Strange post, ChivasRegal.



That is not what I said though. I said that different stars are visible at different locations on earth. If you track the specific stars visible at specific locations, you can very easily conclude that earth is a sphere. Indeed it is possible that the stars are just part of a dome (I have no way to verify that), but it is absolutely 100% verifiable from the visible stars that earth is not flat.

What happened to "thinking independently"? Just go outside, walk for a mile, and you will see that your horizon is different in your destination than it was in the beginning. The horizon doesn't literally move (which is why I put it between quotes), but your horizon depends entirely on your vantage point.

You know perfectly well what I meant.

The naked eye can see this, and that is what makes it such perfect proof. Last Tuesday I spotted Mars with the naked eye. If I were to follow Mars' movements and track its location each day, I would be able to show that the planet's movements follow the path that it would follow if it orbited around the sun. Of course this is no 100% absolute certain proof, but it is quite good evidence. It is definitely way better evidence than anything we have available for a geocentric universe.

of course different stars are visible on different locations - thats how local perspective works

during the last solar eclipse, nasa live streamed the moment of eclipse 50x as it crossed the usa - if the event was just line of sight - it would have only happened once.


Flat Earth is 100% true, wake up

Mmmhmmm. And as I said, by taking note of the visible stars, you can conclude that each and every part of the sky / dome (as I said, I personally don't know which is correct) is always visible from some places on earth. Moreover, the visible stars are always 100% predictable if you follow calculations that are based on a globe Earth.

With how the stars and planets move, it is absolutely impossible for Earth to be flat.

Also, as I said in one of my previous posts, your "local perspective" interpretation is wrong. I can calculate the angle at which an object is visible (i.e. what you call "the sky falling down" and "the horizon rising up") with 100% accuracy based on the location of the viewer and the location of the object. Based on your "converging perspective planes" theory, it is completely impossible to calculate this angle, and that is because the converging planes perspective theory is simply incorrect.

accuracy - lol

open your eyes

https://youtu.be/1qHOqaTTeOw

This post was edited by card_sultan on Nov 19 2017 10:48am

I don't even know what this about, but why does someone else's mistake matter when we're talking about things that I can independently observe?

Also, your meme is pretty ridiculous to begin with. Firstly, there isn't 10^120 of anything in the universe, so it's pretty unlikely that a scientist made a calculation that was off by 10^120. Secondly, 10^120 of what? A number without a unit is pretty meaningless. You claim to be able to think independently, so I would expect you to know this basic rule of mathematics.

Its like that meme of einstein...



This post was edited by Ep0ch on Nov 19 2017 03:58pm

is that like the time he feared people would realize division by 0 was not possible in math and heliocentrism is completely fake?



he's talking about how astro priests tell you the stars are billions of light years away - when in fact there very close, closer than you think

you are taught lies - 100% , from the time before you could actually think for yourself.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Nov 19 2017 08:28pm

that again...

yes it sucks when i talk about the fundamental core of belief and i wouldn't even bring it up except we are killing the earth we live on

people need to change or something will be done

changing your belief is just the start

This post was edited by card_sultan on Nov 19 2017 08:46pm

No, just you are.