Narnia is a flat planet

This topic is to discuss the fact that Narnia exists on a flat planet.

Where is Narnia ? Or is beyond the wall of permafrost?

This topic is to discuss the fact that Narnia exists on a flat planet.

Ok?  And Dune or Arrakis is a spherical planet. 

And I don’t remember a flat planet in Star Trek.  But there was a a Cornucopia looking thing that ate planets. 

Quote from: Username on December 12, 2023, 10:44:58 AM

This topic is to discuss the fact that Narnia exists on a flat planet.

Ok?  And Dune or Arrakis is a spherical planet. 

And I don’t remember a flat planet in Star Trek.  But there was a a Cornucopia looking thing that ate planets.

The Orville had an episode that took place on a literal flat planet, it was missing it's 3rd dimension.

Quote from: Username on December 12, 2023, 10:44:58 AM

This topic is to discuss the fact that Narnia exists on a flat planet.

Ok?  And Dune or Arrakis is a spherical planet. 

And I don’t remember a flat planet in Star Trek.  But there was a a Cornucopia looking thing that ate planets. 

It is of note because of the symbology of Narnia. Narnia is meant to be an perfect version of the world and / or heaven, with Aslan playing a christlike figure. It is simple to see then that the "real world", in this interpretation, might be seen as corrupted or fallen, reflecting the Christian concept of the Fall and the imperfect nature of the world due to human sin. Thus, the view of the round earth is tied very strongly to evil and deceit where as Narnia - the flat world - is tied instead to truth and virtue. And as we know - in truth, victory.

It is of note because of the symbology of Narnia. Narnia is meant to be an perfect version of the world and / or heaven, with Aslan playing a christlike figure. It is simple to see then that the "real world", in this interpretation, might be seen as corrupted or fallen, reflecting the Christian concept of the Fall and the imperfect nature of the world due to human sin. Thus, the view of the round earth is tied very strongly to evil and deceit where as Narnia - the flat world - is tied instead to truth and virtue. And as we know - in truth, victory.

i.e. it is one person's religious views.
i.e. it is only that religious view that the RE is evil and deceit.
i.e. it has no impact on reality; where a RE is based upon reality and evidence and truth, and a FE is based upon deceit and fantasy.

So were you trying to say FE is a religious idea, not based upon reality?

Using an ideal perfect world as an example says nothing about the real world.
In an ideal perfect world, cancer wouldn't exist.
Does that make it rational to say cancer isn't real, that it is just a very long running conspiracy by big pharma? No.
Reality is not perfect.

I would also say Narnia is not mean to be a perfect vision of the world/heaven, or if it was meant to be, it failed.
If it was, why is there so much conflict?
Why did Aslan, who is meant to represent God/Jesus, need help from children to overthrow a witch?

And if you want another similar example, consider the world of Lord of the Rings.
Originally this world was flat, but when the mortals tried to reach Valinor, it was made round so they would be unable to.

The game civilization also takes place on a plane. In Narnia is space travel possible?

I know very little about Narnia, but when has lack of knowledge ever stopped anyone from sounding off here.

From what I remember as a child it was one of those stories where kids turn up and sort out the world after tragedy and heartache. It was run by an ineffectual big cat with a deep voice and some woman was trying to make it colder.

As a model of even potential perfection there are obvious flaws right there. A world run by any sort of feline would be a hell hole of torment and ruined furniture, the addition of prepubescent humans is hardly likely to make this better.
In all my dealings with the girly sex I have ceased trying to predict whatever it is they are about to do or think other than on one subject, unless you can cook an egg on the pavement it is too cold.

I believe that this is an anti-feminist tract from a time when the patriarchy felt its grip on the world was slipping, as such its relevance as a template of the realm of humanity is of severely limited capacity.

The Lone Islands were a territory of three islands under the rule of the Kingdom of Narnia. They were a hereditary Crown Possession; thus the Monarch of Narnia was also the Emperor or Empress of the Lone Islands. On the horizon line from Avra's most eastern point was the most eastern point of the Bight of Calormen by the Great Eastern Ocean.

https://narnia.fandom.com/wiki/Lone_Islands

If Narnia had a horizon similar to reality, and sunrises and sunsets.  Then it wasn’t flat.


Or it was just a fantasy world where a street lamp in the middle of the forest could exist between two worlds/dimensions.  And Evil magic is a thing. 

Quote from: Username on December 12, 2023, 10:44:58 AM

This topic is to discuss the fact that Narnia exists on a flat planet.

And I don’t remember a flat planet in Star Trek.  But there was a a Cornucopia looking thing that ate planets.

Possibly because Starfleet is a globalist socialist organization (no money? the Ferengi are right!) and the idea of space travel is wet dream of these same people who all don't want to admit that they are actually the worst thing a human could be.  A serious Star Trek fan.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/24/what-star-trek-teaches-us-about-humanity-and-capitalism/
I only watch Lower Decks. Because it's funny.

As for Narnia being a flat planet, no. Planet means "wandering star".  The idea being that this whole idea of planets is that they are 'stars' (this should clue you in on how unscientific this idea is) that wander about the cosmos. 

Narnia is a flat plane or a flat world or a flat realm.

Not a flat planet.

Narnia is a flat plane or a flat world or a flat realm.

Sorry.  Sunsets and sunrises by a horizon only work physically on a spherical planet.

Quote

This explanation has its problems. For starters, a sun circling 3,000 miles (5,000 km) above a flat Earth would never actually "set," even at the most southern latitudes. YouTube user Wolfie6020, a globe-Earth proponent, demonstrated this by building a scale model of the flat-Earth-style sun as it would be seen from Sydney on a vernal equinox. As shown in his video, the sun (actually a drone carrying a ping-pong ball) never dips below the horizon, even at its farthest point from the observer.

https://www.space.com/41915-flat-earth-explanation-for-the-equinox.html

No Sunset on a Flat Earth - Debunking the AE Map with a Drone.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on December 01, 2023, 03:16:11 PM

The sun, as placed on a rotating celestial sphere high above, disappears from the view of people once the day has concluded.

Hello.  The sun should be seen making its constant turn of its orbit as it passes overhead……

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on November 25, 2023, 09:25:45 AM

I miss good old Stash that has the common sense to not waste time on bulmabriefs144.

Anyway..
 

Quote from: Stash on September 08, 2022, 12:03:28 PM

The animation isn't meant to convey that the sun (or Moon) moves in a straight line. It's meant to show that perspective of a very close and small sun would shrink as it moves further from you or you move further than it. It doesn't shrink like everything else in our perspective does.

As for Narnia being a flat planet,

Thanks for highlighting horizon, sunset, and sunrise only work for a flat planet in magical fiction.


Anyway..

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/planet

planet
noun
plan·​et ˈpla-nət
Synonyms of planet
1
a
(1)
: any of the large bodies that revolve around the sun in the solar system
(2)
: a similar body associated with another star
b
: EARTH —usually used with the
one of the hottest places on the planet
c
: any of the seven celestial bodies sun, moon, Venus, Jupiter, Mars, Mercury, and Saturn that in ancient belief have motions of their own among the fixed stars
2
: a celestial body held to influence the fate of human beings
3
: a person or thing of great importance : LUMINARY

If Narnia had a horizon similar to reality, and sunrises and sunsets.  Then it wasn’t flat.


Or it was just a fantasy world where a street lamp in the middle of the forest could exist between two worlds/dimensions.  And Evil magic is a thing.

The modern FE models don't work to explain sunsets, but the ancient ones can allow it to work.
The sun sets, by going below the world.

The sun sets, by going below the world.

Funny they acknowledged the sun had to be physically blocked from view in some way? 

I love this Dataoverflow guy. He's arguing against what is clearly stated in the book. At least Jack is trying to come up with some ridiculous "Narnia isn't meant to represent heaven" interpretation.

I love this Dataoverflow guy. He's arguing against what is clearly stated in the book. At least Jack is trying to come up with some ridiculous "Narnia isn't meant to represent heaven" interpretation.

What exactly is your argument.

Mine is for the sun to physically set, the sun to rise, or the horizon to act like as is in the known reality of earth, a planet must be spherical.

For the sun to rise or set on a flat planet.  Or the horizon to work as we know it on a flat planet, it only “works” in a magical fantasy. 

At least Jack is trying to come up with some ridiculous "Narnia isn't meant to represent heaven" interpretation.

No, nothing ridiculous about it.
It fails as a representation of perfection and heaven.

And even if it was meant to be a representation of that, that doesn't mean reality has Earth being flat.
The best you could achieve is showing that thinking Earth is flat is based upon religious beliefs and not based upon reality.

It is of note because of the symbology of Narnia. Narnia is meant to be an perfect version of the world and / or heaven, with Aslan playing a christlike figure. It is simple to see then that the "real world", in this interpretation, might be seen as corrupted or fallen, reflecting the Christian concept of the Fall and the imperfect nature of the world due to human sin. Thus, the view of the round earth is tied very strongly to evil and deceit where as Narnia - the flat world - is tied instead to truth and virtue. And as we know - in truth, victory.

Spoiler warning.

Narnia was a baby world/universe, as the characters in the first book literally see Aslan doing his whole creation routine.  Earth is much older, as are countless other worlds in the Narnia non-cinematic multiverse.

It’s well known that CS Lewis threw in a lot of parallels with Christianity, but I don’t think it’s really straight match and I don’t think it’s supposed to be Heaven.  More like the garden of Eden, and then Earth.

Narnia has its own fall, right after it’s creation. The children bring evil into Narnia from another older world in the form of the witch queen Jadis, who becomes the series big bad.  It’s certainly not a perfect world, hence all the wars and stuff.
 
But it is supposed to be a flat world apparently.

Sorry.  Sunsets and sunrises by a horizon only work physically on a spherical planet.

What you've just described is a dogma. A system of orthodoxy ("right-belief") that may or may not be true, but is characteristic of a certain religious group or cult. For example, the Catholics believe in the transubstantiation, that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ. For all other Christians, this is patent nonsense.

Likewise, for globalists, they cannot conceptualize that sun simply travels across the sky. They have some elaborate spinning viewpoint which anyone looking at the moon from say a carousel knows is garbage. If one is spinning regardless how slow or fast, you eventually hit a point of turning away from and object. With a carousel, the ride itself is in the way and cannot see the moon from the backside of the carousel. But this is not what happens! The sun appears to set traveling in an arc. The set appears to travel across the Earth. Maybe you could get away with round Earth if you did away with heliocentric model and the idea of a much larger sun.

But let's see. You tell me that (1) light never fades out or degrades at any distance (2) that all EM wavelengths move at the speed of light, (3) that the sun is much bigger than Earth, (4) that Earth orbits the sun not the other way around, (5) that the rise and set of the sun are due to rotation.

Yeeeeeaaaah, you uhh kinda contradicted yourself here. If light extends infinitely, we should be able to see all stars, not just the closest ones.  We also should see the sun as intense, as bright, and as hot as it is on Mercury's near side (not that I believe Mercury is real, mind you). It also should appear to dominate the sky, and appear to be still with our viewpoint turning away from it. Instead, it looks like a small object sinking into the sky, which is not consistent at all with heliocentric model. Whether the Earth is round or not, it is not compatible with heliocentrism.

And it cannot be round because of the way water and light behaves. In a basin, water sits upright. You can aerate the basin and cause water to move constantly (oh look! we have wind! we have weather!) but you cannot hold water in a convex object. I can show you this water easily with say a shampoo bottle rather than a wooden egg. But you knowthis already and are in willful denial of it, using "gravity" as an excuse.

Possibly because Starfleet is a globalist socialist organization (no money? the Ferengi are right!)

You would hate a society that provides housing, food, medical care and the freedom to peruse your dreams to everyone.

How would you possibly feel superior to all those lazy people if they were allowed to be happy too?

But let's see. You tell me that (1) light never fades out or degrades at any distance (2) that all EM wavelengths move at the speed of light, (3) that the sun is much bigger than Earth, (4) that Earth orbits the sun not the other way around, (5) that the rise and set of the sun are due to rotation.

Your same old lies?

Really?  To change the subject?

That has nothing to do with “Sorry.  Sunsets and sunrises by a horizon only work physically on a spherical planet.”

Timelapse video of sun from some commercial. 

The sun isn’t going away from the viewer.  The sun is a set distance from a rotating earth. 

Vs object coming at camera straight overhead at a constant height.



Notice how the light appears to travel faster and faster as it approaches the camera.

Then the example of a light traveling a greater distance to the camera at a fixed height.

Flash light coming at camera from 100 to 200 yards.

Had to crop the video to make its file size smaller to get it to upload as a gif.

The video is Timelapse with me walking at a good clip from over 100 yards out.




Still don’t get how a light above the flat plane would have that flat plane “magically jump up” in front of the sun to physically block its light and radiation from view/detection on the dimensions of earth?

Even though the light starts to far out to provide light for reading as in some context, the light from the flashlight as a source is clearly visible. 

Quote

Sorry.  Sunsets and sunrises by a horizon only work physically on a spherical planet.

What you've just described is a dogma.

No, it isn't, but it does ignore the ancient FE models.

This is simply a fact that for the sun to set it needs to go below Earth.
With a RE, this allows the sun to be above some other point.
But for a FE, it needs to set for everyone.

The only other option is to have magical bendy light.
You are yet to provide any explanation of how the sun could set on a FE.

Your parabola nonsense has been refuted repeatedly. It doesn't work. Not in the slightest.
Likewise, the sun travelling across the sky can't make it set.
When the sun sets we observe it appear to sink into Earth, with Earth blocking the view.

They have some elaborate spinning viewpoint which anyone looking at the moon from say a carousel knows is garbage. If one is spinning regardless how slow or fast, you eventually hit a point of turning away from and object. With a carousel, the ride itself is in the way and cannot see the moon from the backside of the carousel.

Just like what happens in reality.
If you keep your view fixed relative to Earth, you eventually turn away from the object.
For example, if you look to the east during a sunrise, and stay there the entire day, eventually you reach a point where you are looking away from the sun.
And during night it doesn't matter which way you look, Earth is blocking the view.
i.e the ride (Earth) itself is in the way and you cannot see the moon (sun) from the backside of the carousel (dark side of Earth).

That is what happens in reality. So thanks for showing that the rotating RE model works.

But let's see. You tell me that (1) light never fades out or degrades at any distance (2) that all EM wavelengths move at the speed of light, (3) that the sun is much bigger than Earth, (4) that Earth orbits the sun not the other way around, (5) that the rise and set of the sun are due to rotation.

No, we say light doesn't magically just die or break down. That it merely spreads out. This means it will travel forever unless it is absorbed, or scattered or reflected.
The light doesn't just reach a distance where it magically stops.

It also should appear to dominate the sky, and appear to be still with our viewpoint turning away from it.

Why?
Yet again you assert pure BS with no justification at all.
What you are claiming is that when looking away from an object, you should still magically see it. That makes no sense at all.

Instead, it looks like a small object sinking into the sky

Sinking into Earth, which is 100% consistent with the RE HC model.

And it cannot be round because of the way water and light behaves.

As above, the way light behaves shows it IS round.
The fact that water can obstruct the view to an object which is above the water when the observer is above the water means level water is curved.

In a basin

Water moves to Earth adopting a shape consistent with a RE.

but you cannot hold water in a convex object.

You mean you cannot stop the water trying to go to Earth?
Again, Earth is not a tiny ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.
You know this already and are blatantly lying to everyone to try to prop up your fantasy.

There is nothing about the behaviour of water or light which makes any problems for the RE model.
Meanwhile there are plenty for the FE model.

This topic is to discuss the fact that Narnia exists on a flat planet.

Narnia is fiction.
Don’t you think you may be spending too much time hiding from reality at the back of your wardrobe?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 14, 2023, 09:58:37 AM

Possibly because Starfleet is a globalist socialist organization (no money? the Ferengi are right!)

You would hate a society that provides housing, food, medical care and the freedom to peruse your dreams to everyone.

How would you possibly feel superior to all those lazy people if they were allowed to be happy too?

I think you missed the point.

 Despite their so-called peaceful intentions to explore new worlds, they spend most of their time imposing order on other people. Have your own replicators but use a system of monetary value to buy services? They would call you backwards and try to reform you. But it's not the government's role to supply these things. A local community (town) works together so that people have what they need.
This can be pretty makeshift, like me working to help a food bank and getting some extra. Or having a relationship with a hunter and getting game meat. But it can also look like a Hallmark movie.
The government should not be in charge of people having everything they need.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/24/what-star-trek-teaches-us-about-humanity-and-capitalism/
In this episode, someone is being driven off their land in the name of progress. Yes, despite supposedly everyone having what they need, eminent domain is still a conflict, because Starfleet strictly forbids Genesis devices, even when worlds are completely dead!

Starfleet explores new worlds... and imposes their values on these worlds.

Also, services cannot be produced by replicator. You want a prostitute or lawn care worker? Why aren't you paying them? Well, they get great reputation! Yeah uhhhh, ask an actor how much they like "exposure" means to them. They will spit in your face. Reputation keeps you dependent on Starfleet, whereas money allows one to live in Ferengi outskirt, away from all of that. You can buy your own replicators!

Despite their so-called peaceful intentions to explore new worlds, they spend most of their time imposing order on other people.

No, they don't.
They expressly have a policy of non-interference.
They happily allow the Ferengi to be greedy capitalists driven only by profit.

The government should not be in charge of people having everything they need.

A decent government should ensure that everyone gets the basics they need to live.

In this episode, someone is being driven off their land in the name of progress.

That wasn't done by Starfleet.
That was an entirely separate race.
It also portrays a common trend, contrasting the needs of the many with the wants of the few.
Who should win and why?

Also, services cannot be produced by replicator. You want a prostitute or lawn care worker? Why aren't you paying them? Well, they get great reputation! Yeah uhhhh, ask an actor how much they like "exposure" means to them. They will spit in your face.

That is because in the current capitalistic world, most people, including those actors that would spit in your face, do it because they want money, and that is what they care about.
And plenty of people will do jobs because of money and that is all.

Other people do things because they actually want to.
In a post scarcity world, people would not be doing things because they wanted the money. They would be doing things because they want to.
e.g. People would tend to lawns, because they want to, and would be happy to do more.

Flat planets are all kinds of messed up.

Quote

Sorry.  Sunsets and sunrises by a horizon only work physically on a spherical planet.

What you've just described is a dogma. A system of orthodoxy ("right-belief") that may or may not be true, but is characteristic of a certain religious group or cult. For example, the Catholics believe in the transubstantiation, that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ. For all other Christians, this is patent nonsense.

And it cannot be round because of the way water and light behaves. In a basin, water sits upright. You can aerate the basin and cause water to move constantly (oh look! we have wind! we have weather!) but you cannot hold water in a convex object. I can show you this water easily with say a shampoo bottle rather than a wooden egg. But you knowthis already and are in willful denial of it, using "gravity" as an excuse.

If I'm being honest I just wanted to mess with you guys, and pretend to be a FEer, but this is ludicrous.
1. It is not a religious belief if it can be concretely proven, and you did not even come up with an argument against his reasoning you just took his claim, and called it a religious belief

2. Again you are just saying that gravity is an excuse, and not actually saying anything to deny the existence of gravity

3. Is the earth a wooden egg? If so I guess I learned something new today

While your analogy is understandable, gravity on a flat earth makes even less sense, as it does not explain why everything isn't being drawn to one point at the center. How is it that gravity across the entire flat earth is even?

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on December 13, 2023, 01:26:12 AM

Quote from: Username on December 12, 2023, 10:44:58 AM

This topic is to discuss the fact that Narnia exists on a flat planet.

Ok?  And Dune or Arrakis is a spherical planet. 

And I don’t remember a flat planet in Star Trek.  But there was a a Cornucopia looking thing that ate planets. 

It is of note because of the symbology of Narnia. Narnia is meant to be an perfect version of the world and / or heaven, with Aslan playing a christlike figure. It is simple to see then that the "real world", in this interpretation, might be seen as corrupted or fallen, reflecting the Christian concept of the Fall and the imperfect nature of the world due to human sin. Thus, the view of the round earth is tied very strongly to evil and deceit where as Narnia - the flat world - is tied instead to truth and virtue. And as we know - in truth, victory.

The same can be said for the 'Wizard of Oz' the man behind the curtain.