So, you're admitting you're dodging my first hand images of the Earth, eh?
I have nothing to do with Neil. I have not corroborated Neil's position. You cannot use that in an argument with ME.
I have provided a non-composite image of the Earth that existed before CGI, and demonstrated with my own camera why you cannot see stars in that image. I also proved that the image was not of a perfect sphere.
Address this^^^
If you can't, you admit you have lost this debate.
You are in a debate-- why would you post an image of something you don't believe?
Is that image not what you believe is happening? You don't believe the sun is rotating above a flat plane?
Because if you DO believe that, then it's perfectly reasonable to debunk that image, because the purpose of that image is to show the sun's rotation above the planet.
The truth is, you don't have a model. This is why everything you could post is debunked instantly, and why you always run away from everything you do post. If you had a model, you would post it.
Flat Earth is not about proving the Earth is flat; it's about undermining science and common sense because you people are religious. You don't have any evidence for what you say.
Stop using words you don't know the meaning of. You don't know what a strawman is (which is weird considering that's all you argue against in these threads)
What you quoted me on was me giving you reasons why your model/belief doesn't make sense. That is not what a strawman is, jesus christ
You believe the sun rotates above a flat planet. So I debunk that concept by explaining that Antarctica and places in Alaska experience 24 hour darkness and 24 hour daylight. If the sun was rotating ABOVE the Earth (which is what you believe my G) those places would never have 6 months of light or darkness. It is IMPOSSIBLE FOR THAT TO HAPPEN.
You literally started this thread saying POST THE ACCURATE MODEL, POST THE ACCURATE MODEL, which is a strawman because I never said there WAS an accurate model. You can clearly read that I've kept this stance in every single flat earth thread that I've posted in
I posted a general concept image just as a base for what I'm saying. Nothing in that image is to scale in any way, shape or form
Even though I've made this clear many times, you chose to continue to nitpick an image that has no foundation in any kind of accurate model of the flat earth plane besides how the sun and moon move with relation to each other
THEN, like the hypocrite that you are, you have the nerve to dismiss the fact that YOUR EXPERTS STATE THAT THE EARTH IS SHAPED IN A WAY THAT YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO ACCURATELY SHOW IN HERE
As a matter of fact, you're in here arguing that TWO different inaccurate images in here are somehow factual. The flat plane image and the earth from space image
The entire basis of your arguments are predicated on inaccuracies. You then choose to argue against the inaccuracies that YOU YOURSELF are attempting to legitimize even though no one else has legitimized said inaccuracies
Pay attention to what the fukk you're responding to nikka:
I am clearly talking about your model-- that the sun rotates above the Southern Hemisphere in a wide ring in North winter and a narrow ring in the Northern Hemisphere in North summer.
You either can't read or have comprehension issues.
In the winter, that ring will be the wide ring. This means the sun should be at its furthest point from Hawaii, Florida and Indonesia, causing them to be significantly cooler than the time that ring is closest to them.
Because we KNOW the temperature in these places does not significantly change at any point in the year, your idea of the sun rotating above the Earth is FALSE.
Yeah you're literally just talking in circles, like I said
You seem to think that the sun moves far enough away from places like hawaii and florida to where they should be getting colder
Again, that's an idea that you have fabricated in your own mind
As I have explained before, the sun remains at or near the equator longer than it remains anywhere else. As a result, those areas stay warmer all year round as opposed to everywhere else
This is the last time I repeat this. Try something new, you're starting to just waste time in here
You are confused and trying to obfuscate what we are talking about because you are confused.
New moons do NOT only occur during night. Solar eclipses ONLY happen during New Moons, meaning new moons do not occur during the night. You're debunking your own talking point but you're not perceptive enough to realize that
New moons do NOT occur at night. I have no idea where you're getting this from.
Stop trying to discredit people that are far more intelligent than you.
Newton did not "create" gravity. He observed a phenomena and gave it a name. Whether Newton was there to observe the fact of gravity and give it a name or not, does not change the fact that things fall down.
YOU are burdened with explaining why things fall down if it is not gravity. That bullshyt "answer" you gave about things "seeking an at rest state" is not going to cut it. You need to provide a way to test that claim, a way to prove it false, and the mathematical formulas showing why your hypothesis makes sense.
But one thing at a time: you still haven't
- explained what causes lunar eclipses
- provided an accurate model of a flat earth
- explained how, if the sun is rotating in wide rings during North Hemisphere winter, the sun manages to still rotate above the Earth in the same timeframe it does during North Hemisphere summer, when its rotation is narrower without speeding up.
Stop trying to move on when you ain't explained none of this shyt. Your feet are being held to the fire, I'm not the typical coli nikka that's just about to let you move to a different flerf talking point.
That's between you and the other homie, not me. I'm paraphrasing what he stated in that thread. The thread was linked in THIS ONE, so if you want to see it that bad, go right ahead.
Notice everyone that he once again completely ignores the second paragraph of my post. Proving my point once again.
Next time, don't embarrass yourself by posting shyt that you imagined I said because you want attention
I've said multiple times in here that I believe that the sun and moon are the same size and same distance from the earth. The fact that you continue to look past this is your own shortcoming, not mine
@Th3Birdman I've addressed every single post of yours in here
Why are you continuing to ignore this post of mine?
I'm waiting for you to address it
Your problem is that you think that you can prove your case by continuing to make theoretical arguments. Then you make claims that you also admit that you cannot prove by way of experimentation
All of my arguments are based in the real world, what any person reading this thread can go out and observe
Why isn't the earth curving away where it should be in this video? Please be specific
No, it's a video of astronauts who have been to "space" all giving different accounts of whether or not stars are visible in space. It's a video full of contradictions
Gases do have a direction. Gases lighter than air float upward(must be stronger than gravity) and gases heavier than air sink downward. It's almost like this phenomenon is perfectly explained by density
Yes, science does sound like someone talking in circles to someone with no science education. The problem is that everything I've said can be backed up with empirical evidence that anyone can verify and replicate. You, on the other hand, have provided NOTHING replicable nor falsifiable. Nothing you say has evidence to support it. You have done zero math and rely on Flerf YouTubers and Facebook posts for your talking points. You are losing this debate handily.
Gases do NOT have a direction, the hell is wrong with you breh? Lmao
Gases that are lighter than air float because of GRAVITY. Gravity (which is an actual force) pulls down objects that are denser, creating layers of density. You flerfs that keep saying "buoyancy and density" do not understand that those concepts mean nothing without GRAVITY.
This is an incredibly easy thing to debunk, by showing a helium balloon in a vacuum. Helium only floats because it is less dense than air. This means if you remove all the air (like in a vacuum) the helium WILL NOT FLOAT, and sinks to the Earth like everything else
Gravity causes water to stick to a ball, but only in space, meaning that you cannot produce an experiment that will result in gravity sticking to a ball. You believe in something that you cannot prove. Got it
Do you realize you have put a model in this thread you admit you don't believe? That you have, on many occasion, suggested the moon is a projection? Said that that there is land beyond the ice wall?
You are in no space to suggest anyone believes in something they cannot prove.
And by the way, "gravity sticking to a ball" is a meaningless and frankly embarrassing phrase. You are, yet again, demonstrating that you haven't a clue what the discussion is even about
Next time, don't embarrass yourself by posting shyt that you imagined I said because you want attention
I've said multiple times in here that I believe that the sun and moon are the same size and same distance from the earth. The fact that you continue to look past this is your own shortcoming, not mine
Why are you answering a question that I never asked? That was between you and the other homie. I simply brought it up as another example that you ignored. You're just talking to yourself here.
If you're going to quote me, then answer the question I actually asked of you, as I've literally been waiting years for a response at this point.
I dont think i understand this question? Are you asking why private companies lied about government technology? What companies lied and what evidence do you have to prove they lied? Which of the 52% of commercially owned satellites out of the 1,500 in-orbit are being quiet about their...
www.thecoli.com
I asked him where the balloons are in relation to the sun and moon since according to flat earth they are only 70 miles away he disappeared of course
There's a secret network of hundreds of thousands of balloons around the world giving us tv ,internet, gps, phone, etc? He says we can't see satellites thousands of miles away is proof they don't exist, but all these damn balloons MUCH closer and we don't see any, and not one of those leaking...
Here's the post that @Geordi made that linked the exact post that I was passively referencing. The same posts that you claim "doesn't exist" when it has been mentioned and verified by other parties aside from me. So much for imagination.
Please post an image or something that would illustrate how the sun could illuminate the moon enough to cause a full moon, while simultaneously being below the horizon(meaning it's nighttime where the observer is viewing the moon)
THIS is where you have a major problem. In North Hemisphere Winter, when the Sun is revolving above the Earth closer to the Antarctic (in the ridiculous model that you posted that you apparently don't even believe), it has to go a larger distance to revolve around the Earth. Even you just admitted this.
THEREFORE (and pay attention)
IT HAS TO SPEED UP TO MATCH THE SPEED WHEN IT IS CIRCLING ABOVE THE EARTH IN NORTH HEMISPHERE SUMMER.
Those two circles are different sizes, meaning they would revolve at different speeds necessarily. Here's a demonstration using pulleys:
Do you see how the smaller circle spins FASTER, meaning the larger circle is SLOWER? This is a major problem for your model, because we can clearly see that the Sun moves in the sky at 15 degrees per hour. If the Sun were circling above the sky in larger circles, it would never make it in 24 hours without speeding up
You're aware that, even in Winter, we (here in the states) can still see the Sun, right? In Winter, the Sun is still moving normally. If what you were saying were true, we'd be able to SEE this from where we are here in California, for example.
What we see in Antarctica is accounted for in the Globe Model because its at the bottom of a ball that is tilted at an angle.
If you tilt this ball at a specific angle and rotate it around a light source, you will get most of this landmass in darkness at some periods and most of this landmass in light in other periods. This is literally basic shapes and light
THEN, after it revolves AWAY from a fixed point and moves BELOW the horizon(aka NIGHTTIME) it stays BELOW the horizon for extended periods of time, until it revolves back around to rise ABOVE the horizon on the opposite side from where it crossed the horizon previously
This is when you know a nikka doesn't have an iota of a clue what he's talking about.
What's up with all this vague "fixed point" and "extended periods of time" jive? Science makes accurate predictions-- "extended period of time" is meaningless. Using your model, state how long the Sun stays below the horizon and how and why it rotates away from that "fixed point"
This is the problem with what you believe: the Sun and the seasons have no real explanation. Sure you think it revolves above the Earth, but you can't explain HOW it's moving, and WHY. There is no explanative power here; you are just making up an explanation for what we can observe here on the Earth (i.e. the seasons change). What mechanism causes the Sun to rotate? Why is it where it is in the sky on your model?
You have no answers for these, and are just trying to yadda-yadda through it. Sorry, but that's not how it works here. Explain.
As demonstrated in my video, this image is not perfectly spherical, as it bulges out of a perfect circle.
This means it matches what scientists say, that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, where its rotation causes the equator to bulge, and the poles to slightly flatten.
Sorry, but this was already proven BY ME in the first post of this thread. You haven't even addressed this point, so what the fukk you talking about?
You seem to think that the sun moves far enough away from places like hawaii and florida to where they should be getting colder
Again, that's an idea that you have fabricated in your own mind
As I have explained before, the sun remains at or near the equator longer than it remains anywhere else. As a result, those areas stay warmer all year round as opposed to everywhere else
Again, this is DEAD WRONG. This is not how temperature works.
A source of heat does not warm things in perpetuity. Once that heat source has gone, things will immediately begin to cool. This is basic physics.
This means that when the Sun leaves its position according to your model, the temperature should dramatically change. The Sun is gone for 6 months my dude-- that is enough time for the surrounding areas of Hawaii and Florida to have a dramatically different temperature than when the Sun is near or directly over them in your model. THEY DO NOT.
Cape Coral, Florida is on the same latitude as McAllen Texas, but somehow, McAllen, Texas' climate is cooler in the Winter and hotter in the Summer than Cape Coral. Your explanation doesn't account for that.
Also, as I have stated, Hawaii is not at the equator-- it is 1400 miles NORTH of the equator. It is a part of the Northern Hemisphere. 1400 miles is the distance from LA to Arkansas, a distance that is so far, it is two time zones ahead.
This means in Winter, Hawaii should have a significant temperature change, as the Sun is at its furthest distance away for three months.
You have explained NOTHING, get that through your head.
Nikka, you are free to leave at any moment. Just know that doing so will mean that you've been beaten by a new poster on these boards, and whenever you pop out your hole to shyt talk science, nikkas will point to my thread as the thread you admitted defeat on Flat Earth. You will never live that down.
I'm going to repeat the truth as many times as I need to.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
/GettyImages-183847542-5ac4d66004d1cf0037f5675f.jpg)
That's between you and the other homie, not me. I'm paraphrasing what he stated in that thread. The thread was linked in THIS ONE, so if you want to see it that bad, go right ahead.
