Nostr Web Client

Have you ever thought about how extremely unlikely it is that, despite the Sun being 400x bigger than the Moon, it appears the EXACT same size in our sky?

The official NASA narrative is that this is simply because, in addition to it being 400x bigger than the Moon, it's also 400x further away.

But the odds of this are infinitesimally small.

What if...the Sun and Moon look like they're the exact same size, because they ARE the same size?

Question everything, friends...

https://blossom.primal.net/163cc3ef924ecb6eb397b8d1e6adae39b849ee35865192c877b0c9390947310d.mp4

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

bodhi 5mo ago

🧐

516add19... 5mo ago

Troll post or serious?

₿en Wehrman 5mo ago

neither, just asking questions like i love to do!

516add19... 5mo ago

I respect that!

franzap 5mo ago

Does the earth being round lead to communism? What is the incentive to create such a conspiracy?

Niel Liesmons 5mo ago

Harvesting consent for evil.

Garbage nsec 5mo ago

Ever since Galileo fell for the NASA narrative, things have gone downhill.

𝕞𝕪𝕡𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕥𝕠𝕗𝕚𝕣𝕖 5mo ago

So you saying we don't have super sonic vision and can see for millions of miles? 😅😂

wymike 5mo ago

‘The only logical explanation’ 😂😂😂

Just saying things doesn’t prove anything.

Provide some actual maths to back up what you are saying.

I’m yet to hear a flat earther provide any maths based evidence. Just unscientific observations and sudoscience.

Sovereign Being 5mo ago

Ahem

nostr:nevent1qqsyplp8cpthv2wphfqvh2gwtrut2ua24p3y9dsc7ausfec5c8aphrcpz4mhxue69uhhwmm59enkjunfdehjummjvuhsygpme3tr9f882z2n5gqklxg6mr9wkxxww5mmste9ugkqh5aeqq7chqpsgqqqqqqsafju0t

wymike 5mo ago

These claims have been thoroughly debunked by experts in the field of geodesy and astronomy. The main flaws in the flat earthers' argument are:

Misinterpretation of the data: failing to account for factors such as atmospheric refraction and the limitations of the instrument.

Lack of understanding of the Earth's shape: assuming that the Earth is a perfect sphere, when in fact it is an oblate spheroid, meaning that it is slightly flattened at the poles and bulging at the equator.

Failure to consider the scale of the Earth: the enormous scale of the Earth means that the curvature is very subtle and only becomes apparent over very long distances.

Ignoring the overwhelming evidence from other fields such as satellite imagery, GPS, and the behavior of ships at sea, which all confirm that the Earth is an oblate spheroid.

Sovereign Being 5mo ago

It would behoove you to actually read the data I posted. Appealing to refraction when it has already been controlled for means you haven't looked at what I posted. There's also a presentation attached with a 4 hour discussion.

wymike 5mo ago

If the earth was flat, with a telescope you would be able to see the whole mountain (mentioned in the experiment you referenced) and everything in between not just the top of the mountain.

Likewise from the west cost of the American continent you would be able to see the ice wall.

It seems to me that either of these would be easy enough experiments to perform if you wanted to prove that the earth was flat.

Why do ships disappear over the horizon if the earth is flat?

How could the people who walked across Antarctica do it in the time it took if Antarctica was a ring around the edge?

Why is there 24hr sun as ‘discovered’ by the flat earthers who went to Antarctica.

Every country on earth that has sent astronauts to the ISS must be working together to conspiring against us.

Sovereign Being 5mo ago

Funny how you said the math is never presented, then instead of addressing the observation directly, you start pointing to other examples and making misdirection claims instead of addressing the fact that the observations don't match the claimed rate of curvature.

wymike 5mo ago

Without the having the actual spread sheet this is about the best that I can respond.

Bennett's formula calculates refraction for light from distant celestial bodies (e.g., stars, the Sun) entering the atmosphere at high altitudes.

Terrestrial theodolite measurements (e.g., sighting distant peaks) require a different refraction coefficient due to localized atmospheric effects near Earth's surface, such as temperature gradients and pressure variations

Sovereign Being 5mo ago

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OSmhlpTSPU3m744kXWLu64b0l-UscG_ZOEUqDs_DKjA/edit?gid=1457507505#gid=1457507505

wymike 5mo ago

Can you justify the use of Bennett’s formula considering it was not designed for this use case?

Sovereign Being 5mo ago

The difference with or without a correction for refraction is basically negligible. At most you are looking at 7-10% that can be attributed to refraction, which cannot fulfil the requirements for explaining the discrepancies in the results, because it is too large.

That's the last pillar of the defence for long distance observations, and refraction isn't enough. You can observe silhouettes of maintains over even longer distances which cannot be attributed to refraction at all.

Ike 5mo ago

"Likewise from the west cost of the American continent you would be able to see the ice wall."

How exactly would this be possible? Specifically?

wymike 5mo ago

Light travels in straight lines. We can see whatever is in our line of sight. If the earth is flat and there is nothing between us and the ice wall we should be able to see it from great distances

Ike 5mo ago

Ridiculous claim - the air at sea level is the least "transparent". Some day you can see a mountain 100 kms away, some day you cannot. The notion we would be able to see forever is either a lazy or bad faith argument. It is observably false.

makeheroism 5mo ago

https://youtu.be/Gw8C_5Y2P1E

Kevin Alfred Strom 5mo ago

It's also extremely unlikely, considering all the places you could be standing, that you'd be standing where you're standing right now.