Can you help me find sereval threads please?

Hello friends

I don't know is this fit for here, so mods please move if isn't

I want to read some threads where AFET's history part is debated.

I only have found one thread with Giza pyramid by "Yes"

Also, i belive i saw old thread talking about solar system's movement in direction of vega or something.

Thanks

There is hardly any debate on the new chronology since the proofs are too obvious and cannot be debunked by the RE.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79366.0

https://stolenhistory.net/threads/new-radical-chronology-of-history.3767/

There is hardly any debate on the new chronology since the proofs are too obvious and cannot be debunked by the RE.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79366.0

https://stolenhistory.net/threads/new-radical-chronology-of-history.3767/

But whoudn't then it make sense for you to push your ideas more then? Possibly even make duscussion thread?


Thanks for links.

I was the first to bring to the attention of the FES this most important fact: if the Gregorian calendar reform is true, then the Earth is orbiting the Sun. If the Gregorian calendar reform never took place in 1582 AD, then the Earth is flat.

Most FE do not understand these facts. On a flat earth, the sun is much smaller in diameter: 0.5 - 50 km (500 meters lower bound, 50 km upper bound). There is an upper limit to deal with: the distance between the tropics (on a FE, some 6.100 km).

So, you have 6.100 km and a sun whose diameter measures between 0.5 km and 50 km. It doesn't take a genius to see that the diameter of the Sun must be much smaller than 50 km: the annual westward solar precession measures 1.5 km.

That is why FET needs the new radical chronology of history as its most natural setting.

Any FE who mentions Hipparchus and Ptolemy and Copernicus as real historical figures, already has lost the debate: all the RE have to do is to then remind them that the axial precession of the Earth is true after all (i.e., the Earth has been orbiting the Sun at least since the time of Hipparchus).

But if Solar radius is under sereval kilometers, we whoud see its size change drasticly throught the day. Actualy, only way to realy see it whoud be to live near tropics. Also, solar features (sunspots, solar flares...) whoud change as we move under the sun. But in reality, we see same face of sun form all over the world. On FE model, this is impossiblre. How can persion see same solar features form front, back and sides of the sun?

Edit: you belive Sun, Moon and planets are flat discs, if i am not mistaken?

"But in reality, we see same face of sun form all over the world."

You are always forgetting about the ether.

This is how the northern star trails looks like from Alaska:






While seen from the equator they look like this:




Refraction can't explain this, but the field of ether can.

I was the first to bring to the attention of the FES this most important fact: if the Gregorian calendar reform is true, then the Earth is orbiting the Sun. If the Gregorian calendar reform never took place in 1582 AD, then the Earth is flat.
Most FE do not understand these facts.

Perhaps because they are not facts at all.

While the RE model, with the Earth orbiting the sun, does provide an explanation for the need for the Gregorian calendar reform, it is in no way the only possibility.
It would be entirely possible to have that reform with a FE, where the year was 365.2425 days long. Likewise, if all of history has been faked and this never happened, it doesn't preclude Earth from being round.
There is simply no logical connection between the 2.
That is why most don't accept that "fact", because it isn't a fact at all.

Refraction can't explain this, but the field of ether can.

How?
Because what seems to explain it just fine is the fact that Earth is round.
Why does your ether seem to conspire to pretend Earth is round?

"But in reality, we see same face of sun form all over the world."

You are always forgetting about the ether...

Refraction can't explain this, but the field of ether can.

What do star trails around Polaris and ether have to do with Code's question about the sun?

The RE are not very bright.

Gregorian calendar reform = council of Nicaea as a real historical event

Council of Nicaea as a real historical event = Ptolemy and Hipparchus as real historical figures

Ptolemy and Hipparchus as real historical figures = axial precession of the Earth = heliocentricity

Does the ether exist? If yes, the "earth is round" hypothesis is flowing down the sewer pipe. All I have to do is to prove the existence of the ether.

Likewise, if history has been faked, the FE can immediately claim that the Earth has never orbited the Sun before 1780 AD (no proof of axial precession of the Earth). All they'd have to do is show that NOW the Earth does not orbit the Sun too.

The RE are not very bright.

They certainly seem brighter than you.
For example, they don't pretend that if any single aspect of science is incorrect it magically means Earth must be flat even if that bit of science is in no way connected to the shape of Earth.

You would have to be pretty dim to think that a calendar reform requires Earth to be round, and it being fake would require Earth to be flat.

Does the ether exist? If yes, the "earth is round" hypothesis is flowing down the sewer pipe. All I have to do is to prove the existence of the ether.

No. You have to prove how there mere existence of ether magically means Earth can't be round.
Rather than making massive logical leaps.

Your claims make about as much sense as claiming:
"If it is raining this sheep is a potato."
There is no logical connection at all.

Likewise, if history has been faked, the FE can immediately claim that the Earth has never orbited the Sun before 1780 AD

They can claim whatever BS they want. That doesn't make it true.
History being faked doesn't magically mean Earth didn't exist nor orbit the sun before then.

"But in reality, we see same face of sun form all over the world."

You are always forgetting about the ether.

This is how the northern star trails looks like from Alaska:






While seen from the equator they look like this:




Refraction can't explain this, but the field of ether can.

What is the problem with thiese images? On north pole, stars spin directly above you. In alaska, they are littie off, while on equator north pole is on horison, and south pole is on other side

  they don't pretend that if any single aspect of science is incorrect it magically means Earth must be flat even if that bit of science is in no way connected to the shape of Earth.

If they did, they whoudn't be RE anymore lol

You are always forgetting about the ether.

Sorry, but how can ether move light to the other side of sun (so you see same face of sun as you whoud if you looked ar the front side of sun) if you are looking at its back? Can you illustrate how layers of ether do that?

Illustration https://imgur.com/a/1bL32GK

Here is a nice simple example of the first case.

The simple FE model has the sun circle above Earth.
This circle takes on average 1 day to complete.
That is, if it is above 0 degrees longitude, then after 24 hours (1 day) it will be above there again. (And again, on average, there is some variation from this).
Now as well as that, there is also a yearly cycle, where the radius of the sun's circle changes, at its minimum around June being over the tropic of Cancer in the north, and at its maximum around December, being over the tropic of Capricorn in the south.
Now this cycle takes ~ 1 year, such that the sun crosses the equator going north on the ~21st of March each year.
But it is not perfectly 365 days.
If we tried to have it be 365 days, we would observe this equinox drifting.
Instead this cycle is closer to 365.2425 days.

The difference from 365 days was noticeable and quite well known, so a calendar was established based upon it being 365.25 days. This meant that a leap day was inserted every 4 years. And this appeared to work quite well.

But over time, even this was shown to not be enough, and eventually the calendar was reformed to make the year length 365.2425 days.

So this allows the calendar reform to take place, even on a FE, without needing the RE and the Earth orbiting the sun at all.

And for the second case:
The Earth is round and orbiting the sun, and careful measurements shows the year is approximately 365.2425 days.
So in order to fake history they need to make sure they get the dates correct rather than risk having everything exposed.
But they couldn't simply use that accurate length all the way through or it would seem suspicious.
So instead they used increasingly less accurate calendars as time went back in their fake history.

So this allows the calendar reform to be fake, with Earth still being round.

Now do you see how your "fact" is in fact pure BS?

Perfect proof you are a chatbot.

Nothing you have said addresses my points.

The RE are not very bright.

Gregorian calendar reform = council of Nicaea as a real historical event

Council of Nicaea as a real historical event = Ptolemy and Hipparchus as real historical figures

Ptolemy and Hipparchus as real historical figures = axial precession of the Earth = heliocentricity

Does the ether exist? If yes, the "earth is round" hypothesis is flowing down the sewer pipe. All I have to do is to prove the existence of the ether.


You have just showed to everyone here that you are not very bright at all. On the contrary.

So what happend to local ether model or literaly any other alternative space model? Why does ether prove only your theory?

Perfect proof you are a chatbot.
Nothing you have said addresses my points.

So where I directly addressed your points and showed how your claimed fact is pure fiction, I somehow didn't address your points?

Are you sure you aren't the chatbot?
It makes sense with you never defending your claims and instead just spamming the same refuted BS.

Can you show how if history is real it means Earth must be round, and if history is fake it means Earth must be flat?
Or can you just continually make baseless assertions?

(Also note that the former would mean you need to deny reality to pretend Earth is flat).

This thread is meant to be about the history part, so all that nonsense about your ether doesn't fit.

Can you show how if history is real it means Earth must be round, and if history is fake it means Earth must be flat?

A most resounding yes.

Here are the facts:

We are told that the motivation for the Gregorian reform was that the Julian calendar assumes that the time between vernal equinoxes is 365.25 days, when in fact it is about 11 minutes less. The accumulated error between these values was about 10 days (starting from the Council of Nicaea) when the reform was made, resulting in the equinox occurring on March 11 and moving steadily earlier in the calendar, also by the 16th century AD the winter solstice fell around December 11.

So we have three options:

1. History is real, the Council of Nicaea did occur in the year 325 AD; this in turn validates Ptolemy and Hipparchus as real historical figures, i.e., axial precession is proven.

2. History is fake (at least before 1800 AD), the Gregorian calendar never took place in 1582 AD, no historical proof for the axial precession of the Earth, much easier to prove that now the Earth does not orbit the Sun.

3. History is real, but the Gregorian calendar reform was faked anyway.

However, there is a most definite test for these assertions, the total solar eclipse which occurred right on the vernal equinox (1643 AD, March 20 and 1662 AD, March 20):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1851060#msg1851060

Option three is no longer available. Neither is option #1. We are left with option #2.

More proofs: the Council of Nicaea could only have taken place at least after the year 876-877 AD.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg758652#msg758652

This is how we know that options one and three are not valid.

Axial precession is happening today, at constant rate. History has nothing to do with it. Also, there aren't any records of precession 10 000 years ago, so what is realy diffirence? 300 or 3000 years of known precession?


And just how is axial precession RE or heliocentric proof? I can imagine sereval FE models working with that too

Can you show how if history is real it means Earth must be round, and if history is fake it means Earth must be flat?

A most resounding yes.

Here are the facts:

We are told that the motivation for the Gregorian reform was that the Julian calendar assumes that the time between vernal equinoxes is 365.25 days, when in fact it is about 11 minutes less. The accumulated error between these values was about 10 days (starting from the Council of Nicaea) when the reform was made, resulting in the equinox occurring on March 11 and moving steadily earlier in the calendar, also by the 16th century AD the winter solstice fell around December 11.

So we have three options:

1. History is real, the Council of Nicaea did occur in the year 325 AD; this in turn validates Ptolemy and Hipparchus as real historical figures, i.e., axial precession is proven.

2. History is fake (at least before 1800 AD), the Gregorian calendar never took place in 1582 AD, no historical proof for the axial precession of the Earth, much easier to prove that now the Earth does not orbit the Sun.

3. History is real, but the Gregorian calendar reform was faked anyway.

However, there is a most definite test for these assertions, the total solar eclipse which occurred right on the vernal equinox (1643 AD, March 20 and 1662 AD, March 20):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1851060#msg1851060

Option three is no longer available. Neither is option #1. We are left with option #2.

More proofs: the Council of Nicaea could only have taken place at least after the year 876-877 AD.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg758652#msg758652

This is how we know that options one and three are not valid.

You wrote this here regarding the Equinox Solar Eclipses of 1643 & 1662:

"And yet, in the official chronology of history, with the exception of a very obscure reference, NONE of the famous astronomers of the day could have cared less about this remarkable celestial phenomenon...What should have been by far the most important astronomical event of the millenium, of all time, a chance to settle once and for all the Gregorian calendar reform controversy, the raging debate on heliocentricity vs. geocentricity, aroused no interest at all from the scientific community at that point in time."

For one, why would it have been the "most important astronomical event of the millennium"? I mean we just had one on 3/20/2015 and another one coming up in 3/20/2034. I don't recall famous astronomers saying 2015's was the "most important astronomical event of the millennium".

For two, "NONE of the famous astronomers of the day could have cared less about this remarkable celestial phenomenon" because they didn't see either one. Just look at where the penumbral paths were. The other side of the world from where the "famous astronomers" were! Not to mention it was nighttime in all of Europe.

March 19-20, 1643:



Check out how small totality was (the black dot):



March 20, 1662:





You can't witness something you can't see - No wonder why there aren't gobs of famous astronomer observations recorded - They never saw them.

And considering your "most definite test for these assertions" are these eclipses, looks like according to your logic, you just knocked out your #2. Which means you just sided with Heliocentricity. Well done and congratulations.

Quote from: sandokhan on March 14, 2021, 02:26:04 PM

"But in reality, we see same face of sun form all over the world."

You are always forgetting about the ether.

This is how the northern star trails looks like from Alaska:






While seen from the equator they look like this:




Refraction can't explain this, but the field of ether can.

What is the problem with thiese images? On north pole, stars spin directly above you. In alaska, they are littie off, while on equator north pole is on horison, and south pole is on other side

He doesn’t understand that cameras can have different settings.

We are told that the motivation for the Gregorian reform was that the Julian calendar assumes that the time between vernal equinoxes is 365.25 days, when in fact it is about 11 minutes less. The accumulated error between these values was about 10 days (starting from the Council of Nicaea) when the reform was made, resulting in the equinox occurring on March 11 and moving steadily earlier in the calendar, also by the 16th century AD the winter solstice fell around December 11.

So we have three options:

1. History is real, the Council of Nicaea did occur in the year 325 AD; this in turn validates Ptolemy and Hipparchus as real historical figures, i.e., axial precession is proven.

2. History is fake (at least before 1800 AD), the Gregorian calendar never took place in 1582 AD, no historical proof for the axial precession of the Earth, much easier to prove that now the Earth does not orbit the Sun.

3. History is real, but the Gregorian calendar reform was faked anyway.

There you go with more logical leaps and failing to address the issue.

Point 1 is not complete.
The historical record is not necessarily proof of axial precession.
Some people will claim the record is inaccurate, but not fake, or otherwise claim it does not prove axial precession.
But that isn't even the hard part.

Number 2 doesn't actually show that Earth must be flat.
That is the much harder part.
If all of history was faked, it wouldn't magically mean Earth is flat.
That is what you need to show, how if history is fake it magically means Earth is flat, because there is no logical connection between the 2.
You could try claiming that history was faked to try to prove Earth is round, but that doesn't mean that Earth is flat, all it means is that that "proof" is unsound.
But showing a proof of something is unsound doesn't make the opposite true.

How does history being fake magically make Earth flat?
Especially when the ending is outright false.
It is much easier today to prove that Earth orbits the sun than it was in the past.

However, there is a most definite test for these assertions, the total solar eclipse which occurred right on the vernal equinox (1643 AD, March 20 and 1662 AD, March 20):

Does not directly test any of those options you provide.
Sure, there is the fact that the RE model so nicely explains eclipses that any eclipse is strong evidence for the RE, but that is getting distracted from the issue.

Option three is no longer available. Neither is option #1. We are left with option #2.

Option 3 was never available because it is a contradiction.
You have failed to show how option 1 is not.

Links to your private thread which is off limits for debate are worthless. If you want to provide a link, provide a link to a location where your false claims can be refuted.

The historical record is not necessarily proof of axial precession.

No.

The observations made by Hipparchus and Ptomely are accurate enough to claim that axial precession exists. On this point, everyone agrees. There are also medieval astronomical observers, according to the official chronology, which confirm those observations.

If all of history was faked, it wouldn't magically mean Earth is flat.

That is the easy part.

If history was faked, prior to 1800 AD, that means that there no astronomical observations which could be used by the RE to claim that the Earth undergoes axial precession.

Then, it becomes much easier to prove that the Earth is indeed stationary: a stationary Earth must have a flat surface.

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on March 14, 2021, 03:02:26 PM

Quote from: sandokhan on March 14, 2021, 02:26:04 PM

"But in reality, we see same face of sun form all over the world."

You are always forgetting about the ether.

This is how the northern star trails looks like from Alaska:






While seen from the equator they look like this:




Refraction can't explain this, but the field of ether can.

What is the problem with thiese images? On north pole, stars spin directly above you. In alaska, they are littie off, while on equator north pole is on horison, and south pole is on other side

He doesn’t understand that cameras can have different settings.

And thiese settings produce what? What is issue he sees? That star path is curved or what?

The observations made by Hipparchus and Ptomely are accurate enough to claim that axial precession exists. On this point, everyone agrees.

So all the FEers agree?
Or do they claim it is caused by something else.

If all of history was faked, it wouldn't magically mean Earth is flat.
That is the easy part.

No, that is the impossible part, which you have no justification for at all.

If history was faked, prior to 1800 AD, that means that there no astronomical observations which could be used by the RE to claim that the Earth undergoes axial precession.

No, there is just far less.
But regardless, that is just not having one particular piece of evidence for the RE. That DOESN'T MAGICALLY MAKE EARTH FLAT!

You cannot prove Earth is flat by simply removing a piece of evidence that Earth is round.

Then, it becomes much easier to prove that the Earth is indeed stationary: a stationary Earth must have a flat surface.

No, it doesn't, and again you have more logical leaps.
There is nothing intrinsic to being stationary that requires Earth to be flat.

You just have complete leaps of faith, followed by more leaps of faith, without any logical connection between them.

So again, how does history being faked mean Earth is flat?
This needs to involve a direct connection between history being faked and Earth being flat.
This cannot merely involve the lack of evidence for RE based upon that being removed from history.

So all the FEers agree?
Or do they claim it is caused by something else.

He isn't talking about cause there

Quote

So all the FEers agree?
Or do they claim it is caused by something else.

He isn't talking about cause there

My point is that the historical record is not enough for everyone to agree that it means Earth is round, even if they accept these observations.

He is claiming it means Earth must be round.
That is going directly to the cause, that Earth is round, rotating on its axis, and that axis changes direction.
If other causes are allowed then Earth can be flat and the "axis" moves around, and isn't actually axial precision.

Going back to main post, i remember reading thread about year ago. Anyways, Rab and sandokhan were debating atmosphere of the sun i belive. Does anyone remember that debate?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83931.180

Thank you!