two suns?

Originally posted by Vamp333

i read the OP + was like WTF

so i called my 9yo science nerd son into the room to have a read of it..

SON: (confused look) "how does that make sence..?? does this person know the earth is round + it spins...??" (walks out of the room laughn) "some people are so stupid mum"

First! i have some trouble writting in english, i am french.. so maybe my op was not written in the way
i wanted it to come out, or alot of you just don't read the op.

it's all in fun, what you all seem to not realise is. the most important of my op was that...

it was going on an assumption that ALL WE KNOW IS A LIE.....

do you understand now i repeat, if all i know is a lie i can not use it to discribe a scene i see. I can use only my
eyes to try and understand.

i am really no rocket scientist, but i know what you know, i know what they whant me to know.
But this is not a class room it is a conspiracy topic site.

If i wanted to be a rocket scientist i would not come here to get the knowledge needed.

First thing i wrote was i am going to make a fool of my self but what the hell...

I see some members understand the fun in thinking and not regurgitating facts from tptb.

my obsevation was from standing out side and looking at the sun's movement. all in good clean fun...

You all are responding to the op as if it was or that i think it's like that.

now i know how it feels to be alone thank you all. (not all but most).

A toth is not a belief, but from now on i will stick my foot in my mouth, and only talk about the real sh#t like ufo's
and reptilians and the good stuff. That is not in books.. My bad sorry to waste you precious time.
You may now go back to your original programing

P.S. I love you all....

reply to post by mkkkay


As I mentioned in my first response to you... I love working from the assumption that everything you know is a lie and seeing what can be rebuilt from there.

This was the approach I tried to take in pointing out what I felt were... at least from what *I* can observe... testable perspectives. Especially the 33 degrees of the sky viewpoint (unless you happen to be in a canyon, haha. Even on a flat earth, you'd still have 180 degrees of view... and the timing you experience would still be able to happen simply by having the angle rotated. The spherical nature of the earth would in fact be irrelevant to the timing.

So you can test this yourself by just waiting six months to verify that in fact the timing has flipped to long nights and short days... and then take any shape of the earth you want to see whether the observation matches.

Namaste!

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion
reply to post by mkkkay

 

As I mentioned in my first response to you... I love working from the assumption that everything you know is a lie and seeing what can be rebuilt from there.

This was the approach I tried to take in pointing out what I felt were... at least from what *I* can observe... testable perspectives. Especially the 33 degrees of the sky viewpoint (unless you happen to be in a canyon, haha. Even on a flat earth, you'd still have 180 degrees of view... and the timing you experience would still be able to happen simply by having the angle rotated. The spherical nature of the earth would in fact be irrelevant to the timing.

So you can test this yourself by just waiting six months to verify that in fact the timing has flipped to long nights and short days... and then take any shape of the earth you want to see whether the observation matches.

Namaste!

I do know that my field of vision is 180 degrees, but if the planet is round and very, very big my 180 degree would
not let me see 50% of the planet. if i am on top my field of view will not cover half of the planet?

adendum to the op...

i realize it will only affect the religious folks, but what the hell... since i am in for a wooping might as well go for it.
If you don't believe in the bible do not take this post to vent.

MOST SCIENTISTS DON'T READ ALL OF THE ARTICLES THEY CITE
Every scientific discovery builds on what came before. Because of this, research papers are
chock-full of references to previous papers, leading you to believe that those older studies
actually have been read and digested and are now being expanded upon.
After noticing that a lot of citations with identical mistakes were showing up in various papers,
two researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, set out to study the problem. They
looked at the way well-known, heavily-cited papers had been referenced in subsequent papers.
Regarding an influential paper on crystals published in 1973, New Scientist explains:
They found it had been cited in other papers 4300 times, with 196 citations containing
misprints in the volume, page or year. But despite the fact that a billion different versions of erroneous reference are possible, they counted only 45. The most popular mistake
appeared 78 times.
Obviously, these pursuers of scientific truths hadn't actually read the original paper, but had just
clipped the reference from another paper, a trick they probably learned in college and never
stopped using. Of course, some of the scientists who got the citation right hadn't read the paper,
either. In the final analysis:
The model shows that the distribution of misprinted citations of the 1973 paper could only
have arisen if 78 percent of all the citations, including the correct ones, were "cut and
pasted" from a secondary source. Many of those who got it right were simply lucky.

Above quote from the book 50 things you're not suppose to know by Russ Kick.

“Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me”

Above quote from star power by David Branon.

Book 01 Genesis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
001:001 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
001:002 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
001:003 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
001:004 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
001:005 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Above is the first day in the Bible...

001:014 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
001:015 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
001:016 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
001:017 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
001:018 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
001:019 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

now on day four he also made lights, just where and when did the sun come in to being.just how many lights are
in the sky?

I am no bible fanatic and never did read it more than a couple of paragraphs, but this is all in the same page the
first page, genesis.

so here is to fun facts...

If you know you can see 180 degrees, then what were you implying here?

Originally posted by mkkkay
from my perspective i can see maybe 33 degrees on the horizon from east to west.
thats from sun rise to sun set. how can it go around all the rest in only 8 hours.

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion
If you know you can see 180 degrees, then what were you implying here?

Originally posted by mkkkay
from my perspective i can see maybe 33 degrees on the horizon from east to west.
thats from sun rise to sun set. how can it go around all the rest in only 8 hours.

The earth! the earth is 360 degree, but so big that i can not see 180 degrees of the earth's curbature.
if i look to the est or to any other direction, i can never see half of the earth.
I just said 33 i could be wrong.

I should of seen my mistake i can read it now, i am sorry, i'm french