Shine Light on Injustice

@free_nestly1 @benwehrman Definitely gumped. Sounds like the typical surface skimming sleepwalker. Here I'll share the math's for those who genuinely want to know. At 3 miles you shouldn't see most cars or people, at 5 or 10 well it becomes very clear the official numbers are false. Seen hundreds of mi.

@ShineABigLight @benwehrman I was at the ocean 2 weeks ago, and yes you can absolutely see the majority of large ships at 5 miles. Being able to see 5 miles doesn't confirm the claim of another to be able to see 700 miles. Math would confirm your claim to be able to see 5 miles, not so for Ben's lie.

I'm not sure who needs to hear this, but if the Earth was a globe with a 3,959 mile (6,371km) radius, it would be physically impossible to see landmarks 700 miles (1,100km) away, as after accounting for observer elevation, these distant landmarks should geometrically be OVER 40 MILES (65km) BELOW the observer's possible line of sight. The debate is over. The globe is thoroughly and absolutely debunked on this single proof alone. You must now make a choice on whether you believe math, geometry, and observable reality, or agents of the matrix who have an infinite bank account to fill your mind with endless nonsense to disconnect you from the truth about where, and WHO you are.

@Wolverine0744 @MrJonesKustoms @bcjams1962 @benwehrman Nope, just watching you insult and feel superior while making a fool of yourself Enough has been said for anyone with integrity & intelligence to find more honest answers. Someday, maybe, when you want the truth more than being right you'll see just how many false posts you made.

@ShineABigLight @MrJonesKustoms @bcjams1962 @benwehrman Answered already. Yes if you are on the axis of rotation. No if you are away from it. Then you cannot track using a single axis is rotation with zero field rotation. Nice flat earth debunk right there… Getting flustered and forgetting which account you are using? LOL.

The Sun doesn't "set" - it enters and leaves our perspective as it completes its clockwise-circular path over our flat and stationary Earth. The Optical Mechanics: ☀️ Refractive Lensing: As the Sun moves further away, the increasing atmospheric density magnifies its image, perfectly compensating for perspective. It stays a constant 0.5 degrees until it hits the threshold of detection. (This is why it stays the exact same size from noon until dusk) ☀️ The Helical Path: The Sun isn’t a distant ball; it’s a localized plasma source moving in a spiral. Inner ring = Northern Summer. Outer ring = Southern Summer. ☀️ The Velocity Shift: To keep a 24-hour day, the Sun actually speeds up as it hits the outer Antarctic ring. The Sun not a rotating ball; it’s a pressurized electromagnetic vessel. The Geometric Foundation of the STARS: ✨ The Southern Cross Illusion: The “Southern Pole” isn’t a place; it’s an Optical Convergence Artifact—an aetheric projection caused by the dome’s curvature. ✨ The Upside-Down Moon: Crossing the equator reorients your perspective to the dome’s center. The Moon isn’t “flipping”; you are moving relative to the source. ✨ Density vs. Gravity: Objects move up or down based on their density differential relative to the medium. No “action-at-a-distance” required. The system is a self-contained, electromagnetic organism! [Full credit to HarmonicEarthTheory on IG - legendary flat earth account 🔥]

@Wolverine0744 @MrJonesKustoms @bcjams1962 @benwehrman You claim offset from a parallel axis causes field rotation. If that were true, your own Celestron mounts wouldn't track on a globe because you are offset thousands of miles from the Earth’s core. Geometry doesn't care about your physical location; parallel is parallel.

You posted… ‘If two axes are parallel and rotate at the same rate, there is zero relative field rotation, regardless of their offset.’ That is completely and utterly wrong. An epic fail in basic geometry. Not only will you have field rotation but you will not be able to track with a single axis at a steady rate if you are offset from the axis of rotation if the sky. Your post shows me you still have zero grasp of the actual geometry of how the mount works. Keep going this is funny. Double down on your failure. LOL.

@Wolverine0744 @MrJonesKustoms @bcjams1962 @benwehrman Nice mounts, but bad kinematics. You claim offset causes field rotation. It doesn't. If the sky operates on local electromagnetic lines, aligning a mount parallel to the local optical axis would track perfectly with zero rotation. Offset distance does not create twist.

@Wolverine0744 @MrJonesKustoms @bcjams1962 @benwehrman 👌 You are confusing pointing angle with frame rotation. Offset from the axis (translation) only changes the target's vector; it cannot introduce relative angular twist. If the mount's axis is parallel to the sky's axis and both spin at 15°/hr, field rotation is physically zero.

@Wolverine0744 @MrJonesKustoms @bcjams1962 @benwehrman "Even if the axes are parallel... you will have field rotation" This is a massive kinematic blunder. If two axes are parallel and spin at the exact same angular rate, the relative rotation between them is exactly ZERO. You are flexing expensive gear while failing basic physics.

@Wolverine0744 @MrJonesKustoms @bcjams1962 @benwehrman You tried to flex your gear, ended up destroying your own argument. If two axes are parallel and rotate at the same rate, there is zero relative field rotation, regardless of their offset. You don't understand the basic relative kinematics of the very mounts you allegedly own.

@Wolverine0744 @MrJonesKustoms @bcjams1962 @benwehrman You missed SO many points! Refuse to answer simple questions that challenge your position. Here, let's try this again, see if you can answer a simple yes/no question: ​If you set up an EQ mount on a flat concrete slab under a dome of stars rotating 15°/hr, does it track stars?

@MrJonesKustoms @bcjams1962 @benwehrman Epic geometry fail there champ. You missed the point completely

@free_nestly1 @benwehrman Wrong again. I don't play the "sides" game. It's disingenuous. People defend a side and miss the truth. Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance take over. Prefer to see for myself. 5 miles is enough to prove the maths are false. Go do it or stfu, seriously you sound gumped.

@ShineABigLight @benwehrman "Look it up" among your own community of flat earthers. Your own people have been taughting 275 miles as the longest line of sight, now liar Ben has decided to increase it by nearly 3x to 700 miles. LOL x.com/i/status/20419…

@Wolverine0744 @MrJonesKustoms @bcjams1962 @benwehrman "They never address the actual key points" Hahaha! Wow, Pure Projection YOU have avoided the key points! Here, let's see if you can answer a simple yes/no question: ​If you set up an EQ mount on a flat concrete slab under a dome of stars rotating 15°/hr, does it track stars?

I 100% realise that that flatties don’t understand the equatorial mount. If they did they would not be flat earthers as they would realise how it proves we live in a globe. I confront them with it to let them expose their own weakness in geometry. None of them have a clue how the mount actually works and their attempts to refute it just confirms this. They never address the actual key points. Only one flat earther in ten years has been honest enough to try modelling it. He failed and admitted it was impossible on a flat earth and only seemed to work on a globe.

@Wolverine0744 @MrJonesKustoms @bcjams1962 @benwehrman Haha! Can't fix arrogance or stoopid Jones. Everything he's said about you, describes himself perfectly. These guys don't have the integrity or intelligence to comprehend the projection in their own words. You honestly think they comprehend the EQ mount? Maybe in a few years...

@MrJonesKustoms @bcjams1962 @benwehrman No you are wrong. It 100% proves the shape of the ground. Don’t you understand why? Take your time and try again.

@abynorml62 @plantblazer @karldm1 @benwehrman Labeling people means you've chosen a side~feeling superior The truth is no longer relevant. The human mind will defend the side and completely miss obvious evidence due to confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. Study meteorology and optics~you'll find more honest answers.

@plantblazer @ShineABigLight @karldm1 @benwehrman Why are you deflecting from the 480 feet obscured by the Earth’s curvature? That’s all you flerfs do m.youtube.com/watch?v=G4bLgg…

@abynorml62 @plantblazer @karldm1 @benwehrman You are measuring the limits of light, not the shape of the ground. Terrestrial refraction & atmospheric opacity swallow the lower visual field over water every day=meteorology The bottom of the building is lost in the density of the medium, not behind a physical bump of water!

@abynorml62 @plantblazer @karldm1 @benwehrman Your 480ft of "hidden" building is an optical effect, not a physical curve. As objects recede on a flat plane, perspective compresses them from the bottom up. Combine angular limits with a 31-mile wall of dense ocean atmosphere, and the base merges with the vanishing line.

@free_nestly1 @benwehrman "Look it up" using search engines or AI that have admitted to be managed and curated, spewing mainstream narrative nonsense?? Don't be a typical moron. Go and see for yourself. Most anyone with integrity can find something similar on their continent. Better to say idk than lie!

@ShineABigLight @benwehrman He posted photographs and maps indicating there is a 700 mile line of sight from the Alps to various other landmarks. He's lying about what the pics show, and that a 700 mile line of exists as he describes. Liar and deceiver. Did you bother to look it up? Of course you didnt.

@free_nestly1 @benwehrman "Likes to be dishonest" sounds like pure projection ~ especially when you add the word photograph and go off yappin nonsense about geometry. Ben said nothing about a photograph ~ You are the liar! Look in the mirror. So very average, er well below average. Typical & telling smh

@benwehrman I don't know who needs to hear this, but Ben Wehrman is a liar. The world record for the longest line of sight photograph is 306 miles. Do not take my word for it, look it up yourself, and you'll know that Ben likes to be dishonest.

@plantblazer @karldm1 @benwehrman They, like most, don't care enough about speaking the truth to study meteorology or optics. They also won't go outside and prove to themselves. 3 miles is enough to show maths are false. Surface skimming sleepwalkers with literally zero critical thinking skills yapping nonsense

@karldm1 @benwehrman Only if you ignore air isn't transparent and angular size reduction

@Gabrielito667 @TheGlobeIsDead 300 ft?🙄 smh Maybe go out in the real world, look at something a million feet away, tens of millions! Perspective and optical physics is something very few people truly understand. Especially at extremely long-distance. People actually think they see a solar panel 340 mi away!🤣

@TheGlobeIsDead If you go into a 300-foot-long warehouse that's completely dark and turn on the last light, you'll see light. The flat earth doesn't exist.

It’s one thing to believe. But can you prove it?

@ravener96 @_lee_barnard @AdonaiOnGaia @MrJonesKustoms @judd_dredge @CharliD05606219 Density is mass over volume. Sea level air is denser because it is under the weight of the system above it, compressing its volume. A balloon brought down from a mountain shrinks because the heavier air outside compresses it. You, like most, are ignoring basic fluid dynamics.

@ravener96 @_lee_barnard @AdonaiOnGaia @MrJonesKustoms @judd_dredge @CharliD05606219 The balloon test fails basic mechanics. Gas is compressible. Pumping up a balloon at 30km seals low-pressure gas inside. Bringing it down exposes it to higher external pressure, which compresses the balloon until it matches sea level. Why ignore compression? Pure Ignorance! Think