Imagine my surprise
(cdn.videy.co)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Toast message
I would never accept video as proof. It's so easy for them to fake it. You don't allow that possiblity and it prevents you from taking it seriously. I'm able to discuss anything about it, but our conversation hasn't been teacher to student, it's been a philosophy argument. If you are inquisitive, I can help.
The fact that you admit to thinking FE is about an edge means you have been bamboozled. No one thinks we are on a flat planet with an edge, that is stupid and that is the psy op. You got stuck on tue first level psy op designed to dissuade normies...pretty weak for a so called conspiracy theorist.
And there are many amateur videos from weather balloons 20 miles up and we can clearly see the horizon does not curve and the sun is local to earth, small and moves. The earth doesn't move and even that is easy to observe and prove.
You do t understand I got hooked. There isn't some rabbit hole of reading gospel like religions or cults. It's re teaching yourself everything because your education was a joke. It changes everything and nothing at the same time... obvious you are still a slave in a container. So it makes no difference of you know it..
It takes time to reteach yourself everything after you first proved the earth cannot be a globe. And that's what I meant by million years old dinos or aliens from other planet being impossible. Not just unlikely. By using logic.
Christianity is just another psy op to keep us in line. Doesn't mean I'm atheist or religious. FE realization makes some people more religious, but not me, it makes me realize we are just slaves or science experiments, maybe entertainment or delectably delicious...who knows why we are here or what this place is, but we could not have originated here unless this place is billions of years old and even then, who can manage this place that long.
So proving the earth isn't a globe won't help evolution, but ya, technically by itself it cannot disprove it, but wow, you'd have to do some serious mental justification to keep believing in evolution.
Yes, I've done the math. Using websites and my own excel sheet.
And in your example, pull out binoculars. Then you can see the entire tower again. Do you understand how laws of optical perception work? It's basic but most people are confused by how the horizon works.
The horizon is just the end of YOUR visibility with your eyes. You can use more powerful lens and see much father, if it wasn't for Beers law (particles in the air), you could see from NYC to Paris.
But it should be obvious that boats do not actually go over the horizon in just a few miles when you pull out binoculars and see them again after they "went behind the curve"
Refraction doesn't explain that, but most people grasp to that word and think they understand it.
You know that there is a high chance you are wrong, and if you are wrong, all your insults turn on yourself. You are sitting in a glasshouse and throwing rocks. The chance is 100% btw.
> It's so easy for them to fake it.
Unsubstantiated claim. It's not easy, and it's easy to spot fake videos even today.
> You don't allow that possiblity and it prevents you from taking it seriously.
To consider the possibility doesn't mean I lobotomized myself. Again, videos are one thing. To fake uninterrupted, continuous, video footage is a whole different level. But we can gladly dismiss incontrovertible proof for the sake of entertainment.
> The fact that you admit to thinking FE is about an edge means you have been bamboozled.
I heard various versions of it. Including the floppy "it could be anything, we don't know!" version with moving goalposts.
> And there are many amateur videos from weather balloons 20 miles up and we can clearly see the horizon does not curve and the sun is local to earth, small and moves.
Well, sounds easy then. Show me the best video you have.
> obvious you are still a slave in a container.
The psycho-babble is a little tiring. It has 0% effect, so skip it.
> By using logic.
I am still waiting for you to present the logic.
> but wow, you'd have to do some serious mental justification to keep believing in evolution.
You've still not presented the logic to argue that. This is all just vague "trust me bro." Evolution is based on the core phenomenon of genetic inheritance. Extend that to a large scale across time and you have evolution and its logical implications, like the time span or how changes in lifeforms happen.
> And in your example, pull out binoculars. Then you can see the entire tower again.
There is no terrain around me that is flat. And here in Hungary there *are* quite some flat terrains filled with crops, but nothing that would allow you to see far anyway. And when you happen to be able to see far, it means you are on a slight elevation, or you are looking slightly down. If you are merely 1m higher, your vision range drastically changes, and I don't think you are able to figure out your exact elevation for comparison.
So I don't know how you can be so certain about that given that it's near impossible to be conclusive about that.
However there is a good example with [power poles over a sea](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/gqfiq4/the_power_lines_at_lake_pontchartrain_clearly/).
> who can manage this place that long.
That's the key, it wasn't managed and it doesn't have to be.
> The horizon is just the end of YOUR visibility with your eyes.
You can literally go up a mountain and have an immense vision range. Look at [this](https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=250&h0=3000&unit=metric). If you stand on a 3000m high mountain and have a clear vision, you would be able to see objects ~200km far away IF they'd be 3000m below you. Then the curvature gets extreme enough that at 210km ~16m of objects would be obscured, meaning most objects (trees, houses) wouldn't be visible.
Look at [this](https://sky-lights.org/2021/01/11/earths-longest-unobstructed-line-of-sight/) bad boy - allegedly the Earth's longest unobstructed line of sight (it's a damn nice view). How far does that view go? 50km?
So if you can see that far, how does "range of vision" make sense? Aside from that, the Sun and Moon even according to FE-theories must still be quite distant, so how are they visible if your vision range is supposedly so short?
> when you pull out binoculars and see them again after they "went behind the curve"
I don't think you can take boats as a suitable comparison because they move, and the pace at which they vanish is slow, as it spans ~5-15km. At ~8km distance you should [still be able to see](https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=8&h0=1.9&unit=metric) the boat. And if you don't, it means other factors like mere distance, fog and/or water vapor have obscured your view, and binoculars could compensate that.
That's not an experiment that proves anything.
Thing is, and I know you can't believe me, but I know, like most people who would never call themselves "flat earthers" know for a fact the earth cannot be a globe and space cannot be a vacuum full of super massive stars and black holes.
You think it's ridiculous, and so did I, until I took it seriously.
I wasn't able to be convinced in the comments section and It looks like you'll have none of that either, but you can trust yourself. That's what I had to learn. That my analytical skills, use of logical methods and trusting my observations above the status quo are real.
I started with a proof. I began to add them up and it became less and less likely that everyone and everything was right. It's hard to explain this transformation in my perspective. I know it can't be understood until you've tried it.
You're a man when you can take the FE proofs seriously, explain them as if you were a professional and still decide for yourself what you will hold as your world view.
While you adopt others idea (video, NASA, space fags here and there) and doubt real people like me that say things that don't vibe with your world view,...then you are merely a sheep, following the crowd.
You're not trying to learn and I don't have time to teach a person like that
Why can't it be? What makes you so sure of it? Because it's absolutely plausible. Given gravitation, matter tends to move towards itself, thus stars, planets and moons form, and orbiting occurs. If it weren't like that, all matter would be distributed across space like a gas. But that only means that the vacuum of space would be replaced with... an almost vacuum of space. 99.999%+ of space consists of nothing, the rest is matter, which is highly concentrated (like stars).
> I know it can't be understood until you've tried it.
See, there are multiple attempts from flat Earthers, and all have their logical shortcomings that render their theories impossible. For example the fact that there are places in the North where you can see the Sun for 24+ hours straight should debunk all of them. I cannot even imagine the super-fancy made-up map one could come up with to make it plausible, whereas with Earth being a globe it's utterly simple and straight-forward. One flat Earther did it not long ago, and while he remained skeptical to maintain his "pride," he was accused by others of being a fraud or incompetent.
It's one of those cult beliefs that is highly entrenched. Even if you get 1 person out, all others will double down in their fanaticism.
> You're a man when you can take the FE proofs seriously
I did. So far ALL failed to prove their points. And there were some who were much better than you are btw. He made an argument based on a physics formula... which was ultimately silly, but it was a good attempt and I had to look it up myself.
> While you adopt others idea (video, NASA, space fags here and there)
[How about](https://replogleglobes.com/blog/the-shape-of-the-earth-who-discovered-the-fact-that-the-earth-is-spherical/) Aristotle, Eratosthenes (3rd century BC), Ferdinand Magellan, Juan Sebastián Elcano? NASA is very recent... they came 1 or 2 millennia late to the party.
> then you are merely a sheep, following the crowd.
But what if... you are exactly what you accuse others to be? Maybe you think because you go against the grain you are smarter in some area, yet you navigate yourself with ignorance and dismissal of established facts, math and physics. Your opposition to soyintific community is reasonable and justified btw - there is more corruption going on than most people can even imagine. But we are not talking about idiots, we are talking about people with a very high IQ and extensive understanding of what they are doing. If you don't operate with the same level of intelligence and/or competence, you cannot even communicate with them. It's as if they are talking to a dog, trying to prevent it from shitting on the porch... but the dog doesn't understand.
Tell me, one of these "short comings" that you have found in "flat earthers" points?
When it comes to Eratosthenes, you have to understand how gullible you are, how you're not able to see the massive hole in the logic. But, don't take my word for it since your too biased to learn from me, so get it from V-sauce, Jew tool fake science fag himself. https://streamable.com/356zse
Do you see the obvious unscientific flaw?
Did you know the the solor system and planets and globe were all new to the department of education only one decades before the "moon landing". Ya, nobody taught globe earth until the 1950s. It was only debated in so called higher learning, and the debates were overwhelming.
Today, the government has exceptional control over your world view.
But, don't believe me, just answer so more questions. Like, where does the powerful, infinite vacuum of space stop pulling off little air molecules? At what elevation is the "gravity" stop protecting the air from getting sucked off? No one can tell you, it's fact that doesn't exist, but go look
How about answering my other point about Polaris. Why did that one get by you?
Going back to my original claim that you're a half ass who never actually tried to understand perspective or anything a flat earther had told you ( I'll bet you've never met anyone who told you the earth isn't a globe either, just watched globetard programming that teach you how to behave towards a person like me, should you ever meet a person you think is a "flat earther" which I am not, but I digress...)
You're incapabliy of describing why the 24 hour sun doesn't make sense is how I know you're lying about "looking into flat earth"
You actually assume that I am arguing for a pancake planet floating around the sun with other round planets, huh? Do you know anything about real zetetics? No. You're just another sheep who thinks they understand the premise before regurgitating your globe space programming.
If you ever met a real "flat earther". You'd learn quickly they know more about heliocentric and geocentric models than you. Ya, there's nothing you know about space or gravity that I can't run circles around. It's impossible to teach the globe programmed though. I know because I was just like u several years agYou didn't actually. So, let's prove that you don't understand FE model. Shall we?
Tell me, one of these "short Cummings"
When it comes to Eratosthenes, you have to understand how gullible you are, how you're not able to see the massive hole in the logic. But, don't take my word for it since your too biased to learn from me, so get it from V-sauce, Jew tool fake science fag himself. https://streamable.com/356zse
Do you see the obvious unscientific flaw?
Did you know the the solor system and planets and globe were all new to the department of education only one decades before the "moon landing". Ya, nobody taught globe earth until the 1950s. It was only debated in so called higher learning, and the debates were overwhelming.
Today, the government has exceptional control over your world view.
But, don't believe me, just answer so more questions. Like, where does the powerful, infinite vacuum of space stop pulling off little air molecules? At what elevation is the "gravity" stop protecting the air from getting sucked off? No one can tell you, it's fact that doesn't exist, but go look
How about answering my other point about Polaris. Why did that one get by you?
Going back to my original claim that you're a half ass who never actually tried to understand perspective or anything a flat earther had told you ( I'll bet you've never met anyone who told you the earth isn't a globe either, just watched globetard programming that teach you how to behave towards a person like me, should you ever meet a person you think is a "flat earther" which I am not, but I digress...)
You're incapabliy of describing why the 24 hour sun doesn't make sense is how I know you're lying about "looking into flat earth"
You actually assume that I am arguing for a pancake planet floating around the sun with other round planets, huh? Do you know anything about real zetetics? No. You're just another sheep who thinks they understand the premise before regurgitating your globe space programming.
If you ever met a real "flat earther". You'd learn quickly they know more about heliocentric and geocentric models than you. Ya, there's nothing you know about space or gravity that I can't run circles around. It's impossible to teach the globe programmed though. I know because I was just like u several years ago.
The established physics and math IS what I questioned. And I found to be totally corrupt and also simply retarded. For example, You should ask yourself how parallel (aka direct) light from the sun can create a penumbra. Or how does a cloud or hot air balloon stay in sync with the spinning ground below ( assuming you really do understand basic physics)?
As I said, there are many. And they are all failures. There is no one singular model. There is plain flat Earth, there is infinite flat Earth, and I even encountered one which purely consists of sophistry (the guy never told me).
> Tell me, one of these "short comings" that you have found in "flat earthers" points?
Alright. For one I could see the Sun and Moon simultaneously multiple times. According to various FE models they circle each other on opposite sides.
Seeing the Sun for 24h+ straight in the Arctic. That should be impossible, yet it happens quite a lot. Even in northern parts of Norway there are places where it happens that it's dark all the time or (mildly) sunny. If the Sun would circle around above ground, that should be impossible.
The fact that the alleged sight distance is inconsistent. While on a mountain you can see very far (as in the image I linked), but when standing on the ground your sight range is surprisingly low. The simple explanation is the curvature of the planet, which is the reason you cannot see tall buildings you "should" be able to see if Earth were flat, but you can see very far if you are on a mountain. Also the curvature is well visible in the other image I linked which shows power poles across a see - the surface of the water is actually as flat as can be.
The fact that FE by baseline has magical properties as a premise, and also logical inconsistencies. The Sun and Moon are supposedly tiny and float around with no explanation whatsoever. Sight range is supposedly a thing, but the Sun and Moon are more far away than anything in vicinity, plus the magical "dome" that is there for no reason, serves no purpose except tricking us to think there are stars and planets, is even behind it and is supposedly even darker, yet it is seen. Oh and Earth is moving through space eternally and generating the illusion of gravitation at 9.81m/s, which doesn't work according to physics, even though FEs say there is no space... so what is it flying through? A big nothingness? Also called "space"?
The names for planets came from Rome... ~2 millennia ago. They named their gods after the visible planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn).
> At what elevation is the "gravity" stop protecting the air from getting sucked off? No one can tell you, it's fact that doesn't exist, but go look
It's logical. The gravitation of Earth is limited and decreases over distance. Which means the higher up the atmosphere you go, the less dense the air molecules. Even on mount Himalaya it is a known problem to breathe for humans as air becomes sparser. As the density of air molecules decreases, there is a point where air is no longer "trapped" on Earth. There is a gradual transition spanning a long distance.
[Here](https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/atmosphere/layers-earths-atmosphere)'s a source with details.
> How about answering my other point about Polaris. Why did that one get by you?
Didn't see it. Polaris is *the* star that appears static because it aligns with the axis of Earth's rotation. Over time the actual star can and does change. The current star is *currently* our "Polaris" so to say. Not sure what you asked though.
> You're incapabliy of describing why the 24 hour sun doesn't make sense
It makes perfect sense. [Here](https://www.visitnorway.com/things-to-do/nature-attractions/midnight-sun/)'s a demonstration of how it looks in Norway. And an explanation. The place is angled at the Sun, and this phenomenon occurs for weeks. The farther away from the equator, the bigger the gap of sunlight time in summer and winter, which reaches a point at the polar edges where it gets extreme enough that there are times of total darkness and continuous sunlight. 5 min video [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g34rcrCm06g) explaining it. Look, I just learned something.
That it happens is a widely known fact btw. Even if my explanation were bad, it still *does happen* since forever.
> You actually assume that I am arguing for a pancake planet floating around the sun with other round planets, huh?
Nono, as I said I got a version that was based purely on sophistry too.
> how I know you're lying about "looking into flat earth"
I didn't say I was brainwashing myself to death over it, watching 24/7 flat Earth videos on YouTube.
> You should ask yourself how parallel (aka direct) light from the sun can create a penumbra.
Uh, [this](https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/penumbra-shadow.html)? Quite self-explanatory from the image. The Sun is huge compared to Earth, and far away. And there is also a little atmospheric refraction in play.
> Or how does a cloud or hot air balloon stay in sync with the spinning ground below
Simple. The air rotates with the planet. It too is bound by gravity, just as buildings, trees, animals. If it wouldn't, we'd have lethal amounts of wind permanently (~1670km/h), rendering this planet inhabitable. So because everything on the planet is rotating *with it* at a speed of ~1670km/h, we do not perceive anything from it because the difference is ~0.
> The established physics and math IS what I questioned. And I found to be totally corrupt and also simply retarded.
I agree, but I question if you are capable to judge it. You brought up "critic points" that are extremely easily looked up. To compare with chess - you calculated 0 steps ahead. You just made moves that looked good, but somehow forgot you have an opponent who also makes moves.