gsjackson wrote: ↑October 29th, 2023, 5:27 am
So you've offered an explanation for why we wouldn't perceive the motion of a spinning ball, but that's not evidence that the earth is spinning. There is none, despite many attempts to demonstrate that there is.
What about the Coriolis Effect? This is when circulating air is deflected in curved paths due to the fact the earth is globular and also rotating. The direction of this effect is opposite in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
There's also the fact that with time exposure cameras we can see the circular trails of the stars which prove the earth is rotating. Unless you believe in the firmament and that is what is actually rotating, otherwise why does this effect happen?
Also, what about the Faucault Pendulum? This is apparently an easy way to demonstrate that the earth is rotating on its axis. An explanation for this is here if anyone needs it:
So,
@gsjackson, how do you account for these phenomenon? How do these work on a flat earth?
Who said anything about a firmament? That's not a commonly accepted view among people investigating the heliocentric fallacy.
In a video I watched the author spoke about the firmament. I assumed this was a universal concept accepted among flat earthers. I understood the concept of the firmament as it was explained by the author of the video, but I don't know if I can accept it as a truth. If you're not of the belief that a firmament exists above earth then what are the external stars and planets and why do they rotate above us? For what purpose?
1. There have been 56 instances observed by even the Royal Academy of Science of eclipses occurring when the sun and moon were both observable in the sky. So not aligned in a way that creates the eclipse.
How is this possible? And what do you mean? What kind of eclipse? A solar or lunar eclipse?
2. The sun rotates around the earth, just as it appears to do. And it is not 93 million miles away, which is utterly absurd. It is much, much closer, just as it appears to be. So does that explain your differing angles?
Why does the idea of something being 93 million miles away seem so absurd to you? Why is the size of the sun so inconceivable? Flat earth just has too much guesswork and not enough scientific research to support it. How and why does the sun move from the northern and southern hemisphere to create the different seasons on a flat earth?
I'm not sure if a much smaller and closer sun would explain differing angles. But I'd have thought the supposed curvature of the Earth would also play a role in the angles of these shadows cast. Like say if the sun was directly overhead and half way between two sticks placed an equal number of miles apart then surely their shadows would be exactly the same wouldn't they?
3. The obvious limitations of human vision account for different constellations above different parts of the earth. A person walks half a mile down the road and all but disappears (and no, the earth's curvature doesn't account for this -- 8 inches per mile squared is the curvature formula put forward by the globalists). And yet the "scientists" tell us that we can see stars that are quadrillions of miles away -- because they're so very, very big. Bullshit. They're what they appear to be -- a couple hundred or so miles away. Since the southern hemisphere is thousands of miles away from the northern you will see different stars overhead.
There is a fallacy in your logic here. Take people from South America, South Africa and Australia all looking in different directions and ask them to name which constellations they can see and they will all name the same stars and constellations, the same will happen with different countries in the Northern Hemisphere as well. Yet limitation of human vision can't see South Africa from the South American coast, yet how can they all see the same stars if these stars are tiny and only a few hundred miles away?
This can only be possible on a globe earth where all the people from these various locations and facing in different directions can all see the same constellations. On the flat earth map this same situation would result in all people seeing different stars as they would all be facing different areas of the night sky instead of facing the "southern" night sky.
No need to postulate a "conspiracy theory." To get into and remain in the professions you listed you have to accept the prevailing paradigm. If you're dealing strictly with theory, rather than observable phenomenon, then both the heliocentric and geocentric paradigms work, according to both Einstein and Hawking. But to get into the "science" club, as currently constituted, you need to embrace the religion of heliocentrism.
Both the heliocentric and geocentric paradigms work in theory, but only one of them can be true. As far as scientific evidence and proof is concerned I think the heliocentric model makes the most sense. The geocentric model is just an example of humanities hubris and the desire to be at the centre of everything. I just think there are too many fallacies and inconsistencies for this theory to be the prevailing one.
Where its true that when a certain paradigm is pushed people who get into a certain profession have to accept that paradigm (like with the covid fiasco) it doesn't mean that every single profession enforces this mentality to maintain the globe earth lie. What would the point of such a large conspiracy be? And why have there been no whistle-blowers?
In saying all this I confess that I could be wrong. I think flat earth is possible when in alignment with simulation theory. But simulation theory is equally applicable to the heliocentric model as well.
What do some of you guys think to this?
@galii
@Winston
@Yohan
@yick
@Lucas88
@gsjacksonYou are free to make any decision you desire, but you are not free from the consequences of those decisions.
and is beneath debating him about this subject, obviously I am on team global earth and think flat earth is stupid and there is no reason why anyone should promote the earth is global if it isn't but if you bet Winston a million dollars that the earth is a globe and can prove it beyond doubt to his mind where he couldn't dispute it - Winston wouldn't take the bet - he knows deep down that it's bullshit but he also thinks deep down that we are all f***ing stupid and we are not capable of debating him about it.
