The most obvious and undeniable wake-up call.

Home Forums Science & tech The most obvious and undeniable wake-up call.

Viewing 29 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #107474
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The most obvious and undeniable wake-up call.

    • #107475
      Anonymous
      Guest

      haha weird right

    • #107476
      Anonymous
      Guest

      You are completely right. You making a fifth thread is irrefutable proof that flat earth is a coordinated slide op. Thx for opening the eyes of this tired Sage

      • #107528
        Anonymous
        Guest

        I’m a pretty avid flat earther, and I haven’t coordinated with anyone. I’m guessing we reached exponential redpilling levels.

        • #107529
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Btw

        • #107530
          Anonymous
          Guest

          How does it feel to be retarted anon?

    • #107477
      Anonymous
      Guest

      its j8ust a coinsidiens!!!

    • #107478
      Anonymous
      Guest

      big freaking clue

    • #107479
      Anonymous
      Guest

      moon was placed there. its not natural

      • #107487
        Anonymous
        Guest

        placed there by God, therefore natural

        • #107504
          Anonymous
          Guest

          yep it’s just proof of intelligent design

    • #107480
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Maybe splar eclipses have meaningful numbers?

    • #107482
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Why can’t the Earth be created by God AND be a globe?

      • #107503
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Most flat earthers dont like this question. Also, fuck off with these constant flat earth threads OP you raging scrote

        • #107562
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Why can’t the Earth be created by God AND be a globe?

          Flat Earth God is lame when compared God who created main stream science fitting universe. Bigger and more impressive shit out there

          • #107563
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Right? It pigeon holes gods creation to us, just us. The rest of the universe? Fake according to flat earthers. Its both arrogant and insulting to a creator. How they dont see that is beyond me.

      • #107568
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Why can’t the Earth not be created by God and not be a globe?

    • #107483
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Perspective

      If moon was bigger but in the same position the eclipse shadow would be bigger than the whole earth.

    • #107484
      Anonymous
      Guest

      im pretty sure the wiggle room for the moon to "appear" the same size as the sun is huge, it’s not exactly the same size anyway

      • #107567
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Haha yeah nothing to see here.

    • #107485
      Anonymous
      Guest

      thea was crashed into earth purposefully with the intent of both making earth habitable and creating a moon capable of eclipses during this specific period in history.

    • #107488
      Anonymous
      Guest

      you guys are just havin’ a giggle, right?

    • #107489
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Jupiter is 11 times larger than the earth and the sun is 11 times larger than Jupiter

    • #107490
      Anonymous
      Guest

      the Moon spins on its axis in the same 27.32166-day period in which it revolves around Earth

      The number of seconds in a day (86,400) uses the same digits as the diameter of the Sun (864,000 miles).

      The Sun’s mass in grams is the same 10 followed by 33 zeros as its luminosity in ergs

      • #107506
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Very very woke af post ty

      • #107508
        Anonymous
        Guest

        This isn’t magic. A day is defined as the number of seconds that the sun takes to travel one tenth of its diameter across the sky. An erg is defined as the amount of luminance produced by one gram of solar material. The only thing you’ve discovered is the metric system.

        • #107511
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >A day is defined as the number of seconds that the sun takes to travel one tenth of its diameter across the sky.
          Huh?

          • #107513
            Anonymous
            Guest

            The sun is 864,000 miles across. The time that it takes to move one tenth of that diameter is defined as a day, so a day has as many seconds as one tenth of the sun’s diameter: 86,400. Every ten days the sun moves its full diameter, which takes 864,000 seconds.

      • #107516
        Anonymous
        Guest

        https://youtu.be/IFGbG8soRfA
        It took an embarrassingly long time for me to begin to understand what this is about. I probably am still more wrong than right.

        Very very woke af post ty

        Hey look at that, the dubs are the number of years the twin towers stood! Cool coincidence!

    • #107491
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It’s a "coincidence" that asserts the idea of an intelligently designed universe, you’re right.

    • #107492
      Sophon
      Guest

      1/137

      you are so right OP

    • #107493
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The moon doesn’t "perfectly" cover the sun during an eclipse. Most of the time it’s pretty clearly bigger or smaller, but even when it appears to be the same size, you’re looking at the light radiating from the sun, not the sun itself. The moon isn’t always the same distance from earth and the sun isn’t always the same brightness. Atmospheric conditions, time of day and geographical location are all factors.

      • #107494
        Anonymous
        Guest

        how do you know this
        can you prove it?

        • #107497
          Anonymous
          Guest
          • #107498
            Anonymous
            Guest

            damn, you took that picture?

            • #107564
              Anonymous
              Guest

              cope
              stop pooping up the board with garbage

      • #107509
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >you’re looking at the light radiating from the sun, not the sun itself
        scrote do you know how vision works

    • #107495
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Not necessarily so!

      • #107500
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Nice anecdotes. Now let’s see a reliable source to back up your claims. NASA should be good enough.

        • #107501
          Anonymous
          Guest
          • #107502
            Anonymous
            Guest

            That’s literally a fun activities site for kids. I’m asking for data. You claim that the sun and moon aren’t always exactly the same size. If that’s true, you should be able to cite chronological observations of their relative sizes over at least five years. If you can’t, all we have is some pictures you took. The plural of anecdote is not data.

            • #107512
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Let me explain it in terms you’ll understand:
              1) The moon has an elliptical orbit and changes in size depends on where it is in its orbit
              2) Conditions in the atmosphere change how much glare from the sun gets through, therefore affecting how large it appears in the sky
              3) The atmosphere has a lensing effect that makes objects closer to the horizon appear larger
              4) A total eclipse only appears for people in the "path of totality". You have to be at the right place at the right time where the moon and sun are perfectly aligned in order to see a total eclipse.

              There are thousands of photos of eclipses out there with varying degrees of the moon covering the sun. Then the moon doesn’t completely cover the sun, it’s called an Annular Eclipse. There was one this year: https://www.nasa.gov/content/june-10-2021-eclipse

              • #107514
                Anonymous
                Guest

                If all you have is your guess at how things work and some kids’ educational pamphlets, I can’t see how you’re in any position to make a principled astronomical argument. I mean I would have been happy with even ONE measurement of their relative sizes during an eclipse. Instead you just rambled some shit about dust and clouds. If this is what science is nowadays I’m going to start believing in the flat earth.

                • #107515
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  here’s some data for you https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/solar.html

                  • #107517
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    The words "meter" or "degrees" or "minutes of arc" aren’t mentioned anywhere in any of that. Those are all times and brightnesses. Do you actually understand what you’re claiming and what you have to prove? You need to show that sizeof (moon) != sizeof (sun). That’s all! Why is it so hard to show if it’s so self-evident?

                    • #107519
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      The "Eclipse Magnitude" column is the ratio of the apparent size of the sun and moon in the sky at the time of the eclipse. As you can see, the ratio varies and is never 1.

                      • #107520
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        So you provided an aggregate number instead of individual observations. I guess you have something to hide.

                      • #107521
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        there are many individual observations that work as evidence that the moon is does not always fully cover the sun

                      • #107522
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Spoken like a true wormed drone scrote.
                        What is the chance of this to happen? 1: you can’t fit that number in here.
                        Also no other planet has a constelation like us, whoopsy just coincidence I know, because we’re unsignificant worm food, ugh I mean apes, or something
                        Die in a fire worm head

                      • #107543
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        The plural of anecdote is not data.

                        this image kills these schizos

                        there are many individual observations that work as evidence that the moon is does not always fully cover the sun

                        but if you want to calculate the true angular size of the sun and compare it so the moon you can.
                        α = 2*arctan(g/(2r))
                        just find the values online.

                      • #107544
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Forgot image

                      • #107539
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        The plural of anecdote is not data.

                      • #107545
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Photographs are still evidence. You’ve also been given numerical data. What else do you want?

                      • #107546
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Sometimes they same angular size sometimes they aren’t this varies depending on distance from moon and sun which changes. You can find these values online it’s not a big secret.

                      • #107549
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Proof. Peer-reviewed studies. This shouldn’t be as hard as you’re making it. If science has been done to support your claim, simply present it. All you’ve given me so far are anecdotes and unreviewed/unreplicated whitepapers that any random fool could have written.

                      • #107550
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I gave you data from NASA. I’ve given you photos from NASA. This doesn’t require peer reviewed papers any more than the assertion that the sky is blue or that water makes things wet. It’s self-evident to anyone who observes it.

                        You’re making the counter claim. Where’s your evidence? Where’s your data?

                        Here’s another photo from NASA.

                      • #107554
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        That’s a single source. Who peer-reviewed NASA’s numbers? If Sokol could sneak bullshit into a real journal, it’s far easier for NASA to publish whatever it wants on its website. If I tell you I stole $100 from you, are you going to ignore me, or are you going to check your bank account? All data needs impartial outside review to be science. Some guy with a camera measuring the sun and moon with his fingers and then blogging about it isn’t science.

                      • #107555
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        This is some top tier trolling, my dude, but you’re making yourself look like a scrotebrain. A very glowy, government-paid scrotebrain.

                      • #107557
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        https://i.imgur.com/W4acLD6.gif

                        >This is some top tier trolling
                        This entire dumb thread is a slide thread designed to cause random argument and waste time anyways.

                      • #107560
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Yes, there’s some important things in here though.

                      • #107556
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Some poopyhole on the internet saying there’s mystical meaning to be found in the comparative sizes of the moon and sun is a lot less freaking science-woke af than the dude giving you actual freaking numbers on their comparative sizes.

                        In any case, you’re still a dipshit trying to foist the burden of proof for your improvable metaphysical claim onto someone else. In the end, the numbers run contrary to you, and if you want us to believe it’s more than a near-coincidence (the numbers don’t even freaking match and do change), then it’s on you to compile that data and present it.

                        Until you do, we have legitimate cause to believe you’re eats-own-shit scrotebrained.

                      • #107540
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Wtf is the point of this thread if its actually not the same size.

                      • #107565
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        OP trying too hard, the usual scrotegy OP type stuff

                      • #107553
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        So? Its still astronomically insane how close it gets to covering it. It cannot be A coincidence

                      • #107558
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Yes it can.

                        That’s a single source. Who peer-reviewed NASA’s numbers? If Sokol could sneak bullshit into a real journal, it’s far easier for NASA to publish whatever it wants on its website. If I tell you I stole $100 from you, are you going to ignore me, or are you going to check your bank account? All data needs impartial outside review to be science. Some guy with a camera measuring the sun and moon with his fingers and then blogging about it isn’t science.

                        At this point I know you’re trolling but I really don’t know how to make my point clearer. You can ignore your eyes and live in fantasy world if you want.

                        This photo was taken by Chinese astronomers. Maybe this will dispel your idea that this is some big conspiracy, unless you think they’re in on it too.

                      • #107559
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Yes it can.
                        Wow you sure showed me

                      • #107552
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Aggregate numbers are built from individual observations, disingenuous slide op shill.

                        Spoken like a true wormed drone scrote.
                        What is the chance of this to happen? 1: you can’t fit that number in here.
                        Also no other planet has a constelation like us, whoopsy just coincidence I know, because we’re unsignificant worm food, ugh I mean apes, or something
                        Die in a fire worm head

                        Ignoring data that contradicts you and immediately responding with insults.
                        Rare-chance occurrences do not intrinsically imply design. You are underestimating how large space-time actually is.

                        >Also no other planet has a constelation like us
                        We literally can’t know that. It’s actually more likely there ARE other systems with a similar layout to us that we just haven’t found.

                        TL;DR – you are lying shill who does not make good faith arguments, and this is a slide thread.

                        The plural of anecdote is not data.

                        Where the fuck do you think data comes from? Repeated measurement and documentation of anecdotal experiences.

                        Proof. Peer-reviewed studies. This shouldn’t be as hard as you’re making it. If science has been done to support your claim, simply present it. All you’ve given me so far are anecdotes and unreviewed/unreplicated whitepapers that any random fool could have written.

                        Actually, anon, you’re the one making the claim that the moon’s size relative to the sun is non-coincidentally significant. Where is YOUR proof? Where are YOUR peer reviewed studies? Anon gave you numbers. By asserting that there is a non-coincidental relationship, YOU are the one that must bear the burden of proof.

                        Where are your peer reviewed studies, anon?

                      • #107524
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        partial eclipses don’t have lower eclipse magnitudes due to an apparent lower size perspective wise, they have lower eclipse magnitudes because the moon is only partially eclipsing the sun lol.

                      • #107533
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Fair enough, but it still applies to the total and annular eclipses

                • #107527
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >ramble some shit
                  is that not what everyone does on this board all the freaking time?

            • #107531
              Anonymous
              Guest

              You got bonked and can’t cope lol

            • #107538
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >asks for proofs
              >get them
              >doesnt count lmao
              :/

    • #107496
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Intelligent design check? God is real check?

    • #107499
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >sun is in my face
      >Raise trash can lid up to sun, completely blocks it from my face

      This clearly proves the earth is flat.

    • #107510
      Anonymous
      Guest

      kek I love how sciencescrotes just brush this one off like it’s nothing despite being one of the best proofs of God’s existence

    • #107518
      Anonymous
      Guest

      how could they make it more obvious to you, anyone who denies artificial design is not just stupid, their evil and must be purged. Look into the wormpill and take the only possible side for humans, everyone else listen up, it’s extermination time wormies

    • #107525
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Can Shakespeare explain Psalm 46?

    • #107526
      Anonymous
      Guest

      it’s not a coincidence at all because the sun is straight up bigger than the moon and neigher object is ever the same size in the sky, they both move closer and further

      i have seen total eclipses where it gets dark and coronal eclipses where the sun just gets blotted out but its still light. that means they aren’t the same apparent equal size

      • #107547
        Anonymous
        Guest

        that’s a partial eclipse you stupid cunt

    • #107532
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The moon used to be closer and appeared bigger, eclipsing more of the sun. It’s gradually getting farther away, and thus smaller.
      The good (or bad) news is that the sun will go out before the moon breaks orbit.

      • #107534
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Other anon pointed out that it’s even more amazing that humans just happen to be alive when it appears the same size like during an eclipse. The sun is 400 times farther away from moon as moon is from earth that is also proportion to size that’s way 2 coincidental

        • #107542
          Anonymous
          Guest

          It was inevitable eventuality.
          And don’t know why "humans being alive" is significant. Sounds dangerously conceited.

    • #107535
      Anonymous
      Guest

      One problem I always see with threads like this is that they treat science and occultism as wholly separate things, where spirituality and physicality are complete opposites.
      This is certainly not the case. Until the 1900s, science had a very prominent occult aspect, and the origin of every major field lies in occult practice. Chemistry is alchemy, astronomy is astrology. What modern science has done is strip away those metaphysical aspects and focused wholly on the mundane. This causes a knee-jerk reaction where people attempting to reach the metaphysical reject all scientific knowledge, which is simply inverting the error of natural science.
      The Earth is probably not flat, and it needn’t be flat for the metaphysical to be true. What these strange coincidences in ratios and the beauty and harmony of nature show us is that the world is indeed a consequence of something higher. Science focuses on the footprint and says there’s no foot, and many modern truth-seekers glimpse the foot and deny the footprint.
      Once you start melding both and see how the foot causes the footprint, then you’re on the path to understanding.

    • #107536
      Anonymous
      Guest

      What’s on the other side of the flat earth you silly scrotes?
      You can prove it one way or the other by going to the edge and taking pics.

    • #107537
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >hmm it is actually pretty weird now that you say it
      >maybe op is onto somethi…
      >wojack
      Aaaaand its ruined

    • #107541
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Shithouse

    • #107561
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >GUYS LOOK AT THIS CLUSTERFUCK IMAGE I MADE OF RANDOM STUFF MASHED TOGETHER
      Do conspiratards really?

Viewing 29 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
startno id