Hey, I watched a great video about this about a year ago, but surprise, surprise it’s no longer in my watch history. I found this one which is a lot briefer but still posits the same theory - definitely only a theory.
Unlike the flatness of the earth, which I urge you to test for yourself. Given the ‘accepted’ size of the globe in the heliocentric theory, there is observably, repeatedly and (most importantly) measurably NO curvature. That was the clincher for me personally, when I tested for curvature myself with a far away landmark. IF the earth were a ball (using the ’accepted’ dimensions), the landmark should be completely hidden by the curve. I should never be able to see it. But I see it, unless it’s raining. But don’t take my word for it, or anyone’s, just complete your own tests using the scientific method. You can use the altimeter on your phone, distance.to and search up any ‘earth curve calculator’ (I used a few different ones) or even do the math yourself, if you are so inclined. Then when you find out it IS flat, you have the torturous task of breaking through your conditioning. Not fun.
what math did you use? i look up the earths radius and circumference, i divide the circumference by 360°. now i know how long a section of 1° is. then i divide 1° by that length. now i know 1km distance = x°. now i take the cos of x°. now i multiply the radius by the cos°. and finally i subtract that resulting number from the real radius.
a = √[(r + h)² - r²]
where:
a stands for the distance to the horizon, h is your eyesight level, and r is the Earth's radius, equal to 3959 miles or 6371 km.
Yeah ive look at different things but the north pole / southern cross thing is what really doesnt seem to fit in the fe model. Can Australians see the north star?
So you didn’t understand the video?
The video talked about visual aberrations as far as clockwise and counter clockwise rotations which just raises more questions. It didnt address the north pole/ southern cross situation.
(post is archived)