I don't understand your pictures. Are they perpendicular to water level? The bottom picture shows curvature? And it shows the horizon not directly in the middle of the picture.
Flat Earth
- Thread starter grav
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2020
- Messages
- 509
- Reaction score
- 1,209
I don't understand your misunderstanding.
One picture was taken in 1946, showing a flat horizon.
The other one was taken later, after Nasa (German Nazis) had confiscated all things scientific. That image presents a curvy green world, looking more like it was taken from an airplane at 5 miles of altitude.
As for your insistence that we look at right angles to the water, knock yourself out showing us proof that your idea means a hill of beans.
My last post on your predeliction for perpendicularity.
Thank you KD, have read a few of them quite awhile ago when the original SH was in its glory. Will have to check out the rest. As for hostilities, wasn't talking about toward myself, just from my perspective seems some get mad or frustrated at times, but again, perspective is key there.
As for photos or videos, are you using a curvilinear or rectilinear lens? Most wide angle rectilinear lenses make curved lines look straight, and vice versa. I'm sure the fish eye lens is always in my mind seeing photos of the earth from space.
It is hard to decipher what photograph maybe using a certain lens to achieve a certain effect. Though what we see with our own eyes thru their rods and cones are in question as well, as everyone does see things around them differently as well even in very small aspect sometimes.
Who is to say that we weren't made/created/evolved to see things a certain way and that's it.
Also wondering why TPTB and religion tried to stifle the heliocentric model for so long, just to decide hey, let's play along and stop burning heretics that believe this.
Then again, that is just the story we are told, and that is why SH exists in the first place, to question history itself, if it happened the way we wrote it down, or if it was a myriad of lies told to subjugate others, and if so, why?
Dunno if it will ever be figured out, nowadays the truth is a lie and lies are the truth, coming from the same place they always have, those in charge, no matter who it is. Anything to keep people divided, maybe that's the key, who knows.
Though maybe the simulation theory does hold merit. Remember they don't have to drill holes in your head for a brain scan, it can be read outside of your head, maybe there is more to everything than we think we can understand.
As for photos or videos, are you using a curvilinear or rectilinear lens? Most wide angle rectilinear lenses make curved lines look straight, and vice versa. I'm sure the fish eye lens is always in my mind seeing photos of the earth from space.
It is hard to decipher what photograph maybe using a certain lens to achieve a certain effect. Though what we see with our own eyes thru their rods and cones are in question as well, as everyone does see things around them differently as well even in very small aspect sometimes.
Who is to say that we weren't made/created/evolved to see things a certain way and that's it.
Also wondering why TPTB and religion tried to stifle the heliocentric model for so long, just to decide hey, let's play along and stop burning heretics that believe this.
Then again, that is just the story we are told, and that is why SH exists in the first place, to question history itself, if it happened the way we wrote it down, or if it was a myriad of lies told to subjugate others, and if so, why?
Dunno if it will ever be figured out, nowadays the truth is a lie and lies are the truth, coming from the same place they always have, those in charge, no matter who it is. Anything to keep people divided, maybe that's the key, who knows.
Though maybe the simulation theory does hold merit. Remember they don't have to drill holes in your head for a brain scan, it can be read outside of your head, maybe there is more to everything than we think we can understand.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2020
- Messages
- 2,005
- Reaction score
- 8,103
This thread has now been locked, as the discussion revolves around the same topics endlessly, without us going anywhere. In the future, we might open this thread again, or create a new better moderated one to discuss flat earth.
This thread and the topic of flat earth, while interesting and certainly important, has invited some very strange characters to our site. It fuels my suspicion that flat earth is part of a sophisticated psy-op to denounce the truther community, and to make people stop seeing the obvious inconsistencies of the heliocentric model.
While the earth is probably stationary, the narrow focus on the exact shape of the realm is simply a distraction from the important questions.
The official flight paths alone are enough to destroy the flat earth paradigm, and the majority of people can easily understand this, so flat earth will always be mocked by the larger public. And that is because the arguments people bring forward to support flat earth are half-baked and easy to refute.
We now have a new thread with a new focus. Instead of promoting a belief system about the exact shape of the earth (which can only result in people attacking each other over minor things), we try to deconstruct the official narrative of heliocentrism: Deconstructing Heliocentrism and modern Physics
Logically, the fact that the accepted mainstream model is wrong, doesn't automatically lead to the earth being flat. It just means we are not living on a round spinning spaceship in a vast endless galaxy.
It means we are living inside something.
I would be curious if there is a single coherent, rational and scientific explanation by people who are convinced of flat earth, when it comes to flight distances. Since there isn't a single coherent physical model of the flat earth, which could be used to falsifise it, at least there should be an explanation for flight paths.
But there is none imho. No one can explain why you can fly between Johannisburg and Perth non-stop in 10 hours, or why all flights curve in line with the curvature of the earth. Since flat earthers are so keen about direct observations, why has no one booked a flight between Perth and Johannisburg and documented the observation?
Even more fascinating is the stubbornness of the flat-earth people in repeating and spamming the web with their allegations, without providing actual clear arguments. There is simply no relevant data being produced by them. In conclusion, there is no theory available yet, only assumptions. Assumptions which turned out to be baseless.
So how can the fact that often a curve is not directly visible, be anymore than an interesting notion? It is certainly no proof for the earth being flat.
Creating Flight Plans for Flat Earth
A direct test of the flat earth model: flight times - creation.com
Even creationists come to the obvious conclusions, thinking logically.
The entire meme is a virus, I think it prevents a true scientific inquiry into the nature of our enclosed terrarium reality.
See here where I further write about the problems of flat earth.
Also:
This thread and the topic of flat earth, while interesting and certainly important, has invited some very strange characters to our site. It fuels my suspicion that flat earth is part of a sophisticated psy-op to denounce the truther community, and to make people stop seeing the obvious inconsistencies of the heliocentric model.
While the earth is probably stationary, the narrow focus on the exact shape of the realm is simply a distraction from the important questions.
The official flight paths alone are enough to destroy the flat earth paradigm, and the majority of people can easily understand this, so flat earth will always be mocked by the larger public. And that is because the arguments people bring forward to support flat earth are half-baked and easy to refute.
We now have a new thread with a new focus. Instead of promoting a belief system about the exact shape of the earth (which can only result in people attacking each other over minor things), we try to deconstruct the official narrative of heliocentrism: Deconstructing Heliocentrism and modern Physics
Logically, the fact that the accepted mainstream model is wrong, doesn't automatically lead to the earth being flat. It just means we are not living on a round spinning spaceship in a vast endless galaxy.
It means we are living inside something.
I would be curious if there is a single coherent, rational and scientific explanation by people who are convinced of flat earth, when it comes to flight distances. Since there isn't a single coherent physical model of the flat earth, which could be used to falsifise it, at least there should be an explanation for flight paths.
But there is none imho. No one can explain why you can fly between Johannisburg and Perth non-stop in 10 hours, or why all flights curve in line with the curvature of the earth. Since flat earthers are so keen about direct observations, why has no one booked a flight between Perth and Johannisburg and documented the observation?
Even more fascinating is the stubbornness of the flat-earth people in repeating and spamming the web with their allegations, without providing actual clear arguments. There is simply no relevant data being produced by them. In conclusion, there is no theory available yet, only assumptions. Assumptions which turned out to be baseless.
So how can the fact that often a curve is not directly visible, be anymore than an interesting notion? It is certainly no proof for the earth being flat.
Creating Flight Plans for Flat Earth
A direct test of the flat earth model: flight times - creation.com
Even creationists come to the obvious conclusions, thinking logically.
The entire meme is a virus, I think it prevents a true scientific inquiry into the nature of our enclosed terrarium reality.
See here where I further write about the problems of flat earth.
Also:
I think every topic that gets big enough is turned into a movement managed by insiders from the secret cabal ruling us. Their primary goal is to create an image of reality and make people believe it's actually reality. Hypnosis. Inversion. They have hundreds of thousands of members. They have all the time, resources and money they need. Managing what the masses think is their day-to-day job, and it takes a lot of effort to keep the masses dumb. Turning things upside down is their game and purpose. They know where they live, they know who they are, and who we are. They know their history, and they know where they want to go. Everything that has been taken from us and makes us powerless, they still have. But what they don't have is the godly spark, which is why humanity will eventually wake up and win. They are merely shadows, vampires, parasites. They are fueled by their emptiness, and without us giving them power they won't exist. On some level they are us, and are dependent on us. The purpose of evil is in giving humanity the opportunity to overcome it. When humanity overcomes the desire to live in darkness, it will disappear.
The problem isn't flat earth, although it shows all signs of a managed operation, but the inability of people to focus on the important aspects first. Which would be the fact that there is no evidence for heliocentrism. Apparently the masses aren't able to entertain the idea of heliocentrism being a lie without instantly substituting it with a new half-baked concept.
Apparently people often need the concept of a flat-earth to realize that heliocentrism is false.
The ridiculously low intellectual level of the discussion in flat-earth circles suggests it is dominated by a few government shills and an army of trolls who have too much time on their hands.
By definition, the flat-earth movement will never be a threat, because it breaks the topic down to a very narrow view of what the opposite of heliocentrism could look like. The flat-earth meme is a very shallow concept, it's not a danger to the PTB.
Although it contains one of the most important truths, that we live in an enclosed and relatively small realm. But this realization is overshadowed by the futile attempt to prove the flatness of everything.
Everything could be so easy. Focus on deconstructing the heliocentric model first. That's the only threat to the powers that be.
But the lie of heliocentrism is so engrained into the masses that people are not able to think about this. There is no topic which invites more cognitive dissonance. Although without realizing where we are and where we are not there is no way to go forward into a meaningful and peaceful life on earth. A ball earth planet racing through empty space is the anti-thesis to life itself, it's the perfect metaphor for darkness, and everyone who sincerely and without any doubt believes in it is attracted to darkness to a significant extent.
*edit: unlocked after internal discussion
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2020
- Messages
- 509
- Reaction score
- 1,209
Unlocked?
Well, I guess I should be pleased.
Here is a thread that says the surface we live on is flat.
Flat refers to a vast irregular plane. Reasons include these:
Water lies flat (level). Oceans are water. Conclusion: oceans are flat.
Chicago and other distant targets are visible beyond a curve predicted by math.
Air pressure is obtained only in a closed system (p=m÷v) where particle mass is divided by volume.
The presence and vacuum of space defy all gas laws, centrifugal force, and common sense.
Yet the Body Scientific continues to teach fake physics.
Their chief spokesperson drops a microphone to demonstrate the "force" of gravity, while clouds weighing thousands of pounds of water float over his head.
I think these simple statements warrant consideration.
Yet people get offended and complain about the thread's very existence.
And so we get lectures and lessons in optics/perspective along a city street.
We also get helpful hints about how we are doing it all wrong, that we should deconstruct heliocentrism first, which, hello, did I not just do that a few paragraphs above?
FE has ruffled many feathers in this forum, one which putports to support skepticism of our modern model of reality.
Why people get all bent out of shape over the earth's shape beats the hell out of me. But many do, out of cognitive dissonance or self interest.
I understand, vaguely, how difficult it must be to ride herd on a bunch of opinionated posters on a forum which covers a wide range of controversial topics. It's kind of like a big lecture hall where brilliant people and intellectually challenged individuals discuss big issues. Agents of discord infiltrate the crowd, sowing dissension and drama. ugh, drama.
Not a fan of drama. I prefer comedy. To misquote Proverbs, mirth turneth away wrath.
Water is flat and not curvy, the air does not get dragged along by grabbity, and the spinny ball is a Disney fairy tale. I could go on but y'all get my point.
Well, I guess I should be pleased.
Here is a thread that says the surface we live on is flat.
Flat refers to a vast irregular plane. Reasons include these:
Water lies flat (level). Oceans are water. Conclusion: oceans are flat.
Chicago and other distant targets are visible beyond a curve predicted by math.
Air pressure is obtained only in a closed system (p=m÷v) where particle mass is divided by volume.
The presence and vacuum of space defy all gas laws, centrifugal force, and common sense.
Yet the Body Scientific continues to teach fake physics.
Their chief spokesperson drops a microphone to demonstrate the "force" of gravity, while clouds weighing thousands of pounds of water float over his head.
I think these simple statements warrant consideration.
Yet people get offended and complain about the thread's very existence.
And so we get lectures and lessons in optics/perspective along a city street.
We also get helpful hints about how we are doing it all wrong, that we should deconstruct heliocentrism first, which, hello, did I not just do that a few paragraphs above?
FE has ruffled many feathers in this forum, one which putports to support skepticism of our modern model of reality.
Why people get all bent out of shape over the earth's shape beats the hell out of me. But many do, out of cognitive dissonance or self interest.
I understand, vaguely, how difficult it must be to ride herd on a bunch of opinionated posters on a forum which covers a wide range of controversial topics. It's kind of like a big lecture hall where brilliant people and intellectually challenged individuals discuss big issues. Agents of discord infiltrate the crowd, sowing dissension and drama. ugh, drama.
Not a fan of drama. I prefer comedy. To misquote Proverbs, mirth turneth away wrath.
Water is flat and not curvy, the air does not get dragged along by grabbity, and the spinny ball is a Disney fairy tale. I could go on but y'all get my point.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2020
- Messages
- 2,005
- Reaction score
- 8,103
you aren't doing it all wrong, I never said that. I didn't even necessarily include you or other users of this forum when I talked about the flat-earth community, I was talking about the movement as a whole, not about you in particular. Maybe it touched something in you and you felt addressed, so you took it personally.
I explained why I think deconstructing heliocentrism should be separate from promoting a new construct of how the earth looks. It's two separate topics. Merging both together in the mind prevents us from finding more possibilities, and from seeing clearly what reality is not, before creating a new picture in the mind of what reality is.
That's why I consider it important to have a discussion that is exclusively for criticism of heliocentrism and standard accepted model of physics. It's a very good exercise - and something we also do in regards to history - looking at the official model and taking it apart. Afterwards, there is a creative void, an emptiness in the mind, and this is where all the magic happens. Maybe it could be helpful for you as well, separating both topics mentally - criticizing heliocentrism/mainstream physics and thinking about how the realm we live in really looks.
when you start with a prejudice (the earth isn't a globe, but it's flat), it's a discussion that has it's place, but it would be similar to when we talk about history while having in mind already a new construct of history.
I also wrote that I believe there is no proof for the earth being flat, and I also gave resources that make it possible to understand where I am coming from (including the link from creation.com). As I wrote before I do think that the earth is stationary. (My belief is in line with @wild heretic - the earth was flat until around 500 years ago, and since then it has become concave.
If the earth is flat, then the horizon always reaches the eye level, but is that the case when we get up high? I've seen evidence from globers that the horizon lowers as observer height increases, so I would like to see contrary evidence that it does not. I've never seen FE'ers address this empirical evidence.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2020
- Messages
- 509
- Reaction score
- 1,209
The horizon rises to eye level only on a flat earth.
The higher you go, the more you see of the infinite plane. It's a blur of course, as the vanishing point compresses vast distances.
If earth were a finite ball, and you flew higher and higher above it, it would diminish in size. That only happens in sci-fi and Nasa rocket launches.
But I repeat myself.
You don't see the irony here?
To whom does prejudice refer?
All of us FEers started out as globe believers who educated ourselves about basic physics and astronomy.
How about flat water, the selective force of gravity, visibility of targets around the curve, air pressure vs vacuum, other arguments that support the geocentric position?
I focus on specifics, laws of physics and optics, empirical evidence, repeatable experiments like videos which use maps and telescopic lenses to observe long distance targets.
How is that prejudice?
As for the Concave Earth theory, I don't know. There should be a separate thread on it. The Wild Heretic is a smart guy. I just can't figure out where level water fits in, or what the math is to describe the surface of the inside of a sphere.
Last edited:
The horizon rises to eye level only on a flat earth.
40 pages and I have yet to see any empirical proof of that.
Maybe the following excerpt from Johannes Lang might give some insight on the subject:
In order to get to know the problem from all sides as far as possible, lets do the following experiment in our minds, by thinking of a infinite plane:
Our eye is 2 m above this plane. From the points A to H of the plane go light rays to our eye. Now we place at each point a surface
at right angles to the light ray going from the point to the eye. The height should be up to the light ray of the point.
We can readily see from the drawing that the eye at O the upper edge of each transverse lobe must stop at the lower one of the next. Each transverse surface therefore covers the piece of the plane, which lies between this transverse surface and the next one.
So the eye does not see the plane, but a wall.
Now we know that the eye perceives all angles that are less than one minute as a point. Consequently, it divides the image of the
Earth's surface into 29 099 points. (The whole distance from A to the horizon comprises 44 ° 59 ' == 29 099 '.) On the first meter there are 679 points. One sees it therefore very clearly in all details.
A single point in the eye covers however at the last visible part of our plane a distance of 3438 meters! It is the last half of the distance only as a single point seen.
Even with an adjustment of the eye to the horizon the first point of the distance still covers a space of 1 millimeter. If one now considers that the first point is 1 millimeter and the last one 3438 meters - that is almost four million times (!) more - then one immediately understands the "curvature" of the plane.
Because the eye does not distinguish the distant points any more and simply lays them together as a "wall" also know as "bowl".
The following drawing No. 3 1. shows the curvature as it appears in the eye.
Everything that is on the plane "behind the horizon" and does not project beyond it is therefore invisible. The "wall" which these points form in our eye is just as "real" as the transverse surfaces on our drawing No. 30.
They cover just as reliably everything what lies behind the "vanishing point". They form the horizon, not any curvature.
Because our "earth surface" in the above experiment was an (absolutely straight) plane.
As far as i understood him, he proved that the rising horizon can both occur within a flat or concave earth, but never with a convex earth.
Last edited:
Great post. However you will notice that the horizon meets the eye level on this picture. Even if you go to 1000 miles up, you will still see the horizon at eye level, because it is indifferent to the height of the observer. This will not happen with a round earth, which is why it is a simple experiment to do to prove if the eart is flat or not. Go to a mountain, take a picture perpendicular to the water level in a cup, then look to see if the horizon appears right in the middle of the photo. If it not dead in the middle, but slightly below the middle, then we have a problem that needs to be explained.
I have 8 more pages to read but things like this are why I read this thread and I'm glad people can post again! Even though (please don't judge) I'm one of those "I don't know and also don't really care"-shape earthers. Just sayin'.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2020
- Messages
- 509
- Reaction score
- 1,209
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2020
- Messages
- 211
- Reaction score
- 643
I love these videos, always freaks me out a bit to see a blazing sun against a black sky - a sight most people would never get to see!
Talking of which, every high altitude video I've seen shows the sun in the same position, more or less horizontal to the camera - never directly above and never any lower or sinking below the earths surface. This one for instance, which is not an FE made video either! Wouldn't we expect a variety of sun positions for a RE? i.e. sometimes it should be directly above, sometimes going below horizon etc. Has anyone ever seen a high altitude video where the sun is positioned differently? This is a bit of smoking gun for me!
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnxvS9XFJnE
Also this one, another that isn't FE inspired.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAlS70Onn2I&t=416s
This one is very interesting, taken at night for a change - and lo and behold we can see stars! I thought you couldn't see stars in space according to NASA? Also not an FE made video.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkrIm0ZUyJY
and more
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXP-va2t4D8
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5kRyQStPhU
This comment from the guy who filmed it is interesting:
"I haven't had time to analyze video yet, but while viewing through the footage I notice something interesting. When the sun got close to stars it seemed to switch them off. It seemed as though the energy from the sun effected the light from the stars even when the stars were still in darkness. I will do a complete analysis of this video and upload my results on my next video."
The approach of the sun, which we can't see yet, creates a really nice blue plasma.
Shouldn't we be able to see the earth falling away on all sides of our view, as in wrapping around the curvature of a sphere? Surely there'd be a hint of such a phenomenon at the elevation of this ballon. There is none. We're looking across, not downwards.
OMFG the earth must be flat! I've been lied to yet again!
It doesn't show it's angle but if we assume that it is perpendicular to water level, then we would expect the horizon to be in the middle of the screen, but it is slightly below the middle of the screen. As far as my understanding goes, that wouldn't happen on a FE, but who knows?
No worries and no judgement! Unfortunately the only copies of the full book seem to be behind a paywall. I have bought a copy and began reading it myself this weekend. It is a fairly weighty tome, but so far seems worth the time and money and seems very relevant to the days we are currently living in.
wise
Banned
- Joined
- May 27, 2021
- Messages
- 20
- Reaction score
- 40
Flat Earth Railway Experiment with Simulation
In a real world, The size and shape of the objects around you are always the same, regardless of where you focus. As long as your position is fixed, the size and shape of the objects around you should be the same wherever you turn. I mean, in the real world it should be something like this:
This example is the same illustrative example I would give on issues like this. Whether you are looking at alpha and beta or beta and gamma, or alpha, beta and gamma, the magnitudes and ratios to each other of alpha, beta and gamma do not change. I mean, that's what it would be like in a real world. Now let's move on to the railroad experiment.
Flat Earth Railway Experiment
In the fake world, that is, in our world, when you look at the railroad from the accross side, the railroad always appears straight to the both of left and right. Like this:
You can see this by experimenting yourself. Look from across a railway and you'll see it this way. If you take a photo, it will still look like this.
For scientific purposes, let's measure the width of the rail on the right, middle and left, and check if they are the same or not.
this is similar to the example we saw before, when you look at an object from the opposite side, the dimensions are harmonious and straight. Here, alpha, beta and gamma angles are observed to be equal.
Here the two lines of railway are parallel to each other.
Lets turn to the right and check whether or not they are still parallel.
It is seemingly not parallel, but let's mark the measurements on it in order to doing a scientific study.
The measurement point on the left is gone, but our measurement points on the middle and right are still here, so we can measure them.
The two rail lines that were (approximately) parallel in the previous illustration are no longer parallel at all and the error rate is 70%.
What is the reason of this? This is because seeing is an arctangent function. This is the second order parabola.
If we approach the subject from another angle, the shape that we should see, which includes right, left and middle, should be something like this. -with scientific impression- :
And this is the shape we see when we look at the right, left and center in parts:
It is easy to understand why the brain estimates this way.
Our brain knows:
1- The train track is straight.
2- It gets narrower as it gets farther away.
There is no other way to make these two real together. The problem is that this happens with the camera as well. However, the camera is not the brain and does not interpret anything. But when you take a picture of the right, left and middle parts of the rail, does it perform the same process that the brain does? Did someone whisper into the camera that the train track is straight and narrows as it moves away?
The answer is very simple. The information given to the brain is the same as the information instantly coming to the camera, and that the train track is straight and narrows as it moves away. The camera takes a picture of the information as it comes to the camera. Actually, the camera doesn't take pictures. When you press the shutter button, the simulation visually sends you the (estimated) shape that should be in front of you at that moment. But this visual is not real at all.
The visuals presented to us in the world cannot convince me, they cannot convince anyone who is intelligent like me. For the reasons I mentioned above. It could only convince me if the image was a parabola. But for people with low education or low IQ who don't understand these calculations, the current situation is convincing and would not be convincing if the image were parabola. This shows that the world is not created for intelligent people, but for ignorant and low IQ people. In a way, this leads to the conclusion that me and those like me are not belong this world.
See you later on another "real" working.
Flat Earth Light Experiments 1
Flat Earth Sunlight Shadow Experiment
Whether flat or not, it casts a shadow on the other side of an object hit by the sun. The reason for this is that the sun reaches the places outside the object and the sunlight does not reach the other place where the object is in the middle. This is so in theory. But this theory does not work in actual life. In real life, the two-dimensional version of this works, but the third-dimensional version does not. I want to briefly show what I'm talking about graphically.
This is what it would looks like if the distance from the sun was comparable to the size of the object.
Since the sun is 150 million kilometers away from the earth in the globe earth model and 5 thousand miles away in the flat earth model, the shadow shape that will occur locally should be as follows:
Although there is an angle between the shadows in the first display, in practice, the very distant sun creates parallel shadows like this one.
In the real world, because people know that the sun's shadow should fall on the other side of the object, I mean for ordinary people, the shadow always forms on the other side and angles between shadows. Let's examine it together whether or not happens like this.
I want to start to publish photos with this one:
This is the place Beykoz, where Jesus has been crucified mersilessly. This is a sight you see in many places. The window and the sunlight leaking from the mausoleum of the Jesus. This is how light usually leaks through the window. It is narrower near the window and spreads farther away. But this is a wrong way of reflection and the shape of the shadow. Because the sun's rays are parallel to each other, they should not form any angle. In other words, the two ends of the shadow should be parallel to each other. Here we see that the rays do not go parallel. We see that the position of the camera is centered on the bright region. Accordingly, we can measure the right and left of the bright place of the shadow. As we always do, we will measure again and determine the situation accordingly.
There has been an angle occurred here. Let me show you the situation more clearly.
Lets focus on it and check it by using "counting the paving stone" method, considering perspective mainly problems.
I present the focused image in a clean state so that you can make this measurement.
Don't think there is a trick here. I've done this measurement many times, I can do it many more times again, no problem. This is my, to it is easier to sharpen and measure the lines of paving stones.
We see that the illuminated area has increased from the size of 3 flagstones to the size of 3.5 flagstones.
This wasn't a very clear example here. I deliberately chose this example because from Beykoz, where Jesus crucified , now let's look for clearer examples.
This is a photo from Antalya. Take a good look at the direction of the shadows I've circled. It's like they cut the road vertically. Not exactly, look carefully, the one on the left is slightly to the left, the other is slightly to the right. There is a slight angle in between.
Now let's take the projection of the sun and lower it to the ground.
What do you see? Yes. As if the sun were at that exact spot on a two-dimensional screen, a shadow forms in the opposite direction. It is not compatible with the fact that the sun is 150 million kilometers away, but compatible with a shadow is formed with the sun on a two-dimensional screen.
New example:
Another image we are used to. Objects on the left are shaded to the left, and those on the right are shaded to the right. It seems to stem from perspective, but when examined in detail, we can see that it is not compatible with perspective.
Another example:
Once again, when we face the sun, objects on the right are shadowed to the right and those on the left to the left. It seems to be compatible with the perspective, but when we look at it in detail, we see that it is not fully compatible as in other examples.
Now for the last time here we will lower the sun to the ground.
As we can clearly see, it is fully compatible with the two-dimensional model of the sun. But it is not compatible with the solar model 150 million kilometers away.
Here, it seems that those who set up the simulation took into account that people would think that this is due to perspective and that this situation is negligible regarding the formation of these shadows. It is seemingly they have not take into account wise examines it.
See you later with the working of moonlight projective mistakes.
In a real world, The size and shape of the objects around you are always the same, regardless of where you focus. As long as your position is fixed, the size and shape of the objects around you should be the same wherever you turn. I mean, in the real world it should be something like this:
This example is the same illustrative example I would give on issues like this. Whether you are looking at alpha and beta or beta and gamma, or alpha, beta and gamma, the magnitudes and ratios to each other of alpha, beta and gamma do not change. I mean, that's what it would be like in a real world. Now let's move on to the railroad experiment.
Flat Earth Railway Experiment
In the fake world, that is, in our world, when you look at the railroad from the accross side, the railroad always appears straight to the both of left and right. Like this:
You can see this by experimenting yourself. Look from across a railway and you'll see it this way. If you take a photo, it will still look like this.
For scientific purposes, let's measure the width of the rail on the right, middle and left, and check if they are the same or not.
this is similar to the example we saw before, when you look at an object from the opposite side, the dimensions are harmonious and straight. Here, alpha, beta and gamma angles are observed to be equal.
Here the two lines of railway are parallel to each other.
Lets turn to the right and check whether or not they are still parallel.
It is seemingly not parallel, but let's mark the measurements on it in order to doing a scientific study.
The measurement point on the left is gone, but our measurement points on the middle and right are still here, so we can measure them.
The two rail lines that were (approximately) parallel in the previous illustration are no longer parallel at all and the error rate is 70%.
What is the reason of this? This is because seeing is an arctangent function. This is the second order parabola.
If we approach the subject from another angle, the shape that we should see, which includes right, left and middle, should be something like this. -with scientific impression- :
And this is the shape we see when we look at the right, left and center in parts:
Our brain knows:
1- The train track is straight.
2- It gets narrower as it gets farther away.
There is no other way to make these two real together. The problem is that this happens with the camera as well. However, the camera is not the brain and does not interpret anything. But when you take a picture of the right, left and middle parts of the rail, does it perform the same process that the brain does? Did someone whisper into the camera that the train track is straight and narrows as it moves away?
The answer is very simple. The information given to the brain is the same as the information instantly coming to the camera, and that the train track is straight and narrows as it moves away. The camera takes a picture of the information as it comes to the camera. Actually, the camera doesn't take pictures. When you press the shutter button, the simulation visually sends you the (estimated) shape that should be in front of you at that moment. But this visual is not real at all.
The visuals presented to us in the world cannot convince me, they cannot convince anyone who is intelligent like me. For the reasons I mentioned above. It could only convince me if the image was a parabola. But for people with low education or low IQ who don't understand these calculations, the current situation is convincing and would not be convincing if the image were parabola. This shows that the world is not created for intelligent people, but for ignorant and low IQ people. In a way, this leads to the conclusion that me and those like me are not belong this world.
See you later on another "real" working.
Flat Earth Light Experiments 1
Flat Earth Sunlight Shadow Experiment
Whether flat or not, it casts a shadow on the other side of an object hit by the sun. The reason for this is that the sun reaches the places outside the object and the sunlight does not reach the other place where the object is in the middle. This is so in theory. But this theory does not work in actual life. In real life, the two-dimensional version of this works, but the third-dimensional version does not. I want to briefly show what I'm talking about graphically.
This is what it would looks like if the distance from the sun was comparable to the size of the object.
Since the sun is 150 million kilometers away from the earth in the globe earth model and 5 thousand miles away in the flat earth model, the shadow shape that will occur locally should be as follows:
Although there is an angle between the shadows in the first display, in practice, the very distant sun creates parallel shadows like this one.
In the real world, because people know that the sun's shadow should fall on the other side of the object, I mean for ordinary people, the shadow always forms on the other side and angles between shadows. Let's examine it together whether or not happens like this.
I want to start to publish photos with this one:
This is the place Beykoz, where Jesus has been crucified mersilessly. This is a sight you see in many places. The window and the sunlight leaking from the mausoleum of the Jesus. This is how light usually leaks through the window. It is narrower near the window and spreads farther away. But this is a wrong way of reflection and the shape of the shadow. Because the sun's rays are parallel to each other, they should not form any angle. In other words, the two ends of the shadow should be parallel to each other. Here we see that the rays do not go parallel. We see that the position of the camera is centered on the bright region. Accordingly, we can measure the right and left of the bright place of the shadow. As we always do, we will measure again and determine the situation accordingly.
There has been an angle occurred here. Let me show you the situation more clearly.
Lets focus on it and check it by using "counting the paving stone" method, considering perspective mainly problems.
I present the focused image in a clean state so that you can make this measurement.
Don't think there is a trick here. I've done this measurement many times, I can do it many more times again, no problem. This is my, to it is easier to sharpen and measure the lines of paving stones.
We see that the illuminated area has increased from the size of 3 flagstones to the size of 3.5 flagstones.
This wasn't a very clear example here. I deliberately chose this example because from Beykoz, where Jesus crucified , now let's look for clearer examples.
This is a photo from Antalya. Take a good look at the direction of the shadows I've circled. It's like they cut the road vertically. Not exactly, look carefully, the one on the left is slightly to the left, the other is slightly to the right. There is a slight angle in between.
Now let's take the projection of the sun and lower it to the ground.
What do you see? Yes. As if the sun were at that exact spot on a two-dimensional screen, a shadow forms in the opposite direction. It is not compatible with the fact that the sun is 150 million kilometers away, but compatible with a shadow is formed with the sun on a two-dimensional screen.
New example:
Another image we are used to. Objects on the left are shaded to the left, and those on the right are shaded to the right. It seems to stem from perspective, but when examined in detail, we can see that it is not compatible with perspective.
Another example:
Once again, when we face the sun, objects on the right are shadowed to the right and those on the left to the left. It seems to be compatible with the perspective, but when we look at it in detail, we see that it is not fully compatible as in other examples.
Now for the last time here we will lower the sun to the ground.
As we can clearly see, it is fully compatible with the two-dimensional model of the sun. But it is not compatible with the solar model 150 million kilometers away.
Here, it seems that those who set up the simulation took into account that people would think that this is due to perspective and that this situation is negligible regarding the formation of these shadows. It is seemingly they have not take into account wise examines it.
See you later with the working of moonlight projective mistakes.
Last edited:
Just a quick video.
