Are "flat-earthers" an actual thing?

"A Solar Eclipse occurs when the moon passes in front of the sun."

"A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.

This satellite is called the Shadow Object. Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle of about 5°10' to the sun's orbital plane, making eclipses possible only when the three bodies (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane (at a point called the node). Within a given year, considering the orbitals of these celestial bodies, a maximum of three lunar eclipses can occur. Despite the fact that there are more solar than lunar eclipses each year, over time many more lunar eclipses are seen at any single location on earth than solar eclipses. This occurs because a lunar eclipse can be seen from the entire half of the earth beneath the moon at that time, while a solar eclipse is visible only along a narrow path on the earth's surface.

Total lunar eclipses come in clusters. There can be two or three during a period of a year or a year and a half, followed by a lull of two or three years before another round begins. When you add partial eclipses there can be three in a calendar year and again, it's quite possible to have none at all.

The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun. As the sun's powerful vertical rays hit the atmosphere during the day they will scatter and blot out nearly every single star and celestial body in the sky. We are never given a glimpse of the celestial bodies which appear near the sun during the day - they are completely washed out by the sun's light.

It is estimated that the Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter. Since it is somewhat close to the sun the manifestation of its penumbra upon the moon appears as a magnified projection. This is similar to how during a shadow puppet show your hand's shadow can make a large magnified projection upon your bedroom wall as you move it closer to the flashlight.

Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has provided equations for finding the time, magnitude, and duration of a Lunar Eclipse at the end of Chapter 11 of Earth Not a Globe.

There is also a possibility that the Shadow Object is a known celestial body which orbits the sun; but more study would be needed to track the positions of Mercury, Venus and the sun's asteroid satellites and correlate them with the equations for the lunar eclipse before any conclusion could be drawn"

.

george oscar bluth wrote:

Flat Earth PhD wrote:

Don't bother with the 16 core simulation, did you really think NASA leaves computers untouched?

To calculate the radius you use E=mc^2 + pi r^2. You already have accurately calculated the sun's diameter (its 100.000000000000000000000000000000003 miles to be precise, you must have forgotten about the refraction). plug in 2.718 for E, the m is 100 miles, and the c is 300,000 meters per second. pi is 22/3 and r is what we're solving for.

2.718 = 100.000000000000000000000000000000003*300,000^2 + 22/3 *r^2

we get r = -1107823.41881 miles

(no coincidence this is much different than what NASA says)

Neither of you guys are funny. Leave the work to LQ who is funny.

^globefag

Although I am one of NASA's sheep, perhaps I can be of assistance.

Observing the sun from earth, its angular diameter is approximately .5 degrees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter).

Assuming the maths I've been taught are not also one of NASA's lies and that the earth is really 3000 miles away, this means the sun's diameter is approximately

3000*(tan(.5 degrees)) = 26.1 miles.

Correcting for error, I've deduced that if the sun is in fact 3000 miles away it is clear that its diameter is exactly one marathon, or 26.21875 miles.

Clearly the marathon is the ultimate race.

elephino wrote:

Legit question wrote:

And when I post replies with diagrams and videos to the globe believers, they immediately dismiss & refuse to watch them. Instead they ridicule, make jokes and leave. What does that tell you?

I watched that video and it's nonsense. The atmosphere does rotate with the earth, despite it not having "a shell". His velocities are silly. Of course the velocity of the airplane is relative to the surface and not to some arbitrary point in space. The fly inside the train car is a good analogy and he's an idiot to dismiss it because "the earth doesn't have a shell". I ridiculed it because it's ridiculous. I made a joke because it's funny. It was entertaining but now I'm leaving because it's like watching the same skateboard face-plant over and over: it's funny at first but not so much after awhile.

Elephino, the example in the video was a plane flying from LAX to JAX. Lets flip it around. Using your reasoning, then a plane cannot overcome the spin of the earth going Westbound from JAX to LAX by using your "atmosphere is rotating" model on a globe. Plus you ignored the vectors explanation by Brian. Your logic and math fails. Try again.

There is an impenetrable barrier/firmament that supports the ice wall plateau.

Got an early morning. Signing off. Globalists, your arguments are weak. It is much harder to prove a globe than it is to disprove a flat earth. And to the person who mentioned that this is like a 16th seed beating a 1st seed- great analogy, wish i thought of that!

Goodnight, will pick this up tomorrow.

Legit question wrote:

firmament

That word exists only in the bible. You have outed yourself as anti-science.

The only thing representing a solid thing overhead is the top of the universe, which is too far away for ice to reach. There's probably nothing there except things that fall upward, such as helium balloons.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Legit question wrote:

firmament

That word exists only in the bible. You have outed yourself as anti-science.

The only thing representing a solid thing overhead is the top of the universe, which is too far away for ice to reach. There's probably nothing there except things that fall upward, such as helium balloons.

Bad Wigins, you are the last person to criticize someone's science as you have been called out several times for your ridiculous claims in this thread

Lots of fancy puppeteering to create a theory that doesn't work. So solar eclipse is moon in front of sun. That works if we make our concentric orbits have different periods, and then change them to ellipses (since the Sun and Moon do not have the same orbital angles). But then we've already broken the theory since now Sun will not follow an arc of a great circle on the sky.

The shadow object doesn't work for many reasons. First we've assumed the Sun and Moon are like spotlights moving in orbits above the flat Earth, with light only directed down. How then can an object BETWEEN the Sun and Moon cast a shadow? If Sun's rays diverge such that they shine on the Moon, spotlight assumption is broken, theory is broken. Moon must be self-luminescent, introducing a whole host of problems which break the theory.

Also any such shadow object would actually be observed fairly easily (crackpotologists haven't heard of solar observing apparently).

So the theory can not properly explain eclipses, nor many of the other phenomena I listed.

Ah...Look in mirror wrote:

Bad Wigins, you are the last person to criticize someone's science as you have been called out several times for your ridiculous claims in this thread

Called out by WRONG people.

Are you disputing that the universe has a top and bottom, if so that's just silly.

Denying the existence of up and down is pretty much the essence of the flat earther's world view, and I think I've illustrated that very well.

Correct. The flat earth theories never work together. At best, they are incidental explanations that cover one specific circumstance individually but cannot coexist. It's the main reason there's no agreed upon map for the flat earth.

As someone who has read this thread and has pretty good grasp on all the bro-science mentioned, here are my thoughts:

1. It seems most "flat-earther" don't necessarily believe in a flat earth, but do not believe that the Earth is a globe.

2. The gravity arguments from the globalist are flat out weak. Living on a globe planet is not a necessity for gravity

3. I was having trouble with the flat earth map and the Sun's path but IF the Sun is much closer to us than previously taught, then it could be possible

4. Antarctica is a mystery and if anyone has been there you will no how questionable and bizarre the whole experience is. I don't think they even took us to Antarctica. I think we were on an island just south of Argentina.

5. How is there not one photo of our planet if we have mastered space exploration. That is a big question mark in my book.

I came into this thread thinking we were a globe with north and south hemispheres but now I am unsure. I want to believe in the globe because it is the foundation of everything I know about our planet, but I also see a lot of brainwashed people on here arguing the globe model and I do not want to be like them.

Legit question wrote:

Bart Rutan wrote:

Correct! (round of applause)

Now where do you think the fictional South Pole is relative to that?

There is no South Pole on the flat earth model. On the globe model the South Pole would be on the bottom of the ball.

The fictional one that has the dome and barber pole etc. Just put a dot where that is on the ice wall. on your map.

If the Northern Hemisphere were an actual convex hemisiphere and the southern Hemisphere was concave, then the flat earth map makes a whole lot of sense

A hemisphere doesn't fit a flat object. The hint is in the last part of the word.

Plus the Southern "Hemicircle" would flood if it were concave.

I'm interested in knowing how Antarctica has fossils of trees on it. Did the sun used to have a wider "sweep"?

Ginkgo Biloba wrote:

A hemisphere doesn't fit a flat object. The hint is in the last part of the word.

Plus the Southern "Hemicircle" would flood if it were concave.

I'm interested in knowing how Antarctica has fossils of trees on it. Did the sun used to have a wider "sweep"?

well, the flat-earthers aren't really saying it is flat per se. They are expressing disbelief in the globe model. Your flooding statement can be dismissed. If there were gravitational pull, then there would not be flooding.

What if we were a globe, BUT, what if we only knew the Northern Hemisphere and there was an ice wall at the actual equator...

Look at this as a hemi-sphere:

http://www.flat-earther.co.uk/flat-earth-maps/flat-earth-poster/

If we are a globe, then why does it not get cold anywhere in the southern hemisphere???????????????????

Yes, I live on the edge.