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.
The Beer–Bouguer–Lambert (BBL) extinction law is an empirical relationship describing the attenuation in intensity of a radiation beam passing through a macroscopically homogenous medium with which it interacts.
This is clear as day. You don't get it?
I wouldn't change tactics. You're stuck thinking you're right and it's never gonna work to learn while you're trying to teach.
The common FE model can easily predict moon phases, just like before Copernicus. You don't need a globe theory to watch and predict the pattern. Even the season cycle is super easy to grasp. You really haven't even tried, have you?
Just give yourself a chance man, look up Eric dubay, try to understand what perspective means and stop believing Flat earth psy ops. No one thinks the earth has an edge, or that the sun should shrink to a dot.
Beer law is physical law. It can't be argumed with. Particles block light. This light shining through a media will have a point that it cannot shine father, because particles have blocked all of the light. The transition between is the gradient of sunrise and sunset.
The sun gets too far away to shine light through the media that is the air we breathe, and that distance is also dependent on the particles, clouds, moisture, CO2, in the sky.
There are so many ways to tell that the theory of the globe is impossible. Sun is just one. You also have the fact that you cannot see or measure curve, when simple tells you the earth curvature is actually quite significant over just a few miles. And we should easily be able to see curve from an airplane. Easily.
The stars are it for me though. That was the most obvious. When I finally realized how they move, it's so simple. All starts go around the north star. That's all. It's never changed.
To me, that is so obviously a major hole in the globe theory. Because with all the orbiting and rolling and spiraling of our solor system, as it and the sun spirals, the north star, a random point I the sky stays perfectly in place.
Why would our random floating rock be able to maintain our rotation axis directly at a single random star? We rotate are around the run every year, but we are also supposedly spiraling in the sun's orbit around the super massive black hole.
The idea of space not being a real thing, with giant stars and massive planets just doesn't work in your mind. You have to actually teach yourself this stuff too, there isn't some source you can trust.
I wouldn't change tactics. You're stuck thinking you're right
I honestly don't care what shape it is, but I don't need to read anymore to know that this is religion to you. I plainly said what would make me change my mind, but there is apparently no evidence that could reach you - which sounds remarkably like a Roman Catholic. Your confession through projection does you no credit though.
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.
The Beer–Bouguer–Lambert (BBL) extinction law is an empirical relationship describing the attenuation in intensity of a radiation beam passing through a macroscopically homogenous medium with which it interacts.
This is clear as day. You don't get it?
I wouldn't change tactics. You're stuck thinking you're right and it's never gonna work to learn while you're trying to teach.
The common FE model can easily predict moon phases, just like before Copernicus. You don't need a globe theory to watch and predict the pattern. Even the season cycle is super easy to grasp. You really haven't even tried, have you?
Just give yourself a chance man, look up Eric dubay, try to understand what perspective means and stop believing Flat earth psy ops. No one thinks the earth has an edge, or that the sun should shrink to a dot.
Beer law is physical law. It can't be argumed with. Particles block light. This light shining through a media will have a point that it cannot shine father, because particles have blocked all of the light. The transition between is the gradient of sunrise and sunset.
The sun gets too far away to shine light through the media that is the air we breathe, and that distance is also dependent on the particles, clouds, moisture, CO2, in the sky.
There are so many ways to tell that the theory of the globe is impossible. Sun is just one. You also have the fact that you cannot see or measure curve, when simple tells you the earth curvature is actually quite significant over just a few miles. And we should easily be able to see curve from an airplane. Easily.
The stars are it for me though. That was the most obvious. When I finally realized how they move, it's so simple. All starts go around the north star. That's all. It's never changed.
To me, that is so obviously a major hole in the globe theory. Because with all the orbiting and rolling and spiraling of our solor system, as it and the sun spirals, the north star, a random point I the sky stays perfectly in place.
Why would our random floating rock be able to maintain our rotation axis directly at a single random star? We rotate are around the run every year, but we are also supposedly spiraling in the sun's orbit around the super massive black hole.
The idea of space not being a real thing, with giant stars and massive planets just doesn't work in your mind. You have to actually teach yourself this stuff too, there isn't some source you can trust.
I honestly don't care what shape it is, but I don't need to read anymore to know that this is religion to you. I plainly said what would make me change my mind, but there is apparently no evidence that could reach you - which sounds remarkably like a Roman Catholic. Your confession through projection does you no credit though.