I've deep-dived into flat-earth and many other models. One self-evident fact that EVERYONE can see with a little research is that stars cannot possibly be billions of lightyears away. Even the closest star, at 97 trillion km's away, would be eclipsed by a microscopic dust particle in the atmosphere. You can't have an Oort cloud, Keiper Belt, trillions of rogue planets and comet dust filling the solar system and also have stars. I stumbled across this embarrassingly obvious conclusion when preparing a 3d model of the closest stars. Even if space was COMPLETELY empty, the particles in our own atmosphere would block starlight. I pinged several astronomers regarding this discrepancy when I first ran into this issue. The three that actually replied did not have an answer (one of them was very disturbed when he redid the math and came to the same conclusion).
I don't completely discount flat earth (I never completely discount ANYTHING), but I currently think we are on spheres, but that our solar system is all that we are seeing. The stars are probably some kind of artifact from a shell encasing our system. Either that, or an artifact from our own atmosphere, because there seems to be a lot of evidence that they are not visible when you get outside of the atmosphere.
One of the things that leads me to believe we are on spheres is the overlapping stretchmarks on celestial bodies. The youtube channel nealadamsdotcom reviews all of the images from NASA where they imaged Mars, Europa, Titan, our moon, Earth, and other objects, showing the overlapping stretchmarks that indicate all of these celestial bodies are growing. NASA and every other scientist dispute this, even though it is extremely obvious. So why would they fake these images, but make all of them contain evidence of growing celestial bodies?
Everything else in regards to the sun and planets is completely unknown to me as far as distances, size, and composition. I question the nature of space as well. Rather than empty space, I think there is some kind of paramagnetic hyper-fluid that is repelled by our magnetic field. Water becomes solid under 200km of pressure. Our magnetic field would prevent the liquid from collapsing (maybe the floods were the result of magnetic shifts?).
As far as the broader question of what the hell is going on, being a farm is high on my list of possibilities.
I don't know about the plane part, but everything else is spot on.
I've deep-dived into flat-earth and many other models. One self-evident fact that EVERYONE can see with a little research is that stars cannot possibly be billions of lightyears away. Even the closest star, at 97 trillion km's away, would be eclipsed by a microscopic dust particle in the atmosphere. You can't have an Oort cloud, Keiper Belt, trillions of rogue planets and comet dust filling the solar system and also have stars. I stumbled across this embarrassingly obvious conclusion when preparing a 3d model of the closest stars. Even if space was COMPLETELY empty, the particles in our own atmosphere would block starlight. I pinged several astronomers regarding this discrepancy when I first ran into this issue. The three that actually replied did not have an answer (one of them was very disturbed when he redid the math and came to the same conclusion).
I don't completely discount flat earth (I never completely discount ANYTHING), but I currently think we are on spheres, but that our solar system is all that we are seeing. The stars are probably some kind of artifact from a shell encasing our system. Either that, or an artifact from our own atmosphere, because there seems to be a lot of evidence that they are not visible when you get outside of the atmosphere.
One of the things that leads me to believe we are on spheres is the overlapping stretchmarks on celestial bodies. The youtube channel nealadamsdotcom reviews all of the images from NASA where they imaged Mars, Europa, Titan, our moon, Earth, and other objects, showing the overlapping stretchmarks that indicate all of these celestial bodies are growing. NASA and every other scientist dispute this, even though it is extremely obvious. So why would they fake these images, but make all of them contain evidence of growing celestial bodies?
Everything else in regards to the sun and planets is completely unknown to me as far as distances, size, and composition. I question the nature of space as well. Rather than empty space, I think there is some kind of paramagnetic hyper-fluid that is repelled by our magnetic field. Water becomes solid under 200km of pressure. Our magnetic field would prevent the liquid from collapsing (maybe the floods were the result of magnetic shifts?).
As far as the broader question of what the hell is going on, being a farm is high on my list of possibilities.