- This topic has 94 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 7 months, 4 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
The most obvious and undeniable wake-up call.
-
haha weird right
-
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
-
I’m a pretty avid flat earther, and I haven’t coordinated with anyone. I’m guessing we reached exponential redpilling levels.
-
Btw
-
How does it feel to be retarted anon?
-
-
-
its j8ust a coinsidiens!!!
-
big freaking clue
-
moon was placed there. its not natural
-
placed there by God, therefore natural
-
yep it’s just proof of intelligent design
-
-
-
Maybe splar eclipses have meaningful numbers?
-
meaningful numbers checked
this is all recorded in the ratios of the great pyramid of giza
-
Get a load of the digits on this post
-
You guys found it,- the truth. Checked
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
Middle is wrong lol
-
>this is all recorded in the ratios of the great pyramid of giza
Checked and geometry-pilled.-
everyone should be freaking stunned by this image. if this doesn’t blow your mind you are stupid.
-
Who tf attempts to spread geometric theology without knowing how Pythagorean’s theorem works? The side of a right triangle can’t be the root of the hypotenuse, dummy.
-
-
-
this is all recorded in the ratios of the great pyramid of giza
checked, my good sirs.
-
886644
hmhmhmhmmhmmh
-
-
Why can’t the Earth be created by God AND be a globe?
-
Most flat earthers dont like this question. Also, fuck off with these constant flat earth threads OP you raging scrote
-
Flat Earth God is lame when compared God who created main stream science fitting universe. Bigger and more impressive shit out there
-
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.
-
-
-
Why can’t the Earth not be created by God and not be a globe?
-
-
Perspective
If moon was bigger but in the same position the eclipse shadow would be bigger than the whole earth.
-
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
-
Haha yeah nothing to see here.
-
-
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.
-
you guys are just havin’ a giggle, right?
-
Jupiter is 11 times larger than the earth and the sun is 11 times larger than Jupiter
-
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
-
Very very woke af post ty
-
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.
-
>A day is defined as the number of seconds that the sun takes to travel one tenth of its diameter across the sky.
Huh?-
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.
-
-
-
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.Hey look at that, the dubs are the number of years the twin towers stood! Cool coincidence!
-
-
It’s a "coincidence" that asserts the idea of an intelligently designed universe, you’re right.
-
1/137
you are so right OP
-
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.
-
how do you know this
can you prove it?-
-
damn, you took that picture?
-
cope
stop pooping up the board with garbage
-
-
-
-
>you’re looking at the light radiating from the sun, not the sun itself
scrote do you know how vision works
-
-
Not necessarily so!
-
-
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
here’s some data for you https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/solar.html
-
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?
-
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.
-
So you provided an aggregate number instead of individual observations. I guess you have something to hide.
-
there are many individual observations that work as evidence that the moon is does not always fully cover the sun
-
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 -
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. -
Forgot image
-
The plural of anecdote is not data.
-
Photographs are still evidence. You’ve also been given numerical data. What else do you want?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
This is some top tier trolling, my dude, but you’re making yourself look like a scrotebrain. A very glowy, government-paid scrotebrain.
-
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. -
Yes, there’s some important things in here though.
-
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.
-
Wtf is the point of this thread if its actually not the same size.
-
OP trying too hard, the usual scrotegy OP type stuff
-
So? Its still astronomically insane how close it gets to covering it. It cannot be A coincidence
-
Yes it can.
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.
-
>Yes it can.
Wow you sure showed me -
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 headIgnoring 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.
Where the fuck do you think data comes from? Repeated measurement and documentation of anecdotal experiences.
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?
-
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.
-
Fair enough, but it still applies to the total and annular eclipses
-
-
-
-
>ramble some shit
is that not what everyone does on this board all the freaking time?
-
-
-
You got bonked and can’t cope lol
-
>asks for proofs
>get them
>doesnt count lmao
:/
-
-
-
-
-
Intelligent design check? God is real check?
-
>sun is in my face
>Raise trash can lid up to sun, completely blocks it from my faceThis clearly proves the earth is flat.
-
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
-
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
-
Can Shakespeare explain Psalm 46?
-
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
-
that’s a partial eclipse you stupid cunt
-
-
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.-
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
-
It was inevitable eventuality.
And don’t know why "humans being alive" is significant. Sounds dangerously conceited.
-
-
-
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. -
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. -
>hmm it is actually pretty weird now that you say it
>maybe op is onto somethi…
>wojack
Aaaaand its ruined -
Shithouse
-
>GUYS LOOK AT THIS CLUSTERFUCK IMAGE I MADE OF RANDOM STUFF MASHED TOGETHER
Do conspiratards really?
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.