Why don't you reference it directly, like so: c/flatearthresearch? It's automatically hyperlinked once the comment is submitted.

I hear ya, but this is what I meant about it possibly being a psyop.

We are made in God’s image.

We are told so, but do we know so? I suppose. Anything we create is in some sense an extension of our mind, an imprint of our mind onto the physical. Any sort of simulation we'd build, would have our mind's signature all over it, which would unavoidably be propagated downstream ad infinitium (a simulation within a simulation...). If we look upstream, we can deduce/assume the same thing applies: that we/this is a representation of God's mind and that God's mind stretches upstream ad infinitum and could never be fully grasped by the creation, yet the creation itself is God's mind. What a glorious oxymoron.

Is that what the Bible means by it, or is it saying/implying that we look like God and experience existence in a similar manner God does, just that God exists in a different realm?

I don't have a problem with God, I just have a problem with how it's presented and with the assumption that what other people have written/told us is what God really is. I don't think anyone knows what God is. I think it is unfathomable, but it is nevertheless; existence itself being the ultimate and definitive "proof" anyone should need. All that is is God, no way around it. Any sort of vengeful god is merely something that exists within God, just like us.

EDIT: I know I've said "God is a psyop" in my previous comment, but I was just referring to the "God"/vengeful god that we're presented with.

Yeah, I don't like that thought either.

I'm curious what "the farmer" might be in your analogy, though. God or some other species? Also, does the "shack" refer to one's death or to cataclysmic events?

Just a thought: what if God and Satan are both psyops? The purpose being complete distraction from the real thing: that this is indeed a creation of which we can know only its features/behavior, but nothing of what's beyond it. If it's a creation, then surely it must've been created by someone/something? Yep, and that's where our knowledge ends and the psyop begins.

I mean, the entire thing, as presented, has always sounded like a soap opera to me. A vengeful God? Cool story, bro.

Ships Disappear Beyond Earth's Curvature? (4m31s)

Longest Distance Proofs (4m16s)

Regarding 1), it's explained in those clips, IIRC.

Wouldn't planes have to continually rise in altitude when they take flight?

No, that's handled by density/buoyancy and aerodynamics, I suppose. By the way, you could say the same thing about the globe, where planes fly in all directions relative to its spin, without ever accounting for it in any way; also, the atmosphere that's supposedly dragged along with the spin.

What is propelling the ground to be rising at such a rate?

Yeah, good question! Your guess is as good as mine. Again, you could say the same thing about Earth's constant acceleration around its axis. What causes/maintains that? Related video.

Either way, although intriguing, I personally don't see how any such forces would relate to Earth's surface being curved or not. That's directly observable by everyone.

ISS livestream

• Channel: Space Videos -- this isn't even "official", they just love NASA
• Keeps interrupting/switching scenes
• Bottom left: "recorded video" with exact GMT time 🤔
• https://files.catbox.moe/nbhyms.png

You move away?

the cause of that force would require some sort of explanation.

Agreed, I have issue with this as well. The downward bias of things cannot be fully explained by density. Sure, denser objects will fall perpendicular to the ground because what lies beneath them is less dense, but that is not the case in a vacuum, yet objects still fall as one would expect.

Excluding the theory of gravity, there are two ways (that I'm aware of) in which the downward bias could be explained (and demonstrated!):

1. Incoherent Electrostatic Acceleration

   This is the idea that the Earth is negatively charged and positively charged particles are drawn to it. I can't do it justice in writing, so it's better you watch this two-part exposition:

   • Part 1 (14m)
   • Part 2 (10m)

2. Upward Acceleration

   This one is simple: the ground is accelerating upwards at a constant rate. Pretty ludicrous, yet, to my mind, still not as ludicrous as what the globe model proposes. Here's a demonstration (4m) of how this works.

I'm personally leaning towards 1).

It's you, Bitswitch!

Joking aside, doing a quick traceroute shows that Communities and 4chan do indeed run behind Cloudflare proxies. Voat seems to be running off of some Amazon instances.

Let's try an exercise: if you never knew about gravity and you were told that things fall down because, well, that's what they do, would you then try to refute that [by saying there's a force that "pulls" objects towards the ground]?

What if I told you there's a force that pushes things towards the center of mass (instead of pulling it)? Given what we observe, isn't that just as likely?

Why is an invisible force, that no one can quite put their finger on, required to explain what we observe?

You are thinking of this in the wrong terms. There is no curvature, and that's not a debate, but an indisputable fact, regardless of what NASA or "FEers" say. You can debate about intangibles, but there being no curvature is a demonstrable fact, which anyone can verify for themselves. What more proof could anyone require (after all, the curvature is the foundation of the globe Earth)? Sure, the fact there's no curvature doesn't explain how the Sun and Moon work, etc., but that's another matter altogether, which you can look into later.

So, given there is no curvature, why assume everything else they've said is true? That's how you get images of earthy rectangles floating in space. Just what the captain ordered: nonsense!

Seriously, people have been psyopped beyond belief with this stuff. It's a weird experience, not unlike seeing vaxxies defending the vax.

Yeah, but you can have a circle within a square, for example. The map that's commonly shown is just what people have gotten used to and what fits best with what's observed; as such, it doesn't mean it's representative of the actual world. We don't really know how/what it is.

I've never really been interested in the Bible prior to finding out about FE; it never made much sense to me, my felt sense being that God is within me/us/everything, not in a particular book/place. Once I overcame my indoctrination (it's readily available to anyone willing to look), I realized that this is indeed a creation, what else could it be? If I ever contemplated that idea with the Big Bang as the inception point, surely it would make more sense given a smaller, dedicated realm? Genesis sure looks different now.

I've found this video (Revisiting the Firmament) (1h22m) to be pretty interesting.

CONSOOM CONSPIRACY!

What do you mean "there is no way to prove it"?

You forgot these: " "

"for no reason at all"

You could've left it at that; it was obviously meant as sarcasm.

A short video of why it matters.

I appreciate your patience, fren.

The irony, though, considering his name.

That's where Myanus goes.

Grabbity.

Hey, if you look hard enough, you might even be able see your own ass around the curvature.

A gas (high pressure) will always fill a vacuum (low pressure) until pressure equalizes. You can't have the two next to each other.

Fun fact: this is also how vacuum cleaners work. A pressure drop is created within an inner chamber that forces the air outside (higher pressure) to rush into the vacuum cleaner.

Yeah, stars in the southern hemisphere do seem to revolve around Polaris Australis/Sigma Octantis. There are videos of it, but you could also use https://stellarium-web.org to view [a simulation of] the sky.

There's a video Eric Dubay made about this topic: How the Southern Stars Work on Flat Earth (odysee link). I think it's a pretty good explanation for what's occurring.

Shill!