Amber rose says she no longer believes in God… there’s just too many questions

[Th3Birdman]

Ok so according to heliocentric theory, even though our clocks operate on a full 24 hour time scale, the earth supposedly makes 1 full rotation every 23 hours and 56 minutes, not every 24 hours

Thats what a sidereal day is, a 23:56 hour full rotation instead of a 24:00 hour full rotation

So using some simple math, we can map out the sun's position in the sky at any given point in time

Example: you walk outside on december 1 to watch the sun set at 7:00 oclock on the dot.

According to the idea of a "sidereal day", the earth will make another full rotation in 23:56, not 24:00, which is what our clocks go to

So you go outside on december 2 at 7pm to see the sun set, but it should have set 4 minutes before that, at 6:56 since the earth supposedly makes 1 full rotation every 23:56

Then on december 3, the sun should be setting 4 minutes before that, at 6:52

Each day after that, the sun SHOULD be setting 4 minutes earlier than the previous day, according to heliocentric theory

Mathing that out over the course of 1 month, 30 days multiplied by 4 minutes a day is 120

There should be a 120 minute difference between the time that the sun sets on December 1 and the time that the sun sets on december 30, meaning a 7pm sunset on the 1st SHOULD become a 5pm sunset at the end of that month, then a 3pm sunset at the end of january, then a 1 pm sunset at the end of feburary, then an 11am sunset at the end of february and so on

Literally NONE OF US observe this and no human ever has. The sun sets with regularity all year, at around the same time(give or take daylight savings time)

The logical conclusion drawn from this, is that the earth is stationary and the sun circles above us in the sky with extremely accurate regularity, which completely disproves heliocentric theory

And if the sun rotates above us so perfectly, that means its aimed at us, which means something/someone aimed it at us

I hope that makes sense

This is one of the most ignorant takes I've ever seen, showing a complete lack of understanding of the difference between a solar day and a sidereal day.

-A solar day is the time we all use here on Earth; basically, it's the amount of time it takes for the sun to pass through the local meridian.

-A sidereal day is the time it takes for the meridian to pass through the vernal equinox

These are two different things, and it's clear you don't understand either, attempting to pass this off as proof of a "flat unmoving Earth", talking about lost time and a "120 minute difference". We do not use sidereal day in our day to day lives; that is a method of locating stars in the sky. We use SOLAR time, which is based on the position of the sun in the sky

You would be laughed out of a physics, math, or astronomy class with this take.

 

[xCivicx]

This is one of the most ignorant takes I've ever seen, showing a complete lack of understanding of the difference between a solar day and a sidereal day.

-A solar day is the time we all use here on Earth; basically, it's the amount of time it takes for the sun to pass through the local meridian.

-A sidereal day is the time it takes for the meridian to pass through the vernal equinox

These are two different things, and it's clear you don't understand either, attempting to pass this off as proof of a "flat unmoving Earth", talking about lost time and a "120 minute difference". We do not use sidereal day in our day to day lives; that is a method of locating stars in the sky. We use SOLAR time, which is based on the position of the sun in the sky

You would be laughed out of a physics, math, or astronomy class with this take.

I literally explained the difference between a solar day and a sidereal day in that post you quoted so I'm not sure what you're talking about. You clearly did not read my post, i suggest you do so before responding again

Also, i minored in physics at GaTech. Where did you go to school and what did you study?

 

[xCivicx]

No, I'm aware of exactly who I'm talking to my dude.

1. You HAVE put people on ignore because you couldn't outdebate them. I have personally seen you do this, please stop lying my dude. There is literally evidence in your post history that I could pull-- every time someone gets in your ass, you dismiss what they say as "sassy" and then eventually put them on ignore.

2. What does that have to do with anything?

3. Yeah, because you can't, because they don't exist. That's the point my dude-- you make claims about the Earth yet you have no model. You can't claim the Earth is flat if you have no model for the shape of the Earth. Every time you're pressed on this, you go "I don't know", but you can't do that when making positive claims. Positive claims require positive evidence. Provide a model please, or admit the Earth is spherical.

4. Lol-- wait, so you make the claim that you're one of two Flerfs on this board, but then claim I've never read a thread featuring you? I'm not going to let you deflect and direct to other threads. You're in this one, right now, being taken to task. Answer the questions here please.

5. Oh you got the right one today my nikka. I ain't your average Coli dude that doesn't know what he's talking about. Please ask your questions, but after you've answered mine.

6. I called out all you conspiracy theorists. Your ego is showing-- I didn't even realize you were in the thread.



Lmao-- fam, there are multiple Flat Earthers on this website, Swagnificent and Kingsman being prominent ones. But look at you, already trying to lay the seeds of "sass" " babble" and "passive aggressiveness".

Nikka, I addressed you directly, and you're deflecting from my post. Here, I'll post it again:



Report back with a model.

Name a poster that I've put on ignore because of a flat earth debate since you've personally seen this

 

[xCivicx]

So while Civic is busy ducking this post, I'm going to dispel a few of his talking points real quick.

One thing this dude always tries to say is that the images of the Earth don't exist, and the ones that do are "CGI". He clearly doesn't understand what CGI actually means, because those images are composite images, not "CGI".

CGI stands for computer generated imagery, or images that have been fully rendered in a CPU/GPU. Iron Man's suit, for example, is CGI-- something that doesn't actually exist.

The images of the Earth are sometimes composite images, or images that have been stitched together or have had the color emphasized. The reason you would stitch an image of the Earth together is because the Earth is MASSIVE compared to us, so our cameras have to be extremely far away from it to get a full image of the Earth. So, you take photos of the Earth and put them together to get a complete picture, exactly the same process as a panoramic photo.

According to this guy's logic, panoramic images are also "CGI" and "not real" because they're multiple images stitched together to form a composite.

However, here is a non-composite image of the Earth in 1972, before CGI even existed:

Spoiler

Here is the original publication of this photo, complete with the date (Dec. 7. 1972) and the fact that image was printed on Kodak photo paper, proving this was on REAL FILM, meaning you COULDN'T fake this image:

The “Blue Marble”, first photograph of the full Earth seen by human eyes, December 7-19, 1972

Harrison Schmitt, or Ron EvansThe “Blue Marble”, first photograph of the full Earth seen by human eyesApollo 17, December 7-19, 1972, 005:06:24 GETVintage chromogenic print on fiber-based Kodak paper, 20.3 x 25.4cm (8 x 10in), with “A Kodak Paper” watermarks on the verso, numbered...

onlineonly.christies.com

The first commercial usage of CGI in films was in a movie called Westworld, in 1973. This is what CGI looked like at that time:

Spoiler

Four years later, in 1977, Star Wars also used CGI in their film.

This is an example of CGI in the late 70s:

Spoiler

As you can clearly see, this is not even CLOSE to being as intricate and detailed as the picture of the Earth.

So, if CGI was used for the photos of the Earth back in 1972 (even though the technology for CGI didn't even exist at that time), why are movies that won Oscars for their digital effects no where near as detailed as the image of the Earth?

Why does that photo that you posted depict a perfectly spherical earth? Your scientists state that the earth isnt a perfect sphere

Also, no stars or satellites as usual

Again, you could have just bumped a flat earth thread because you're literally not posting anything new

Also, there are multiple movies and video games that show the earth in much higher detail than photoshopped nasa pics. Composite = computer manipulated. Period

 

[Th3Birdman]

I literally explained the difference between a solar day and a sidereal day in that post you quoted so I'm not sure what you're talking about. You clearly did not read my post, i suggest you do so before responding again

This is a deflection.

Not only did you NOT differentiate between the two, you got them mixed up and tried to conflate the meaning, stating we should have 120 minutes left over. That is a clear conflation of the two ideas, demonstrating you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

A sidereal day has nothing to do with the amount of time we should have left over. It is literally the way in which astronomers locate objects in the sky.

"Time" is the solar day. Minutes, hours, seconds are all based on the SOLAR DAY. If we DID have 120 minutes left over, it would be because the solar day is out of whack. It has nothing to do with a sidereal day bruh, which I remind you is about the amount of time it takes the meridian to pass through the vernal equinox.

F.

I have a stream to get to, and my audience is waiting. I will respond to the rest when I'm done streaming.

 

[Th3Birdman]

Name a poster that I've put on ignore because of a flat earth debate since you've personally seen this

That isn't what I said; here's a refresher:

You HAVE put people on ignore because you couldn't outdebate them

But if that's what you want, cool: here is you telling a poster who is debating you in the thread about the Van Allen Radiation Belts (which is a flerf talking point) you're going to ignore them because you didn't like him using your silly logic against you:

Cool, so you're just in here to derail

Got it. I'll ignore you from here on out thanks

Here you are angry at another poster because they agreed with Dafunk in another Flat Earth thread:

Congrats @ocmfII you just made my ignore list

You must really love that shytposter to sacrifice yourself for him, for essentially nothing

Here you are, putting Funk on ignore in the Black Hole thread:

@Dafunkdoc_Unlimited you are now on ignore

Too bad, I really did enjoy shytting on you in 9/11 threads

Those are just a few examples of how you operate. When you can't out-debate someone, you cry "derail", "sassy" or say they're gonna get ignored etc. You threatened to ignore Funk multiple times before you actually ignored him, meaning you were looking for any reason to put him on ignore, and pretend like you found one with the 9/11 thing, but this is a forum where we can search your history, and the truth is that you LIKED debating him in the 9/11 threads, as you said so yourself. You ignored him because he was cooking you in the Flat Earth related threads.

You're probably going to do the same to me eventually, because I'm way more tenacious than these other dudes, and I actually know what I'm talking about, so you're going to run, 100%.

You said you had questions for me; please shoot them shyts my way. I got nothing but time, energy and knowledge to kick. I turn Flat Earthers into science understanders all the time. So please, do your worst my dude.

 

[Th3Birdman]

Why does that photo that you posted depict a perfectly spherical earth? Your scientists state that the earth isnt a perfect sphere

Also, no stars or satellites as usual

Again, you could have just bumped a flat earth thread because you're literally not posting anything new

Also, there are multiple movies and video games that show the earth in much higher detail than photoshopped nasa pics. Composite = computer manipulated. Period

I'm challenging xCivicx to A Debate About Flat Earth

Since you said I should have bumped a Flat Earth thread, and that I was "derailing" (even though YOU called ME out), I'll make a thread where the entire subject is me beating your talking points down @xCivicx From the other thread: Why does that photo that you posted depict a perfectly...

www.thecoli.com