 miles away from you. This is objectively not what we observe when watching the light referred to as the ISS pass overhead. video taken of the iss and time lapsed photos show a rather consistent brightness which would be impossible if it were really reflecting the sun’s light.
videos of the ISS from earth show the same thing as the timelapse photos:
Last edited:
Num7
Staff member
I remember such a picture from highschool, as a kid:
It’s a classic, that shows how buildings seem to rise to the horizon as you get closer to the shore. To me, it’s one of the best examples you can see for yourself, without going to space.
I haven’t looked into Flat Earth in more than a decade, but I remember looking at arguments and theories back in the day. I thought it was interesting to analyze the thought process behind it. It’s so counter-intuitive to me, so I was curious to see if they had good arguments.
I remember that one of the points they had, was asking why no planes go over the poles. Oh well… It’s simply because of weather, visibility, and lack of ground infrastructure. It’s not because they don’t want us to see the ice wall surrounding the world.
It’s a classic, that shows how buildings seem to rise to the horizon as you get closer to the shore. To me, it’s one of the best examples you can see for yourself, without going to space.
I haven’t looked into Flat Earth in more than a decade, but I remember looking at arguments and theories back in the day. I thought it was interesting to analyze the thought process behind it. It’s so counter-intuitive to me, so I was curious to see if they had good arguments.
I remember that one of the points they had, was asking why no planes go over the poles. Oh well… It’s simply because of weather, visibility, and lack of ground infrastructure. It’s not because they don’t want us to see the ice wall surrounding the world.
Satellites and GPS is something that puts a pretty big nail in the flat earth coffin. If anyone has a good explanation for that, I’d be curious to hear it.
There’s a lot of other interesting evidence for a flat earth though, like the image Num posted above.It’s too bad the “globe earthers” tend to reply with derision and disrespect instead of seeing a curious mind who doesn’t blindly accept what someone else says is true.
I don’t really care what the earth is shaped like, I just really love this theory and that there’s arguments for it to begin with.
There’s a lot of other interesting evidence for a flat earth though, like the image Num posted above.It’s too bad the “globe earthers” tend to reply with derision and disrespect instead of seeing a curious mind who doesn’t blindly accept what someone else says is true.
I don’t really care what the earth is shaped like, I just really love this theory and that there’s arguments for it to begin with.
Darby
Epochal Historian
Is the earth a flat disk?
Imagine that we are in an ice age here on earth. Lake Superior has frozen over. I don't have any satellites or aircraft that can travel high above the earth so that I can look down and see whether the surface is flat or curved. Is there an experiment can I ran that could answer the question?
Yes, several. Here's one such experiment: Aircraft and satellites may not have survived the onset of the ice age but by God my Zamboni did. I get on my Zamboni to carve and smooth out an ice rink several feet wide and a million feet long. Perfect NHL quality flat-as-glass ice. I've also laid out a million foot long perfectly straight stripe with a hash mark at zero feet another hash mark at one million feet and minor hash marks every ten feet along the line.
I construct a wagon with four wheels, one at each corner. They support a 5th wheel in the center of the wagon. The 5th wheel juts down from the wagon and the tire rests on the ice. The wheel has a radius of 1.59 feet therefore a circumference of 10 feet. At the bottom edge of the tire I put a mark that signifies bottom dead center (BDC). At the center of the wheel on the edge of the hub I place a red mark. I put my wagon in place so that the BDC mark is precisely on the zero hash mark. Then I start moving my wagon along the line. I go in a perfectly straight line and there is zero skidding of the wheel on the ice.
How many 360 degree revolutions of the 10 foot circumference wheel along the one million foot long line in the ice will it take for the CENTER red mark on the wheel hub to travel one million feet? Will it take 100,000 revolutions (1,000,000 feet/10 feet per revolution)? Will it take more than 100,000 revolutions? Will it take fewer than 100,000 revolutions?
The answer is, "It depends."
What does it depend on? It depends on whether the surface is flat, positively or negatively curved. If the surface is absolutely flat (flat earth) then it will take exactly 100,000 revolutions for the center to travel one million feet. If it is negatively curved, as if moving along a curve from the inside of a circle it will take more because the center of the 5th wheel is traveling along a smaller radius curve than the edge of the 5th wheel. If the curve is positive then it will take fewer revolutions because the red mark at the center is traveling along a larger radius curve than the edge of the 5th wheel.
It's not a "gotcha!" or a trick. It's about the fact that two objects that are offset stacked above a line only travel the same distance along the line if they move in a straight, flat line. If they travel along a curved path they don't travel the same distance because the radius of the curve they are following is not the same. A car traveling along a straight road from LA to NY will not travel the same distance as a satellite in orbit 19,000 miles above the earth in order to get LA and then NY straight down below. If both the car and the satellite travel the same distance the satellite is not in orbit thus it isn't, by definition, a satellite.
So, if you discover that the red mark at the center of the wheel travels 1 million feet before the BDC travels one million feet you are living on a positively curved surface. Circles, ellipses, spheres and oblate ellipsoids are examples of closed positively curved surfaces.
Last edited:
Darby
Epochal Historian
Cosmo,
The ISS luminosity problem has a very fundamental flaw in its logic.
The set up for the problem tosses out 255 miles, 600 miles and 1200 miles as if they are important. They aren't important to this particular problem. The apparent brightness of the ISS depends in large part on the reflecting object's distance from the light emitter not the observer if the observer is relatively close to the reflector but the emitter is far far away.
Earth isn't the light emitter. The sun, 149,000,000 km away is the light emitter. The observer is very close to the ISS as compared to the distance to the emitter. A change in distance from the emitter of 1000 km, more or less, is a change of 1/149,000^2. The change in apparent brightness without considering any variable other than the distance to the sun would be 4.5*10^-11. It's so small that the human eye can't detect the change based solely on the change in distance.
We do see some change but that's because the ISS passes behind some light clouds and greatly changes its angle above the horizon thus the light passes through an ever changing gas density, humidity and temperature. Even the spectrum of the light changes as it gets lower on the horizon as the blue spectrum is reflected "up" and the red spectrum is reflected "down" - red sky near the horizon at sun up and sunset and a blue sky above.
~Roy G. Biv, PhD, Spectroscopy
The ISS luminosity problem has a very fundamental flaw in its logic.
The set up for the problem tosses out 255 miles, 600 miles and 1200 miles as if they are important. They aren't important to this particular problem. The apparent brightness of the ISS depends in large part on the reflecting object's distance from the light emitter not the observer if the observer is relatively close to the reflector but the emitter is far far away.
Earth isn't the light emitter. The sun, 149,000,000 km away is the light emitter. The observer is very close to the ISS as compared to the distance to the emitter. A change in distance from the emitter of 1000 km, more or less, is a change of 1/149,000^2. The change in apparent brightness without considering any variable other than the distance to the sun would be 4.5*10^-11. It's so small that the human eye can't detect the change based solely on the change in distance.
We do see some change but that's because the ISS passes behind some light clouds and greatly changes its angle above the horizon thus the light passes through an ever changing gas density, humidity and temperature. Even the spectrum of the light changes as it gets lower on the horizon as the blue spectrum is reflected "up" and the red spectrum is reflected "down" - red sky near the horizon at sun up and sunset and a blue sky above.
~Roy G. Biv, PhD, Spectroscopy
