Debunking the flat Earth model.
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (112)
sorted by:
False. In the FE model the earth is completely stationary. It does not move not one iota. Only the sun, moon, and starts travel uniformly around the polestar, dead center of FE earth as always since recorded time. It’s the heliocentric model that claims the earth is spinning at 1038 mph while revolving the sun at 66,660 mph , while being dragged by a moving sun traveling at 448,000 mph lololol. On a ball earth the time lapse photo would look like a bunch of unintelligible squiggly lines. Danish Astronomer Tycho Brahe famously argued against the heliocentric theory in his time, positing that if the Earth revolved in an orbit round the Sun, the change in relative position of the stars after 6 months of orbital motion could not fail to be seen. He argued that the stars should seem to separate as we approach and come together as we recede. In actual fact, however, after almost two hundred million miles of supposed orbit around the Sun, not a single inch of parallax can be detected in the stars! Desperate heliocentrists, instead of conceding, doubled-down claiming the stars were all actually trillions upon trillions of miles away from us, so incredibly far away that no appreciable parallax could ever be detected!
Northern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV8PVzPZcBk
Southern celestial pole time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w3n-s9i7WQ
Equator celestial time-lapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPtVG_pVNHI
The existence of 2, and only 2, celestial poles, that are always consistently revolving around the same points regardless of viewing point on Earth, disproves the flat Earth theory.
Anyone with a smartphone or time-lapse camera can test and duplicate the results.
I looked into FE and found a huge flaw. One I haven’t seen a good explanation for. The closest thing to an explanation I was presented is “perspective makes it look that way.” The problem with that explanation is, the southern celestial pole wouldn’t consistently revolve around the same point if that was the case. The southern celestial pole ALWAYS revolves around the same point REGARDLESS of perspective.
As far as other problems that may or may not be with any other theories, that is another debate. My infographic demonstrates that 2 celestial poles do not fit into the flat Earth theory.
If you care to present another explanation as to how “2, and only 2, celestial poles, that are always consistently revolving around the same points regardless of viewing point on Earth,” could fit into the flat Earth model, I am VERY interested in hearing it.
A secondary thing to explain to me, why is the Equator the only place on Earth where you can see both spirals?
)))III((( <- like this