• ChristIsKing.eu has moved to ChristIsKing.cc - see the announcement for more details. If you don't know your password PM a mod on Element or via a temporary account here to confirm your username and email.

Cosmology Debate Thread ("Space Is Fake")

Under the assumptions of the flat-earth model, even if you travel east or west you will eventually reach Antarctica or whatever land mass or ocean exists at the edge. You don't have to travel south. A series of flights to the west would eventually get you to the edge of the earth OR back to America where you started. But then I expect you will argue that there exists some grand mistake in our navigation skills and our pilots never find true west to begin with.
Reread what I wrote, you're assumption of what the flat-earth model is does not take into account the magnetism of the antithesis flat-earth (unipolar) and how our instruments would react to the source of that magnetic north. In that model, which is ultimately inaccurate because of a cosmological absence, the magnetic navigation still works the same way it would on our alleged globe. The magnetism on the dual-polar model which is accurate simply takes this and a traveler would use the opposite inputs if attempting to make a revolution around the southern celestial pole.

Also true west is not a uniform cardinality, it changes based on the position of the traveler in relation to their nearest pole. The only solid unchanging point is a pole, of which there are two, with north being the historically dominant one used for all navigations.

On this model, the Earth's surface is like a flat plane with two central points corresponding to the celestial poles (Polaris and Sigma Octantis). When traveling westward from a starting point, the traveler follows a circular path around one of these poles. This path extends outward from the central pole, forming a radial route. The traveler does not encounter an edge but can continue along the circular path indefinitely barring any land barriers, depending on where they are in the ocean. In this theoretical example you propose, if they were in the sky, then they would make a complete circuit because the west is a radial from the celestial pole.

Compasses respond to the magnetic fields generated by the celestial poles, not the alleged magnetic fields of the Earth. As the traveler moves along their westward journey, they are guided by the compass needle pointing towards the appropriate celestial pole. This navigation system allows them to stay on course along the circular path without veering off towards any supposed edge.

Since the circular path extends indefinitely (because a circle is a loop), a traveler heading consistently westward would eventually complete a full revolution on their radial from the celestial pole and return to their starting point. Instead of reaching an edge or Antarctica, they would find themselves back where they began their journey, completing a circular route around the celestial pole, unless they started from a point on the peninsula of Antarctica and used the reverse to navigate based off of the southern pole (Octantis).
 
Music, there are a lot of errors in your post above, such as no circumnavigation from the North-South across Antarctica. It's been done many times. There is even a base in the center of Antarctica, that has been in operation for decades. On top of that there are bases from nations all over the world that aren't part of the international treaty to prohibit travel there, such as Russian, Indian, or Chinese bases.


Your lengthy posts also are a major red flag which violates one of the best unspoken rules of philosophy:

The better something is understood, the simpler it may be explained.

If you actually had good proof against the globe model you'd be able to explain it in a few sentences or less. You don't, you just create walls of verbiage packed with false premises. Meanwhile I can post a video that shows a compass pointing into the ground and refute everything you say.

The second I see a false premise, the second I immediately execute a run-time error and skip the rest of a post.

You believe in false premises and the rest of everything you believe is false as well.

I'm going to have to ask you to make short, concise posts that can focus on relevant information concerned with premises. I don't care about theories in the past because those were incorrect too. Otherwise, if you keep posting false things in here, I will be forced to ban you from the thread - which pains me, because you are one of the great posters on this forum.
 
The video of the Nikon P1000
You are late to the party, read the entire thread and attack the facts those of us who are questioning the narrative have posted, not make it sound like those of us who question are simply making generic "denial" accusations, because I assure you if you took the time to read through what has been posted and not been as dismissive as your reply, you would see that there is a discussion here that is being derided at every opportunity by those who simply do not want to venture down this exploration. There is abject refusal to even consider the evidence to the contrary.



I do have a modicum of an idea of how much information there is available on cosmology, both from a historically spiritual perspective of various world religions and from an evolving technological standpoint, therefore I can contribute a debatable topic and not merely an argument against a transfixed pillar of modernity for argument's sake. I have already posted what numerous ancient civilizations have believed in the cosmos in earlier pages (once again, if you took the time to read the thread you would see). These aspect of physics you mention, "netwon's laws," "general relativity," and "redshifting," among other abstract buzzwords have no basis in actual scientific merit. You believe too much kosher, here's a clip from Europe the Last Battle that exposes Einstein for the fraudulent communist that he is:

"Einstein Exposed"


Here are a couple of short clips that demonstrate lies we have been fed about the helio model:

"Nikon's Confirmation places stars within 100 miles"


The childlike argument that man went to the moon but they destroyed the technology that allowed them to have the ability to do so is such a puerile lie, anyone with a decent antenna for truth can see right through it:

"Modern Optics Reveals Sun to be Localized"

The frequency of light clearly shows the sun rolling through the clouds, The sun is a localized entity and not 93 million miles away, the early theories about luminaries being comprised of energy and not physical matter were dropped in the mainstream after the fake space race and the NASA takeover. If you understand modal vibrational phenomena, it is easy to make the distinction of the sun being a cymatic luminary with no physicality. It is also not as hot as we have been told otherwise these clouds would have been vaporized into steam and then dissipate.

"Footage of the Sun and the Moon between the Clouds on the Earth"

So objective truth is out there, but it's up to us to re-evaluate the laws of nature and figure out what we have been lied to about, or perhaps what human ignorance thinks is true but is not. The idea that the collective human consensus is absolutely correct on everything is a prideful vanity. The argument's put forth, at least on my end as a poster, are not that "everything is all made up and fake," its more humble than that. It's something many of you refuse to do: admit you've been lied to your whole lives.



No, cosmology is most definitely corruptible. Esoteric cults and fraternal orders who have a greater understanding of these fields certainly do not want the profane masses knowing these truths. Your beloved Isaac Newton is, like I said in a previous post, a knighted occultist freemason.

Here is a pamphlet that was written in 1898 in England during the time when most of the schools began teaching Newtonianism en-masse, I wrote it out so people can see it and not have to go find the audio:

"20 Reasons Against Newtonianism with Geographical Proofs" by Ebenezer Breach:
20reasonsAgainstNewton.jpg


1. Because the earth has no axis, therefore nothing on which to revolve an imaginary mathematical line is substituted, but no solid body could revolve on an imaginary axis or line. It is an imaginary cause that can only produce an imaginary effect. So that follows such a cause, must be imaginary. If anything be placed on top of a revolving body, it will fly off at a tangent.

2. Because the earth has no orbit, it was supposed in stardate that the earth required an orbit of 600 million miles, but it was afterwards reduced to 190 million, and even 85 million, so if it had to lose 410 million miles, it might as well lose all, and say nothing about it, and we may be sure that it has no orbit, axis, or poles.

3. Because this is a system that Copernicus restarted that the assertion that "it was not necessary that the hypothesis be true, so long as the calculations agree with calculations, but we say that if the hypothesis be not true, and data correct, all mathematical calculations are nonsense and deceptions. Mathematics becomes a demonstration of the assumed, or unknown quantity.

4. Because there is but one central north star or constellation in the heavens, the diameter and circumference of the heavens are commensurate with the earth. No star has more than 90 degrees declination so there is no nadir, or point of the heavens, under our feet, and no south star or constellation or match with the globular self-center. That would have to be a star of 180 degrees declination.

5. Because we have no antipodes or colonials under our feet, if the Australians are facing the north center and the Europeans are doing the same, they stand face to face, not feet to feet like flies on the ceiling, so foolishly supposed and taught. And if people actually believe it true, none more gullible than the English people.

6. Because the earth is not an oblate spheroid as Newton foolishly imagined and hastily decided upon by the tick of his watch, it was found to have lost a few seconds near the tropics through heat relaxing the works to what it gained in Paris so the imaginative speculative philosopher sat in his armchair and there and then decided the earth a spheroid as its motion was supposed to be less of the tropics according to the tick of his watch. So all are taught to believe the spheroid ever since, the sun also is at least 2,853 miles farther from us in winter than in summer.

7. Because Newton's imagination led him to believe that if the matter of the whole earth were compressed into absolute solidity, it might be reduced to a body but a few yards in diameter and reduced to a sphere one mile in diameter, the matter in the interstice would be as 1 to 510 billion.

8. Because Newton's supposed law of gravitation was lost in the moon, Newton found that the moon ought to require 18 years to perform its revolution in the heavens, while observation showed that the revolution performed in one half of this period. He exhausted all of his skill and power to overcome the difficulty and die leaving the problem unsolved. His successor also finally abandoned the law of gravitation in despair and being incapable of explanation, a problem still unsolved, a mechanical impossibility.

9. Because the inertia of matter is the stability of the universe, therefore it is absolutely false that all particles of matter attract each other according to their size and square distance. Glass is not attracted to wood, nor cloth iron, nor cotton attract wool, nor liquids attract solids, nor does fruit attract grain.

10. Because the primitive idea of simplicity is a just one, founded in nature and adopted in reason, the real objective true science should be to make the laws of nature simple, sublime, and self-evident to the people. The Creator would not direct to a bright consideration of His works, knowing that they were inconsiderable and unapproachable, except by the very learned, who have mystified them by their outrageous mathematical calculations, General Draison rightly accuses scientific professors of arrogant and ignorant exclusiveness.

11. Because Newtonianism is entirely misleading and incorrect in picturing the orbits of the sun, moon, and planets to the uninitiated, it places the earth where the sun aught to be. In reality the moon should be placed first, as having the shortest orbit around the heavens, only 30 days. Mercury should be next, with 88 days, then Venus with 224 days, then the Sun, not the earth, with 365 and a quarter days. The motion of the sun is absolute and not apparent, as Josephus states, "it is driven along the circuit of heaven by necessity." Venus gets around quicker than the sun, and is able to be a morning or evening star. Mr. Norman Lockyear in his primer, declares the sun to be the "nearest star" so a sunny day is starshine, not sunshine.

12. Because the foundation of modern astronomy is laid on Newton's feet, the sun is the center of the solar system and immovable, but Sir William Herschel that it had a movement towards Hercules and the downfall of modern astronomy aught at once to have been announced. The late R.A. Proctor declared the motion of the sun thus "it climbs the eastern sky, slides down in the west, moves slowly towards the north quarter of the heavens, and moves away from overhead at the equator to the southern quarter of the heavens from September to December. There could be no power in the sun without motion".

13. Because the system introduces and calculates by millions, billions, and trillions of miles in distances that never existed, thus the planet Neptune is said to be 2,755,000,000 miles distant from the sun, yet it has to derive its light from the sun, and must be near it to do so. The fact is, a simple curve called the ecliptic marks out the pathway of the sun, moon, and planets among the fixed stars. They never leave this pathway, it is not 2000 miles broad, and as the sun travels at the rate of 900 miles per hour, 900 * 24 = 22,600, so that no planet can ever be farther from the sun than 25,000 miles, not even when it is 23.5 degrees to the north or south solstice. Where is their billions, millions, and trillions? Space is the extension of matter. Where matter ends, space ends.

14. Because though everything in the solar system is measured according to the assumed measurement of the sun, yet astronomers have widely differed in the measurement of that indispensable and solitary body. Pythagoras took it to be 45,000 miles distant. 2 or 3 have made a second guess after their first measurement. Sir Isaac did, and it is has been measured from 45,000 up to 112,000,000 miles distant, and all were supposed to measure by mathematical calculation. Newtonianism has an innate conception that authority ought to be silent before reason. It's prevailing philosophy is perfectly ridiculous, but prejudice, and custom throws a veil over it, and prevents its deformity from being perceived, setting aside natures facts, cocksureness is master of the field.

15. Because in meeting Professor Hagardy, one morning in Portsmith, to whom we were introduced by a scientist as the gentlemen who believed the earth to be flat, he informed us that "the astronomers have found out they have been making a mistake of 100,000,000 miles in the parallax of the sun. After informing him of my researches and measurements of the sun's distances, he remarked, "well it would all amount to the same thing, if only measured a few thousand miles distant." This professor had spent most of his life in the telescope rooms, reading our 50 scientific facts made no particular objection, but thought it was possible for a grain of dust to eclipse the town hall. When we told him how impossible it would be for eclipses to occur according to their measurement of the heavenly bodies, he was confused and amazed.

16. Because no philosopher can be considered a real astronomer without a right understanding of the physical construction of the earth and the heavens, that they are two parallels, one above the other, the two plates that the sun is not more than half the diameter of the earth, the moon, one quarter, the largest of the planets or stars not more than one hundred miles in diameter, as proved by the occultation of Jupiter, and would most probably range from 10 to one hundred miles in diameter. That the earth is ten thousand miles in diameter, not eight thousand, as that is only the length of North and South America. And what of the oceans beyond? Newton was a thoughtful scientist, but not an astronomer. Though he is by some considered as the only scientific trustee of the universe.

17. Because Newtonianism takes away the necessity of a firm crystal sky, for crystal light giving bodies to revolve upon. The sky is a fixed canopy over the earth. "You are quite right," said a jewish rabbi to me, according to the Hebrew, certain it is had there'd been revolution in the earth a globe, the jews were bound to have known it, so would the Chaldeans, and patriarchs with Adam, the first man who understood the physical construction of nature intuitively, and Josephus' assertions are dead against the astronomers.

18. Because the waterfalls of Niagara are against a revolving earth, it never turns its streams in an opposite direction but always does a constant perpendicular flow. All wells would be empty if a revolution occurred. The sands of the desert would be gone, all articles, fruit, etcetera, on the tradesman's boards would disappear in two minutes, and where would Jacob's Ladder have been, or any other ladder? No clock would give correct time, as the perpendicular action of the pendulum must not vary the one-hundredth of an inch. There could be no standing fogs with the atmosphere in motion.

19. Because whether the sun is shining and traveling in the northern or southern of its spiral course in the heavens, the moon always reflects her light the same, so the sun can never at any time be under the earth as many Newtonians suppose, but ever has its position on a parallel sky with the moon, planets, and heavenly bodies, none of which are ever more than 5 or 6 thousand miles from the earth.

20. Because the Newtonian system was introduced and supported by heathens, infidels, and skeptical astronomers, and we are compelled to acknowledge that our philosophers that have followed such a system have not taken the right road, but a road full of the brambles of stupidity, unreality, monstrosity, sheer imagination, bewildering labyrinths of calculations, stumbling over phenomena that never existed, measurements that will never be realized, with endless deceptions and contradictions, but in nature there are no contradictions. The sooner such a system is abolished as a compulsory system, the better. It will all go for smoke in that day when God restores the world now fallen with mankind into perfection. "The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved. I will re-establish it. They that will not believe, shall not be able to exalt themselves." There is a most deplorable famine of common sense on this important subject in the Universities in Greenwich also at Whitehall, consequently throughout the land. But this is the age of inquiry, and knowledge which must be true, shall be increased.

And some visuals for reference:

20reasonsAgainstNewton2.jpg

20reasonsAgainstNewton3.jpg

20reasonsAgainstNewton4.jpg


So keep worshiping your masonic filth and every other concocted personality from Scaligerian history that "proved" the Earth was a globe, but I don't put my faith in these liars. I don't see any non-globe detractors here refuting the horizon and perspective phenomena, nor parallax motion, nor any other number of physical phenomena which does not show a curved earth. When the argument begins to fall away from the favor of those interested in upholding the status quo of information and knowledge, they begin to panic, as I have seen in this thread and others when these conventional lies are attacked head on.

The Nikon P1000 thing has got me scratching my head, I have to admit.
 
@MusicForThePiano While the time you are taking to respond and also that you are doing it without being emotionally charged is appreciated, to be blunt a lot of what you write is totally irrelevant to the main points I was bringing up. I'm not interested in theories about Freemasons, Templars, the occult, NWO, or how they are behind why one model of the earth is being promoted over other ones. A reason I brought up Christopher Columbus and how he was sponsored by (trad) Catholic monarchs is because I knew a large portion of your post was going to be into theories about how various bad players (Protestants, Jews, occultists, or any of the usual suspects in these theories) are behind the global model which simply isn't relevant to whether it's true or not. I was trying trim the fat and get around the topic (by picking something where the major players weren't Jews or occultists etc.) since going into long detailed paragraphs about how such and such figure might have been a Jew or have been associated with some Jew that had some nefarious idea is just a distraction and makes yours already super long posts even longer but without actually getting to the heart of the issue.

I'm sure most Jews and NWO people also believe in using Arab numeral based arithmetic but that doesn't mean arithmetic is a dangerous occultist science by that mere fact. If we were talking about how if some mathematical theorem is true or not, I would want to look at the theorem itself and see if all the math lines up. I wouldn't want some lesson about who promoted this theorem and what wicked purposes this theorem was used for. Those things could be interesting in a historical or sociological discussion but it wouldn't have any bearing on it's validity or not.

As for the things you wrote related to magnetism and navigation, it still doesn't really address the main point of why I was trying to make when I was talking about the maritime voyages that took place during the late Renaissance/early modern era. My main point is that it seems like with any sort of non-global model, it seems like you wouldn't be able to travel in a straight line (whether it be westward or in any other direction) without eventually leaving the earth. I don't see how any amount of alternative theories about optics or magnetism can get around this. If you keep forward towards the horizon (whether the horizon is curved or not) the implication of a non-global model is that you either just keep going on forever without ever being able to return to your origin of departure or that you would eventually go off the "level plane". I purposely kept the mental models and thought experiments in this thread as simple as possible since I think it cuts through distracting ideas that are just serve as a smoke screen. If a theory requires tons of ad-hoc and jerry rigged explanations on top of it then I would it's fundamentals must not be sound.
 
Last edited:
My main point is that it seems like with any sort of non-global model, it seems like you wouldn't be able to travel in a straight line (whether it be westward or in any other direction) without eventually leaving the earth. I don't see how any amount of alternative theories about optics or magnetism can get around this. If you keep forward towards the horizon (whether the horizon is curved or not) the implication of a non-global model is that you either just keep going on forever without ever being able to return to your origin of departure or that you would eventually go off the "level plane". I purposely kept the mental models and thought experiments in this thread as simple as possible since I think it cuts through distracting ideas that are just serve as a smoke screen. If a theory requires tons of ad-hoc and jerry rigged explanations on top of it then I would it's fundamentals must not be sound.

He already explained it in excruciating detail. On the flat disk (circular) model, the arrows in the picture below represent traveling west (clockwise direction) with the north pole being in the center. If you travel due east (counter-clockwise), the arrows would be reversed in the other direction. If you went due south which is defined as going away from the north pole center point, you would eventually run into the outer edge of Antarctica, which the flat disk model maintains is an ice wall all along the perimeter of the earth which holds in the waters of the oceans. That is what this model proposes.


Clockwise arrows in Circle, shows the motion. Stock Vector illustration ...
 
He already explained it in excruciating detail. On the flat disk (circular) model, the arrows in the picture below represent traveling west (clockwise direction) with the north pole being in the center. If you travel due east (counter-clockwise), the arrows would be reversed in the other direction. If you went due south which is defined as going away from the north pole center point, you would eventually run into the outer edge of Antarctica, which the flat disk model maintains is an ice wall all along the perimeter of the earth which holds in the waters of the oceans. That is what this model proposes.


Clockwise arrows in Circle, shows the motion. Stock Vector illustration ...

What would happen if you traveled past the edge of Antarctica and kept going on and on in that direction? Does your theory propose that you would reach some sort of edge where you would no longer have any ground underneath you? Or is there infinite land mass?

Since people here like pictures here's an masterful shoop done by myself

clockwise-arrows-in-circle-shows-the-motion-stock-vector-illustration-isolated-on-white-backgr...jpg
 
He already explained it in excruciating detail. On the flat disk (circular) model, the arrows in the picture below represent traveling west (clockwise direction) with the north pole being in the center. If you travel due east (counter-clockwise), the arrows would be reversed in the other direction. If you went due south which is defined as going away from the north pole center point, you would eventually run into the outer edge of Antarctica, which the flat disk model maintains is an ice wall all along the perimeter of the earth which holds in the waters of the oceans. That is what this model proposes.


Clockwise arrows in Circle, shows the motion. Stock Vector illustration ...
No, he didn't. He explained why (in his opinion) the globe-model produces the navigational results that it does.
He entirely avoided presenting what results a simple trip west in a straight line, using flat-earth navigational methods (if they exist at all) would produce.
 
What would happen if you traveled past the edge of Antarctica and kept going on and on in that direction?
No one knows.

Does your theory propose that you would reach some sort of edge where you would no longer have any ground underneath you?
It's not "my" theory.

Or is there infinite land mass?
Unknown.

Since people here like pictures here's an masterful shoop done by myself

clockwise-arrows-in-circle-shows-the-motion-stock-vector-illustration-isolated-on-white-backgr...jpg

The arrows in the above pic were simply to show how traveling west on the circular model would appear, they do not represent the edge of Antarctica.

No, he didn't. He explained why (in his opinion) the globe-model produces the navigational results that it does.
He entirely avoided presenting what results a simple trip west in a straight line, using flat-earth navigational methods (if they exist at all) would produce.

Yes he did. West follows a circular path on a circular model similar to how it follows it on a spherical model.
 
Yes he did. West follows a circular path on a circular model similar to how it follows it on a spherical model.

When I talk about traveling in a straight line I'm talking about going in a straight line in relation to whatever model of earth is being used. That's why I put the straight arrow into the picture you posted up. I was granting your premises that when people think they are traveling east or west they are actually moving in a circle without realizing it. I was asking if we use the model you were illustrating with your picture (which I'm assuming you were defending which is why I said it's "your's" even though you seem to be now saying it isn't your model) what would happen if you now travel in a straight line indefinitely assuming that model is true.. Even with the alternative theory on magnetism and the polar poles, it's still possible to calculate a straight route though it would require a different frame of reference.
 
When I talk about traveling in a straight line I'm talking about going in a straight line in relation to whatever model of earth is being used. That's why I put the straight arrow into the picture you posted up. I was granting your premises that when people think they are traveling east or west they are actually moving in a circle without realizing it. I was asking if we use the model you were illustrating with your picture (which I'm assuming you were defending which is why I said it's "your's" even though you seem to be now saying it isn't your model) what would happen if you now travel in a straight line indefinitely assuming that model is true.. Even with the alternative theory on magnetism and the polar poles, it's still possible to calculate a straight route though it would require a different frame of reference.

The straight line from your graphic going from the center point toward the outer edge would be considered due south.
 
My question would be the same no matter what direction the arrow is pointed in. Namely what would happen if you kept going in that one direction, regardless of what that direction is. The point of the question is to ask what happens what you get to the edge of the flat earth plane. If you don't have an answer for that, then I'm willing to leave it at that.
 
Regardless of the shape of the Earth, we treat it as though it is flat. Being in Canada, if I point towards Europe just say, I don't point at the ground.
 
My question would be the same no matter what direction the arrow is pointed in. Namely what would happen if you kept going in that one direction, regardless of what that direction is. The point of the question is to ask what happens what you get to the edge of the flat earth plane. If you don't have an answer for that, then I'm willing to leave it at that.

This was answered on the previous page.
On a flat earth map scenario you would reach an ice wall which (in theory) holds the water of all the world's oceans in place.

slide115.jpg




Beyond the ice wall is hundreds of miles of desolate ice landscape, and finally beyond that still is the edge of the lower part of the firmament which cannot be passed or breached.

10646283_1000x400_500.jpeg



This is all theoretical, but it's the theory most popular among those who argue for a firmament around the earth.
 
I was asking my questions because I was wondering what exactly happens at that edge under the non-global earth theories that people are proposing. If it there's simply a point that cannot be passed, there's some sort of boundary that just physically impedes travel? If we're taking the picture above literally is it because the outer rim of that disc are ledges where if went pass it there just wouldn't be any more land mass below you? This is all of course assumes that we are viewing Antarctica not as a continent, the view of which Samseau was challenging in his previous post.
 
I was asking my questions because I was wondering what exactly happens at that edge under the non-global earth theories that people are proposing. If it there's simply a point that cannot be passed, there's some sort of boundary that just physically impedes travel? If we're taking the picture above literally is it because the outer rim of that disc are ledges where if went pass it there just wouldn't be any more land mass below you? This is all of course assumes that we are viewing Antarctica not as a continent, the view of which Samseau was challenging in his previous post.

Some medieval theologians believed that if you could pass through the lower part of the firmament (where it connects with the land) you would ultimately find the mechanisms that control the movements of the clouds, winds, oceans, sun, moon, stars and heavens.

Universum_0.jpg





Also, the mythology of there being a "pot of gold" at the end of the rainbow may in part come from much older beliefs of rainbows being a reflection of the firmament, and the possibility of there actually being more water outside the firmament.

Genesis 1:6-8

And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.


fully-double-rainbow-909264_850x.jpg
 
I wonder how this helps or hinders each side... 🤔

"Preet Chandi is the first woman of color to complete a solo expedition in Antarctica"


and second trip...


"I fell behind schedule. In the end, I covered 922 miles and fell more than 100 miles short of my goal."
 
Last edited:
Music, there are a lot of errors in your post above, such as no circumnavigation from the North-South across Antarctica. It's been done many times. There is even a base in the center of Antarctica, that has been in operation for decades. On top of that there are bases from nations all over the world that aren't part of the international treaty to prohibit travel there, such as Russian, Indian, or Chinese bases.


Your lengthy posts also are a major red flag which violates one of the best unspoken rules of philosophy:

The better something is understood, the simpler it may be explained.

If you actually had good proof against the globe model you'd be able to explain it in a few sentences or less. You don't, you just create walls of verbiage packed with false premises. Meanwhile I can post a video that shows a compass pointing into the ground and refute everything you say.

The second I see a false premise, the second I immediately execute a run-time error and skip the rest of a post.

You believe in false premises and the rest of everything you believe is false as well.

I'm going to have to ask you to make short, concise posts that can focus on relevant information concerned with premises. I don't care about theories in the past because those were incorrect too. Otherwise, if you keep posting false things in here, I will be forced to ban you from the thread - which pains me, because you are one of the great posters on this forum.
With less written words then, concise, two movies that showcase the model with regards to circumnavigation N-S and Antarctica. See what you guys think of these, just food for thought.



 
Not taking sides in this debate, and I might be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure a private expedition would be turned around by the authorities at the 60th parallel. I think it has to do with the Antarctic Treaty. I don't think you are allowed to just explore down there.

Nope, no one will stop you. The Indians, Chinese, and Russians all have bases down there and aren't part of the treaty. You can see the list from wikipedia posted above. No one has ever reported on a wall. They all say the same thing - the earth is round. Do you really think there is a global worldwide conspiracy to hide the flatness of earth?

It's beyond absurd.

Also the "firmament" translation is just 1 of 3 translations of the OT, the others are "expanse" and "dome." The OT is 6000 years old - a lot of words have lost meaning since that time.

With less written words then, concise, two movies that showcase the model with regards to circumnavigation N-S and Antarctica. See what you guys think of these, just food for thought.

These vids aren't concise at all, I'm not spending 45 minutes watching nonsense. Either sum up the argument in a few sentences, or you have no argument.
 
Nope, no one will stop you. The Indians, Chinese, and Russians all have bases down there and aren't part of the treaty. You can see the list from wikipedia posted above. No one has ever reported on a wall. They all say the same thing - the earth is round. Do you really think there is a global worldwide conspiracy to hide the flatness of earth?

It's beyond absurd.

Also the "firmament" translation is just 1 of 3 translations of the OT, the others are "expanse" and "dome." The OT is 6000 years old - a lot of words have lost meaning since that time.

These vids aren't concise at all, I'm not spending 45 minutes watching nonsense. Either sum up the argument in a few sentences, or you have no argument.
-There is no complete picture of Antarctica from the concept of outer space.
-There is still no actual pictures of the earth in its complete and alleged globular shape from the concept of outer space.
-There is no visual proof of earth curvature, only conceptual mathematics.
-There is no proof of gravity beyond theoretical equations.
-There is no proof for the proposed size of the sun and the moon, their alleged distances from earth, and whether they are physical bodies or something beyond our understanding of celestial mechanics and chemical/geological composition.

There is proof for density and buoyancy which can completely explain all phenomena that gravity attempts to do.
There is visual proof for a farther horizon than the globular mathematics dictate possible.
There is proof that the celestial poles are generating magnetic fields and rotating their surrounding stars around the earth.
There is visual and measurable proof that the sun and the moon are not what we are told, specifically with their paths, size, and distance.
There is no "ice wall" like a frozen rim but rather a vast expanse that does not have a known boundary.

We already went over the linguistics of the firmament, and you said you were going to talk with your Bishop about it. The word in ancient Hebrew did not translate to expanse but a barrier. For the sake of making shorter posts I will just reference anyone to re-read earlier parts of this thread if they want a lesson in languages.

It is not beyond absurd, it is a legitimate debate. If you cannot see how human-contrived control systems are affecting our reasoning, then I don't know how to explain it to you otherwise. Only a willing soul can truly break free of all of these layers of deceit.

Music, there are a lot of errors in your post above, such as no circumnavigation from the North-South across Antarctica. It's been done many times. There is even a base in the center of Antarctica, that has been in operation for decades. On top of that there are bases from nations all over the world that aren't part of the international treaty to prohibit travel there, such as Russian, Indian, or Chinese bases.


Your lengthy posts also are a major red flag which violates one of the best unspoken rules of philosophy:

The better something is understood, the simpler it may be explained.

If you actually had good proof against the globe model you'd be able to explain it in a few sentences or less. You don't, you just create walls of verbiage packed with false premises. Meanwhile I can post a video that shows a compass pointing into the ground and refute everything you say.

The second I see a false premise, the second I immediately execute a run-time error and skip the rest of a post.

You believe in false premises and the rest of everything you believe is false as well.

I'm going to have to ask you to make short, concise posts that can focus on relevant information concerned with premises. I don't care about theories in the past because those were incorrect too. Otherwise, if you keep posting false things in here, I will be forced to ban you from the thread - which pains me, because you are one of the great posters on this forum.

Errors according to what, Newtonian Mechanics? I am waiting for someone to break down my wrongs and not just reference some alternative model that says otherwise without proving anything.

-Compasses do not point into the ground, they must be held flat and level to receive a proper magnetic bearing. So any video you post that posits a compass "pointing into the ground" is incorrect. Again these people think they understand magnetism but they do not. The behavior of compasses are be governed by the local magnetic field. Near the celestial poles, the magnetic field lines may become more vertical, causing the compass needle to dip downward. This would occur regardless of whether the Earth is flat or spherical. The downward dip of the compass needle near the celestial poles is a result of the orientation of the local magnetic field lines, not the shape of the Earth itself. So essentially one a cannot use a compass to prove the shape of the Earth and it is not a valid argument for either.

-The idea of circumnavigation from north to south means a complete revolution around a globular earth that bypasses both poles and returns to the point of origin along that north-south route. It has not been done. All sea-bound circumnavigation efforts were around major continents and had a consistent path of hugging the land so they could stop port to port to restock.

What you think is a false premise is due to your understanding of only one framework.

The idea that something is better understood if it is simpler is something I have been arguing for, and it goes against all the layers of advanced mathematical models that Newtonian physics and its offshoots gives to us. I invite you again to read Ebenezer Breach's 20 reasons against Newtonianism, specifically point ten which you are agreeing with completely here, something you "dismissed" the other day because you believed an earlier premise to be false:

"10. Because the primitive idea of simplicity is a just one, founded in nature and adopted in reason, the real objective true science should be to make the laws of nature simple, sublime, and self-evident to the people. The Creator would not direct to a bright consideration of His works, knowing that they were inconsiderable and unapproachable, except by the very learned, who have mystified them by their outrageous mathematical calculations, General Draison rightly accuses scientific professors of arrogant and ignorant exclusiveness."

So essentially the same logic can be said for your premises, because some of them are false, therefore the rest of them are false. I don't say this. I am open to investigating any and everything one would ask of this subject because no truth fears to be scrutinized.

Why do you want to dismiss everything without investigating it and only rely on the sources that claim they've done something without offering any actual proofs or explanations? I've already debunked one flat-earth model here myself, one that real snake oil salesman are peddling to people curious about the truth, but that doesn't mean that the concept is ridiculous because there are all these people claiming they have traipsed across Antarctica when our own instruments and methods are capable of great errors, and there are a slew of other unknowns about Antarctica.

The stars tell many things that the earth does not. The inclusion of the celestial magnetic fields, which extends to the sun and the moon (though they are almost an entirely separate subject from the stars because of the specific roles God made them for) could very well situate Antarctica surrounded by water, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing beyond it, whether that be a barrier or a wall or a vast expanse that man has not passed. There is no honest independent non-governmental non-controlled experiments and proofs done on Antarctica. Yes they are lying, and I think this is where we diverge. I do not see proofs from any of these institutions, they only beget more questions with their endeavors.
 
Back
Top