terrific im glad you brought this up. I pose a question:
Is it possible for this experiment to produce these results only in the heliocentric model? is there perhaps another cosmological model that works? Does this possibility invalidate the so called proof?
The mere possibility that my next bowl of soup might have been poisoned by an assassin whose family has waited eight generations to take revenge on my bloodline unbeknownst to me also exists.
But it does not stop me from eating until the evidence of such an assassin becomes apparent.
I can’t let hypotheticals paralyze my ability to exist. You operate on the best evidence you have until that evidence is proven wrong or is usurped by better evidence.
I can accept that the earth might not be round, but the mere possibility is not considered scientific controversy. And the mere possibility of something being wrong is not an empirical argument against it.
My original request was for you to demonstrate the earth to be globular without citing space agencies. I am trying to help you realize that what you accept as evidence is clearly not. Eratosthenes did not prove the earth to be round lol. The earth can be flat with a local moving sun and produce the same results. Demonstrating the earth to be a spinning globe moving through space is no easy task, and I doubt you can do it. You start with the assumption that it is such and then find evidence to support the assumption. The funny part is, your direct observation of reality would indicate to you the earth is flat and motionless. People choose to defy their own senses to support a model of reality bestowed upon them by a very questionable authority.
Well, it's true that the sun could move around a flat disc to produce a similar result.
But the sun's "solar exposure pattern" on the surface of the planet would need to be EXACTLY the same pattern we would expect to see on a rotating planet revolving around the sun.
Because while you can explain away the effect as an illusion created by a moving sun, it's significantly more challenging for you to explain why the sun moves just a little bit each day in a way that we can calculate and measure, and which would be 100% predictable based on the heliocentric model of the solar system.
Because it would imply that God makes the sun move this way just to trick scientists into thinking the earth is round. For some reason. And if that's the case, it's hard to blame scientists for getting the data wrong when God Himself is the prankster.
Also, direct observation is only useful when it includes enough of the context to make such an observation. The fact that you are very small on a very large planet means you can't actually perceive the amount of information by yourself to decide whether or not you're moving. Because you're moving right along with it.
It's the same way on the interstate. When you're driving next to another car on the interstate, you appear to not be moving as long as you don't take into account the outside environment. But once you do, you can see that you're moving.
Since you can't see beyond this planet or even the entirety of the planet, your direct observations simply don't make for empirical data on this particular problem.
At the end of the day, though, I'm not a physicist or a science educator. It's doubtful I'd be able to convince you, nor is it really of interest to me to convince you. It doesn't really harm either of us for you to believe in a flat earth, at least until one of us eventually has to deal with the embarrassment of being wrong at whatever great reckoning awaits us all.
I don’t believe in a flat earth. You believe in a round earth, although you haven’t any proof. I used to believe that too. Now I recognize that satanic Jews run the world and using free masonry have given us a cosmological model that is likely as fake as everything else they give us (money, media, politics, etc). If something cannot be demonstrated, then it is believed in with faith. Saying we are too small to determine the physical state of our existence isn’t really an argument in favor of anything. Go ahead & demonstrate the curvature you claim is there. Go ahead and demonstrate the movements you claim are there. You can’t. Nobody can, and it has to be explained using theory. “Oh its because it’s relative to the size or relative to the speed.” Except NASA of course. They can show you pictures of the roundness. But none of those are real, and it’s easy to prove that. So it’s your choice whether to believe a bunch of Freemasons or not. Makes little difference to me. Perhaps Lord Stephen Christ was right about it being concave. Who knows. What I know is we aren’t given the truth, that’s for sure.
terrific im glad you brought this up. I pose a question:
Is it possible for this experiment to produce these results only in the heliocentric model? is there perhaps another cosmological model that works? Does this possibility invalidate the so called proof?
The mere possibility? No, absolutely not.
The mere possibility that my next bowl of soup might have been poisoned by an assassin whose family has waited eight generations to take revenge on my bloodline unbeknownst to me also exists.
But it does not stop me from eating until the evidence of such an assassin becomes apparent.
I can’t let hypotheticals paralyze my ability to exist. You operate on the best evidence you have until that evidence is proven wrong or is usurped by better evidence.
I can accept that the earth might not be round, but the mere possibility is not considered scientific controversy. And the mere possibility of something being wrong is not an empirical argument against it.
My original request was for you to demonstrate the earth to be globular without citing space agencies. I am trying to help you realize that what you accept as evidence is clearly not. Eratosthenes did not prove the earth to be round lol. The earth can be flat with a local moving sun and produce the same results. Demonstrating the earth to be a spinning globe moving through space is no easy task, and I doubt you can do it. You start with the assumption that it is such and then find evidence to support the assumption. The funny part is, your direct observation of reality would indicate to you the earth is flat and motionless. People choose to defy their own senses to support a model of reality bestowed upon them by a very questionable authority.
Well, it's true that the sun could move around a flat disc to produce a similar result.
But the sun's "solar exposure pattern" on the surface of the planet would need to be EXACTLY the same pattern we would expect to see on a rotating planet revolving around the sun.
Because while you can explain away the effect as an illusion created by a moving sun, it's significantly more challenging for you to explain why the sun moves just a little bit each day in a way that we can calculate and measure, and which would be 100% predictable based on the heliocentric model of the solar system.
Because it would imply that God makes the sun move this way just to trick scientists into thinking the earth is round. For some reason. And if that's the case, it's hard to blame scientists for getting the data wrong when God Himself is the prankster.
Also, direct observation is only useful when it includes enough of the context to make such an observation. The fact that you are very small on a very large planet means you can't actually perceive the amount of information by yourself to decide whether or not you're moving. Because you're moving right along with it.
It's the same way on the interstate. When you're driving next to another car on the interstate, you appear to not be moving as long as you don't take into account the outside environment. But once you do, you can see that you're moving.
Since you can't see beyond this planet or even the entirety of the planet, your direct observations simply don't make for empirical data on this particular problem.
At the end of the day, though, I'm not a physicist or a science educator. It's doubtful I'd be able to convince you, nor is it really of interest to me to convince you. It doesn't really harm either of us for you to believe in a flat earth, at least until one of us eventually has to deal with the embarrassment of being wrong at whatever great reckoning awaits us all.
I don’t believe in a flat earth. You believe in a round earth, although you haven’t any proof. I used to believe that too. Now I recognize that satanic Jews run the world and using free masonry have given us a cosmological model that is likely as fake as everything else they give us (money, media, politics, etc). If something cannot be demonstrated, then it is believed in with faith. Saying we are too small to determine the physical state of our existence isn’t really an argument in favor of anything. Go ahead & demonstrate the curvature you claim is there. Go ahead and demonstrate the movements you claim are there. You can’t. Nobody can, and it has to be explained using theory. “Oh its because it’s relative to the size or relative to the speed.” Except NASA of course. They can show you pictures of the roundness. But none of those are real, and it’s easy to prove that. So it’s your choice whether to believe a bunch of Freemasons or not. Makes little difference to me. Perhaps Lord Stephen Christ was right about it being concave. Who knows. What I know is we aren’t given the truth, that’s for sure.