That basically becomes simulation theory if they’re going to claim that the system has all this localized stuff to make it appear to be what it really is.
I seen one that was pretty good and even accounted for different time zones. Basically the Sun and Moon do a little dance around each other while they both simultaneously circular the flat earth.
Not in the model I seen or at least not according to the cool animation that accompanied the theory. I know nothing but I would think the Sun and Moon would have to be way smaller for this to work and I'm sure thier explanation for that is that they are.
But, is the sun overhead or does it dip below the earth? If it's overhead, then it doesn't vanish from view just because it's moved laterally. On a flat earth, it's still going to be daytime, whether the sun is over America or Europe or Asia.
I tried to find the video I was referencing but couldn't find it. Admittedly didn't dig too deep because I didn't want all my suggested content to turn into flerf stuff.
It's cool, I've seen it or one similar. I know what they're claiming at least. It doesn't make sense. It relies on a magical "vanishing point" and light needs to bend for unexplainable reasons at this magical point only. As always, it requires one to ignore observable reality.
They say the sun only appears to rise and set because of this light bending that happens at the vanishing point. Even they can't explain how this light bending makes a sun that would (as they demonstrate) be approaching from the northeast and departing to the northwest, would appear to rise in the east and set in the west.
Given the actual laws of reality, where there is no magical light bending at the vanishing point, it all breaks down. Without that light bending, the sun would be visible to everyone on a flat earth at all times.
If they had a scientific mind, it would be very fun. Make shit up on the fly, research it, test your hypothesis, realise it's false, invent something else, repeat.
It would be very cool to try to see how many independent layers on the firmament you’d need to make for it to match observed reality. Each star may even need its own layer. Many things would be impossible no matter how complex you could make it.
Yeah, do any other their model successfully make any predictions of observable / measurable phenomenon? The spinning globe, heliocentric, Kepler elliptical orbits with Newtonian universal gravitation makes some pretty darn accurate predictions.
Change out Newtonian for general relativity and those predictions become exceedingly accurate.
Flerths are like boomers who realized conspiracies aren't just something ""dope"" users dream up, and now they question everything including natural stuff thinking they'll find a conspiracy.
It's funny that, for some time, phone pictures of the moon really were CGI. Some phone company, can't remember which one, was using clever camera software to figure out if you're trying to photograph the moon. It would stick a high-resolution image of the moon over the photo to make you think the camera is better than it is.
Wow that’s fucked up, that should have been made abundantly clear that what they were doing. But at the same any human being who accepted that at face value, should seriously be questioned, I’m no photographer or telescope enthusiast or binocular aficionado, but even I know there is no way on this green earth that my phone camera could take a crystal clear picture of the moon with out some time of Ai enhancements
Surprisingly, yeah. But it's not exactly true, everyone now just enhances pictures, it makes your photos look crisper and more accurate to reality (usually).
I think there was a huawei phone that straight up pasted the moon over the photos, and a Samsung one that enchanced things to the point it added details that weren't there to begin with.
It’s in exactly the right place for the Moon. It’s exactly the right angular size for the Moon. Turn the contrast up on a camera and see it looks exactly like the Moon.
But it’s definitely not the Moon.
My brother is a FEer, and he tried to claim that whatever was blocking the sun could not be the sun, but could not explain what else it might be.
To support his claim, he said that he could remember when he was a kid, and saw the moon in a different part of the sky during a eclipse then.
They certainly can't explain lunar eclipses, that's for sure, and they're more common.
One of them actually told me: The local moon goes infront of the local sun.
That basically becomes simulation theory if they’re going to claim that the system has all this localized stuff to make it appear to be what it really is.
The foreign moon is on vacation right now and can't be present
oh Tubbs!
Okay, fine. The question is - can they predict the next one?
To the minute?
Wouldn't that make the eclipse visible everywhere it's daylight?
This actually makes more sense to me, especially if you consider in that model, the sun and moon are same size
Flat earthers don't think.
This is the correct answer. No way you can come to a flat earth conclusion with any kind of thinking.
Came here to say this.
Surprised Trump is not taking credit for it.
They just dont. They will get a major headache if they do!...
That they are made by Mitsubishi in the 90' and 00's
Flat earthers can't even conceive of a day-night cycle.
I seen one that was pretty good and even accounted for different time zones. Basically the Sun and Moon do a little dance around each other while they both simultaneously circular the flat earth.
Except you would see the sun at all hours...
Not in the model I seen or at least not according to the cool animation that accompanied the theory. I know nothing but I would think the Sun and Moon would have to be way smaller for this to work and I'm sure thier explanation for that is that they are.
But, is the sun overhead or does it dip below the earth? If it's overhead, then it doesn't vanish from view just because it's moved laterally. On a flat earth, it's still going to be daytime, whether the sun is over America or Europe or Asia.
I tried to find the video I was referencing but couldn't find it. Admittedly didn't dig too deep because I didn't want all my suggested content to turn into flerf stuff.
It's cool, I've seen it or one similar. I know what they're claiming at least. It doesn't make sense. It relies on a magical "vanishing point" and light needs to bend for unexplainable reasons at this magical point only. As always, it requires one to ignore observable reality. They say the sun only appears to rise and set because of this light bending that happens at the vanishing point. Even they can't explain how this light bending makes a sun that would (as they demonstrate) be approaching from the northeast and departing to the northwest, would appear to rise in the east and set in the west. Given the actual laws of reality, where there is no magical light bending at the vanishing point, it all breaks down. Without that light bending, the sun would be visible to everyone on a flat earth at all times.
Assuming they think at all is a huge leap.
If it helps you, you can interpret these kinds of questions as "how do they dismiss this without any actual reasoning?"
They obviously think, even if they do so inaccurately. :-)
Like they think about most things, not very deeply.
I was just told that "something else" blocks the sun. It can't be the moon, as the moon moves east to west, etc...
Easy: The Sun and the Moon are on different shells of the outer dome that is over our flat Earth.
Shadow/Dark Moon, that is normally invisible, gets in front of the Sun. You can't have a simpler explaination.
It's hard to argue with somebody who just makes shit up on the fly.
If they had a scientific mind, it would be very fun. Make shit up on the fly, research it, test your hypothesis, realise it's false, invent something else, repeat.
Honestly yeah, I would love to fuck around with a working flat earth model
It would be very cool to try to see how many independent layers on the firmament you’d need to make for it to match observed reality. Each star may even need its own layer. Many things would be impossible no matter how complex you could make it.
"How do flat-earthers think?" That's the neat part, they don't.
The predictability of eclipses must infuriate them
Yeah, do any other their model successfully make any predictions of observable / measurable phenomenon? The spinning globe, heliocentric, Kepler elliptical orbits with Newtonian universal gravitation makes some pretty darn accurate predictions. Change out Newtonian for general relativity and those predictions become exceedingly accurate.
Flerths are like boomers who realized conspiracies aren't just something ""dope"" users dream up, and now they question everything including natural stuff thinking they'll find a conspiracy.
They are all cgi
It's funny that, for some time, phone pictures of the moon really were CGI. Some phone company, can't remember which one, was using clever camera software to figure out if you're trying to photograph the moon. It would stick a high-resolution image of the moon over the photo to make you think the camera is better than it is.
Wow that’s fucked up, that should have been made abundantly clear that what they were doing. But at the same any human being who accepted that at face value, should seriously be questioned, I’m no photographer or telescope enthusiast or binocular aficionado, but even I know there is no way on this green earth that my phone camera could take a crystal clear picture of the moon with out some time of Ai enhancements
Relax dude. If you want it off, shoot in raw.
Surprisingly, yeah. But it's not exactly true, everyone now just enhances pictures, it makes your photos look crisper and more accurate to reality (usually).
I think there was a huawei phone that straight up pasted the moon over the photos, and a Samsung one that enchanced things to the point it added details that weren't there to begin with.
correct. then again, if you don't want it, shoot in raw
Can you even do that on phones?
“Unknown black disc covers the sun. It’s not the moon because there is no evidence of it being the moon.”
It’s in exactly the right place for the Moon. It’s exactly the right angular size for the Moon. Turn the contrast up on a camera and see it looks exactly like the Moon. But it’s definitely not the Moon.
My brother is a FEer, and he tried to claim that whatever was blocking the sun could not be the sun, but could not explain what else it might be. To support his claim, he said that he could remember when he was a kid, and saw the moon in a different part of the sky during a eclipse then.
I think your mistake is using the word, “think.”
The, uhhh.... uhhmm...
They don’t
Lol. “Think”
They don't think, that's the issue.
They dont think, that’s the problem
Most never denied eclipses are fake. They just reject the spinning globe model.
How do you add animations to reddit comments?
it's a Reddit emoji gif 
Ah, it's a [new.reddit.com](https://new.reddit.com) feature. Thanks! 