Is there no redemption in your philosophy? Certainly it would've been better to be born in such an auspicious family, but for those that weren't, do you see them as lost without hope? You reach a curious conclusion that provokes me to wonder: what separates such thoughts from religion?
I've seen you mention the flat earth thing a bit. Have you seen the recent video of the YouTube flat earth crowd going to Antarctica and seeing the 24-hour sun? They could not deny what they saw, but many were unsure how to interpret it.
Personally, I think sunsets are enough proof - I've seen the theories for how such things are supposed to work on FE, and accordingly the sun should dwindle to a distant point in the sky as it moves away and not drop below the horizon.
But you gave a fair answer in that it was thoroughly honest to the point of highlighting your own theories that you believe fact. Not many people would be that honest, so I tip my hat to you, sir.
Beers law. Sun wouldn't go to point, which is also supported by basic physics that most people just assume was already done for them by following the mainstream institutions. Becareful what flat earth psy op you think you're learning from. Just consider that the flat earth society is fake. Taken over by bad guys long ago. Can't share links because this place would just see them get deleted.
You have to figure it out. Actually try. Not just listen to this guy or that. Personally, I find Eric dubays voice annoying, but he is a good writer, he is consise at least. But you have to learn , or relearn things, to stop believing the deception you're in now. It's almost impossible to break the programming, good luck.
Beers law? Do you mean the the Beer-Lambert extinction law? Let's take a look at it.
Formally, it states that the intensity of radiation decays exponentially in the absorbance of the medium, and that said absorbance is proportional to the length of beam passing through the medium, the concentration of interacting matter along that path, and a constant representing said matter's propensity to interact.
Nothing in that would effect a light source dropping below the horizon, nor would it explain the light seeming to drop below the horizon if it is really moving away laterally. It almost sounds like you've just accepted this without thinking it through. I'm not trying to be contentious, but your talk about breaking programming falls flat if your explanations don't make sense.
Let's try a different tactic. I'll tell you what I would need to change my mind, and you tell me what you would need to change your mind. For my part, a physical model that accurately accounts moon passes and seasonal cycles would go a very long way toward legitimacy in my mind.
Is there no redemption in your philosophy? Certainly it would've been better to be born in such an auspicious family, but for those that weren't, do you see them as lost without hope? You reach a curious conclusion that provokes me to wonder: what separates such thoughts from religion?
I've seen you mention the flat earth thing a bit. Have you seen the recent video of the YouTube flat earth crowd going to Antarctica and seeing the 24-hour sun? They could not deny what they saw, but many were unsure how to interpret it.
Personally, I think sunsets are enough proof - I've seen the theories for how such things are supposed to work on FE, and accordingly the sun should dwindle to a distant point in the sky as it moves away and not drop below the horizon.
But you gave a fair answer in that it was thoroughly honest to the point of highlighting your own theories that you believe fact. Not many people would be that honest, so I tip my hat to you, sir.
Beers law. Sun wouldn't go to point, which is also supported by basic physics that most people just assume was already done for them by following the mainstream institutions. Becareful what flat earth psy op you think you're learning from. Just consider that the flat earth society is fake. Taken over by bad guys long ago. Can't share links because this place would just see them get deleted.
You have to figure it out. Actually try. Not just listen to this guy or that. Personally, I find Eric dubays voice annoying, but he is a good writer, he is consise at least. But you have to learn , or relearn things, to stop believing the deception you're in now. It's almost impossible to break the programming, good luck.
Beers law? Do you mean the the Beer-Lambert extinction law? Let's take a look at it.
Nothing in that would effect a light source dropping below the horizon, nor would it explain the light seeming to drop below the horizon if it is really moving away laterally. It almost sounds like you've just accepted this without thinking it through. I'm not trying to be contentious, but your talk about breaking programming falls flat if your explanations don't make sense.
Let's try a different tactic. I'll tell you what I would need to change my mind, and you tell me what you would need to change your mind. For my part, a physical model that accurately accounts moon passes and seasonal cycles would go a very long way toward legitimacy in my mind.