No, the earth is not flat.

[Cameron143]

I'm not an expert in all the things you mentioned, but I don't believe the theories behind them are any different between Flat Earth and ball-Earth, other than for time, seasons and planetary motion. On a Flat Earth, the other items are readily explained by the same theories you believe depend on ball-Earth. Happy to discuss if you believe I'm wrong here - it may be evidence supporting ball-Earth for you, and if so, means more research for me to understand how it would work on a Flat Earth.

With regards to time and seasons, the sun is traveling about the Equator (between the Tropics), which is the reason for the seasons. As the sun completes an orbit every day, it eventually reaches a distance at which its light is obscured by the atmosphere, which is when night falls at that point. As the sun returns to the same point, it comes to where it's light is no longer obscured, and there is a new dawn. The planetary motions are simply as observed - stars traveling in the wrong direction. The book of Enoch speaks of these stars as rebellious ones (I believe) - hence the reason for the wrong directions, but I reserve my decision on this (I like the idea and it does make sense to me, but I'm not fully convinced on the legitimacy of the book of Enoch).

I'm no expert either. I grew up learning ball earth in school and assumed what I was learning was correct. I'm not opposed to considering anything. But, like most who learned as I have, I find the explanations reasonable and plausible. So when something different comes along, as I'm considering whether to accept it, reject it, or consider it further, I often require more information.
And thanks for sharing.

 

[Handyman62]

If planets are anything like Greek food, I bet they are tasty! I'm in a Greek food phase, so good!

Anything you eat including Greek food comes from planet earth pizza so enjoy.

 

[GaryA]

@Cameron143

Just to try to help you understand why [sometimes] we do not really feel like making the effort to explain something - here is [just] one of the reasons:

The effort we do make seems to be totally ignored...

Remember this?

Moreover, the 5% inclination completely does away with the ability to have a lunar eclipse (full, or even partial) - because, at that scale - the moon is so far removed from the "Ecliptic Plane" (Earth Orbital Plane) that the Earth would never actually be between the sun and the moon (with specific regard to the direction of sunlight, which is considered by the Ball Earth model to be perfectly parallel to the Earth Orbital Plane).

Also, for the same reason, we would never see a solar eclipse (full, or even partial) - because, the moon would never actually be between the sun and the earth.

All of this stuff becomes a whole lot more clear/evident when looked at on a SCALE diagram/drawing.

This particular bit of thought-provoking evidence-for-consideration is so incredibly simple and straight-forward that it should take most folks a very short time to understand it very clearly.

Well, I have not seen the first soul post and say:

"I have looked into this (i.e. - "I have done my own research and my own thinking.") and - hey - it makes perfect sense - I never looked at it in its full context before!"

Will anyone ever even admit that they looked at it and gave it any thought at all? Probably not. (However, I do sincerely hope I am wrong.)

What do you think of it? Have you pondered it even a little bit? Or, have you ignored it?

There is an amazing great truth illustrated in the drawing above - but no one is interested - because, they are all afraid. They know that - if they say anything at all - they will have to either agree with it 100% or offer proof to the contrary. And, they are just-not-ready-or-able to deal with that.

Only the folks who value knowing the truth above [pretty much] all else will be bold enough to say something.

Oh, sure - the 'naysayers' will offer various miscellaneous criticisms without agreement or proof to the contrary.

Some will hide behind jokes, etc.

Will anyone be honest enough with themselves to look at it "straight in the face" and accept the straight-forward simple truth of it?

Folks - do not be afraid of it - "take the bull by the horns" - with total honesty. If you do this - in the end - you will be glad you did...

 

[GaryA]

Correct - but, sometimes they are really good for illustration...

Unless someone erroneously assumes the wrong point(s) to illustrate. Then they are useless.

I was "hinting" at the 'diagram' that I made (in a 'teasing' manner) - referring to it and not the diagram that @Moses_Young posted.

 

[GaryA]

In germany 0 02% have health problems after getting the vaccine. Around 7-13% have health problems after the virusinfection.
Worldwide 65 000 000 have healthproblems after covidinfection.
For me is clear what is more worse.

For me it is clear that you have bought into the propaganda and lies...

 

[kinda]

Earth is the universe.

If you don't agree, let me know the next time you leave earth to visit Mars, or the moon. Sometimes elementary school gets things wrong, but hey, that's just my honest opinion.

 

[wolfwint]

For me it is clear that you have bought into the propaganda and lies...

And you represent the truth?

 

[Cameron143]

@Cameron143

Just to try to help you understand why [sometimes] we do not really feel like making the effort to explain something - here is [just] one of the reasons:

The effort we do make seems to be totally ignored...

Remember this?



View attachment 256661

This particular bit of thought-provoking evidence-for-consideration is so incredibly simple and straight-forward that it should take most folks a very short time to understand it very clearly.

Well, I have not seen the first soul post and say:

"I have looked into this (i.e. - "I have done my own research and my own thinking.") and - hey - it makes perfect sense - I never looked at it in its full context before!"

Will anyone ever even admit that they looked at it and gave it any thought at all? Probably not. (However, I do sincerely hope I am wrong.)

What do you think of it? Have you pondered it even a little bit? Or, have you ignored it?

There is an amazing great truth illustrated in the drawing above - but no one is interested - because, they are all afraid. They know that - if they say anything at all - they will have to either agree with it 100% or offer proof to the contrary. And, they are just-not-ready-or-able to deal with that.

Only the folks who value knowing the truth above [pretty much] all else will be bold enough to say something.

Oh, sure - the 'naysayers' will offer various miscellaneous criticisms without agreement or proof to the contrary.

Some will hide behind jokes, etc.

Will anyone be honest enough with themselves to look at it "straight in the face" and accept the straight-forward simple truth of it?

Folks - do not be afraid of it - "take the bull by the horns" - with total honesty. If you do this - in the end - you will be glad you did...

Since you addressed me specifically, I'll respond. Your drawing assumes for me knowledge I don't possess. So I have quite a number of questions. And this is the frustration I find when dealing with the subject. Your arguments might be perfectly valid. But you are answering questions for those familiar with the subject, so you lose the beginner.
So pretend you are talking to a novice and go point by point. Drawing to scale I understand. What is the significance of the angle? Why this particular angle? What occurs at other angles?
I have more questions, but let's go one at a time if you care to.

 

[Dino246]

I was "hinting" at the 'diagram' that I made (in a 'teasing' manner) - referring to it and not the diagram that @Moses_Young posted.

I wasn't even aware of the diagram you posted. All my comments were about M_Y's diagram.

 

[GaryA]

Since you addressed me specifically, I'll respond. Your drawing assumes for me knowledge I don't possess. So I have quite a number of questions. And this is the frustration I find when dealing with the subject. Your arguments might be perfectly valid. But you are answering questions for those familiar with the subject, so you lose the beginner.
So pretend you are talking to a novice and go point by point. Drawing to scale I understand. What is the significance of the angle? Why this particular angle? What occurs at other angles?
I have more questions, but let's go one at a time if you care to.

The angle (which is actually 5.14 degrees - I rounded it for simplicity) is what the Ball Earth model says is the inclination of the moon-orbit-around-the-earth plane from the earth-orbit-around-the-sun plane.

My drawing is looking at the earth and moon "from the side" - the lines represent the orbital planes. If you extended the inclined line in the same plane to the appropriate distance on the other side of the 'earth' dot - it would illustrate the whole orbit pattern of the moon in a "from the side" view.

The rays of the sun would be coming from the left. In the 'Full Moon' position, the moon would be where you see it in the diagram - "distant" from the sun and 'high'. In The 'New Moon' position, the moon would be to the left of the earth - "near" to the sun and 'low'. (at the other end of the orbit)

Does this make sense so far?

 

[GaryA]

And you represent the truth?

The truth represents the truth.

Those who trust in the MSM for their "facts" must first "escape the MATRIX" before they can see the real truth about the world they live in...

In other words, you are being lied to - in a very big way - but do not believe it. Until you are willing to believe "what really is", you will not understand the truth that is right in front of your eyes.

 

[GaryA]

I have more questions, but let's go one at a time if you care to.

The best way to have a discussion about most any topic - one thing at a time.

 

[Cameron143]

The angle (which is actually 5.14 degrees - I rounded it for simplicity) is what the Ball Earth model says is the inclination of the moon-orbit-around-the-earth plane from the earth-orbit-around-the-sun plane.

My drawing is looking at the earth and moon "from the side" - the lines represent the orbital planes. If you extended the inclined line in the same plane to the appropriate distance on the other side of the 'earth' dot - it would illustrate the whole orbit pattern of the moon in a "from the side" view.

The rays of the sun would be coming from the left. In the 'Full Moon' position, the moon would be where you see it in the diagram - "distant" from the sun and 'high'. In The 'New Moon' position, the moon would be to the left of the earth - "near" to the sun and 'low'. (at the other end of the orbit)

Does this make sense so far?

So given the illustration, why is the full moon depicted there?

 

[GaryA]

So given the illustration, why is the full moon depicted there?

Because, according to the Ball Earth model, the 'Full Moon' position is the point of its orbit that is most distant from the sun - on the other side of the earth from the sun - nowhere else in its orbit could you see the whole moon 'lit' by the sun.

 

[Cameron143]

Because, according to the Ball Earth model, the 'Full Moon' position is the point of its orbit that is most distant from the sun - on the other side of the earth from the sun - nowhere else in its orbit could you see the whole moon 'lit' by the sun.

I must have misunderstood. I thought you were saying full moon was depicted.
Ok. So what is the conclusion you are making?

 

[GaryA]

I must have misunderstood. I thought you were saying full moon was depicted.
Ok. So what is the conclusion you are making?

Because the moon is so far removed from "behind" the earth at the point where an eclipse would occur - there is no way we could ever see such a thing. And, the same thing holds true on the other side of the earth when the moon is at the other end of its orbit.

No lunar eclipse. No solar eclipse.

 

[Cameron143]

Because the moon is so far removed from "behind" the earth at the point where an eclipse would occur - there is no way we could ever see such a thing. And, the same thing holds true on the other side of the earth when the moon is at the other end of its orbit.

No lunar eclipse. No solar eclipse.

It wouldn't line up or the distance is too great?

 

[GaryA]

According to modern science, eclipses do exist but cannot possibly exist.

Modern science disagrees with itself.

 

[GaryA]

It wouldn't line up or the distance is too great?

The scale drawing is based on all of the "facts" that the Ball Earth model states about the earth and moon in this context.

If the moon is at the stated distance at the stated angle - there can never be an eclipse - because, the earth will never be between the sun and the moon.

 

[GaryA]

It wouldn't line up or the distance is too great?

The alignment required for an eclipse (lunar or solar) can/could never happen.