• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Put a flat earthier into space


BigPete said:
Canny reflection this mind!


Took myself so the man isn't in on it
Logon or register to see this image
Click to expand...

I wonder why ‘the man’ has gone to such lengths to make it appear spherical when it is only a projection on the dome of a flat-ish disk and where the inhabitants are indoctrinated Ito believing it is another shape. I’m half minded to think this entire ruse is founded on false beliefs.
 
Kevj said:
I wonder why ‘the man’ has gone to such lengths to make it appear spherical when it is only a projection on the dome of a flat-ish disk and where the inhabitants are indoctrinated Ito believing it is another shape. I’m half minded to think this entire ruse is founded on false beliefs.
Click to expand...
He's put a lot of ever changing detail into it as well.

That was just taken by my phone.. imagine how good it would look with the proper equipment.

You could even study it and notice the changes.. as others do but you could independently verify it for yourself.
 
BigPete said:
He's put a lot of ever changing detail into it as well.

That was just taken by my phone.. imagine how good it would look with the proper equipment.

You could even study it and notice the changes.. as others do but you could independently verify it for yourself.
Click to expand...
I don't get why he invented the moon as being a secondary reflection of something completely different and then for an eclipse came up with this light refracting away from itself, turning around and cancelling itself out in an impossible way.

When he admitted that Jupiter was not simple (due to how it changes), had to be a hologram suspended in a crystal and was such a perfect representation of a globe in orbit around a sun, it had to be a deliberate attempt to deceive, why did he not just invent his moon to be another hologram and an independent projection? It looks like he took the most bizarre option that is the easiest to disprove.

Though I am trying to apply a logical thought process to a paranoid conspiracy theorist who even thinks that a pulling force doesn't exist, so perhaps I've given this a bit too much thought.
 
DaveH said:
I don't get why he invented the moon as being a secondary reflection of something completely different and then for an eclipse came up with this light refracting away from itself, turning around and cancelling itself out in an impossible way.

When he admitted that Jupiter was not simple (due to how it changes), had to be a hologram suspended in a crystal and was such a perfect representation of a globe in orbit around a sun, it had to be a deliberate attempt to deceive, why did he not just invent his moon to be another hologram and an independent projection? It looks like he took the most bizarre option that is the easiest to disprove.

Though I am trying to apply a logical thought process to a paranoid conspiracy theorist who even thinks that a pulling force doesn't exist, so perhaps I've given this a bit too much thought.
Click to expand...
Moon was a bad choice as its so easily observable and at times in great detail

Plus you have the sun and the moon out at the same time as well
 
BigPete said:
Moon was a bad choice as its so easily observable and at times in great detail

Plus you have the sun and the moon out at the same time as well
Click to expand...
With the secondary reflection daftness, then if it were possible for light to act like that on a dome, there is no reason why this secondary reflection could not be to a part of the dome that is currently in the light. Lets face it, you are making up ways that light reflects or indeed splits when it shines on a dome, in a completely different way to what a dome actually does reflect light, so at that stage you can make up anything.

I would not count the moon's presence in the day as a sign of anything.

But compare this to reality. I don't know if anyone has noticed but when the moon is waxing (appearing to grow from a thin crescent to a full moon), the moon starts by appearing early evening and you will have seen in late afternoon that 'toe nail' in the sky. But once we get to a full moon it is normally pretty dark. The waxing moon doesn't appear until later in the evening and towards the end of the lunar month can be seen ghostly in the sky as a morning object.

In fantasy land this is obviously a changing secondary reflection, which as I have said is fine when you are just making up shit anyway. In reality look at this diagram:
Logon or register to see this image


Consider that the earth in that diagram would be rotating anti-clockwise, you can see from that, that early evening you are indeed facing the waxing crescent yet early morning you are left facing the waning crescent. Once again a simple concept of earth spinning with moon in orbit, matches what we observe in reality without any special reflections or bending light.
 
DaveH said:
With the secondary reflection daftness, then if it were possible for light to act like that on a dome, there is no reason why this secondary reflection could not be to a part of the dome that is currently in the light. Lets face it, you are making up ways that light reflects or indeed splits when it shines on a dome, in a completely different way to what a dome actually does reflect light, so at that stage you can make up anything.

I would not count the moon's presence in the day as a sign of anything.

But compare this to reality. I don't know if anyone has noticed but when the moon is waxing (appearing to grow from a thin crescent to a full moon), the moon starts by appearing early evening and you will have seen in late afternoon that 'toe nail' in the sky. But once we get to a full moon it is normally pretty dark. The waxing moon doesn't appear until later in the evening and towards the end of the lunar month can be seen ghostly in the sky as a morning object.

In fantasy land this is obviously a changing secondary reflection, which as I have said is fine when you are just making up shit anyway. In reality look at this diagram:
Logon or register to see this image


Consider that the earth in that diagram would be rotating anti-clockwise, you can see from that, that early evening you are indeed facing the waxing crescent yet early morning you are left facing the waning crescent. Once again a simple concept of earth spinning with moon in orbit, matches what we observe in reality without any special reflections or bending light.
Click to expand...
I love looking at the different ways the moon behaves through each lunar cycle, but also at different times of the year. One thing that hadn't occurred to me until I saw it by chance was that when the full moon falls on or very close to the equinox, it's one of the few times you can observe the sun and full moon in the sky at the same time. It's a beautiful sight to watch the moon set in the dawn light.
 
chelt_mackem said:
I love looking at the different ways the moon behaves through each lunar cycle, but also at different times of the year. One thing that hadn't occurred to me until I saw it by chance was that when the full moon falls on or very close to the equinox, it's one of the few times you can observe the sun and full moon in the sky at the same time. It's a beautiful sight to watch the moon set in the dawn light.
Click to expand...
The moon is amazing and if you can, get the chance to view it though a telescope. It really is an "oh wow" moment. To the naked eye it is a silver disc in the sky and even high res images look a bit 2D, but to the eye, the 3d nature becomes apparent. It is an amazing thing to look at.
 
Noooo suuuuuch thiiiiings.
Falling dome bits,
Denpressure,
Lasers on a lake,
And right-aaaaangles that aren't always eeeequal.
 
fyl2u said:
Noooo suuuuuch thiiiiings.
Falling dome bits,
Denpressure,
Lasers on a lake,
And right-aaaaangles that aren't always eeeequal.
Click to expand...

Imagine arguing right angles aren’t really right angles on the basis the line has a thickness as a counter against general mathematical principles.
Then going on to argue against how minuscule the gap would be between a spirit level and the surface of the water over the length of a bath.
 
Kevj said:
Imagine arguing right angles aren’t really right angles on the basis the line has a thickness as a counter against general mathematical principles.
Then going on to argue against how minuscule the gap would be between a spirit level and the surface of the water over the length of a bath.
Click to expand...
I liked the bit when I talked about right angles and builders squares, he confidently agreed and said he used the 1-2-3 rule. Not the 4-5-6 rule like the rest of us, apparently a 1-2-3 rule.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top