The most obvious and undeniable wake-up call.

The most obvious and undeniable wake-up call.

  1. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    haha weird right

  2. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

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

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        Btw

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        How does it feel to be retarted anon?

  3. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    its j8ust a coinsidiens!!!

  4. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    big fucking clue

  5. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    moon was placed there. its not natural

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      placed there by God, therefore natural

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        yep it's just proof of intelligent design

  6. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Maybe splar eclipses have meaningful numbers?

  7. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

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

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

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

  8. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Perspective

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

  9. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    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

  10. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  11. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    you guys are just havin' a giggle, right?

  12. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

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

  13. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      Very very based post ty

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

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

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          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.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      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 based post ty

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

  14. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

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

  15. 9 months ago
    Sophon

    1/137

    you are so right OP

  16. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      how do you know this
      can you prove it?

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous
        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          damn, you took that picture?

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      >you're looking at the light radiating from the sun, not the sun itself
      n-word do you know how vision works

  17. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not necessarily so!

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

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

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://web.archive.org/web/20170918131433/https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/eclipse-who-what-where-when-and-how

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            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

            • 9 months ago
              Anonymous

              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.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                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?

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                Spoken like a true wormed drone homosexual.
                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

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                Forgot image

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                The plural of anecdote is not data.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                Some asshole on the internet saying there's mystical meaning to be found in the comparative sizes of the moon and sun is a lot less fucking science-based than the dude giving you actual fucking 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 fucking 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 retarded.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Yes it can.
                Wow you sure showed me

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

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

                Spoken like a true wormed drone homosexual.
                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?

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

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

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            You got fucked and can't cope lol

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

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

  18. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Intelligent design check? God is real check?

  19. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    >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.

  20. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

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

  21. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    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

  22. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Can Shakespeare explain Psalm 46?

  23. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      that's a partial eclipse you stupid cunt

  24. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      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

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

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

  25. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  26. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

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

  27. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

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

  28. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Shithouse

Your email address will not be published.