Re: The Sun, Moon, and Stars Prove the Flat Earth

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:09 pm

Posted by ricaius on 06/29/2015
An interesting compilation of sun timelapse, especially the very first one and the one in the desert at about 2:09 and later:

Also this strange midnight sun eclipse...

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:10 pm

Posted by uptoolate on 07/14/2015

Hello,
This is my first post here. I love the wealth of information and am able to answer most of my questions with this site. I have a question about the stars. If the stars are set in a firmament, a dome that covers the earth, the people in the "northern hemisphere" will see fewer stars and consistently see the same ones. The people in the "southern hemisphere" will have a greater variety of stars because there is a larger area of the dome passing over their heads. They would also be lower in the sky the further south you go. It would also seem to me that the stars seen south of the tropic of capricorn would travel faster because they have a greater distance to cover. Does anyone have any information relative to this? Thank you.

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:11 pm

Posted by Admin on 07/14/2015

Hey UpTooLate, welcome to the forum! You are right about the stars. Polaris is motionless, the stars near it move slowly then faster and faster the further away from Polaris. As you travel Southwards, Polaris and surrounding stars will fall lower and lower towards the horizon while new, faster Southern stars will start to appear to the South. Southern constellations like the Southern Crux are NOT simultaneously visible from all points in the South as Polaris/Ursa etc. ARE visible from all points in the North.

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:14 pm

Posted by dennyr2407 on 07/22/2015
I have a question regarding astrology because I think most astrologers (although I could be wrong) will reject any discussion of FE.

Does FE completely disrupt/dismiss the classical, astrological process including the zodiac, signs, planets, houses, ephemeris, etc or do they all remain intact?

There are many different ways to cast astrology charts as well and was wondering if one would work better than another when using the FE model?

Thank you!!

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:15 pm

Posted by csp on 07/22/2015

Jul 22, 2015 0:51:51 GMT dennyr2407 said:
I have a question regarding astrology because I think most astrologers (although I could be wrong) will reject any discussion of FE.

Does FE completely disrupt/dismiss the classical, astrological process including the zodiac, signs, planets, houses, ephemeris, etc or do they all remain intact?

There are many different ways to cast astrology charts as well and was wondering if one would work better than another when using the FE model?

Thank you!!

In my opinion, astrology is not lost here, however I believe it was a refined science which related to the "heavily movements" and their functions that all ancient cultures were aware of, rather than a mystical future predicting cash cow that the west has turned it into. I personally believe the Indian astrology systems are probably the closest we have to the truth - but I'm still looking into this with an open mind. Perhaps this is something we could start a thread of (if there is not one already) as I believe it's broad topic that can stem relations to things such as the astrolabes and sundials.

vortexpuppy said:

So we should only be seeing planets and a crescent moon in both pictures.

It does gives the impression of an eclipse, due to the fake looking shine around the crescent moon.

Looks doctored to me too...

Most definitely, if you load it up in photoshop and adjust the levels, you can see the "fake moon" emits no light when pushing the lightness up. Yet the "crescent" from the sun and the other "planets" emit glowing light. So yes, it's 100% doctored - whether my image is the original for the doctored one is debatable, but in this case, beside the point!

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:17 pm

Posted by questionauthority on 07/23/2015
A part of my Hack The Sky series:

The Beginning

Video footage displaying the sun rays that shoot in upward, sideways and straight down fashion all at the same time.

This is only possible if the sun is relatively close to the earth and is locally illuminating the earth as the flat earth model suggests.

The sun is more than enough proof that we live on a flat earth with a sweeping sun that is on a repeating cycle of loops.

I originally wanted to make the video a flat earth only video but as I was putting it together I felt compelled to make it the way I did....so

warning...it is faith based. Still, it is excellent footage and photos I made showing the case we present in the flat earth model.

Feel free to borrow anything from this video if you want to use it.

View if you wish to. Peace.

The Sun, Moon, and Stars Prove the Flat Earth - Page 2 Cool

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:21 pm

Posted by thinkforyourself on 07/27/2015

Jul 26, 2015 14:54:19 GMT costaricacanela said:
I hope I am posting this question in the right area, I am new to this forum, but not new to the subject matter. My question is do the constellations have seasons? The heliocentric spinning ball model says yes, that the earths revolution around the sun is responsible for seeing different parts of the sky at different parts of the year. You will only be able to see the stars that are in the opposite direction to the Sun. If you wait 6 months, the Earth will be at the opposite on its orbit, and you will now be able to see those stars that you couldn't see 6 months earlier because they were blocked by the Sun day or night. If this is true, wouldn't that cause a problem for the flat earth model? On the flat earth model all stars should be visible somewhere on the earth at any time during the year. If someone could help me understand this better I would be grateful. I may be missing something, thanks.

The Heliocentric model is incorrect. The Earth is the centre of the Universe, and the Stars move above us in the sky.

Just watch the timelapse footage that Eric has posted on this forum; you can see the stars circling around us.

Eric has posted so much information on this forum that people need to realise that nothing poses a problem for the 'flat Earth model', because it is the true reality of our situation.

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:23 pm

Posted by Admin on 07/27/2015

Jul 26, 2015 14:54:19 GMT costaricacanela said:
You will only be able to see the stars that are in the opposite direction to the Sun. If you wait 6 months, the Earth will be at the opposite on its orbit, and you will now be able to see those stars that you couldn't see 6 months earlier because they were blocked by the Sun day or night.

This doesn't happen. Whichever stars you are able to see at a given area remain exactly the same 6 months later.

“If the earth is at a given point in space on say January 1st, and according to present-day science, at a distance of 190,000,000 miles from that point six months afterwards, it follows that the relative position and directions of the stars will have greatly changed, however small the angle of parallax may be. THAT THIS GREAT CHANGE IS NOWHERE APPARENT, AND HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED, incontestably proves that the earth is at rest - that it does not move in an orbit round the sun.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (67)

“Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube and the moment the star appears in the first tube let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the second tube when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the second tube towards the first tube would be required for the star to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results--the star will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube which the difference in position of one yard had previously required. But as no such difference in the direction of the tube is required, the conclusion is unavoidable, that in six months a given meridian upon the earth's surface does not move a single yard, and therefore, that the earth has not the slightest degree of orbital motion." -Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy"

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:31 pm

Thus, many answers that have been assumed as true by modern science still need testing to prove their validity. Using the scientific method we can conduct experiments of our own that can be replicated by others.
This is what brings me to testing the theory of sunlight vs moonlight.

Hypothesis: The temperature is warmer in direct sunlight. The temperature is cooler in the shade of the sunlight. The temperature is cooler in direct moonlight. The temperature is warmer in the shade of moonlight.

The Experiment:
Items - HDE Infrared Thermometer, A cardboard box, masking tape, sharpie, iPhone (video), Flashlight (for night time walking)

Test Conditions / Steps
- Every time I made temperature readings I showed the box was empty.
- First reading was taken in an air conditioned controlled room for preliminary readings.
- Second reading was taken in direct sunlight. The shade was provided by my house blocking out the sun for the shade reading.
- Third Reading was taken in direct moonlight. The shade was provided by my house blocking out the moon for the shade reading.

Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion:

	LEFT SIDE	RIGHT SIDE
Preliminary	72.1°F	72.1°F
Sunlight	108.8°F
Shade of Sun		93.7°F
Moonlight	84.6°F
Shade of Moon		86.6°F

Conclusion - The temperature reading is warmer in direct sunlight. The temperature reading is cooler in the shade of the sunlight. The temperature reading is cooler in direct moonlight. The temperature is warmer in the shade of the moonlight.
My conclusion is that sunlight and moonlight are not sharing the same characteristics. If the moon light is reflecting the light of the sun it is not inheriting any of its characteristics or properties that we are familiar with in regards to temperature. The moon light is giving an adverse result to what would be expected if the light was being reflected from the sun.

Communicate Your Results:

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:33 pm

Posted by icarus15 on 07/28/2015
Moonlight is supposedly caused by a reflection from the sun but seemingly emits its very own cold light... No, not seemingly, it just does

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:34 pm

Posted by questionauthority on 07/31/2015
A part of my Hack The Sky series:

"Right On Time" gives an illustration of the daily and yearly cycle using the stars as a reference. The end result is pointing to a stationary earth and never changing stars.

The Sun, Moon, and Stars Prove the Flat Earth - Page 2 Smiley

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:35 pm

Posted by thinkforyourself on 07/31/2015

Jul 31, 2015 1:02:16 GMT questionauthority said:
A part of my Hack The Sky series:

"Right On Time" gives an illustration of the daily and yearly cycle using the stars as a reference. The end result is pointing to a stationary earth and never changing stars.

Well done, you have done a very good job. I don't know how anyone could possibly think that our Planet is moving after seeing that.

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:37 pm

Posted by questionauthority on 07/31/2015

Jul 31, 2015 12:13:39 GMT thinkforyourself said:
Jul 31, 2015 1:02:16 GMT questionauthority said:
A part of my Hack The Sky series:

"Right On Time" gives an illustration of the daily and yearly cycle using the stars as a reference. The end result is pointing to a stationary earth and never changing stars.

Well done, you have done a very good job. I don't know how anyone could possibly think that our Planet is moving after seeing that.

It was brought to my attention that precession does occur over thousands of years. I will be investigating that further and hopefully will be making a video on this as well. My first assessment of precession is that the firmament and stars were always designed to be a master timepiece. Any good timepiece should be able to tell the minute, hour and day at any point in time. To be even more accurate it is helpful if one can discern the year it is and ultimately the age/epoch we are in. I believe precession was placed into this system to simply be the way that one could resolve all of these throughout the life of the timepiece. If you tinker with an application like stellarium you will notice that precession is actually involved in the whole rotation of the firmament. Not just for ages. It is sort of the key to the master puzzle. The trick behind the tick.

How we have perceived/interpreted this system:
Minutes and Hours = Sundials/Moondials/Watches/Clocks
Days = Lunar Calendar/Star rotations daily/Solar cycles
Months/Seasons = Lunar calendar/star precession over a year can indicate month/synodic/sidereal/tropical/draconic/Anomalistic
Year = star alignment in the current age/solar years/tropical years
Age/Epoch = stars alignment in concordance with the sun in the revolution of the zodiac constellations.

The universe above our head is, simply put, a clock. A very accurate one at that.

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:40 pm

Posted by Desert Trekker on 08/01/2015

Jul 28, 2015 13:34:15 GMT questionauthority said:
I repeated a known experiment that takes a look at the temperature of sunlight versus moonlight.

Question: Will temperature readings taken in moonlight and the shade of moonlight be the same or adverse to the temperatures of sunlight and shade of sunlight.

Hello,

I just did a similar experiment over the last few days here in New Mexico. I'm afraid I didn't make a nice video, or record exact temperatures (because at the time I was honestly very skeptical) but here is a report of it anyway:

I just started researching the flat earth a few weeks ago after quite a few things about the theory (that is, pretty much everything) seemed legit. But, as an engineer the idea of "cool" moonlight seemed a bit wacky, because, well, I figured we "all know" that light is energy and can't magically cool things down. But, I've always been all for doing experiments myself and not believing what other people say.

So, I few days ago, I ordered a Nubee NUB8380H instant-read infrared thermometer from Amazon (on sale it was about $15). It arrived two days ago and I did some experiments:

2015-07-28 from about 22:30 to 23:00.

Hypothesis: Moonlight would cause heating, possibly not even measurable, because even if it is not reflected sunlight, it is still energy.

Setup:
The moon was out and was pretty bright, but not quite full.
All house lights were off and had been off for a few hours (I didn't want them to affect the experiment).
I got an old 2x4 board and threw it out on the concrete where our retaining wall cast a shadow from the moonlight on half the board.
I set up the thermometer for the right emissivity setting for wood, following the instructions it came with.
I made measurements about 2 inches away, again, following the instructions it came with.

Results:
The part of the board in the moonlight was cooler than the part of the board in the moon "shade" by about 3 C.
This was very surprising to me, so I was suspicious that this result could have been from the environment in my yard; after all, the part of the board in the moonlight was also closer to the grass, whereas the part in the shade was close to a dirt planter.
I resolved to do another, better experiment later that night, since this didn't seem to be a good setup.

2015-07-29 from about 01:00 to 01:30 (this is the same night, but after midnight)

Hypothesis: Moonlight would cause heating, possibly not even measurable, because even if it is not reflected sunlight, it is still energy. Previous results were due to placement of the object in question in my yard.

Setup:
Same environment, but a few hours later -- I wanted it to be darker and have sharper moon shadows in the yard.
This time, I measured a LOT of things in the yard that were partially in the bright moonlight vs in the moon shade.
A non-inclusive list is: the grass, a concrete walkway (in MANY places), the retaining wall (brick), a plastic hose reel, an ash tree's trunk, garden dirt, mud, our kids play-set (cedar wood), an outdoor table surface (metal/plastic), quite a few other things just as they caught my eye if they had a good sharp shadow across them.
Where possible, I measured temperatures not just on one side of a shadow, but on both sides. For example, where my grill cast a moon shadow, I measured on the concrete on the left of the shadow, in the shadow, and then to the right of the shadow.

Results:
Almost all objects were "obviously" cooler in the moonlight by 0.1 C to 3 C. Usually it was at least 0.5 C and was a pretty obvious change; you could move the instrument back and forth over the line of the shadow and see it change in real time.
There were a very few tests (around 3 out of ~50) where the result was the same or warmer in the moonlight by 0.1 C.
At this point, I was getting pretty convinced that moonlight actually was cooling.
Especially given the variety of measurements I made, very explicitly trying to rule out environment differences and experimental error, I had to admit that initial hypothesis seemed to be disproved.
I thought I'd do another few tries the next day.

2015-07-30 from about 00:30 to 02:00

Hypothesis: Moonlight actually is cooling. I don't understand the mechanism, but let's do more experiments!

Setup:
This night was great; the moon was full or almost completely full -- either way, it was BRIGHT.
There were a few clouds that covered and uncovered the moon during the experiment.
This time, I went crazy and ventured out of my yard and took the experiment all around the neighborhood.
This late, there were very few lights on in houses anywhere in the neighborhood; nearly all light was from the moon.
There were no street lights or anything of that sort.
Again, I didn't want to trick myself so I tried to rule out any other explanation by taking lots of measurements in lots of different places, in different environments, at different angles, etc, etc.
I measured a lot of the same things to try to get a confirmation of the results of the previous night.
This time I adjusted the emissivity setting on the thermometer for each object according to the device's instructions (the previous night I left it on 0.95, the default).
I measured a lot of new things, including parked cars, the metal mailbox, garage doors, thick bushes, etc.
I also tried measuring the back of my hand while rotated away from the moonlight, then the same thing without moving but just rotating my hand into the moonlight by twisting my wrist.
To compare, I went inside afterward and tried to reproduce the cooling effect with LED, CFL, and incandecescent lights, to try to ensure that there isn't something weird about how my thermometer reads when something is illuminated with visible light.

Results:
Same as the night before: almost all objects were again, quite obviously cooler IN the moonlight, again by about 0.1 C to 3 C.
(When there were larger differences than that, I suspected it was because the air was cooler or something like that because it was not consistent with the cooling effect seen otherwise.)
Again, there were a very few measurements that either didn't appear much different, or were maybe just slightly warmer by about 0.1 C.
I noticed that the cooling effect seemed greater when the moon was not behind the clouds.
Areas that had been in the moonlight longer seemed to be cooler than areas newly uncovered from moon shadow.
When comparing the effect against other light sources inside my house I noted the following: LED and CFL light had no measurable effect (less than 0.1 C); incandescent light warmed up the wall by about 0.2 C or 0.3 C almost instantly.

Overall Conclusion:
1. Moonlight does indeed appear to be cooling. There could be something wrong with the experiment, but if there is I don't know what.
2. The environment (cooling from the air over grass vs. the air over dirt) can easily confuse a simple experiment if you're not careful.
3. I want to run more of these experiments but with better data logging. This attempt was admittedly very exploratory, but I'm now totally convinced!
4. Anybody can run this same experiment themselves with a thermometer that costs less than $20. More people should do this!

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:41 pm

Posted by Admin on 08/01/2015

Great job Desert Trekker, thanks for that detailed experiment!

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:44 pm

Posted by hamata on 08/06/2015

Loool this is too funny

www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nasa-photo-moon-dark-side_55c23d3ae4b0138b0bf4abb5?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592&kvcommref=mostpopular

the funny thing is that the "dark side" hase the same features as the light side. Also for this image to be real it would have to have taken place during a solar eclips so where is the shadow of the moon. Too damn funny!

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:45 pm

Posted by jimjohnson12 on 08/06/2015

Loving the gif on there. The earth can supposedly do a quarter rotation (6 hours), and none of the clouds change shape or move.

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:47 pm

Posted by questionauthority on 08/09/2015

A part of my Hack The Sky series:

The Trick Behind The Tick examines precession on a flat earth model of the universe and how it was created to give us an index to pinpoint our exact timeframe in history down to the minute.

This is my attempt to start digging into precession further.

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:48 pm

Posted by gnosticwarrior on 08/09/2015

Aug 5, 2015 21:11:43 GMT jimjohnson12 said:
Loving the gif on there. The earth can supposedly do a quarter rotation (6 hours), and none of the clouds change shape or move.

None of those clouds shift AT ALL, and the moon looks like a cardboard cutout. Hooray for tax dollars!

The Sun, Moon, and Stars Prove the Flat Earth - Page 2 Tongue

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:49 pm

Posted by thesekininja on 08/11/2015

The work of Chinese astronomer Guo Shoujing:

guo_shoujing_1231-1314.pdf

Neat little pdf with lots worthy of consideration and some great diagrams

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:50 pm

Posted by thesekininja on 08/11/2015
Excellent resource page for Chinese astronomy:

hua.umf.maine.edu/China/astronomy/index.html#43

The Sun, Moon, and Stars Prove the Flat Earth - Page 2 0016dunhuang5405w

The Sun, Moon, and Stars Prove the Flat Earth - Page 2 0016dunhuang5405w

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:51 pm

Posted by questionauthority on 08/15/2015

I would really like to know what some of your ideas are on this subject.

This video has to do with magnetism on a flat earth involving the sun and the moon.
I made this video to hopefully get some smarter people than me thinking on this to research and find more truth.
Thanks!

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:52 pm

Posted by csp on 08/15/2015

Beautiful work questionauthority, my brain is firing many connections with this... and it certainly brings the Nikola Telsa quote straight to my fore thought:

"If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe."
― Nikola Tesla

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:55 pm

Posted by ricaius on 08/15/2015

Aug 15, 2015 5:22:25 GMT questionauthority said:
I would really like to know what some of your ideas are on this subject.
This video has to do with magnetism on a flat earth involving the sun and the moon.

Very nice video, well done!
That magnetic pattern made me think about the "tree of life" here at EXPO, Milan:

The Sun, Moon, and Stars Prove the Flat Earth - Page 2 NMosuLa

The Sun, Moon, and Stars Prove the Flat Earth - Page 2 NMosuLa

The Sun, Moon, and Stars Prove the Flat Earth - Page 2 XEfuakw

And also Capitol Plaza, Rome:

The Sun, Moon, and Stars Prove the Flat Earth - Page 2 DMrxniO

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:57 pm

Posted by thinkforyourself on 08/15/2015

Here is another great and relevant quote from Tesla:

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."

Nikola Tesla

by Sponsored content