Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But I am not interested anymore, I will rather watch something about economy.
@lifepsyop Do not forget to respond to this:
"You do not need to have a perfect model, just a working model, explaining all the basic things the solar system explains. Present such model."
Perspective makes objects appear smaller as they get further away. The sun remains exactly the same size from dawn to noon to dusk, so it isn't a matter of perspective.It's a matter perspective; This has been explained before..........
There is more than enough documented evidence, but even if it was only documented once, it still totally destroys the flat earth model.Why should anyone have to acknowledge something for which there is so little documented evidence for?
There own public statements. They have not committed to going.I see right now that two are signed up to go, so what's your justification to keep saying this?
I don't make things up. That is the pervue of people like Eric Dubay.How bankrupt is your position if you are having to make things up like that?
These have all been posted before, but you will have to wait until it is Summer in the Southern Hemisphere to see the 24 hour sun.Look at it this way. I can easily find hours of footage and high quality timelapses of the sun from virtually every other location on earth, except for Antarctica.
It really reflects poorly on your intelligence that you were convinced by those arguments, especially as they claim the stars in the Southern Hemisphere are just a parabolic reflection of the stars in the Northern Hemisphere. They don't remotely match up.I used to believe that north-south opposite star rotation was conclusive evidence that we were on a spherical earth with opposite poles... I thought it was a slam-dunk... and then I was debunked by simple real-world demonstrations showing how easily this works on a flat earth. (shown earlier in thread)
Walter Bislin said:Here is an interactive Flat Earth Model that can show Sunrise, Sunset, Moonrise, Moonset, Moon Phases, Moon's apparent rotation, Sun's position on Equinox, Seasons, some aspects of Solar and Lunar Eclipses, Star trails, 24 hours Day/Night at the Northpole and Antarctica, Celestial Poles, why people south of the equator can see the same Stars rotate clockwise around a singe celestial pole at the same time from different continents.
It can do this only by doing all calculations in the Heliocentric Model and then projecting the results onto the Flat Earth Model and bending light in a physically impossible manner.
There is more than enough documented evidence, but even if it was only documented once, it still totally destroys the flat earth model.
Perspective makes objects appear smaller as they get further away. The sun remains exactly the same size from dawn to noon to dusk, so it isn't a matter of perspective.
Eric "the idiot" Dubay lies again.
This is the daylight map from time and date.com.How does it ?
The motion of a light in the sky cannot possibly prove the shape of the earth.
Whether there is or there isn't a midnight sun has no bearing on the shape of the earth.
Distant light sources are still visible even if the size is less than what our human eyes can resolve. The human eye can see a candle at 2.7km away and the sun is several orders of magnitude larger and brighter than a candle.When the sun disappears and night time falls is due to the sun being so far away. Therefore it is a matter of our perspective very much so.
This is the daylight map from time and date.com.
View attachment 352970
Notice how the Arctic is still in daylight while areas further South are in the dark.
View attachment 352971 When it is winter in the north the image is reversed with the Antarctic in constant daylight while areas above are in the dark. That is impossible on your flat earth but matches perfectly with a globe.
Distant light sources are still visible even if the size is less than what our human eyes can resolve. The human eye can see a candle at 2.7km away and the sun is several orders of magnitude larger and brighter than a candle.
These have all been posted before, but you will have to wait until it is Summer in the Southern Hemisphere to see the 24 hour sun.
It really reflects poorly on your intelligence that you were convinced by those arguments, especially as they claim the stars in the Southern Hemisphere are just a parabolic reflection of the stars in the Northern Hemisphere. They don't remotely match up.
The shape of the area lit by the sun absolutely can prove the shape of the Earth.So what - The motion of a light in the sky cannot possibly prove the shape of the earth.
I am asking you for a flat earth model explaining at least basic observations. Like the standard model explains sunsets, eclipses, the movement of heavenly bodies, gravity, seasons, time zones etc.A model is something that explains observations. I don't know of any readily accessible observations that necessitate a spherical earth. Virtually everything we see has an explanation that requires no 'curving' of the earth into a ball. When you subtract any need for curvature from your earth model, what are you left with? Yep, the default position of a flat earth.
I used to believe that north-south opposite star rotation was conclusive evidence that we were on a spherical earth with opposite poles... I thought it was a slam-dunk... and then I was debunked by simple real-world demonstrations showing how easily this works on a flat earth. (shown earlier in thread)
That's when I began to realize that globe believers are mostly just repeating arguments they've heard as if they are irrefutable facts, with no critical examination.
If that's what he meant, he should state it as such, but it really did not come across that way to me.I think he meant that both views of the stars reflect each other in how they similarly converge on the horizon of our view.
I understood it the first time and it is complete bunk. There is no correlation between crepuscular rays and how the stars appear. There is no stretching of the stars overhead or shrinking near the poles as you would expect with perspective. His explanation is irrational nonsense. It's as bad as the claim by Pastor Dean Odle when he thought the twisting of light by magnetic fields would cause the moon to appear upside down when viewed South of the equator.Regardless, I can show you again:
It's as bad as the claim by Pastor Dean Odle when he thought the twisting of light by magnetic fields would cause the moon to appear upside down when viewed South of the equator.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?