Photograph the Sun

  • 16 Replies
  • 1177 Views
?

Jorking Dey Venis

  • 26
  • BUT IF CURVED, WHY ME SEE FLAT?
Photograph the Sun
« on: December 12, 2024, 10:13:33 AM »
Given FE theory implies a firmament (and likely a continuous atmosphere), how about you take a plane and get a selfie with the sun? shouldn't be too hard.

Re: Photograph the Sun
« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2024, 10:52:24 AM »
All celestial bodies are OUTSIDE the first firmament.

We know that the Sun, for example, must be outside the first firmament because rainbows can only occur if the first firmament scatters the Sun's light. Furthermore, a Sun below the firmament would cause the Earth to become extremely hot.

The orbits of the celestial bodies that set can only occur with them outside the first firmament.
Celestial bodies with regular orbits rises at one of the gates on the ground in the east beyond Antichtone, follow a path through the zone between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, always making their natural variations. They sets at one of the gates in the west beyond Antichtone and pass beneath the Earth at a speed of 20000 km per second (the true diameter of the Earth is only 20000 km), causing the celestial bodies to accelerate and be born on the other side almost instantaneously. The natural speed of celestial bodies is ≈ 20000 km/s and the resistance generated by the density of the aether above the Earth's surface reduces the speed of celestial bodies to ≈ 1670 km/h (0,464 km/s).
« Last Edit: December 12, 2024, 10:58:05 AM by AnneFrothingslosh »
MAKE FLAT EARTH THEORY GREAT AGAIN

Re: Photograph the Sun
« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2024, 12:00:22 PM »

Celestial bodies with regular orbits rises at one of the gates on the ground in the east beyond Antichtone, follow a path through the zone between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, always making their natural variations. They sets at one of the gates in the west beyond Antichtone and pass beneath the Earth at a speed of 20000 km per second (the true diameter of the Earth is only 20000 km), causing the celestial bodies to accelerate and be born on the other side almost instantaneously.
.

Here Anne has REALLY something to explain. Why do we have to wait about 12 hours to see Rigel, Betelgeuse or Altair rise again in the East, after they have set in the West?

?

Jorking Dey Venis

  • 26
  • BUT IF CURVED, WHY ME SEE FLAT?
Re: Photograph the Sun
« Reply #3 on: December 12, 2024, 12:13:26 PM »
All celestial bodies are OUTSIDE the first firmament.

We know that the Sun, for example, must be outside the first firmament because rainbows can only occur if the first firmament scatters the Sun's light. Furthermore, a Sun below the firmament would cause the Earth to become extremely hot.

The orbits of the celestial bodies that set can only occur with them outside the first firmament.
Celestial bodies with regular orbits rises at one of the gates on the ground in the east beyond Antichtone, follow a path through the zone between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, always making their natural variations. They sets at one of the gates in the west beyond Antichtone and pass beneath the Earth at a speed of 20000 km per second (the true diameter of the Earth is only 20000 km), causing the celestial bodies to accelerate and be born on the other side almost instantaneously. The natural speed of celestial bodies is ≈ 20000 km/s and the resistance generated by the density of the aether above the Earth's surface reduces the speed of celestial bodies to ≈ 1670 km/h (0,464 km/s).

Rainbows aren't created by the "firmament", they are created by water droplets. Use a garden hose on a sunny day and see what I mean.

Furthermore, you claim that celestial bodies move with speed akin to teleportation in order to set and rise, where exactly is this kinetic energy coming from?

Plus, what evidence do you have for these firmaments, celestial acceleration, the way that the bodies path, etc.? It seems you're talking out of your ass.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2024, 12:17:14 PM by Jorking Dey Venis »

Re: Photograph the Sun
« Reply #4 on: December 12, 2024, 01:24:42 PM »
Making the incredibly bold assumption that Anne isn’t just a troll, would someone like to explain timezones?

Re: Photograph the Sun
« Reply #5 on: December 12, 2024, 03:53:49 PM »

Celestial bodies with regular orbits rises at one of the gates on the ground in the east beyond Antichtone, follow a path through the zone between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, always making their natural variations. They sets at one of the gates in the west beyond Antichtone and pass beneath the Earth at a speed of 20000 km per second (the true diameter of the Earth is only 20000 km), causing the celestial bodies to accelerate and be born on the other side almost instantaneously.
.

Here Anne has REALLY something to explain. Why do we have to wait about 12 hours to see Rigel, Betelgeuse or Altair rise again in the East, after they have set in the West?

In addition to the fact that celestial bodies sets on the edge, the fact that their orbits are not parallel to the Earth's plane allows the Sun to set behind the continental relief.
An observer in South America, for example, will see the celestial bodies sets on the edge in the west, then they will rises on the other side of the world (in the eastern Pacific Ocean) and the celestial bodies will be visible again when they are over Africa, at the point where the relief of the African continent no longer obstructs the Sun's light.




All celestial bodies are OUTSIDE the first firmament.

We know that the Sun, for example, must be outside the first firmament because rainbows can only occur if the first firmament scatters the Sun's light. Furthermore, a Sun below the firmament would cause the Earth to become extremely hot.

The orbits of the celestial bodies that set can only occur with them outside the first firmament.
Celestial bodies with regular orbits rises at one of the gates on the ground in the east beyond Antichtone, follow a path through the zone between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, always making their natural variations. They sets at one of the gates in the west beyond Antichtone and pass beneath the Earth at a speed of 20000 km per second (the true diameter of the Earth is only 20000 km), causing the celestial bodies to accelerate and be born on the other side almost instantaneously. The natural speed of celestial bodies is ≈ 20000 km/s and the resistance generated by the density of the aether above the Earth's surface reduces the speed of celestial bodies to ≈ 1670 km/h (0,464 km/s).

Rainbows aren't created by the "firmament", they are created by water droplets. Use a garden hose on a sunny day and see what I mean.

Furthermore, you claim that celestial bodies move with speed akin to teleportation in order to set and rise, where exactly is this kinetic energy coming from?

Plus, what evidence do you have for these firmaments, celestial acceleration, the way that the bodies path, etc.? It seems you're talking out of your ass.

You can't create a rainbow with artificial light without glass; you use sunlight when you make a rainbow in a garden.
In order to reproduce a natural-looking rainbow in an environment isolated from sunlight, three things are needed:
1) Water.
2) Light.
3) Glass.
Glass disperses the light that passes through it and the colors are seen in the water droplets. Without glass, rainbows do not occur because water alone cannot disperse enough light to create a rainbow.
In an open environment, the rainbow occurs without the need for glass because there is already the firmament, which disperses the light, while the colors are visible in the raindrops.
A rainbow takes the shape of the glass that disperses the light, outdoors, the rainbow has the shape of an arch because it takes the shape of the firmament.
Even if rainbows were possible on the globe, water droplets would have to magically form an arc in the sky for the rainbow to have that shape, or the arc shape could be a result of the curvature of the globe, but that would require the Earth to be the same size as the rainbow, so it is equally impossible.

The mechanisms behind the movements of celestial bodies still need to be further investigated, they may be associated with telluric energy, magnetism or ether, but we should not just invent things.

The rainbow is evidence of a firmament.
The first firmament is also important to explain the division between the less dense layers of aether and the ultradense layers, which must necessarily exist on a flat Earth.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2024, 05:56:10 PM by AnneFrothingslosh »
MAKE FLAT EARTH THEORY GREAT AGAIN

Re: Photograph the Sun
« Reply #6 on: December 12, 2024, 05:41:17 PM »
《The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.》
- Eclesiastes 1:5
« Last Edit: December 12, 2024, 05:53:49 PM by AnneFrothingslosh »
MAKE FLAT EARTH THEORY GREAT AGAIN

?

Jorking Dey Venis

  • 26
  • BUT IF CURVED, WHY ME SEE FLAT?
Re: Photograph the Sun
« Reply #7 on: December 12, 2024, 06:23:55 PM »
You can't create a rainbow with artificial light without glass; you use sunlight when you make a rainbow in a garden.
In order to reproduce a natural-looking rainbow in an environment isolated from sunlight, three things are needed:
1) Water.
2) Light.
3) Glass.
Glass disperses the light that passes through it and the colors are seen in the water droplets. Without glass, rainbows do not occur because water alone cannot disperse enough light to create a rainbow.
In an open environment, the rainbow occurs without the need for glass because there is already the firmament, which disperses the light, while the colors are visible in the raindrops.
A rainbow takes the shape of the glass that disperses the light, outdoors, the rainbow has the shape of an arch because it takes the shape of the firmament.
Even if rainbows were possible on the globe, water droplets would have to magically form an arc in the sky for the rainbow to have that shape, or the arc shape could be a result of the curvature of the globe, but that would require the Earth to be the same size as the rainbow, so it is equally impossible.

The mechanisms behind the movements of celestial bodies still need to be further investigated, they may be associated with telluric energy, magnetism or ether, but we should not just invent things.

The rainbow is evidence of a firmament.
The first firmament is also important to explain the division between the less dense layers of aether and the ultradense layers, which must necessarily exist on a flat Earth.

You can create artificial rainbows with only a prism and a flashlight, no water droplets required, you can also create a rainbow with nothing more than a drop of water and a flashlight, both of which do not involve the sun or your "firmaments" (which I have yet to see evidence of by the way).

You also imply that rainbows would not be possible on a globe earth, and say that the arc a rainbow takes would have no reason to be shaped thusly on a globe earth. What you fail to mention is that rainbows in their entirety are circular; the same shape as you can observe in a garden hose. This is because water droplets are roughly spherical and they refract light in a circular shape.

Based on this, the rainbow is not evidence of a firmament. It can exist independently of one, and it does. You also go into a ton of pseudoscientific jargon that has no logical basis, leaving me only more skeptical of the flat earth model.

If you can't photograph the sun, how about touch the firmament instead?

And one more thing: the FE model has an extremely difficult time explaining celestial motion whereas the RE model has no issue at all, isn't this a huge point in favor of the RE model?
« Last Edit: December 12, 2024, 06:26:10 PM by Jorking Dey Venis »

Re: Photograph the Sun
« Reply #8 on: December 13, 2024, 01:44:21 AM »
So apparently Anne has given up the most absurd claim that, after setting, “the celestial bodies are accelerated and born on the other side almost instantaneously”. Good.
But

An observer in South America, for example, will see the celestial bodies sets on the edge in the west, then they will rises on the other side of the world (in the eastern Pacific Ocean)

The fact is (as we can easily check in this era of instant communications), when an observer in South America sees the Sun setting, the Sun is still visible for some hours in Tahiti. So the “edge”, for the  observer in South America, is BEYOND Tahiti.
And when the Sun sets in Tahiti, it's still visible for some hours in Samoa. So the “edge”, for the  observer in South America, is ALSO BEYOND Samoa.
And when the Sun sets in Samoa, it's still visible for some hours in Vanuatu. So the “edge”, for the  observer in South America, is ALSO BEYOND Vanuatu.
And when the Sun sets in Vanuatu, it's still visible for some hours in New Guinea.
And so on and so on, through Sumatra, Ceylon, Somalia, Gabon, Brazil.

So, WHERE IS THE EDGE ?

Only possible answer: there's NO EDGE. Earth's surface closes on itself, like the surface of a cylinder... or of a SPHERE.


Besides. For
An observer in South America, [...] the celestial bodies will be visible again when they are over Africa, at the point where the relief of the African continent no longer obstructs the Sun's light.

So, why the observer in South America cannot see the relief of the African continent silhouetted against the disk of the rising Sun?
« Last Edit: December 13, 2024, 05:38:15 AM by marco mineri »

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Photograph the Sun
« Reply #9 on: December 13, 2024, 12:23:51 PM »
We know that the Sun, for example, must be outside the first firmament because rainbows can only occur if the first firmament scatters the Sun's light.
You have had this refuted before.
Rainbows are caused by light interacting with raindrops. It has nothing at all to do with any firmament.
White light enters a raindrop and is reflected/refracted around the drop, coming back out at various angles depending on the wavelength.
This creates an angular separation between the light source and a particular colour being visible.
We observe this as an arc, or if you are high enough, a circle.

No firmament is needed for this, nor have you been able to provide an explanation of just what you think the firmament is doing.
It clearly isn't that firmament is splitting the light into various wavelengths, because then no water would be needed.

So just what do you think the firmament is doing?
Can you provide a coherent explanation? Preferably with a diagram, showing the difference in the light before and after the firmament?

Furthermore, a Sun below the firmament would cause the Earth to become extremely hot.
Why?

The orbits of the celestial bodies that set can only occur with them outside the first firmament.
The path of celestial objects make no sense on a flat Earth. Observations clearly match up to a round Earth.

If you decide to invoke magic bendy light which just magically bends to get whatever result you need, then it can be anywhere.

Celestial bodies with regular orbits rises at one of the gates on the ground in the east beyond Antichtone
Except they can always be observed above some location on Earth, showing they aren't rising from beneath a flat surface.

Also, you appear to be rejecting the most common FE model, where there is no "east", as east and west go around in circles.

So what continent do you think is the most east? And how come you can fly around the world going east?

The natural speed of celestial bodies is ≈ 20000 km/s and the resistance generated by the density of the aether above the Earth's surface reduces the speed of celestial bodies to ≈ 1670 km/h (0,464 km/s).
Why?


How come we can fly from Australia to the US, going east?
How come it is so much faster to fly there, than to stop over in London?

Your map simply doesn't match reality.

You can't create a rainbow with artificial light without glass
We can. There is nothing special about sunlight.
It is just a white light source.

Again, explain what magic you think the firmament is doing.

Glass disperses the light that passes through it
Your firmament clearly does not.
If it did, you would see that all the time, and no rain would be needed.
For example if I get a glass prism, and split up the light, it is easily seen as a spectrum, with no rain needed.

The water droplets and the glass are doing the same thing, splitting up the light, just in different ways.

A rainbow takes the shape of the glass that disperses the light, outdoors, the rainbow has the shape of an arch because it takes the shape of the firmament.
No, it doesn't.

The shape of a rainbow, i.e. one from rain, is that way because the raindrops cause the light to appear at particular angles relative to the sun, which means it is a circle.

For glass, it depends on the shape of the glass.

Even if rainbows were possible on the globe, water droplets would have to magically form an arc in the sky
Why?
That would be if instead of being droplets, they were a continuous mass of water.

Because they are droplets, it all works on angles.

Two simple diagrams to explain it:

First, we see the interaction of light with a single droplet (simplified).
The white light hits the droplet, and due to internal reflections and refraction, it comes back out with different wavelengths coming out at different angles.
And that angle is what is important.

This single droplet is not enough to create the rainbow. To understand that, we look at many droplets:


For this we see white light hitting multiple droplets.
For simplicity, I have only shown the resulting coloured rays of light which make it back to the observer.
We see different raindrops reflect different wavelengths back to us.

While I have only shown those droplets, you could have that entire image filled with droplets, and the only coloured light coming back to us are those at the appropriate angle.
And that means the rainbow will adopt those particular angles for the particular colours, meaning we get a circle, or at the least the portion of the circle which go through the raindrops.

Rainbows are possible on a globe. They have nothing to do with a firmament. They do not require water droplets to accumulate into any particular shape. They just require a large amount of water droplets being hit by white light.

The mechanisms behind the movements of celestial bodies still need to be further investigated, they may be associated with telluric energy, magnetism or ether, but we should not just invent things.
So we shouldn't do exactly what you have been doing and what the people you follow have been doing?

The rainbow is evidence of a firmament.
No, they aren't.
You are yet to explain why water alone is insufficient, nor have you been able to provide any actual explanation of just what the firmament is doing to cause it.
So it is in no way evidence of a firmament.

The first firmament is also important to explain the division between the less dense layers of aether and the ultradense layers, which must necessarily exist on a flat Earth.
So it is something which is only needed for a FE, and not reality, and is just made up to try to save a flat Earth to avoid admitting that Earth isn't flat?

Re: Photograph the Sun
« Reply #10 on: December 15, 2024, 12:06:45 PM »
You can't create a rainbow with artificial light without glass; you use sunlight when you make a rainbow in a garden.
In order to reproduce a natural-looking rainbow in an environment isolated from sunlight, three things are needed:
1) Water.
2) Light.
3) Glass.
Glass disperses the light that passes through it and the colors are seen in the water droplets. Without glass, rainbows do not occur because water alone cannot disperse enough light to create a rainbow.
In an open environment, the rainbow occurs without the need for glass because there is already the firmament, which disperses the light, while the colors are visible in the raindrops.
A rainbow takes the shape of the glass that disperses the light, outdoors, the rainbow has the shape of an arch because it takes the shape of the firmament.
Even if rainbows were possible on the globe, water droplets would have to magically form an arc in the sky for the rainbow to have that shape, or the arc shape could be a result of the curvature of the globe, but that would require the Earth to be the same size as the rainbow, so it is equally impossible.

The mechanisms behind the movements of celestial bodies still need to be further investigated, they may be associated with telluric energy, magnetism or ether, but we should not just invent things.

The rainbow is evidence of a firmament.
The first firmament is also important to explain the division between the less dense layers of aether and the ultradense layers, which must necessarily exist on a flat Earth.

You can create artificial rainbows with only a prism and a flashlight, no water droplets required, you can also create a rainbow with nothing more than a drop of water and a flashlight, both of which do not involve the sun or your "firmaments" (which I have yet to see evidence of by the way).

You also imply that rainbows would not be possible on a globe earth, and say that the arc a rainbow takes would have no reason to be shaped thusly on a globe earth. What you fail to mention is that rainbows in their entirety are circular; the same shape as you can observe in a garden hose. This is because water droplets are roughly spherical and they refract light in a circular shape.

Based on this, the rainbow is not evidence of a firmament. It can exist independently of one, and it does. You also go into a ton of pseudoscientific jargon that has no logical basis, leaving me only more skeptical of the flat earth model.

If you can't photograph the sun, how about touch the firmament instead?

And one more thing: the FE model has an extremely difficult time explaining celestial motion whereas the RE model has no issue at all, isn't this a huge point in favor of the RE model?

The mechanism that generates a rainbow involves
1) Light.
2) Something to scatter the light (this could be a prism, a mirror, or a firmament).
3) A medium in which the scattered light is seen (this could be water droplets or a solid surface).

A prism disperses light, and colors are seen on a solid surface.


It is not possible to create a rainbow using just a drop of water and a flashlight, I have personally tested this, and I have never seen any video or image of anyone managing to do this.

Rainbows appear circular when observed from above because the first firmament is shaped like a parabola.

The firmament is at ≈ 10 km altitude, while an airplane does not go much higher than 2 km altitude. An airplane does not fly high enough to reach the firmament.
Altitude measurements above ≈ 1 km that disregard aether give false results because aether directly interferes with the measurements.

Wolfgang Pauli made a calculation showing that the radius of curvature of the observable universe cannot be more than ≈ 31 km if zero-point energy/ether exists. 


"If the electromagnetic field really had a zero-point energy that did not disappear, then the radius of the universe would be 31 km."
 - Wolfgang Pauli
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F0901.3640&ved=2ahUKEwiywPSt-quGAxUNppUCHb78Bx4QFnoECA8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3vsIgyQMZQbZyV36GpemxI https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article-abstract/53/1/1.24/218451?redirectedFrom=fulltext
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/9/1/011/pdf

It is not possible to deny the existence of the ether/aether without violating the scientific method and the principle of Occam's Razor, because only it is capable of explaining a gigantic amount of facts that are inexplicable in other theories.

Globularists often claim that this would imply an Earth with a diameter of only 62 km. However, we can solve this with several curved walls in the structure of the second firmament, the radius of the universe will be the distance between one wall and the center of the area between 4 walls.


Globularists also went on to claim that curved walls would allow for an infinitely large universe, but curved walls only allow the universe to be horizontally large, but the radius of the vertical distance between the center of the Earth's surface and the second firmament cannot be greater than 31 km.



Density of aether:
1) Inverted density.
● The layers of the atmosphere are parabolic in shape and the density of the atmosphere decreases as it approaches the first firmament.
● The layers of aether are parabolic in shape, and the density of aether increases as it approaches the first firmament. The density of the lowest layer of aether is twice the average density of the troposphere. Therefore, refraction behaves as if the atmosphere had "inverted density".
https://youtube.com/shorts/CL_I8_nDzh4?si=gW1rSXD7VccI_O-Q

Approximate density of aether in the troposphere:
2,45 kg/m^3 (1,225 kg/m^3 × 2)


2) Velocity of celestial bodies.
The celestial bodies with regular orbits rise at one of the gates on the ground in the east beyond Antichtone, follow a path through the zone between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, always making their natural variations. They set at one of the gates in the west beyond Antichtone and pass beneath the Earth at a speed of 20000 km per second (the true diameter of the Earth is only 20000 km), causing the celestial bodies to accelerate and rise on the other side almost instantaneously.

● Proposed mechanism;
1) The natural speed of celestial bodies is ≈ 20000 km/s.
2) The resistance generated by the density of aether reduces the speed of celestial bodies to ≈ 1670 km/h (0,464 km/s).

D = 20000^2/0,464^2 
D = 400000000/0,215296
D = 1857907253,2699
Therefore, the aether density at the distance to the Sun will be approximately 1857907253.2699 times the aether density in a no-resistance scenario (± the aether density in the troposphere).

Density = 4551872770,51 kg/m^3

The flat Earth perfectly explains the movement of celestial bodies, there is no great difficulty.

So apparently Anne has given up the most absurd claim that, after setting, “the celestial bodies are accelerated and born on the other side almost instantaneously”. Good.
But

I didn't give up, this explanation is still perfect.

The fact is (as we can easily check in this era of instant communications), when an observer in South America sees the Sun setting, the Sun is still visible for some hours in Tahiti. So the “edge”, for the  observer in South America, is BEYOND Tahiti.
And when the Sun sets in Tahiti, it's still visible for some hours in Samoa. So the “edge”, for the  observer in South America, is ALSO BEYOND Samoa.
And when the Sun sets in Samoa, it's still visible for some hours in Vanuatu. So the “edge”, for the  observer in South America, is ALSO BEYOND Vanuatu.
And when the Sun sets in Vanuatu, it's still visible for some hours in New Guinea.
And so on and so on, through Sumatra, Ceylon, Somalia, Gabon, Brazil.

So, WHERE IS THE EDGE ?

Only possible answer: there's NO EDGE. Earth's surface closes on itself, like the surface of a cylinder... or of a SPHERE

You are forgetting the relief of the continents. The Sun sets behind the continental relief, in addition to setting on the edge.

So, why the observer in South America cannot see the relief of the African continent silhouetted against the disk of the rising Sun?

Because the African continent is too far away to be resolvable and the atmosphere causes distant targets to appear blue, making Africa visually indistinguishable from the ocean. There is also haze, pollution and humidity.


We know that the Sun, for example, must be outside the first firmament because rainbows can only occur if the first firmament scatters the Sun's light.
You have had this refuted before.
Rainbows are caused by light interacting with raindrops. It has nothing at all to do with any firmament.
White light enters a raindrop and is reflected/refracted around the drop, coming back out at various angles depending on the wavelength.
This creates an angular separation between the light source and a particular colour being visible.
We observe this as an arc, or if you are high enough, a circle.

No firmament is needed for this, nor have you been able to provide an explanation of just what you think the firmament is doing.
It clearly isn't that firmament is splitting the light into various wavelengths, because then no water would be needed.

So just what do you think the firmament is doing?
Can you provide a coherent explanation? Preferably with a diagram, showing the difference in the light before and after the firmament?

Furthermore, a Sun below the firmament would cause the Earth to become extremely hot.
Why?

The orbits of the celestial bodies that set can only occur with them outside the first firmament.
The path of celestial objects make no sense on a flat Earth. Observations clearly match up to a round Earth.

If you decide to invoke magic bendy light which just magically bends to get whatever result you need, then it can be anywhere.

Celestial bodies with regular orbits rises at one of the gates on the ground in the east beyond Antichtone
Except they can always be observed above some location on Earth, showing they aren't rising from beneath a flat surface.

Also, you appear to be rejecting the most common FE model, where there is no "east", as east and west go around in circles.

So what continent do you think is the most east? And how come you can fly around the world going east?

The natural speed of celestial bodies is ≈ 20000 km/s and the resistance generated by the density of the aether above the Earth's surface reduces the speed of celestial bodies to ≈ 1670 km/h (0,464 km/s).
Why?


How come we can fly from Australia to the US, going east?
How come it is so much faster to fly there, than to stop over in London?

Your map simply doesn't match reality.

You can't create a rainbow with artificial light without glass
We can. There is nothing special about sunlight.
It is just a white light source.

Again, explain what magic you think the firmament is doing.

Glass disperses the light that passes through it
Your firmament clearly does not.
If it did, you would see that all the time, and no rain would be needed.
For example if I get a glass prism, and split up the light, it is easily seen as a spectrum, with no rain needed.

The water droplets and the glass are doing the same thing, splitting up the light, just in different ways.

A rainbow takes the shape of the glass that disperses the light, outdoors, the rainbow has the shape of an arch because it takes the shape of the firmament.
No, it doesn't.

The shape of a rainbow, i.e. one from rain, is that way because the raindrops cause the light to appear at particular angles relative to the sun, which means it is a circle.

For glass, it depends on the shape of the glass.

Even if rainbows were possible on the globe, water droplets would have to magically form an arc in the sky
Why?
That would be if instead of being droplets, they were a continuous mass of water.

Because they are droplets, it all works on angles.

Two simple diagrams to explain it:

First, we see the interaction of light with a single droplet (simplified).
The white light hits the droplet, and due to internal reflections and refraction, it comes back out with different wavelengths coming out at different angles.
And that angle is what is important.

This single droplet is not enough to create the rainbow. To understand that, we look at many droplets:


For this we see white light hitting multiple droplets.
For simplicity, I have only shown the resulting coloured rays of light which make it back to the observer.
We see different raindrops reflect different wavelengths back to us.

While I have only shown those droplets, you could have that entire image filled with droplets, and the only coloured light coming back to us are those at the appropriate angle.
And that means the rainbow will adopt those particular angles for the particular colours, meaning we get a circle, or at the least the portion of the circle which go through the raindrops.

Rainbows are possible on a globe. They have nothing to do with a firmament. They do not require water droplets to accumulate into any particular shape. They just require a large amount of water droplets being hit by white light.

The mechanisms behind the movements of celestial bodies still need to be further investigated, they may be associated with telluric energy, magnetism or ether, but we should not just invent things.
So we shouldn't do exactly what you have been doing and what the people you follow have been doing?

The rainbow is evidence of a firmament.
No, they aren't.
You are yet to explain why water alone is insufficient, nor have you been able to provide any actual explanation of just what the firmament is doing to cause it.
So it is in no way evidence of a firmament.

The first firmament is also important to explain the division between the less dense layers of aether and the ultradense layers, which must necessarily exist on a flat Earth.
So it is something which is only needed for a FE, and not reality, and is just made up to try to save a flat Earth to avoid admitting that Earth isn't flat?

*I have explained very well the importance of the first firmament in the creation of a rainbow.
The first firmament disperses the light and the drops are the medium in which the colors are seen.

Water droplets alone are not capable of refracting enough water to generate a rainbow, it is even possible that the first firmament pre-disperses the light and the water droplets have a complementary role of dispersion, but water alone is not capable of generating the complete color palette visible in the rainbow!


*A Sun inside the first firmament would be like a Sun inside a greenhouse, the heating would be absurd.

*The path of celestial bodies on a flat Earth makes perfect sense.

You have done a service to the flat Earth theory by showing that light does not need to bend upwards, but only bends as it approaches the surface:


This aligns perfectly with the workings of perspective described by Rowbotham:


https://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm#page_201

This explains how objects like boats disappear on the horizon.
The rises and sets of celestial bodies occur because of the continental relief, in addition to the fact that they rises and sets on the edge.


*The aether has parabolic gradients that increase in density as it approaches the first firmament. This density is very high in the vicinity of Antichtone, preventing us from being able to reach that continent. Any ship or airplane sailing towards Antichtone will be deflected by the aether and will skirt the perimeter of the aether barrier until it reaches the opposite side of the Earth's surface. If the ship/airplane keeps moving forward, it will return to its starting point.
In the case of airplanes, there is an additional factor: airplanes depend on air for lift, they always travel along the density gradient for which they are configured, and the atmospheric layers have parabolic gradients, that is: the air becomes increasingly rarefied as it approaches the edge.

In total, the distance covered by a circumnavigation close to the equator will be approximately twice the length of the equator.
Circumnavigations in general cover an average distance of 40000 km, this is because the diameter of the Earth is actually ≈ 20000 km, the globe was adapted for this by doubling the diameter of the Earth and adding a large area of ​​water.


The dense aether barrier also deflects electromagnetic radiation that strikes the Earth's surface to the opposite side. This alters measurements of the Earth's diameter that disregard the aether.
MAKE FLAT EARTH THEORY GREAT AGAIN

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Photograph the Sun
« Reply #11 on: December 15, 2024, 12:42:42 PM »
The mechanism that generates a rainbow involves
1) Light.
2) Something to scatter the light (this could be a prism, a mirror, or a firmament).
3) A medium in which the scattered light is seen (this could be water droplets or a solid surface).
Repeating the same nonsense wont help you.

A prism disperses light, and colors are seen on a solid surface.
Colours are seen on any surface, and looking directly at the prism.
Also notice that this requires a thin beam of light to create it.
You can't just use a broad light source to get this effect.

This is quite different to a rainbow.

If this was the cause, we would see the rainbow when looking at the sun.
We don't.

The water droplet is dispersing the light.
i.e. point 2 in your list is the water droplets.

It is not possible to create a rainbow using just a drop of water and a flashlight, I have personally tested this
And can you provide this test?

Rainbows appear circular when observed from above because the first firmament is shaped like a parabola.
This in no way explains why it should be a circle, instead of a parabola.

Wolfgang Pauli made a calculation showing that the radius of curvature of the observable universe cannot be more than ≈ 31 km if zero-point energy/ether exists.
We have been over this.
Either this means the entire universe must fit inside a sphere of radius 31 km, contradicting the FE model, or you can have a wavy edge which allows any size, including several trillion light years.

It is not possible to deny the existence of the ether/aether
Again, it is trivial. There is no evidence for it and it is just people clinging to outdated ideas.

Globularists also went on to claim that curved walls would allow for an infinitely large universe, but curved walls only allow the universe to be horizontally large, but the radius of the vertical distance between the center of the Earth's surface and the second firmament cannot be greater than 31 km.
Why? Because you say so?
Do you have a coherent explanation for why you can have these multiple curves in 2D but not 3D?

1) Inverted density.
Only needed to save a failed FE fantasy.

2) Velocity of celestial bodies.
Only a problem for the FE.

The flat Earth perfectly explains the movement of celestial bodies, there is no great difficulty.
The FE attempts to explain it with additional nonsense thrown in, which it has no real justification for.
And it still fails to explain the observed positions.

So what is more likely, a FE with all this made up nonsense to try to save it, or a much simpler RE model without all these baseless assumptions?

I didn't give up, this explanation is still perfect.
No, it still fails, as it can't explain what is observed.

You are forgetting the relief of the continents. The Sun sets behind the continental relief, in addition to setting on the edge.
The point is that it can never go over the edge as it is always seen above somewhere.

*I have explained very well the importance of the first firmament in the creation of a rainbow.
No you haven't.
You have made vague claims which you have repeated again with no mechanism behind it.

Water droplets alone are not capable of refracting enough water to generate a rainbow
Why?
Again, a baseless assertion with nothing to back it up.

*A Sun inside the first firmament would be like a Sun inside a greenhouse, the heating would be absurd.
Or a light inside a room?

*The path of celestial bodies on a flat Earth makes perfect sense.
No, they don't. They make no sense at all.
We see them circling a point due north and due south, with the orientation of these points changing relative to Earth.

You have done a service to the flat Earth theory by showing that light does not need to bend upwards, but only bends as it approaches the surface
I have shown no such thing. But again you appeal to vague nonsense with no mechanism.

This explains how objects like boats disappear on the horizon.
No, it lies to everyone and uses circular reasoning to claim that Earth is flat therefore what we see is expected on a flat surface, therefore boats disappearing bottom up is expected on a flat surface.

The explanation provided would be the smallest part disappears first, not the bottom.

*The aether has parabolic gradients that increase in density as it approaches the first firmament. This density is very high in the vicinity of Antichtone, preventing us from being able to reach that continent. Any ship or airplane sailing towards Antichtone will be deflected by the aether and will skirt the perimeter of the aether barrier until it reaches the opposite side of the Earth's surface. If the ship/airplane keeps moving forward, it will return to its starting point.
So more pure magic thrown in with no justification.

?

Jorking Dey Venis

  • 26
  • BUT IF CURVED, WHY ME SEE FLAT?
Re: Photograph the Sun
« Reply #12 on: December 16, 2024, 12:58:47 PM »
Anne, rainbows do not prove the existence of a firmament. Water droplets are transparent, and you aren't projecting the rainbow onto them, THEY are projecting the rainbow onto your eyes. If you don't understand how photons work, that's not my problem.

If a plane doesn't suit your fancy, use a rocket, and/or build your own. So far, all the rockets that have been sent into space, and even hobby rockets show a curved earth (hint, it's because intelligence correlates with understanding and agreeing with the RE model). https://news.erau.edu/headlines/embry-riddle-team-more-than-doubles-world-record-for-amateur-liquid-rocket-flight#:~:text=The%20rocket%20reached%20an%20altitude,previous%20record%20of%2022%2C000%20feet.

"Wolfgang Pauli made a calculation showing that the radius of curvature of the observable universe cannot be more than ≈ 31 km if zero-point energy/ether exists"

Ether does not exist and the radius of observable universe is larger than 31 km so that checks out.

Your video of a rocket having a trajectory which curves into the earth is frankly hilarious, because the earth curves, and that is why rockets seemingly have a collision trajectory; the rockets are inserting into orbit. So the argument is entirely circumstantial, either the earth is round and the rockets are inserting into orbit, or it is flat and they are being crashed deliberately. You believe the earth is flat so you will obviously favor the latter. There is a simple fix for this: based on the rocket trajectories, simply calculate where they will crash and be there to see it.

Empirically prove an aether, measure it and quantify it, then show formulas for its force.

And if the RE model has much simpler explanations for basically all phenomena than the FE model, maybe that makes it more credible.

Re: Photograph the Sun
« Reply #13 on: December 19, 2024, 01:31:14 PM »
Jackblack, your spam argument modus operandi has become monotonous. You always ask childish questions, I answer them and you retort saying something like "we can discard this magic and use a globe to explain everything in a simple way".


*I didn't repeat anything, I explained the same thing in a clearer way.

*Colors are not always visible when looking directly at the prism, it depends on the light and the angle. And we can use a wide light source.



Sometimes we can see rainbows by looking directly at the Sun or Moon, without rain.











Why doesn't water create a rainbow?



*A parabola has a circular top.

*A wavy firmament or a firmament with walls does not magically make the universe any size, it allows for a horizontally large universe, but it REQUIRES that the radius of the distance between the edge of the observable universe and the center of the Earth's surface be only 31 km.
If you disagree, then try drawing a universe with a wavy edge or curved walls where the distance between the edge and the center of the universe is magically greater than 31 km.


*I have already demonstrated several times that aether is indispensable, reality becomes absolutely complex and chaotic if you disregard aether.

Everything depends on aether, even general relativity, so beloved by RE, is actually a description of aether.

And the ether is the cluster of particles/energies that flow through the aether.
The ether allows the quantum vacuum, telluric energy and many other concepts to be understood as one thing, in addition to explaining all the effects related to the "movements of the Earth".


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

*The inverted density refers to the density of the AETHER, it is not the same thing as the absurd atmospheric density model advocated by some FEs.

*The speed of celestial bodies is not a problem for FE.

*You cannot explain why you believe my explanation of regular orbits is flawed.

*The Sun can be seen at the same time from opposite parts of the flat Earth because of the aether.

*A light inside a room is not as hot as the Sun.
https://cref.if.ufrgs.br/?contact-pergunta=insolacao-na-terra-plana-forno-para-cozinhar-terraplanistas

*Rowbotham's perspective theory has been PROVEN.
Zoom makes the horizon recede:


Hiding a small boat on a flat lake:



MAKE FLAT EARTH THEORY GREAT AGAIN

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Photograph the Sun
« Reply #14 on: December 23, 2024, 01:37:31 PM »
Jackblack, your spam argument modus operandi has become monotonous.
There you go projecting.

You always ask childish questions, I answer them
No, you don't.
I ask simple and direct questions and you avoid answering them at all costs because they show you are wrong.

Even now you refuse to answer it.
You refuse to provide a simple diagram showing just what you claim is happening with your magical dome and rain to create a rainbow.
Likely because you

Colors are not always visible when looking directly at the prism
Try looking at the prism from where that "rainbow" shows up, instead of a completely different angle.

Sometimes we can see rainbows by looking directly at the Sun or Moon, without rain.
You are aware it can be raining elsewhere, or just have droplets of water in the atmosphere without it raining?

Likewise, a tertiary rainbow forms at an angle close to the sun.
And there are other phenomenon as well, like ice crystals in the sky.

But do you know the important part of your statement which kills your fantasy?
SOMETIMES!

if it was a magical dome causing it, we should ALWAYS see it.
But the fact it is sometimes shows it has something to do with things in the atmosphere which change.\

Why doesn't water create a rainbow?
You have a glass of water, not small raindrops.

A parabola has a circular top.
No, it doesn't.
You can approximate a part of a circle with part of a parabola, but they are quite different to the extent we see a rainbow and a parabola certainly can't be a full circle.

A wavy firmament or a firmament with walls does not magically make the universe any size, it allows for a horizontally large universe, but it REQUIRES that the radius of the distance between the edge of the observable universe and the center of the Earth's surface be only 31 km.
Why?
Yet again, you just spout crap with no justification at all.
What is creating this requirement only in the vertical direction?
Why is this requirement not also in the horizontal direction?

I have already demonstrated several times that aether is indispensable, reality becomes absolutely complex and chaotic if you disregard aether.
No, you have demonstrated that your delusional fantasy is an absolutely complex and chaotic mess.
You have shown no issues with reality.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
Yes, Occams razor:
Earth is round, with so many things explained so simply, or Earth is flat with a magical aether which magically makes observations match those expected for a round Earth, with no explanation at all, nor any actual quantifiable measurements to support it and instead just vague BS claims where the aether has to behave dramatically differently at different times to make it work.

I sure know which one sounds simpler.

The inverted density refers to the density of the AETHER
Which you have no justification for.
Occam's Razor says to reject that nonsense.

The speed of celestial bodies is not a problem for FE.
It most certainly is, as you have no explanation for their path, nor why the observed angular rate of motion doesn't change regardless of where the observer is. And you have it magically change speed for no reason.

You cannot explain why you believe my explanation of regular orbits is flawed.
You have no explanation for what is causing them, and instead just appeal to pure magic.

Try a quantitative explanation, which also explains why they are observed in the location they are.

And they aren't regular. As explained you have the speed change dramatically, as if they teleport.

The Sun can be seen at the same time from opposite parts of the flat Earth because of the aether.
Yet again, you appeal to your magical aether with no explanation of just how this magic works.
Again, Occam's razor says to discard that BS and go for the simpler model, i.e. Earth is round.

A light inside a room is not as hot as the Sun.
The point is you can have a light inside and it without it being ridiculously hot. So your claim that the sun can't be inside or it would be too hot is just more nonsense.

Rowbotham's perspective theory has been PROVEN.
Considering his BS is just circular nonsense, which can be refuted by countless simple observations or even just thinking about the claim, it has and never will be.

Zooming in on an object which is in front of the horizon which has not been obstructed by the horizon doesn't prove his BS.

If you want to prove it, go find an observation where the bottom of a clearly resolved object is obstructed, and then zoom in to make the bottom appear.
Because that is what is needed.

Re: Photograph the Sun
« Reply #15 on: December 29, 2024, 06:26:32 PM »
*Ok JackBlack, you are right about the rainbow.

*A wavy firmament is not a magical shape that allows absurd sizes. The radius of the distance between the top of the second firmament and the center of the universe cannot be greater than 31 kilometers:




*It is not possible to discard ether and aether without violating the principle of Occam's Razor.
Ether allows us to explain several things such as zero point energy, telluric energy, quantum vacuum, Foucault pendulums, Sagnac effect and Coriolis effect using just one element.
Aether is the only way to explain the theory of relativity. Space works like a fluid.
The behavior of aether is consistent.

*The inverted density of aether fits perfectly into Occam's Razor, it explains several facts.

*I have explained the orbits of regular celestial bodies and the large variations in speed very perfectly and successfully. Your confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance hinder your understanding.
Celestial bodies with regular orbits rises at one of the gates on the ground in the east beyond Antichtone, follow a path through the zone between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, always making their natural variations. They sets at one of the gates in the west beyond Antichtone and pass beneath the Earth at a speed of 20000 km per second (the true diameter of the Earth is only 20000 km), causing the celestial bodies to accelerate and be born on the other side almost instantaneously. The natural speed of celestial bodies is ≈ 20000 km/s and the resistance generated by the density of the aether above the Earth's surface reduces the speed of celestial bodies to ≈ 1670 km/h (0,464 km/s).

Your statement about "angular rate of motion" is just unjustified delusion.

And apparently you don't know what a regular orbit is either.
Circumpolar orbits = circular orbits about the north or south pole.
Regular orbits = orbits of celestial bodies that rises and sets on the edge.

*Here a globular physicist explains why a Sun below the first dome would turn the Earth into an oven:
https://cref.if.ufrgs.br/?contact-pergunta=insolacao-na-terra-plana-forno-para-cozinhar-terraplanistas

*As the zoom is removed, you can clearly see that THE BOAT BEGINS TO DISAPPEAR FROM BOTTOM TO TOP, CLEARLY PROVING THAT THE PERSPECTIVE IS HIDING THE BOATS.


Small boat being hidden by perspective on a FLAT lake:


MAKE FLAT EARTH THEORY GREAT AGAIN

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Photograph the Sun
« Reply #16 on: December 30, 2024, 12:58:05 AM »
*Ok JackBlack, you are right about the rainbow.
Glad we can agree on that point.

*A wavy firmament is not a magical shape that allows absurd sizes. The radius of the distance between the top of the second firmament and the center of the universe cannot be greater than 31 kilometers:
Try drawing it in full, including the bottom.

Then explain why there can't be more circles along that path.

Why should the distance between the centre of the universe and the top of the firmament be less than or equal to 31 km?

*It is not possible to discard ether and aether without violating the principle of Occam's Razor.
It is, it is trivial, as already explained.

All the examples you have provided are already explained perfectly fine or have no evidence of existing.

At least if you accept the reality of a RE.
See the RE can explain the Coriolis effect and the Sagnac effect from Earth rotating.
But the FE needs to invent all sorts of BS to make it work.

*The inverted density of aether fits perfectly into Occam's Razor, it explains several facts.
No it doesn't.
It is an additional layer of BS, invented solely to try to save the FE.

*I have explained the orbits of regular celestial bodies and the large variations in speed very perfectly and successfully.
No, you haven't.
You haven't even tried.
So far you have just said they have gone on a path.
You have no reason for why they go on that path, nor why they change speed to the speeds they go at.

If you think you have provide a link or a quote.
And no, this quote you have provided doens't explain it.
Celestial bodies with regular orbits rises at one of the gates on the ground in the east beyond Antichtone, follow a path through the zone between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, always making their natural variations. They sets at one of the gates in the west beyond Antichtone and pass beneath the Earth at a speed of 20000 km per second (the true diameter of the Earth is only 20000 km), causing the celestial bodies to accelerate and be born on the other side almost instantaneously. The natural speed of celestial bodies is ≈ 20000 km/s and the resistance generated by the density of the aether above the Earth's surface reduces the speed of celestial bodies to ≈ 1670 km/h (0,464 km/s).
What are these celestial gates. Why do the bodies rise from there?
What makes them follow a path through the zone between the tropics? What dictates this path? What dictates these natural variations?
Why do they set in a gate?
Why does that cause them to instantly accelerate to a speed of 20 000 km/s?
Why does the density of aether reduce their speed to ~1670 km/hr?

See, you are just asserting what you want to happen without any explanation at all.


Your statement about "angular rate of motion" is just unjustified delusion.
Why?
Because it destroys your fantasy?


*Here a globular physicist explains why a Sun below the first dome would turn the Earth into an oven:
And have you bothered reading it?

If so, you would see this key part:
Quote
Since the dome would be made of a solid material through which there could be no exchange with the external environment (according to them), the Earth would be an isolated system, right?
That would mean if the sun is inside (or any chemical or nuclear energy source is used without storage as well) the energy would be trapped and cause the entire system to heat up.
It would also mean if the is outside, it can't be seen nor do we get any heat or energy from it at all.

So that doesn't help you at all.

*As the zoom is removed, you can clearly see that THE BOAT BEGINS TO DISAPPEAR FROM BOTTOM TO TOP, CLEARLY PROVING THAT THE PERSPECTIVE IS HIDING THE BOATS.
No, we don't.
The first one starts with a boat unclear if it is right on the horizon or past it with some of the bottom hidden.
It then zooms out, and we see the boat get smaller. It doesn't magically disappear from the bottom up. It just shrinks.

Small boat being hidden by perspective on a FLAT lake:
No, not a flat lake.
A boat being hidden, and when zoomed in, the bottom remains hidden, clearly showing it isn't perspective that is hiding it.
Then the same for another boat.
Then another where it is clearly beyond the horizon with the bottom clearly obstructed, and zooming in doesn't bring the bottom back.

Just what timestamp or what specific frames do you think shows what you claim?

It is also being filmed from a very low elevation which makes the water vapour directly above the surface of the lake distort the view.