Flat Earth

[Quiahuitl]

All that is provable hogwash... and based in lies.

What we see is real. What they say is not.

Those perfectly symmetrical patterns is simply what happens right above us, right around Polaris, just like our stars.

You have been what freemasons call hoodwinked.

Let's assume the Earth is stationary. All the stars spin round once a day. The planets do too, however they also move very slowly compared to the fixed stars. So my question is what is the path described by any particular planet when viewed against the background of the fixed stars?

And my answer is that the planets do not move round in pretty patterns like you have described when viewed directly from our vantage point here on the Earth, which you may assume is flat and stationary if you like.

The planets always appear to be in a narrow band in the sky.

 

[otl2021]

Let's assume the Earth is stationary.

OK, seems reasonable as everyone, left to their own senses and intellect, would come to that very conclusion.

All the stars spin round once a day.

Look.
I've been through this too. You jump on a thread without even taking the time to understand the topic. What you have just described is yet another proof that your spinning-water/gas/rock does not exist.

Every star will return in about 23 hours and 56 minutes to exactly where it began. We call this a sidereal day.

The solar day of course is about 24 hours.

The hoops heliocentrism must jump through to make both of these observed parts of reality, an effect of the same cause (ie: us spinning) is ridiculous to even watch play out.

So my question is what is the path described by any particular planet when viewed against the background of the fixed stars?

Exactly this... with Polaris dead center:

 

[Quiahuitl]

Exactly this... with Polaris dead center:

Are you saying that if I look directly at polaris and take a photo of the position of Venus at the same time every night, it will describe this pattern over a period of 8 years?

So when Venus is in the circle at the outside edge of this diagram, I will see it near the horizon, and when it is at one of the apexes near the centre I will see it close to Polaris?

 

[FarewellAngelina]

Let's assume the Earth is stationary. All the stars spin round once a day. The planets do too, however they also move very slowly compared to the fixed stars. So my question is what is the path described by any particular planet when viewed against the background of the fixed stars?

And my answer is that the planets do not move round in pretty patterns like you have described when viewed directly from our vantage point here on the Earth, which you may assume is flat and stationary if you like.

The planets always appear to be in a narrow band in the sky.

The planets do move round in these pretty patterns . All planets exhibit retrograde motions at regular intervals during their orbits when observed from earth. These intervals are regular as clockwork so to speak . When mapped over time - this has been done throughout history- the result is the mandela that have been shown previously ,along with their periods measured in earth years.

To get those full Mandela requires many years of observation but we know this happens and it's why we can predict planetary positions many years ahead.

The planets sun and moon travel a path across the background of the starry sky - the Zodiac - all at differing
rates.

Forgot to put in the link

Early astronomical observations

Good introduction

 

[TommelBommel]

Please explain how we stick to the interior of a sphere, while knowing full well that we are standing vertically.

Please explain why the surface of standing water never becomes concave.

Please explain how horizons NEVER appear above eye-level, when viewed at 90 degrees from any altitude, parallel with our ground.

Where is Polaris?

I'm not here to enlighten others.
Everyone is responsible for himself.
I am not a prophet, not an omniscient and i´m not a walking encyclopedia.

Your opinions are all good, but as you requested of another:

I simply told him in this case, that he should contribute something constructive rather than discrediting others.
He also came up with claims like: the moon is hollow…anyone who claims something concrete like this without justifying it in any way,
is discrediting himself.

 

[otl2021]

I'm not here to enlighten others.
Everyone is responsible for himself.
I am not a prophet, not an omniscient and i´m not a walking encyclopedia.


I simply told him in this case, that he should contribute something constructive rather than discrediting others.
He also came up with claims like: the moon is hollow…anyone who claims something concrete like this without justifying it in any way,
is discrediting himself.

You made two gigantic claims:

It's almost more logical that we live in a concave earth (as weird it sounds) but many phenomena can be explained there. So far I haven't found any blatant contradictions with this concave earth model.

I am simply trying to understand how you see the phenomena as explained and how you have seen no blatant contradictions. Seems reasonable, no?

In other words, here are questions that you should have already asked yourself before claiming that a concave Earth makes ant sense at all:

Please explain how we stick to the interior of a sphere, while knowing full well that we are standing vertically.

Please explain why the surface of standing water never becomes concave.

Please explain how horizons NEVER appear above eye-level, when viewed at 90 degrees from any altitude, parallel with our ground.

Where is Polaris?

Hopefully another of the brand new posters who have come to this thread with concave beliefs might finally answer; if you can't.

All planets exhibit retrograde motions at regular intervals during their orbits when observed from earth.

Can you define what you mean here by "planets" and by "orbits?"

tyvm in advance.

I mean with contradictions; phenomena that are neither explained by the mainstream model of earth, nor in flat earth.

What contradictions and what phenomena are you having difficulty with? And what flat Earth model are you considering?

Thanks

 

[TommelBommel]

I am simply trying to understand how you see the phenomena as explained and how you have seen no blatant contradictions. Seems reasonable, no?

I can understand that you are hungry for knowledge.

Your questions alone show me that you have not yet dealt with the topic.
e.g. the question about Polaris...
in contrast to the flat earth, convex earth, - the northern and southern star trails are explained in a logical and simple way within the most believable models, which i have found so far.

But just do yourself a favor and just do some research. you won't be able to avoid it if you're interested.

 

[otl2021]

the northern and southern star trails are explained in a logical and simple way within the most believable models, which i have found so far.

"Southern star trails" do not exist!

Please, please, please show us that they do and end this!

All I have seen are easily proven fakes. The so-called southern star trails, as I have shown here previously, are a matter of perspective and the viewers angle to/from Polaris.

But just do yourself a favor and just do some research....

K, after you get back on the whole southern star mess, where should I start on the avoided questions (not just by you, but all of team concave)?

Please explain how we stick to the interior of a sphere, while knowing full well that we are standing vertically.

Please explain why the surface of standing water never becomes concave.

Please explain how horizons NEVER appear above eye-level, when viewed at 90 degrees from any altitude, parallel with our ground.

I tried the Teed stuff, but his explanations were lacking, let alone:



Got anything else to help me along with my research?

 

[TommelBommel]

"Southern star trails" do not exist!

Please, please, please show us that they do and end this!

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNiNJC3UHIo

Please explain how we stick to the interior of a sphere,

So listen.
I will never claim to know what the shape of the earth looks like.
I'm far too insignificant and far too lazy for that to justify such a statement here.

I contend that all of these curious observable phenomena on earth, that cannot be explained by the mainstream model of the earth are partly explained by the flat earth theory. But only partially and in some cases far too complicated and hyper-theoretical, fantastic.

To your question: who says that we stick?
Officially, it's gravity. So a downward force.
In other words: pull...but it could also simply be a push.

Please explain why the surface of standing water never becomes concave.

I have a good day..so let me reply:

How do you know that the water surface is not concave?
1. Because you can see too far with a telescope?
2. Because "common sense" says that water in large masses always seems to be flat?

Please explain how horizons NEVER appear above eye-level, when viewed at 90 degrees from any altitude, parallel with our ground.

An interesting question.
I tell you this:
With a convex earth as well as with a flat earth,
the horizon would inevitably be below eye level with a certain distance.
Inevitably!
- Here and older description how it supposed to look like on an concave earth.
............But do yourself a favor and do your own research.

 

[FarewellAngelina]

Can you define what you mean here by "planets" and by "orbits?"

tyvm in advance.

Planets - beneath the vault of the sky , easy to differentiate from the twinkly rotating stars . The orbit of a planet ,I assume, is the return of that planet to the starting point of its journey across the Zodiac . Hard to find a scientific definition for that . The sun takes a year to do that . Maybe I should look into astrology for the answer.

Hope that clears it for you.

 

[otl2021]

Woah! Those orbits look super cool! Is there an explanation or theory as to why they do that?

In Mathematics, specifically trigonometry, what we are seeing are either epitrochoids/epicycloids or hypotrochoids/hypocycloids. As most of us know, these patterns are created by tracing a fixed point inside a circle around either the inside or outside of another fixed circle.


Humanistic Mathematics Network Journal - Issue 19 Article 7
3-1-1999
Spirograph® Math

University of North Carolina, Wilmington...
https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1328&context=hmnj


View: https://youtu.be/68FmcZxv1H4

What are the planets made of?

There are others here that enjoy this type of speculation. I see lights that move mathematically, with perfect symmetry, and I know that the way modern astronomy describes these objects in our world is antithetical to what we all observe.

Planets - beneath the vault of the sky , easy to differentiate from the twinkly rotating stars . The orbit of a planet ,I assume, is the return of that planet to the starting point of its journey across the Zodiac . Hard to find a scientific definition for that . The sun takes a year to do that . Maybe I should look into astrology for the answer.

Hope that clears it for you.

Yes, thank-you; I've been on this "words have meaning/words are important kick," lol.

 

[GandalfTheGreen]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNiNJC3UHIo


So listen.
I will never claim to know what the shape of the earth looks like.
I'm far too insignificant and far too lazy for that to justify such a statement here.

I contend that all of these curious observable phenomena on earth, that cannot be explained by the mainstream model of the earth are partly explained by the flat earth theory. But only partially and in some cases far too complicated and hyper-theoretical, fantastic.

To your question: who says that we stick?
Officially, it's gravity. So a downward force.
In other words: pull...but it could also simply be a push.

I have a good day..so let me reply:

How do you know that the water surface is not concave?
1. Because you can see too far with a telescope?
2. Because "common sense" says that water in large masses always seems to be flat?


An interesting question.
I tell you this:
With a convex earth as well as with a flat earth,
the horizon would inevitably be below eye level with a certain distance.
Inevitably!
- Here and older description how it supposed to look like on an concave earth.
............But do yourself a favor and do your own research.

Excellent post! A couple of things more to add.....

Tropics of Cancer, and Capricorn are the same size. And the Flat Earth community has never, ever demonstrated them to be different sizes at all, let alone the Tropic of Capricorn to be nearly double the size of the Tropic of Cancer. Further more; ships traveling in these regions can be viewed online, and clearly there is no distance manipulation within the tropic region.

For such people to claim "Star Trails don't exist" Why don't you go navigate using the Celestial sphere around the tropics, and demonstrate once and for all that they are 2 diffferent sizes?


In addition to the point of water and it's possibility to concavity; the solution is simple, and kills 2 birds with one stone. Dynamic Compression of the Aether combined with the fact that water is naturally diamagnetic. Every, single, drop. For those of the flat earth community who do not yet know what diamagnetism is; congratulations, you've discovered a new property of water other than "It's flat!"

Flat Earth demands a reality that has yet to be proven... 2 different sized tropics.

The obvious, simplest, most ironic and entertaining solution to the lie of heliocentrism, is that you live in an inside out version of the world you are taught about. (Inverse Earth, a more appropriate title than "Concave") Proofs: Tropics that are the same size, a horizon that rises to eye level, water that is diamagnetic, Aether instead of Gravity, actual physically measured curvature in 2 different locations from 2 independent teams over a span of 150 years ... oh and one more thing.... Still deceiving you about the thing you should know most about.

 

[Apollonius]

OK, seems reasonable as everyone, left to their own senses and intellect, would come to that very conclusion.


Look.
I've been through this too. You jump on a thread without even taking the time to understand the topic. What you have just described is yet another proof that your spinning-water/gas/rock does not exist.

Every star will return in about 23 hours and 56 minutes to exactly where it began. We call this a sidereal day.

The solar day of course is about 24 hours.

The hoops heliocentrism must jump through to make both of these observed parts of reality, an effect of the same cause (ie: us spinning) is ridiculous to even watch play out.


Exactly this... with Polaris dead center:
View attachment 19953

Stop proving Flat Earth through geocentric system arguments!

 

[TommelBommel]

Tropics of Cancer, and Capricorn are the same size.

..the measurement of land and sea areas is wrong and incorrect. i that´s one core "explanation" from flat earthers for the different tropic sizes. In addition, the sun rotates faster in the southern hemisphere in order to cover the greater distance with the same rotation speed of 24h/d.

distance manipulation within the tropic region

...but that's exactly what the "core" flat earthers poignantly claim. It is claimed that due to the invention of GPS by the us military, that there is no confidence in the official real distances from A to B.
GPS is manipulated in such a way, that people never really know where they are. (The exception here is, of course, the northern hemisphere) But, as is well known, there is no GPS over the oceans in particular.
So you can actually hardly prove what the real distances between continents look like and you can tell any story if you want, if you interpret a earth model to fit an thesis.
- I agree, its absurd.

Why don't you go navigate using the Celestial sphere around the tropics, and demonstrate once and for all that they are 2 diffferent sizes?

But how would you really proof, that both tropics have the same circumference?

actual physically measured curvature in 2 different locations from 2 independent teams over a span of 150 years

What do you mean by that?

Still deceiving you about the thing you should know most about.

What do you mean by that?

 

[otl2021]

In addition, the sun rotates faster in the southern hemisphere in order to cover the greater distance with the same rotation speed of 24h/d.

Study up, friend.

 

[TommelBommel]

Study up, friend.

what do you want to tell me?
I know the entire flat earth community. I know all pictures, videos and i know exactly what their arguments are. Unfortunately, I have a problem with the fact that many assumptions are "made to support" the thesis that we live on a flat earth.

and your GIF doesn't even begin to affect the criticism i have for the community.
I criticize in my comment above, that there is no evidence whatsoever that the sun rotates faster in the southern hemisphere than in the northern.

 

[otl2021]

what do you want to tell me?

I am willing to learn and actually study what has been posted.

I know the entire flat earth community. I know all pictures, videos and i know exactly what their arguments are.

This is clearly and simply not true.

I have a problem with the fact that many assumptions are "made to support" the thesis that we live on a flat earth.

Name these assumptions... and please keep them congruent with objective and demonstrable reality.

and your GIF doesn't even begin to affect the criticism i have for the community.

It DEMONSTRATES a very simple fact.

For the sun to maintain her 15 degree arc per hour, she must accelerate as she moves away from our northern center and decelerate as she moves nearer. This, itself, debunks the entirety of heliocentrism, let alone the sticking to the inside of a sphere nonsense.

I criticize in my comment above, that there is no evidence whatsoever that the sun rotates faster in the southern hemisphere than in the northern.

Which is exactly what was shown. You just did not understand it!

 

[FarewellAngelina]

Magnetic field of a ring magnet -

https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/warehouse/v1.0/publiccontent/fbf2ced7-443a-42da-b09f-060f51d66d7d

https://img.search.brave.com/51hLE-...GlDeTQxYjBqQjFD/MnlFbWszV0pRQUFB/QSZwaWQ9QXBp

Is there a null point at the center of a ring magnet?

Thoughts about earths magnetic field.

Antarctica could be the source of earths ring magnetic field. North pole would be the null point. South pole is everywhere/anywhere along the rim of Antarctica. Telluric currents circle Antarctica producing the magnetic field which would govern the motion of the sun giving it a constant angular velocity.

It is known that compasses don't work near or below the South magnetic pole at 64 S

How Do Compasses Tell Which Way Is North at the South Pole?

Reversal of the telluric currents would cause the pole shifts which are recorded on rocks.

 

[grav]

odd, I received no notifications of these last posts and thought no action was going on in the thread.

I will depart from recent looks at down-to-earth points to make a major detour -- some readers may want to ignore it since this post consists of wild speculations that connect geocentrism with ideas about Tartaria and other mysteries.

The globe is so dumb, actually goofy. Then why did I believe that idiotic psyop so damn long?

The truth is trickling out, finally. Maybe that's what triggered the reset, which is in phase 2.
The natives are getting restless, learning too much Truth.
Time to round up the doggies, cull the herd, let the End begin.

Covid, Ukraine, the other idiotic and endless psyops pale in comparison to Flat Earth, imo.
............

I've been reading this book again, Ragnarok: The Age of Fire and Gravel, by a Minnesota politician Ignatius L. Donnelly . In one part, the author looks at Genesis.

Genesis 1

King James Version, public domain

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:

.... my questions and concerns...
First, the OT God was probably an Anunnaki Advanced Being who was not the real creator. Gnostic and Sumerian writings speak of a pantheon of creators, including Gaia, Jupiter, others who I think were computer coders who wrote themselves into the original earth program. They were the Titans whose avatar bodies became mountains.

Sorry to jump around, but I now circle back from pagan myth to the the religious myth, Genesis.
The waters would be the mysterious fluid of the aether. When it was illuminated, the liquid aether allowed life to begin (living waters).
The sun and moon were embedded in the firmament for a different, more mundane, purpose.

God instructed HIS? human creations to multiply and "replenish" the earth.

It sounds like the biblical Creation was a reset.
Anatoly Fomenco and other statisticians contend that the Old Testament was written after the NT.

My guess: in the first human creation, Jesus and other perfect archetypes existed in a garden of Eden.
But then, Anunnaki Igigi mated with women and bore giants and spoiled the world -- which was destroyed with fire and gravel of Ragnarok. This reset was accomplished with plasma weapons, not comets or other astronomy nonsense.

And now is when a new earth is reconstructed and replenished. Atlantis is wiped out and Tartaria is built.
And then, the Anunnaki culled the herd again with a flood.

 

[grav]

https://dcer237tfveol.cloudfront.ne...U0DvKzMlQDa3Rv6enMo3VBp3yo0ZcNuLGCqW9BZ-1wcpw

This Mardi Gras sun dog was photographed yesterday in Zachary, Louisiana.
I thought the "sun halo" only happened when ice crystals magically make rainbows in frigid temperatures.
But, no.

Quote

Weather Talk: Sun dogs can happen in summer
Probably the biggest difference between the two is that a rainbow usually signals an end to the rain, while a sundog often means that rain, or snow is on the way.


Good for me.

We are in a drought and could use the rain.
I've been planting seeds. And a sassafras tree


Sun doggies are obviously reflections off the dome.