Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - MouseWalker

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 31
1
Flat Earth General / Re: The Final Experiment - Antarctic 24 hour sun
« on: December 30, 2024, 12:06:51 PM »
A free country?

Don't make me laugh.

Is it free? At about age 19 or so, the military wanted me to serve in their war. Was it because I was one of the brightest and best of the country? No, it was because we have a government that wants us to die off. To not have children and be killed in pathetic wars for territory that doesn't matter. Or to be aborted before you have a chance to breathe. Or to be told before you question it, that you're gay and there's nothing you can do about it, as surely as the Earth is round and the planetorbits the sun.

Indeed in this not free country, I very much do have to be reminded, constantly that we live in aglobe, or I might develop dangerous ideas like opposing globalism. You are free to be a flat Earther, only if you don't tell anyone. As a crossdresser in the closet for years like me can tell you, that is no freedom at all. That is being burdened by knowledge of a secret, and in fear that other people will hurt you because you do not belong in a world where the majority opinion makes you completely alone. Freedom is having people to talk to.

And before even being able to talk, round Earth indoctrination starts. You likely see some sort of astronomy model staring from your cradle. Everyone from parents to teachers hands you National Geographic pictures from NASA or tells you about how the sun is the center of the solar system. When you are in school they continue, and they never stop.

You have "freedom" only to shut up and not talk about you concerns. No thanks. I'm gonna continue speaking until I have real friends who can share my worries, or until I have died.
your trip to China and south Africa, what did you learn while were there about the shape of the earth ; view of the southern cross, where else did you manage to get to?

2
Flat Earth General / Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« on: December 24, 2024, 08:48:32 PM »
Actually, I use this website

https://www.etymonline.com/word/government
https://www.etymonline.com/word/science

Making up things? Look for yourself.

But then we get to this:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/religion
Quote
This noun of action was derived by Cicero from relegere "go through again" (in reading or in thought), from re- "again" (see re-) + legere "read" (see lecture (n.)). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via the notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods."
Modern revisionism.

They first claim it's legere rather than ligare ("read" vs "connect"), and then they try to shift re to rely ("again" to "tightly").

Fuck that.
https://medium.com/catholic-way-home/the-real-meaning-of-religion-a-binding-relationship-reconnecting-e46b73aa6f3e

Religion is re-connection, not obligation. "Religion" that controls people is actually government in disguise. When priests told people they had to wear masks, I refused. They were government puppets, not holy people.

Quote
No, Science is built upon the existing knowledge we have to improve it.
God, you're gullible. No wonder you buy into nonsense about religion controlling people, when for years, the only religions doing that were Islam and maybe Hinduism or something. Meanwhile, every year, the government tries  to make you pay taxes on earnings. You don't have to go to church. But see what not paying taxes gets most people.

Science built on someone else's knowledge or observations violates the basic principle of the scientific method, that is to test theories. You cannot prove anything by taking another person's word for it. It could be a hoax or sham. "Unless I see the marks on his hand and his side" is the byword of scientific study. You need a foundation built on your own observations. Not what others told you. Not even  observed experiments that have carefully been set up. From start to finish, you have to be sure there are no tricks, by looking at the procedure step by step.
what were your observation of the Southern cross from South Africa ; and sun rise from your left as you faced the equator.

3
Flat Earth General / Re: The Final Experiment - Antarctic 24 hour sun
« on: December 14, 2024, 12:16:16 PM »
I've been to the antarctic circle and personally verified the times of light did not match up with the published expectations. I posted here at the time about it as well.

what was your observation over the time you were there, how long were you there?

4
Flat Earth General / Re: Your Observation from the equator
« on: December 02, 2024, 12:28:42 PM »
Why are you soliciting this information, mr. Mouse?

Just asking what you would see from the equator over a 24 hour time period of time.

5
Flat Earth General / Re: Your Observation from the equator
« on: December 01, 2024, 08:52:06 PM »
this is my vision:
What I is see; first looking east, I see the sun at the horizon , the stars begin lost in the glare of day light sky; at noon I can Stan in my own shadow , my shadow stretch out east at one. At sunset looking east I see the dark ness of night coming with the stairs coming out, as the sun disappears to the west, with the clouds turning red look north stars rising in the east, my right  turning  counter clock wise , looking south the stars are rising to my left, east going clock wise . At midnight the pole star is near the horizon to the north ; look south the   
  Southern cross is low to the south. Star light start showing its self to the east as we get to sun rise.

6
Flat Earth General / Your Observation from the equator
« on: November 29, 2024, 04:40:17 PM »
What is your 24 hour Observation starting with sun rise; state witch way you are looking, east, north south west what you are seeing at the time noon sunset midnight
on the equinox 
And Sow on. state that you are flat or globe, viewer

7
Flat Earth General / Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?
« on: November 26, 2024, 11:30:52 AM »
The only reason for this hypothesis is that FEers are more frequently heard attacking the "heliocentric model" rather than the "round earth model" or synonyms. Heliocentrism of course has nothing as such to do with the shape of the earth. However, the opposing geocentric model of the universe, which was disproved some 300-500 years ago, is a lot less difficult heresy to defend than FE. FEers have been ridiculed and showed up so much lately that it might be testing the endurance of some FEers and they may be considering migrating to geocentrism, which doesn't have evidence against it that is obvious to the everyday person like FE has.

Flat Earth believers have long faced ridicule and criticism from the mainstream scientific community. As a result, many have shifted their focus from public debates to more theoretical and philosophical discussions. This doesn't mean they are abandoning their beliefs, but rather reflects the difficulty of proving such a controversial view when the mainstream narrative overwhelmingly supports a round Earth. The challenges faced by flat earthers are not only intellectual. Many encounter social rejection, character assassination, and even threats to their safety. This is why the community has become more cautious and less visible in the media, despite continuing to advocate for their views.

The truth about the shape of the Earth remains unclear in many ways. While there are several pieces of evidence that suggest the Earth may be flat, these are often dismissed or overlooked by mainstream science. Despite centuries of observations and research that support the spherical Earth model, there is still no definitive proof that can conclusively settle the debate. Without the ability to leave Earth's atmosphere and gather irrefutable evidence, it is difficult for anyone to claim certainty. Those who continue to defend the flat Earth model face skepticism and mockery, and in a society that tends to silence dissenting views, it is incredibly challenging to gain a platform. Appearing in the media is like wearing a coat of fire, and no one wants to wear it. The issue isn't just about the Earth's shape; it’s about the broader consequences of questioning widely accepted knowledge in a world that values conformity.
GPS prof of GLOBE , no more need be sed

8
Flat Earth General / Re: Proposed Eratosthenes experiment
« on: November 07, 2024, 02:28:11 PM »
As I mentioned before, there is more historical evidence for Jesus's existence than that of Eratosthenes.
Hell, there is more evidence for my existence.

Every one of his writings burned in the library of Alexandria.
The library of Alexandria, was not the only library, just the largest of it time.
Quote
How then can we know he wrote what he wrote, or anything really?

Instead we have shaky accounts from other sources.
Quote
Earlier estimates of the circumference of Earth had been made (for example, Aristotle says that “some mathematicians” had obtained a value of 400,000 stadia), but no details of their methods have survived.
Quote
An account of Eratosthenes’ method is preserved in the Greek astronomer Cleomedes’ Meteora. The exact length of the units (stadia) he used is doubtful, and the accuracy of his result is therefore uncertain.

And we don't really know Eratosthenes's methods or measurements either, because they were burned.

Quote
Eratosthenes’ only surviving work is Catasterisms, a book about the constellations, which gives a description and story for each constellation, as well as a count of the number of stars contained in it, but the attribution of this work has been doubted by some scholars.

Off to a great start!


9
Flat Earth General / Re: Is Space Real?
« on: November 01, 2024, 06:09:07 PM »

        I'm new here but I have a question that has been lingering in the back of my mind for months? Is space real? Could all of the mainstream information about planets, stars, and galaxies fake? I can't seem to find any information about this on google or youtube anymore when I search. I had a personal experience a few years back that led me to question things about round earth, and the nature of space. What are your opinions on this and are there any recourses about this? Thank You,
Rosemarie
Could all of the mainstream information about planets, stars, and galaxies; be fake? NO!

What were the personal experience that mad you question the, globe?

10
Flat Earth General / spacesx
« on: October 23, 2024, 02:06:15 PM »
happening now thy are coming home now!

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does gravity works in FE?
« on: September 27, 2024, 06:12:13 PM »
Quote
Prove it started motionless.
Prove it didn't start out in motion

You believe that there are objects always found in motion? Name one, other than those above Earth, in the heavens, which are always in motion, unlike those on Earth itself, which you are referring to here.

Let’s ignore why objects were motionless, first, and start after they’re PUT into motion!!

Unless you can show me at least one object always found to be in motion, existing in perpetual motion, which I’ve not known to exist?

What would Newton be referring to here? Objects that exist in perpetual, eternal motion? Why would you believe that? If you do, that is.

When he said ‘objects in motion’, he ignored the fact that objects don’t exist in a state of eternal motion.

A force puts objects into motion, without a force they are NOT put into motion.

That’s the only reason objects ever ARE in motion, they aren’t in motion otherwise!!
How a bout the Moon.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why care if the earth is flat?
« on: September 13, 2024, 11:32:58 AM »
Knowledge of my spelign is as old as earth=O
At times my spelling, gets in my way to, what I want to say too. you are not the only one.
did I use the wright to, too, two; in the wright place? where is my grammar checker?

You could simply not post if you are not sure.
yes but three times that drive me nuts and I have to say something, and have a hard time putting it in to words

Yes, the result is you end up sounding stupid.  I don't mean that as an insult.  It's a fact that not being fluent in a language makes a person sound stupid. 

If you are going nuts, this is not really the place to get help.
that is why I remain quite

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why care if the earth is flat?
« on: September 12, 2024, 07:25:12 PM »
Knowledge of my spelign is as old as earth=O
At times my spelling, gets in my way to, what I want to say too. you are not the only one.
did I use the wright to, too, two; in the wright place? where is my grammar checker?

You could simply not post if you are not sure.
yes but three times that drive me nuts and I have to say something, and have a hard time putting it in to words

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why care if the earth is flat?
« on: September 12, 2024, 11:27:21 AM »
Knowledge of my spelign is as old as earth=O
At times my spelling, gets in my way to, what I want to say too. you are not the only one.
did I use the wright to, too, two; in the wright place? where is my grammar checker?

15
Elon Musk spaceX. Make history to day go watch the news
Spaces launches Polaris dawn private spacewalk mission

Polaris dawn
t https://polarisprogram.com/dawn/ a=

16
Quote
In this reddit page, did you see the bottom of the ship being blocked by the curvature?

No, I see it blocked by a horizon on a surface that appears to have risen, which is an illusion that is blocking the ship past that illusory risen surface.

The surface appears much higher than it actually is, so anything a bit lower than that illusion is blocked out by that illusion. Anything higher than that illusion are seen, if near enough past the illusion.

It’s proven to be an illusion, proven to appear higher than it is, proven to block out objects past the illusion if not higher than it, when close to it.

All horizons are actually seen ACROSS the surface, not out to them, that is the surface seen BEFORE a horizon.

You constantly try to refer to the surface before horizons, and ignore that they are the imaginary lines ACROSS the surface, and ignore that they are seen from two perpendicular points or more, which instantly shows them without perspective in play.

You try to act like there’s no way to prove if the surface curves down and makes a ship vanish over a curve three or four miles away, because you already know it can easily be done, and proves there IS no curve over the surface. That would be a big enough curve over the surface to make a ship vanish over that curve. 

All we need to do, is look for your curve, which makes ships go downward and vanish from sight!


Then we match the ships path seen from the first point outward to the horizon, in parallel to its path, and is fully visible along its path, up to and past the horizon seen from the first viewpoint.

This is the view you always ignore, which is being dishonest, or deceitful, as you all try and try to talk only about our OUTWARD view TO horizons, totally avoiding how we see them from OTHER viewpoints, which show the REAL surface over the Earth, without any illusions involved.

Ships CAN be seen going across the surface, not just outward from us to the horizon.


Your tricks and misdirection and skewed arguments don’t wash, but that’s all you can do, use bs tactics, over and over again.

Anyway, please show me a drawing of the same surface out to the horizon, and across it, with a ship going out to the horizon some 3 miles away.

So we need to view the same ship outward on its path to the horizon, along the same line, parallel to it.

We need to have several viewpoints parallel to the ships path, out past the horizon seen from the first viewpoint. Our ‘illusory’ viewpoint, the only one you use as if no other views exist.

Obviously you keep ignoring these viewpoints of the SAME THINGS, they prove there is no curve at all, prove the ship can’t be seen past a horizon because of perspective, when we see that same ship past the horizon seen at the first viewpoint, and the entire surface is flat, SEEN as flat, NOT rising upward, that view is not accurate, not realistic, does NOT reflect the true surface, it is an ILLUSORY viewpoint, which does not mean it has no value, but it is certainly not the only viewpoint, which DO reflect the reality, and have no illusions effecting them.
now place your self on the ship looking back at the shore, you can still see the mountain top not the shore line. or the top of the light house.

17
Flat Earth General / Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« on: August 24, 2024, 08:37:35 PM »
In acting like I'm some huge polluters for not worrying about the climate change "crisis", you are indirectly criticizing the way I live. In doing that, you are in turn criticizing my home and my family, indirectly, of course.

Quote
That's funny coming from a flat earther railing against the tyrany of the round earthers.

Oh I know it's the minority to have this sort of opinion, though before NASA programmed everyone, that might not have been so.

But the point is climate policy is an offshoot of globalism, and all these defective alt-energy systems are a result of an attempt to "save the world" that is already saved.

Do I know what it's like to be in the minority? Yes. I sympathize. But seriously, he can move to any city outskirts, and get them to do that. Instead he bothered my town. That I don't appreciate.

Recommend watching BBCAHD Planet Earth: FROZEN Planet

18
Flat Earth General / Re: Perspective of the Sun Makes No Sense
« on: August 22, 2024, 12:00:18 PM »
Bulma. the Sun is eight Minute away at light speed, scale is hard to show and at times is just wrong

19
Flat Earth General / Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« on: August 22, 2024, 11:33:53 AM »
Oh noes! Ummm I'll be like what, 80 by then? If not poor diet and exercise hasn't killed me.
So you don’t care what happens to the planet after you’re gone?  Screw you future generations, you’re on your own. And here I thought that millennials were supposed to be more environmentally and socially aware.  ::)

The world (not the planet) should have been destroyed by environmentally unconscious Romans or Chinese in ancient times, as they used actual torches all over the place. It was 16 degrees hotter than it was now. Earth goes through warming and cooling phases, and we are in a Little Ice Age. Yes, it's about to get warmer. And then much cooler, and then warmer again. And then warmer still. And then much cooler. There is no reason to set your culture back to the Stone Age for the sick preachy altruism of woke society.

You know why I mentioned being 80? It was because this might happen by that time. Might. Or it might not. We have hot summers, but Chicken Little, unless you can show me that the sky is actually falling and not just a chunk of roofing, I'm gonna tell you and your theory to get lost. Now. As for me, I have one AC unit, on Economy mode, currently not blowing (just cut on), and I'll thank you not to tell me that I can't be cool in the summer and warm in the winter when the consequences of not using power are freezing to death or getting a heatstroke, and the consequences to "the planet" or "the environment" are maybe a few degrees over the course of forty years (maybe), and if we sacrifice everything, living in caves, "the planet" would over 100 years go down maybe 1.5 degrees... if not for the fact that Mexico and China don't fucking care about "the environment" and instead care about the economics of their country and the prosperity and comfort of their people, like any sensible culture should. What this is, at its heart is white guilt and altruism.

I'm sure we can find you some cannibals still left in this world who would be more than happy for you to help feed. But as for me, I don't believe in zero sum game. We have a subsistence farm. About 30% of our food comes from crops we or our neighbors grow. We are perfectly capable of feeding ourselves, that you have trouble imagining this has nothing to do with me.

Two bits of news:
1. A recent study found that most owners of hybrids don't actually use the electric function. In other words they bought the hybrid in the off chance that Deep State tries to force them to switch to electric, and can't see any advantage, because they don't have a decent home charger set up (living either in the country away from that, or in the city with towable street parking, not in the suburban woke bubble where everyone has both the energy and the private driveways), and because it takes fucking hours to charge.
2. Our small town won against Big Green Energy, booing down some asshole who wanted to set up a solar farm on the outskirts of town. The guy reportedly said as he lost the vote "You guys are all tyrants," referencing the tyranny of the majority idea, and the fact that he had lost a potential business opportunity . Yes, well, tyranny of the majority is still preferred to tyranny of the minority, that is one asshole business making life miserable for everyone in the area. 

Environmentalism is something we do try to do. We make sure our farm isn't using alot of chemicals, we recycle what we can. By the way, people from other towns (like yours) drive by our house and toss their plastic trash in our yard. Plastic cannot be easily recycled by the way, unlike paper or metal or glass.

 But the environmentalism you talk about is more akin to getting on an altar (getting strong Solo Leveling vibes) and letting yourself be stabbed. Nope, environmentalism ends with comfort. As for our small farmhouse, yeah, we have bees, wasps, fruit trees, flowers, hummingbirds, crops. What do you have?
Maybe you should do environmentalism, and leave the rest of us the fuck alone. Now, had you read that timeline, you'd notice that every time they predict some great heat or cold, like five or ten years pass and it's the opposite.

What was our topic, before all this? Oh right the ISS. Who btw, if they exist in space even, basically should be liable for a a whole hell of a lot more environmental destruction than our farm is. Let's see: they toss clothes and literal shit out where it burns up in the atmosphere (burning fecal waste seems nice), they burn enormous amounts of rocket fuel every time they want to get to or from ISS, and there's the eventual metal scrap that's supposed to just orbit Earth as NASA never talks about cleaning up any of this (probably because it isn't real).

So either ISS is fake, or you should really go after them for contribution to climate change, and not me, who probably does less damage than the average citizen, since less of our food comes from a supermarket.
how many acres is your farm
you have bees, wasps, fruit trees, flowers, hummingbirds, crops
why have wasps ,wasps eat honey bees; what crops? corn, potato, tomato, black bares, what else what fruit trees

20
Flat Earth General / Re: A globers forum, not a FE site
« on: August 21, 2024, 08:24:41 PM »
NASA doesn't do science, but science fiction.

Same is valid for Heliocentrism. It's not science, but science fiction, and you are deeply swimming in that fiction by thinking it is real, while all experiences on the earth down here show that it isn't.

And so, atheism is the output of your belief.

You have eyes, but you don't see. You have ears, but you don't hear. You have a brain, but you don't understand.

I truly feel pity for you for being misguided in the way you are.
GPS, Iss ,moon landing.

21
We cannot measure a made up idiotic force, holding no astronauts in space, yet holding onto a moon 200000 miles further out than the floating astronauts.

That’s one of the many things that prove it’s made up bs.

Orbit is also made up bs.

If it did exist, we’d prove it with two objects of different masses. Suspend both in air, near each other. See them stay in the same position forever and ever.

The objects would attract to each other, if a made up force existed.

Forces don’t have equal strength at all distances either. Only a made up force has that unique feature. 

Saying it has less strength higher above Earth doesn’t work either. Rockets have to ‘break free’ from the made up force, at high altitudes. Where it’s ‘weaker’ than on Earth, is stronger too, but only when you need it to be.

Anything you cannot resolve about the fairy tale is answered by that made up force. It explains all things, conflicting everywhere possible, then solved by excuses, leaving it as a shell without content anymore.
What is going on when you step on a bath room scale?

22
Flat Earth General / Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« on: August 14, 2024, 06:30:34 PM »
The Romans got much of their society from the Greeks before them, including knowing that the earth is round.  Then again, they ate off of lead plates, so what do they know.

There's that word again, "knowing".  The Chinese and Egyptians knew the Earth was flat. Didn't stop them from being technological rivals of the Romans, in terms of prolific inventions. Also, if you think technology is developed in a vacuum, then you have a lot to learn. Some things the Romans did were indeed simplifications of Greek technology, but some were refinements.

By the way, round is conflated as "being like a sphere" by moderns. But round as understood by much of that world was round like a plate or like the back of a turtle (with elephants underneath, of course). The ancients weren't dumb enough to think that certain people were on the underside. Habitable life requires that people walk upright and receive full sunlight, and have a steady but not overwhelming source of water. These things are impossible in the downside of a globe.

https://www.grunge.com/186688/how-the-ancient-greeks-figured-out-the-world-was-round/
Quote
According to the BBC, "We have known that Earth is round for over 2,000 years." However, that claim comes with a flat asterisk. IFLScience writes that prior to the rise of states, flat Earth theory flourished in different forms. Ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Mesopotamians pictured Earth as a disc surrounded by water while the ancient Chinese believed in a flat, square Earth with spherical heavens. Meanwhile Norse culture envisioned a flat, circular Earth encircled by serpents.

As a disc surrounded by water. Yes, that sure sounds like the sphere model you've got in your head. Whether the Earth is round or square, if it is flat, does not matter. But when you start talking about a culture believing Earth is "round" when they in fact believed it a disc, you're clearly grasping at any straws you can get.

While they may have eaten on lead plates, your European ancestors used makeup that involved lead paint. And it shows.
was round like a plate or like the back of a turtle (with elephants underneath, of course)
what did  the elephants stand on? let alone what did thy eat?

23
Flat Earth General / Re: Perspective of the Sun Makes No Sense
« on: August 13, 2024, 03:42:08 PM »
Hahahah

The reason peoole use East is because east.

And similarly people using left and right need a clarifier "MY left"

Im asking because you made the claim
Im not asserting that left and west are the same thing.

So... in ref to your stonehenge post - show us how why you claim the position of the ball earth in the calendar year produces a sunrise from the west.

Oh that. So just as you can be facing north or south and the sun can be to your right or left, the Earth (as depicted by RE, rotating and orbiting the sun) can be in front and behind the sun relative to its daily spin. It can also be to the east or west of it. If round Earth were real, we would be seeing these shifts. Instead all year, we only see the sun get closer (higher) in the northern hemisphere, or farther (lower) in the northern hemisphere.

What I mean by rising to the west is that the simple fact that "the sun rises in the east and sets in the west" is really only true on a RE model during the equinox. From spring-to-summer or summer-to-autumn, the sun is east of the Earth. From autumn-to-winter or winter-to-spring, the sun is west of Earth. This means the sun will rise and set from the same direction.
what I am saying is by observation, a person is north of the equator, the earth turns counterclockwise when he is facing the equator ; a person south facing  the equator, the earth turns clockwise, 
explain why crossing the equator makes this difference, from flat earth protective.
ps rounds stay out thank you.

24
Flat Earth General / Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« on: August 12, 2024, 05:28:22 PM »
Like teachers everywhere, you confuse "education" for the indoctrination you yourself have been given.

Education is for the purpose of cultivating young minds to do their own thinking. An educator who teaches a child to draw, paint, make music, or about literature frees those minds up to one day do their own thinking and make things of their own.

Indoctrination, on the other hand, puts minds into a prison. "You will paint/draw/write/sing only about things that the mass market wants." Like Taylor Swift and her hundreds of songs about some boy leaving her. More importantly, though, is the commandment to think that way.

You, who write only what the likes of George Soros want, have no right to "educate" me about what is right or wrong about the model of this world. You are shills of the highest degree, dependent on the state from cradle and probably will remain so to the grave.

No, you will not "educate" me, and I bemoan the fact that I will likely never be able to free your mind to truly think for itself. Do I expect you to agree with how I think? No, but it would be highly refreshing if you would think at all, rather than just parroting off your so-called education.
a question while you were in South Africa and you were facing the equator the sun rouse to your right , and now from your farm it rises from your left, how sow?

25
Flat Earth General / go gravity go
« on: August 10, 2024, 11:24:55 AM »
Skateboarding , skiing downhill, go-carts, list go on ; add yours to the list.
How do thy work with out gravity?

26
Flat Earth General / Re: Perspective of the Sun Makes No Sense
« on: July 31, 2024, 12:23:32 PM »
Quote from: bulmabriefs144 link=topic=92610[center
[/center].msg2428247#msg2428247 date=1722258041]
You think the Earth revolves around the sun, and we are just seeing it backwards.
Actually, the earth rotating on its axis is the more relevant notion when talking about the sun’s path.


I think we are seeing the sun through a filter of the angles our eyes can see, and possibly a literal dome surrounding ourselves.
And which do you think makes more sense with fewer unprovable assumptions?

You're assuming they're assumptions. I saw what I saw, then I drew it out.

But to answer your question, flat Earth. There are fewer unprovable assumptions in a flat Earth model. In fact, the only way they prove any of these assumptions is by invoking NASA footage, which as I've already mentioned is an image not a picture. The difference is that the former is made as an art project, where the latter is taken and shown without any alterations.
when you were in South Africa did you see the southern cross what did you think of it?

I never saw it. I got sick that night. All the other nights, we were in a hut by nightfall due to lions and tigers and bears, that night we were staying with Masai or some other aboriginals, I ate very bloody meat, got food poisoning, and didn't get to see the rest of their dance.

But you know what my opinion of the South Cross is?
(1) It probably doesn't point south but north.
(2) It's probably "Polaris" viewed from further back. Like those pictures, where something appears to be just a blob of color, or just a bunch of side by side images from close up, but from further back...
https://www.picturemosaics.com/photomosaics/gallery/jesus-sepia/share.jpg
(3) It may not even exist, or not exist as we think it does (it might not even be a fixed point for instance),
(4) Basically having never seen it, I am qualified to make nothing beyond a guess about this, but my answer is probably #2. That you're actually looking at the "Southern Cross" when you look at "Polaris". That four stars appear as one bright one from too close.

Quote
Is that beads of sweat on your forehead, Bulma? Are you dripping sweat on your keyboard? Why don't you ask that dead horse in your paddock, while you're flogging it, for the answer?

Dead horses can't talk. Also, you've shown the difference between real visualization and imagination. Those aren't beads of sweat. You're seeing what you'd like to think is the case.

Quote
You said something in that video? Yes, please repost it, Bulma!

It was literally two posts ago. Maybe if you paid attention?



Airplane takes off while a sunset is happening. The sun during take off is below the clouds. The sun after take off is above the clouds, heading into them.

The sun in a heliocentric model would actually be in neither position. It would be aloof in space, not interacting with the atmosphere (sorry, there is no silver lining to your theory).
The sun in a geocentric model is in the atmosphere, but probably not where we think we see it. This is where the perception of light and perspective come in. This is also where the parabola comes in.

I could very well draw another 2D picture, and have you ignore it. But since you've accused me of doing stuff with dead horses, and my parents taught me not to waste food,  I think I'll make a meal of it instead.

If you insist though, I suppose I could draw a picture of what is happening. I'd need to head awat from my Kindle though.
I am sorry to hear that ; Facing the equator, did the sunrise to your right or left?

27
Flat Earth General / Re: Perspective of the Sun Makes No Sense
« on: July 30, 2024, 06:23:02 PM »
You think the Earth revolves around the sun, and we are just seeing it backwards.
Actually, the earth rotating on its axis is the more relevant notion when talking about the sun’s path.


I think we are seeing the sun through a filter of the angles our eyes can see, and possibly a literal dome surrounding ourselves.
And which do you think makes more sense with fewer unprovable assumptions?

You're assuming they're assumptions. I saw what I saw, then I drew it out.

But to answer your question, flat Earth. There are fewer unprovable assumptions in a flat Earth model. In fact, the only way they prove any of these assumptions is by invoking NASA footage, which as I've already mentioned is an image not a picture. The difference is that the former is made as an art project, where the latter is taken and shown without any alterations.
when you were in South Africa did you see the southern cross what did you think of it?

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why care if the earth is flat?
« on: July 21, 2024, 04:20:11 PM »
You see how easy it would be to sell an alien species threatening Earth, that you will believe is true?

Thanks to believing in ‘endless space’, you don’t get any benefits from the story.

The story ends with us as their slaves, but we see them as our great protectors as our Gods, kneel before them, and you’ll be saved, or know it’s bs, and run for your life.
and  there is the one, how to serve man.

Reminds me of the Twilight Zone with the alien "invaders" and the giant old lady.  Turns out the aliens were us.

29
Flat Earth General / Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« on: July 12, 2024, 12:59:18 PM »
Asked and answered.

Quote
Kinetic energy doesn't just magically vanish. Nor does it just magically convert into heat.
More of that hippie-dippy voodoo magic science. You can literally see where it converts to heat, you dispute a picture that you guys sent me. Is the picture accurate or not?

As for me, it seems accurate, because I remember a science teacher also explaining that when making machines, there is always conversion into light or sound, so no invention was considered 100% efficient.

Quote
And again, this pendulum is quite different to a rocket in space.

You and markjo both say so, yet never clarify that position. Friction is not simply a force that stalls out motion. Strictly speaking, it is the rubbing of two things against each other. For example, a jet moving in the air has the object moving against the surface of air. A skate on ice has kinetic friction and static friction, moving against the surface of ice.

Stack Exchange has this to say:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/194291
Quote
Friction that allows us to walk depends on gravity to convert our mass to weight which holds our feet against the surface where static friction enables the soles of our shoes to push off against the surface of the Earth.

Hahaha! "Gravity."


Quote
Even when ice skating, kinetic friction keeps the blades sliding against the ice in a forward direction, and static friction allows the skates to push off to propel the skater forward.

Some friction is caused by molecular attraction, such as when Vibram soles are able to maintain grip on smooth rock. This is the result of electromagnetic forces in the rubber molecules of Vibram attracting rock molecules.

As they mention, friction is not just responsible for stopping, but also responsible for things like sliding on ice. This means, yes, the pendulum converting energy thing is still in effect.

Quote
Even a rocket engine, which otherwise could be used to propel you in a frictionless environment, depends on the difference in force between friction caused by great pressure of propellant exhaust on a small area (exit pressure) and the lesser friction of propellant exhaust flowing through a larger area (free stream pressure). The equation for rocket thrust shows this:

rocket thrust=mass flow rate×exit velocity+(exit pressure−free stream pressure)×exit area.

The coefficient of friction is a measure of how strongly two surfaces will stick together. It's the ratio between the force necessary to induce sliding, and the pressure holding the two surfaces together. It can be used to calculate the amount of friction:

f=μN

where, f is the friction, μ is the coefficient of friction and N

is the normal force (perpendicular to both surfaces, which presses them together).

If surfaces could slide with no force at all, the numerator of their coefficient of friction would be zero, the coefficient itself would be zero, and the frictional force between those two surfaces would be zero. Here is a list of coefficients of friction of various materials. The maximum coefficient of friction is one, and the minimum is zero.

Friction exists everywhere in the universe. To have no friction, there would have to be no gravity, no electromagnetic force, no gluons to hold atomic nuclei together, and no bosons to allow the buildup of heavy nuclei in stars. All would be chaos. Newton's third law would be inoperative. The universe would be a soup of uniform density with no structure. Entropy would tend to be maximal. You would not be able to walk.

It is cohesion and buoyancy responsible for what he calls gravity, but his point stands (from what I understand of it). Outer space may not have air resistance (so unlike the jet, it wouldn't be moving against the air), but it very definitely does generate friction through the motion of atoms (specifically through the exhaust and the body of the craft itself).

The idea that a rocket has no friction is nonsensical at best, and devious at worst. Whenever it moves, friction moves it, and also stops it. But I don't consider stopping it the act of a force. It stops because of loss of energy which is the result (effect) of the force (cause) of friction.

As I say. Asked and answered.
A pendulum will not work without gravity. What changes the direction of the wight, at end of the string?

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« on: July 06, 2024, 09:19:11 PM »
during the eclipse; the question is why do you see the zodiac stars that you would see in 6 month , not the zodiac of the next night. that is 180 degrees change in the sky.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 31