[a good friend of mine has a very autistic brother, who explained this point in detail on the trip back from Catalina this one time. It was intriguing how it all almost made sense in a weird surreal nightmare kind of way.]
Our conversations over the whole trip were just surreal beyond imagining due to him. He was quite likable, in his odd way. And he brout out the oddness of everyone else; some kid decided to explain all the details about how he was a dragon monster or something. If we didn't have photos, I'd probably assume that whole trip was a weird fever dream.
Stars prove flat Earth: Not only have they remained the same throughout recorded history, they move across the night sky in synchronicity. This would be impossible if stars had depth. You would see a parallax of stars further away moving greater distances than stars closer. This is a fact. No depth. No space.
Not only that, but you can't even see them in the balloon footage I linked.
Notice how at 2:55 when the sun "fades out" you can still clearly see the disk at the same size. If it was receding into the distance, it would shrink. Congrats, you proved the Earth is round.
This is just a cherry picked video with atmospheric haze. Notice how in the video I linked, which is of much better quality, the sun does not "fade out", but clearly sets below the horizon without shrinking.
That they move in opposite directions around the north and south poles proves the Earth is round, flattard.
Not only have they remained the same throughout recorded history
No, they drift over time. They appear largely in the same place because of their great distance. With precise measurements we can see some stars move, such as Barnard's Star.
You would see a parallax of stars further away moving greater distances than stars closer.
We do, retard. I've explained all this before. But you're a flattard with a head full of clay.
In the right condition, you'll actually see the sun up until it's light can't penetrate the atmosphere at the distance it's at from the viewer.
Congrats, you proved the Earth is round.
No. I believe we would need to see the sun go beneath the supposed curvature for that.
This is just a cherry picked video with atmospheric haze.
Nope. There are plenty of these videos. The Nikon p900 flattened your jew ball.
Notice how in the video I linked, which is of much better quality, the sun does not "fade out", but clearly sets
As you see in the video I just linked, this is atmospheric lensing. The horizon acts as the bottom of the lens. This cuts off objects that are magnified. Just like the reproducible model I linked.
Using the same method in the video I linked, it shows a curve
The video I linked can be classified as a "black swan." I proved that atmospheric lensing have this effect. Seeing the sun disappear instead of setting proved my point. Not all sunsets actually "set."
Congrats, you proved the Earth is round.
I think you're just having a hard time swallowing the truth.
That they move in opposite directions around the north and south poles proves the Earth is round, flattard.
That's not what I mean by parallax dumb dumb. I make 2D video games. I use parallax to create the illusion of depth. An object in the background will move slower than an object in the foreground when the perspective of the viewer is shifted. If stars have different depths, they wouldn't rotate in synchronicity. A star 100 light years away would move twice as fast as a star 200 light years away. That's just a fact.
They appear largely in the same place because of their great distance.
That's not how parallax works. If stars are at different depths, they would not all move together at the same rate.
With precise measurements we can see some stars move, such as Barnard's Star.
This should be every night, every star.
We do, retard. I've explained all this before. But you're a flattard with a head full of clay.
Can you point out which stars are moving faster? They seem to all be moving at the same rate and in synchronicity. Do depth.
Funny that you believe in atmospheric refraction now, whereas before you insisted no such thing existed, and it always had to be reflection and an inverted image. When you think refraction solves a flattard problem, boom, instantly accepted, whereas before it was vehemently denied.
He doesn't show another angle of it moving backwards without the lens. We just have to take his word. Refraction is a special phenomenon and changes with weather conditions. But the sun, if you remove glare by looking at it with something like a welder's mask, will almost always be the same size. This dude set it up to precisely get the answer he wanted, and even then we can't really see what he is doing.
No. I believe we would need to see the sun go beneath the supposed curvature for that.
Yeah, we did, retard. Funny how it tracked exactly with the camera that was auto-rotating as it went below the horizon. It's almost as if constant rotation was involved.
That's not what I mean by parallax dumb dumb.
I addressed your parallax comment further down, retard. Here I'm talking about the basic fact of rotation at two poles that has no explanation in Flattard Land. You keep ignoring this most basic of facts.
That's not how parallax works. If stars are at different depths, they would not all move together at the same rate. [..] This should be every night, every star.
No. I believe we would need to see the sun go beneath the supposed curvature for that.
Yeah, we did, retard. Funny how it tracked exactly with the camera that was auto-rotating as it went below the horizon. It's almost as if constant rotation was involved.
That's not what I mean by parallax dumb dumb.
I addressed your parallax comment further down, retard. Here I'm talking about the basic fact of rotation at two poles that has no explanation in Flattard Land, but is completely trivial and expected on a rotating globe Earth. You keep ignoring this most basic of facts.
That's not how parallax works. If stars are at different depths, they would not all move together at the same rate. [..] This should be every night, every star.
Funny that you believe in atmospheric refraction now
It's always been a thing. You retards just use it wrong and think that it can project an image 2,000 ft in the air. Refraction is simply light bending creating magnifying effect. I even provided verifiable evidence. Unlike you globe kikes that can't provide a single example of your claim outside begging the question.
Whereas before you insisted no such thing existed
Provide me one example of refraction projecting an image 2000 ft in the air that's not baking the question.
and it always had to be reflection and an inverted image.
That's what a mirage is. It's the only way to project an image above an object and that image has to be inverted.
When you think refraction solves a flattard problem
I provided a clear example of the phenomenon at work with the shrinking mill. I also provided a model and example on how it works with the sun. I provided a video of the sun doing exactly what the model shows and exactly what is impossible on a globe earth. It's science bitch. Don't get mad cuz you can't provide it.
He doesn't show another angle of it moving backwards without the lens.
Because the atmosphere is acting as a lens. I provided a clear example with the shrinking mill on how that's possible. Your fairy tales about refraction lifting objects 2000 ft in the air are fucking retarded.
Refraction is a special phenomenon and changes with weather conditions.
It never lifts objects period. It only magnifies them.
I ain't even reading the rest of your retarded shit. I absolutely proved my point and you gotta deal with it. I don't give a fuck how much you cry about your shitty science that you can't reproduce.
You know what? I'll refute your comment. I'm going to make it its own post though so that I can repost it elsewhere because your a retard that that made me look this shit up and it absolutely destroys your argument. Even the parallax. It stars are close enough to notice that they make a star trail then yes, they are close enough to notice a difference in angular perception. You can't have it both ways. They can't be close enough to make a trail but not close enough to see the difference between hundreds of light years.
All you did is repeat earlier arguments and babble on about refraction, after earlier saying it was impossible. You are an incoherent mess.
What you did not address: That the sun is almost always exactly the same size when viewed through a filter to see the true disk and not glare, whether it's noon or towards sunset. Refraction is a rare weather phenomena, which you'll dismiss for the Chicago skyline over Lake Michigan, but immediately accept to explain why the sun never changes size as it moves across the horizon. Fail.
What you did not address: That the sun tracks exactly with an auto-rotating camera as it sets below the horizon. Fail.
You flattards love perspective, right? You do realize as an object moves towards the horizon, the drop of the angle in the sky gets slower and slower, right? Yet we don't see that in the real world. It rotates at a constant rate.
What you did not address: The rotation of stars around the south and north poles. Fail.
What you did not address: Demonstrated parallax of the stars. Fail.
What do you do? You make another post, repeat your bullshit with more bullshit thrown in, and then whine when nobody takes you seriously. I give you a serious argument and you run with your tail tucked between your legs.
So ancient monuments that line up with celestial bodies were just well planned in advance? Lol. Ok
And the lack of parallax is yet another miracle phenomenon that can't ever be reproduced but definitely exists because otherwise space would be fake and gay?
If stars were in an infinite vacuum at various distances, as they made their star trails throughout the night, you'd see a variation in speed among all the stars. Meaning, a star at 100 light-years away would make it's trail twice as fast as a star at 200 light-years away. That's a fact. The fact we see all the stars make their trails in synchronicity at the same rate of speed means there is no depth to them.
Lol. No. We all have access to star trails. Stars move in a uniform circle. All at the same rate. The consolation do not morph throughout the night. So stop being retarded.
Ohh Secret Hitler, how I love taking you wannabe Nazi kikes to school.
Parallax is the effect you get when simultaneously viewing objects at different depths. a star at 100 light-years away will make it's nightly star trail twice as fast as a star at 200 light-years away.
I know, I know, you wanna say that the stars are to far away to notice. Wrong. This effect is relative based on the viewed objects. If the star at 100 light-years away can visibility be seen to make a trail in one night, the star at 200 light-years would have to make it's trail at half the speed. If they were too far away to notice, then you wouldn't notice them move at all. But if they move, they can't move at the same rate. Since all the stars move together in synchronicity at the same rate, this means that there is no depth.
Idk man but you've been wrong about everything else and you just change the subject so I'm not doing your little exercise. You lost this debate hours ago and I'm sure you'll bring it up again tomorrow.
[ + ] SecretHitler
[ - ] SecretHitler 4 points 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 09:06:40 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] UncleDoug
[ - ] UncleDoug 3 points 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 09:40:25 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] lord_nougat
[ - ] lord_nougat 2 points 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 12:19:18 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] SecretHitler
[ - ] SecretHitler 1 point 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 15:36:51 ago (+1/-0)
THE FLIES ARE JUST BABY BIRDS! 🤯
That must be why they're so small
[ + ] lord_nougat
[ - ] lord_nougat 0 points 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 15:42:22 ago (+0/-0)
[a good friend of mine has a very autistic brother, who explained this point in detail on the trip back from Catalina this one time. It was intriguing how it all almost made sense in a weird surreal nightmare kind of way.]
[ + ] SecretHitler
[ - ] SecretHitler 1 point 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 16:35:54 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] lord_nougat
[ - ] lord_nougat 1 point 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 16:46:11 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] 1 point 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 11:18:17 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] SecretHitler
[ - ] SecretHitler 2 points 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 15:33:40 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 16:31:47 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] 0 points 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 17:39:04 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] 2 points 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 09:11:47 ago (+4/-2)
[ + ] Weredawg
[ - ] Weredawg 1 point 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 11:06:43 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] 1 point 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 11:18:37 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 0 points 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 15:31:22 ago (+0/-0)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G70y90BVes4
[ + ] Weredawg
[ - ] Weredawg 0 points 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 16:13:05 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 0 points 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 22:11:40 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Weredawg
[ - ] Weredawg 0 points 2.4 yearsJan 20, 2023 01:22:10 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] SecretHitler
[ - ] SecretHitler 1 point 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 15:32:58 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] RMGoetbbels
[ - ] RMGoetbbels 1 point 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 09:22:47 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 3 points 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 09:46:11 ago (+4/-1)
Balloon flight proves globe Earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edsUrLXrlLg
Stars prove globe Earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huysYcz-AiQ
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] 0 points 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 11:16:54 ago (+2/-2)
Sunsets prove flat Earth:
https://youtu.be/O5w8EetFwGo
Balloon flight proves flat Earth:
https://youtu.be/LIvu9k08n2s
Stars prove flat Earth:
Not only have they remained the same throughout recorded history, they move across the night sky in synchronicity. This would be impossible if stars had depth. You would see a parallax of stars further away moving greater distances than stars closer. This is a fact. No depth. No space.
Not only that, but you can't even see them in the balloon footage I linked.
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 3 points 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 13:09:00 ago (+3/-0)
Notice how at 2:55 when the sun "fades out" you can still clearly see the disk at the same size. If it was receding into the distance, it would shrink. Congrats, you proved the Earth is round.
This is just a cherry picked video with atmospheric haze. Notice how in the video I linked, which is of much better quality, the sun does not "fade out", but clearly sets below the horizon without shrinking.
Using the same method in the video I linked, it shows a curve: https://files.catbox.moe/hcxqko.png
Congrats, you proved the Earth is round.
That they move in opposite directions around the north and south poles proves the Earth is round, flattard.
No, they drift over time. They appear largely in the same place because of their great distance. With precise measurements we can see some stars move, such as Barnard's Star.
We do, retard. I've explained all this before. But you're a flattard with a head full of clay.
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] 0 points 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 13:51:33 ago (+1/-1)
Yea. It didn't disappear behind the curvature.
This is due to atmospheric lensing. Here's a reproducible example at a common place where this happens all the time.
https://youtu.be/Y0bQm8sJwd4
It's called the "Shrinking Mill" because at a distance it is magnified by the atmosphere and will shrink as you approach it.
Here's an example of what that would look like with the sun.
https://youtu.be/s-PhStb6mTQ
In the right condition, you'll actually see the sun up until it's light can't penetrate the atmosphere at the distance it's at from the viewer.
No. I believe we would need to see the sun go beneath the supposed curvature for that.
Nope. There are plenty of these videos. The Nikon p900 flattened your jew ball.
As you see in the video I just linked, this is atmospheric lensing. The horizon acts as the bottom of the lens. This cuts off objects that are magnified. Just like the reproducible model I linked.
The video I linked can be classified as a "black swan." I proved that atmospheric lensing have this effect. Seeing the sun disappear instead of setting proved my point. Not all sunsets actually "set."
I think you're just having a hard time swallowing the truth.
That's not what I mean by parallax dumb dumb. I make 2D video games. I use parallax to create the illusion of depth. An object in the background will move slower than an object in the foreground when the perspective of the viewer is shifted. If stars have different depths, they wouldn't rotate in synchronicity. A star 100 light years away would move twice as fast as a star 200 light years away. That's just a fact.
That's not how parallax works. If stars are at different depths, they would not all move together at the same rate.
This should be every night, every star.
Can you point out which stars are moving faster? They seem to all be moving at the same rate and in synchronicity. Do depth.
https://youtu.be/tp6UkqIwVfk
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 0 points 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 18:52:05 ago (+0/-0)
Funny that you believe in atmospheric refraction now, whereas before you insisted no such thing existed, and it always had to be reflection and an inverted image. When you think refraction solves a flattard problem, boom, instantly accepted, whereas before it was vehemently denied.
He doesn't show another angle of it moving backwards without the lens. We just have to take his word. Refraction is a special phenomenon and changes with weather conditions. But the sun, if you remove glare by looking at it with something like a welder's mask, will almost always be the same size. This dude set it up to precisely get the answer he wanted, and even then we can't really see what he is doing.
Yeah, we did, retard. Funny how it tracked exactly with the camera that was auto-rotating as it went below the horizon. It's almost as if constant rotation was involved.
I addressed your parallax comment further down, retard. Here I'm talking about the basic fact of rotation at two poles that has no explanation in Flattard Land. You keep ignoring this most basic of facts.
Yeah, we did, retard. Funny how it tracked exactly with the camera that was auto-rotating as it went below the horizon. It's almost as if constant rotation was involved.
I addressed your parallax comment further down, retard. Here I'm talking about the basic fact of rotation at two poles that has no explanation in Flattard Land, but is completely trivial and expected on a rotating globe Earth. You keep ignoring this most basic of facts.
The distance is so great that the perceived parallax is extremely tiny. This site gives the parallax based on distance to the star and using the Earth's orbit at two extremes: https://www.translatorscafe.com/unit-converter/en-US/calculator/parallax-distance/
We've mapped out the distance to many stars using parallax, but at some point the apparent motion is so tiny it cannot be measured.
There's literally over a billion that have been measured via the Gaia satellite: https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March19/Mignard/Mignard3.html
Of course, you can look up the stars that are close to us and see there measured parallax, for example Alpha Centauri: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Centauri
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] -1 points 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 19:11:21 ago (+0/-1)
It's always been a thing. You retards just use it wrong and think that it can project an image 2,000 ft in the air. Refraction is simply light bending creating magnifying effect. I even provided verifiable evidence. Unlike you globe kikes that can't provide a single example of your claim outside begging the question.
Provide me one example of refraction projecting an image 2000 ft in the air that's not baking the question.
That's what a mirage is. It's the only way to project an image above an object and that image has to be inverted.
I provided a clear example of the phenomenon at work with the shrinking mill. I also provided a model and example on how it works with the sun. I provided a video of the sun doing exactly what the model shows and exactly what is impossible on a globe earth. It's science bitch. Don't get mad cuz you can't provide it.
Because the atmosphere is acting as a lens. I provided a clear example with the shrinking mill on how that's possible. Your fairy tales about refraction lifting objects 2000 ft in the air are fucking retarded.
It never lifts objects period. It only magnifies them.
I ain't even reading the rest of your retarded shit. I absolutely proved my point and you gotta deal with it. I don't give a fuck how much you cry about your shitty science that you can't reproduce.
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] -1 points 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 19:22:11 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 0 points 2.4 yearsJan 20, 2023 00:43:21 ago (+0/-0)
You mean this post? https://www.talk.lol/viewpost?postid=63c9f10b6c278
All you did is repeat earlier arguments and babble on about refraction, after earlier saying it was impossible. You are an incoherent mess.
What you did not address: That the sun is almost always exactly the same size when viewed through a filter to see the true disk and not glare, whether it's noon or towards sunset. Refraction is a rare weather phenomena, which you'll dismiss for the Chicago skyline over Lake Michigan, but immediately accept to explain why the sun never changes size as it moves across the horizon. Fail.
What you did not address: That the sun tracks exactly with an auto-rotating camera as it sets below the horizon. Fail.
You flattards love perspective, right? You do realize as an object moves towards the horizon, the drop of the angle in the sky gets slower and slower, right? Yet we don't see that in the real world. It rotates at a constant rate.
What you did not address: The rotation of stars around the south and north poles. Fail.
What you did not address: Demonstrated parallax of the stars. Fail.
What do you do? You make another post, repeat your bullshit with more bullshit thrown in, and then whine when nobody takes you seriously. I give you a serious argument and you run with your tail tucked between your legs.
[ + ] Sector7
[ - ] Sector7 2 points 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 12:05:41 ago (+3/-1)
"Incorrect", would be a neutral way to describe this false information.
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] 0 points 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 12:36:46 ago (+2/-2)
And the lack of parallax is yet another miracle phenomenon that can't ever be reproduced but definitely exists because otherwise space would be fake and gay?
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 1 point 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 15:33:01 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] -1 points 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 17:58:48 ago (+0/-1)
But while I have you in class, let me teach you something about the parallax effect.
Parallax effect:
https://youtu.be/XcTVbSFnsGU
If stars were in an infinite vacuum at various distances, as they made their star trails throughout the night, you'd see a variation in speed among all the stars. Meaning, a star at 100 light-years away would make it's trail twice as fast as a star at 200 light-years away. That's a fact. The fact we see all the stars make their trails in synchronicity at the same rate of speed means there is no depth to them.
[ + ] Sector7
[ - ] Sector7 0 points 2.4 yearsJan 20, 2023 11:39:14 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] -1 points 2.4 yearsJan 20, 2023 15:40:56 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] SecretHitler
[ - ] SecretHitler 1 point 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 15:32:19 ago (+1/-0)*
The fastest one is Bernard's Star, which is 6 light years away and moves about the width of your pinky every 350 years.
So it's moved about the width of your manlet hand over the course of recorded history.
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] -1 points 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 18:24:39 ago (+0/-1)
Parallax is the effect you get when simultaneously viewing objects at different depths. a star at 100 light-years away will make it's nightly star trail twice as fast as a star at 200 light-years away.
https://youtu.be/XcTVbSFnsGU
I know, I know, you wanna say that the stars are to far away to notice. Wrong. This effect is relative based on the viewed objects. If the star at 100 light-years away can visibility be seen to make a trail in one night, the star at 200 light-years would have to make it's trail at half the speed. If they were too far away to notice, then you wouldn't notice them move at all. But if they move, they can't move at the same rate. Since all the stars move together in synchronicity at the same rate, this means that there is no depth.
[ + ] SecretHitler
[ - ] SecretHitler 1 point 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 19:52:42 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] -1 points 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 20:37:59 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] olinneserpona
[ - ] olinneserpona 1 point 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 10:41:11 ago (+1/-0)
https://www.voat.xyz/v/CubeEarth
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] 1 point 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 11:20:23 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] Sector7
[ - ] Sector7 1 point 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 11:13:01 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] gaybeeye
[ - ] gaybeeye 0 points 2.4 yearsJan 19, 2023 12:06:14 ago (+1/-1)