99% of humans are about to experience sunlight at the same time tomorrow

[biglentil]

The heliocentric model arguably the greatest deception of all. The blue marble 'proof' propaganda really ramped up 1927.

[biglentil]

Anyways back to the beginning of the thread. Imagine my camera is the sun, the earth is pitched towards me on its 23.4 degree axis, im trying to illumitate the largest number of people. I can't seem to get any North or South America in the light without leaving out the most populous regions of Asia.

[Blaithin]

Great questions! Ill try and answer them. The width of USA on reference.com is 2680miles and Australia 2500miles. There is no question that Gleasons flat earth map published in 1892 has the scale of Australia slightly larger than it should be, but it is still much more to proportion than the modern day Mercator Projection found on classrooms chalkboards. On the Mercator projection for example greenland appears as large as Africa when in reality it is only 1/14th the landmass as Africa.

[ATTACH]12877[/ATTACH][ATTACH]12878[/ATTACH]

I encourage you to try and measure the circumference of Antarctica using the desktop version of google earth. I tried and got the same results as this lady. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZM29JvnAw/


There is no South Pole. All compasses point towards the magnetic north pole. All directions oposite the megnetic north pole are south, those perpendicular are East and West.

Due to perspective and the opacity of our atmosphere light does not travel indefinitely. Just like light does not reach the depths of the ocean neither does the suns light through our atmosphere when it travels far enough away the light rays bend towards the horizon(not curvizon) creating the effect of a setting sun. The sun is local and much much closer than the 93000000 miles away Nasa claims.


In summer the sun is much further north hence the midnight sun in the Arctic regions. In the winter just the opposite so much less of the worlds population is illuminated at the same time as the sun makes much larger circuits in the winter. The sun and moon are the same size, an electrical phenomon, sun being a positive and moon a negative. Only one face of moon is visible on all locations of earth at the same time in the exact same phase.

We have no idea how thick the disc is, the deepest borehole drilled reached 12262metres in 1992 in Russia pressure and temperature increase with depth. The globeys claim the magnetic field of earth is a result of a molten iron core of earth. Easily debunked since iron loses all magnetic properties at 770C.

Greenland’s size when compared to Africa is explained by the illusion of flattening a spherical shape. In your theory of a flat world, you should not be applying this illusion. Australia should not appear larger than America, it should appear to scale. Your examples are trying to fit the continents into pie shapes expanding out from the centre but 2500 miles is 2500 miles, it shouldn’t stretch out to be more just because the latitude lines are excessively pie shaped. Unless you’re saying 2500 miles close to the centre is a shorter distance than 2500 miles out towards the edge.

I’d also say that it’s impossible to have perpendicular to north in a circle. If North is Centre there can be no perpendicular as longitudes are not going to be intersecting at right angles. When you say South is the opposite as North and East and West are perpendicular, in your models, south is the exact same as your East and West, it’s just the end.

As for lights travelling distance, are you disputing the known composition and refraction of the atmosphere? Because it sounds like you’re saying the sun is closer to us, yet the light actually travels less distance than conventional models. Which would mean the atmosphere composition and refraction must be quiet different than were told. Which, coincidentally, would also be increasing the greenhouse effect as light that enters, would be less likely to leave. So really, you're saying global warming is increasing because we’re flat and out atmosphere doesn’t as easily allow light through.

Moving on to the midnight sun portion, your theory explains the northern midnight sun, however it does not take into account the southern midnight sun. Because the sun is making larger circuits in the winter when it’s near the edges, and you’ve already said sunlight does not travel far through the atmosphere, this means Antarctica across from the suns current location on the edge would be dark while Antarctica under the suns current condition is light, eliminating the possibility of Antarctica experiencing midnight sun in your theory, correct?

So we know the disc is at least 15-16 miles thick since the borehole, and Marianas Trench, tell us it’s not half way at 7-8 miles. So why is there not something located on the sides of this cylinder? It’s obviously not geometrically flat, it will have at least two other sides.

Going back to the atmosphere, if you were to say the atmosphere is a dome, highest in the centre above the North Pole, and then lowers down to connect with the ground around the circumference, surely the pressure amounts would change. While there will be little pressure at the top of the dome, were it to attach to the land, that pressure would either be different since it’s near the edge of the atmosphere, in which case Antarctica would have completely different air composition and pressure, or, that can’t really be the edge of the atmosphere. If one were to claim the pressure just adjusts to stay normal as one moves towards the outer circles, then that would insinuate the ceiling out towards the edge would have more pressure than the ceiling in the middle. Therefore the dome atmosphere theory would also mean that climbing mountains out towards the edge would be easier to scale higher since they would have better pressure and air quality than mountains up here, near the peak of the dome. I can’t say I’ve heard mountaineers say that southern mountains are easier to climb, no matter their elevation.

So if the exosphere and thermosphere don’t come down and make contact with land at the edge of the disk, therefore eliminating these questionable scenarios, that means the atmosphere must be in some sort of spherical shape. Which would mean it likely encompasses both other sides of the cylinder we live on the end of, meaning those sides should easily have things growing on them as well. No?

[biglentil]

Greenland’s size when compared to Africa is explained by the illusion of flattening a spherical shape. In your theory of a flat world, you should not be applying this illusion. Australia should not appear larger than America, it should appear to scale. Your examples are trying to fit the continents into pie shapes expanding out from the centre but 2500 miles is 2500 miles, it shouldn’t stretch out to be more just because the latitude lines are excessively pie shaped. Unless you’re saying 2500 miles close to the centre is a shorter distance than 2500 miles out towards the edge.

I’d also say that it’s impossible to have perpendicular to north in a circle. If North is Centre there can be no perpendicular as longitudes are not going to be intersecting at right angles. When you say South is the opposite as North and East and West are perpendicular, in your models, south is the exact same as your East and West, it’s just the end.

As for lights travelling distance, are you disputing the known composition and refraction of the atmosphere? Because it sounds like you’re saying the sun is closer to us, yet the light actually travels less distance than conventional models. Which would mean the atmosphere composition and refraction must be quiet different than were told. Which, coincidentally, would also be increasing the greenhouse effect as light that enters, would be less likely to leave. So really, you're saying global warming is increasing because we’re flat and out atmosphere doesn’t as easily allow light through.

Moving on to the midnight sun portion, your theory explains the northern midnight sun, however it does not take into account the southern midnight sun. Because the sun is making larger circuits in the winter when it’s near the edges, and you’ve already said sunlight does not travel far through the atmosphere, this means Antarctica across from the suns current location on the edge would be dark while Antarctica under the suns current condition is light, eliminating the possibility of Antarctica experiencing midnight sun in your theory, correct?

So we know the disc is at least 15-16 miles thick since the borehole, and Marianas Trench, tell us it’s not half way at 7-8 miles. So why is there not something located on the sides of this cylinder? It’s obviously not geometrically flat, it will have at least two other sides.

Going back to the atmosphere, if you were to say the atmosphere is a dome, highest in the centre above the North Pole, and then lowers down to connect with the ground around the circumference, surely the pressure amounts would change. While there will be little pressure at the top of the dome, were it to attach to the land, that pressure would either be different since it’s near the edge of the atmosphere, in which case Antarctica would have completely different air composition and pressure, or, that can’t really be the edge of the atmosphere. If one were to claim the pressure just adjusts to stay normal as one moves towards the outer circles, then that would insinuate the ceiling out towards the edge would have more pressure than the ceiling in the middle. Therefore the dome atmosphere theory would also mean that climbing mountains out towards the edge would be easier to scale higher since they would have better pressure and air quality than mountains up here, near the peak of the dome. I can’t say I’ve heard mountaineers say that southern mountains are easier to climb, no matter their elevation.

So if the exosphere and thermosphere don’t come down and make contact with land at the edge of the disk, therefore eliminating these questionable scenarios, that means the atmosphere must be in some sort of spherical shape. Which would mean it likely encompasses both other sides of the cylinder we live on the end of, meaning those sides should easily have things growing on them as well. No?

Ah yes I've always thought that 24hours of sunlight in Antarctica would settle this once and for all. However any proof of such phenomenon is dubious at best. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZM29MvLMs/

[Blaithin]

Ah yes I've always thought that 24hours of sunlight in Antarctica would settle this once and for all. However any proof of such phenomenon is dubious at best. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZM29MvLMs/

Yeah… that doesn’t settle anything actually.

Your links are definitely still farther from proving flat than information proving globe.

[biglentil]

Yeah… that doesn’t settle anything actually.

Your links are definitely still farther from proving flat than information proving globe.

There are literally 100's of demonstrable proofs of flat earth one can verify for themselves on a daily basis. Please show me some demonstrable evidence of curvature or rotation as ive yet to find any.



Here are a couple great short videos that answer many of your questions better than I could or have time for this morning.

"Why Are There No Photographs Showing a Flat Earth" https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZM29Vs7FP/


"What is Above, Below and Beyond the Flat Earth"https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZM29qLsCE/

[Blaithin]

I’m not a teacher, never wanted to be, and if I did want to teach somebody, it wouldn’t be an old man set in his ways, it would be someone open to learning.

Doesn’t bother me if you want to think the Earth is flat, or pretend it’s flat to bug people. I’m not asking these questions to try and convince you the world is round, I just thought I’d see what reasonings you could supply and so far it’s been quite underwhelming with no real convincing answers.

Why does the sun rise and set? If we are flat and it’s simply just travelling too far away for its light to reach us, then surely it would just get smaller and dimmer as it travelled away and larger and brighter as it travelled towards us. It wouldn’t be dropping below the horizon at all if there was no curvature to the ground.

Also please explain the moon phases.

[biglentil]

I’m not a teacher, and if I wanted to teach somebody, it wouldn’t be an old man set in his ways, it would be someone open to learning.

Doesn’t bother me if you want to think the Earth is flat, or pretend it’s flat to bug people. Just thought I’d see what reasonings you could supply and so far it’s been quite underwhelming.

It took many years of observation, experimentation and research to go from 100% certain that earth was a ball to becoming a globe skeptic. The simplified formula for the curvature of Earth is 8" per mile squared, this formula is accurate within 0.3% of the much more complicated formula verified by Autocad. For a typical adult with eyes at about the 5ft level the horizon should only be visible for approximately 3.5miles. At 10miles there should be 66ft of curvature. At 100 miles 6600ft. In my experiments across dead calm bodies of water and freshly frozen lakes there is Zero detectable curvature. Water finds perfect level.


Even Einstein admitted that the rotation of earth is impossible to detect. I can provide 100's of proofs we live on a flat non rotating plain but when will the globetards provide anything but fish eye images, cgi images and pseudoscience?

[Blaithin]

Never been to the ocean?

Coincidentally ships travelling on the ocean first inspired the globe theory. Much like the sun, they sink out of site instead of just becoming smaller and smaller until they can’t be seen anymore. First the hull disappears, then the decks, finally the masts and sails. How is this explained if the world is flat and the ship should leave sight at the same rate, not bottom to top.

[Blaithin]

And why is the sun circling us? How is that happening?

[blackpowder]

Well heck, it's a refreshing change from the vid/vax convos.

[Blaithin]

Well heck, it's a refreshing change from the vid/vax convos.

This is fun!

[Blaithin]

And what about the fact you can leave a location and travel in a straight line in any direction and you’ll always end up back where you started. Yeah some paths aren’t going to be easy to do, but they all have the same result in globe theory and also all be very similar distance give or take hiking up some elevations.



If you travelled in a straight line in flat theory you’re always going to hit the edge, but at different distances. To get back to where you started you would need to travel in a circle and it can only be done in two directions to be similar distances. Otherwise you’re just going out and doing a loop and turning around and coming back which proves nothing.

[Blaithin]

And if water always wants to be level, how do you explain tides.

[TOM4CWB]

And if water always wants to be level, how do you explain tides.

Amazing… when ships and aircraft, people in sailboats, etc etc… go around the globe 24/7 … routes of shipping globally…. All rationally reasonable proof of this planet being a globe.

So is this a debating club now… instead of discussing common sense and truth?

Blessings and Prayers