They have claims but no evidence.
So you want to believe.
Evidence is easy. There’s evidence available for almost anything, very much including things which are wrong/untrue. Just think about all the people who are wrongly convicted and sentenced for crimes they didn’t commit. Or virtually every scientific conclusion/belief of prior generations. Evidence abounds, but it doesn’t usually lead to truth (and often leads away from it).
You may disagree, or otherwise find fault with, their evidence - but they certainly have it (at least, as i said, ostensibly).
Has anyone observed and measured the sun changing size?
Yes.
It’s important to recognize that we are talking about apparent size change (though in the standard view of the sun being a star powered by fusion - the sun does change actual size as well)
The apparent size of the sun changes due to refraction/diffraction (typically at sunrise/sunset) as well as distance to us (typically over a yearly period, though obviously it is changing distance over the day too - so its apparent size is also changing daily even if we currently lack the precision to detect such a change)
How would that even work?
Often it is done with an ND filter (to get rid of the glare and only measure the sun) and a photodetector (ccd/camera etc.).
Is there any evidence that they are either lighter than air or immaterial?
Yes, quite a bit. Some of the most compelling, perhaps, comes from astronomy where the interactions of distant galaxies defies all our understandings/models. Arguably other compelling examples are when comets (believed to be made of dust and ice) travel through the sun unscathed.
The fact that they consistently float above and never fall is a good evidence, in and of itself, that they likely cannot be very dense - but this is a bit too obvious for the average “educated” mind to grasp. To the uneducated or the properly educated, it is a perfectly reasonable assertion - however.
If they are immaterial, where does the light come from?
The air they are comprised of/surrounded by/interacting with! There are some intriguing videos of people showing that a combination of a just a few ionized gasses is responsible for the primary spectrum of colors in daylight.
Of course, your next question could/should be - where does the power come from to ionize the gasses... That is the real question. Sadly most questions don’t have answers, and the contrived answers we are taught to believe, in lieu of the correct answer, are consistently (and wildly) wrong generation after generation. You learn to live with it ;)
You misunderstand.
Models are not for explanation.
Consider the geocentric model. We have it, and it still works very well today. Does that prove that the universe is geocentric?
Models are not for explanation - they are for (limited) use!
Having a model or not having a model is meaningless. Analogously, having an explanation or lacking one is equally meaningless. Furthermore, contriving explanation is trivial; Almost all mythology is explanation... What matters is if the explanations are correct!
If i had a model of a flat world (trivial, but time consuming, to create), surely that wouldn’t prove the world flat - right? For the exact same reasons the geocentric model doesn’t (and can’t, fundamentally) prove that the earth is the center of the universe.
There aren’t really any flat earthers. You are operating under a misconception. They are largely products and/or agents of a psyop.
The answer is, it doesn’t stay the same size. The sun does change (apparent) size during the day and over the course of the year. Wether the world is flat or spherical has no bearing on that. All things that recede appear to shrink (assuming no magnification/distortion in the way that obscures that optical law)
There are 2 major possibilities (and many others besides)
- They are lighter than the surrounding air they displace (aka low density).
- They aren’t material, but light/luminaries.
Though to be fair, i am not a flat earther.
If you, or anyone, are earnestly interested in questions like these - please join us over on flatearthresearch to discuss!
If you (or anyone) are ever earnestly interested in questions like this, please join us over on flatearthresearch!
How does the climate work on a flat earth? Why does it get colder the further north or south or up you go?
This is tellingly difficult for the indoctrinated/biased to recognize, but almost nothing depends on the believed sphericity of the world. Neither the climate or the colder latitudes require the world to be a sphere. The climate works the same way it does now (generally driven by the sun as far as we know)
- Trust the tv
- Trust the us government (moon rocks)
- Trust the art department at NASA (Lunar footprints, Over 8,000 photos documenting our trips, Scientific equipment we’ve installed on the Moon)
- Repeat what you heard
Proof!
There are many who claim this is not the case and have ostensible evidence to support their claims.
However, you seem to have missed my point.
IF the world is flat, then obviously all flights happen over a flat earth.
The whole “flight paths prove” premise is essentially nonsense - regardless of the shape of the world they are claimed to prove.
Surely IF the world is flat, then no flights that currently exist are impossible...
It’s a tautology.
I find some of the flight path analysis arguments slightly interesting, but fundamentally flawed in regards to determining the shape of the world in most every way - regardless of what shape it actually is.
I’m not sure about a “red pill”, but i am a fan of their graphics/musings (and music selection!).
My two cents are :
-
War is really only about two things - topography, and subterfuge. The idea that today is somehow different and common people are permitted to have correct maps is extremely naive.
-
The aristocracy knew about and had maps detailing the “new world” for centuries (at least) prior to when most are taught migration from europe first began. What happened the moment those poor slaves knew there was a place to go to escape their miserable lot?
For further exploration/discussion on the topic, please join us over on flatearthresearch!
“Good info” - i’m not sure, but i can share my view.
As far as i can tell the myth of atlantis is from plato. That is the first and primary source. Supposedly he picked up the story from the egyptians.
Generally it was an advanced seafaring society organized into concentric rings containing all the known animals of the world. Then it was destroyed by sudden cataclysm.
Then there is the modern american (as far as i can tell/trace) revival of the myth where atlantis sunk but somehow survived the sinking and is still down there.
In my view, the atlantis myth is just another retelling of the biblical flood myth (perhaps even, its source). Atlantis wasn’t a country, nation, or continent - it was the entirety of the world prior to the global flood. Advanced and organized into concentric circles like we do today (latitude).
That makes it real.
Agreed. But it doesn’t make it a rock, mineable, or reachable in any way.
No. A great many.
America bombed the absolute shit out of japan, and generally american students are not well educated on the breadth of mass murder and savagery employed.
Perhaps they are (the work of satan). They are primarily used to deceive/lie en masse, after all.
As for me, i don’t favor superstition and am of the “jack sparrow philosophy” camp. There is what a man can do, and what a man can’t do. What he can do, he does. That’s the reason we don’t ever see nuclear weapons used except on television (in preposterously hokey and obviously fake clips).
If it were possible - we would do it ... frequently! It isn’t possible, which is why we don’t!
So how do you guys suggest they did it?
They didn’t. They used cheap camera tricks / television fear porn propaganda and conventional firebombing.
There are large bombs, granted - but there are no “doomsday devices” that can destroy the world (or even cities). No M.A.D. It’s all hollywood.
Please see the documentary “Dr. Strangelove” for more details.
They were simply firebombed to (partial) oblivion.
It blows my mind you believe in one, but think the other is fake.
Explosions are about the speed at which all the power can be released.
Nuclear reactions, like thermite reactions - likely for analogous reasons, are slow and do not happen all at once.
A “doomsday device” which can destroy the entire world?
Does that sound real to you, or rather like bad scifi tripe from a 50’s serial?
The only place nuclear weapons have ever existed is on television.
See the documentary “Dr. Strangelove” for more details.
The link is already dead :( Can you please repost?
Apocryphally, yes.
Tesla is reported to have built one and drawings of another one were found in his papers (at his museum). https://www.quora.com/Did-Nikola-Tesla-discover-how-to-invent-a-UFO-or-any-kind-of-flying-craft-If-so-why-did-they-hide-this-from-the-public/answer/William-Beaty
Precious little detail on specific workings though :( He told the newspapers not to be surprised if in the near future they saw him floating about in a flying machine no larger than a bathtub which did not utilize bernoulli's principles.
Of course there is this old chestnut too :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_VZ-9_Avrocar
There are a great many other anecdotes about the specifics of building flying saucers, but i’ve forgotten them (and did not find them credible). Speculations on the nazi bell, and counter rotating vortices of “red mercury” and the like fall in this category.
Good luck on your search, and let us know if you find anything!
So, this is your claim
Not really, this is more like “status quo”. It’s “basic physics”, as you said. It is not surprising that you don’t know that, as most people don’t - but that’s just because physics isn’t for everybody. Some of us genuinely like it!
Try to address the content, not resort to childish ad hominem. It just makes me sad for you, and mires communication. Viciously attack the thought, but never the thinker! Attacking the thinker is a demonstration that you weren’t competent to attack the thought. Do better if you can!
It's YOUR claim.
What is my claim? You are petulantly demanding an answer to your (tangential) question which has nothing to do with anything i claimed.
You make the claim, you provide the evidence.
I’m happy to provide evidence for my claim (which i’ve already done, but you likely missed), however in real life the burden to verify/validate a claim encountered (including “facts” which are merely one type of claim) always falls on us - the students. We can ask for help if we can’t do it on our own, but demanding it is essentially always counter productive.
Given a powerful enough telescope, of course you would.
A common misunderstanding. The farthest you can see from the top of everest is a few hundred miles - more magnification can’t change that because the air is not completely transparent. The more of it you look through the less you can see clearly.
A good analogy is looking out towards the open ocean from underwater. At some distance from you - all you see is blackness. The distant light from the shark that is absolutely there simply can’t reach you and no amount of magnification can change that. There is too much “stuff” in the way (in the analogy, water and the things dissolved/commingling in it; in the example above, the air - which also behaves as a fluid - and the things dissolved/commingling in it.)
You don't understand basic physics
Lol. Look up diffraction/angular resolution limit. Physics isn’t for everyone, and optics are tricky!
Lol. There is a lot of equivocation fallacy (often unintentional) surrounding the use of the word “model”. Most people have no idea what a scientific model is, how it is made, or why. For instance, you are under the (common/popularized) misapprehension that they are used, or can be used, to prove things about reality (either inside of science or outside of it).
In the scientific sense/use of the word “model”, no. There are many maps, conceptions, physical “dioramas” etc. available, however - but that is NOT the same thing, as you correctly point out.
What you are missing is that having or not having a model is meaningless. The earth remains the shape it is regardless of what our contrived models depict. Did you understand the point i was making about the geocentric model?
There is more than that (what you describe above, which i generally consider the flat earth psyop) but the heavily advertised (i.e. funded) flat earth psyop obfuscates it. That is one of its major purposes, ostensibly.
Earnest researchers, what i call flat earth researchers, do exist - and like most researchers - often do not make any videos. In any case, i loathe the 5 hour infotainment junk too.