Spot on 💪. No shame in changing stance on a subject which has been falsified during 500 years. TFE will show out to be more usefull for FEs as we now know they are on a continent (not on The Great Barrier) . Going there to observe what you describe in your model and observe what probably been know for a very long time. Keep up your great work 🙏
I have subbed to you Joseph ....Mainly because you at least present yourself in an honest and Humble way . Also agree we do not fully understand how what is above really works . Though Nasa etc claim they do ..LOL .Anyway Mate ....love your work please keep it up ...i think you are heading in the right direction ..
? I never said it was a wobbly pear or a oblate whatever they say. Im merely pointing out the double standard. You said we cant make poaitive claims because we dont have all the variables. Sure. But then that works both ways. We dont have all the variables. So it could be giant and round and have a dome around it, no? It could be a lot of things. But the AE and gleason map no longer work. There was a 24 hour sun. Can any model explain how a sun could perfectly match and line up in a perfect seamless arc with a reflection of the sun of the dome?? What are the chances and where is there any evidence of this being possible, even on a model? God blessed us with a wonderful mysterious place. But we should call a spade a spade. The 24 hour sun prooves the most popular flat earth models wrong. I see no way around that fact.
@@mikemolaro4198 I’ve demonstrated it in a physical model based off of biblical descriptions. Therefore claiming it falsifies any level circular map is false. Not to mention it is a logical fallacy to say that a light in the ceiling falsifies the floor. You are the one using hypocritical thought patterns. I don’t think you are doing it intentionally, but you are doing it. If I can model the ceiling according to scripture and provide demonstrable proof of concept in a physical model, then I challenge all naysayers to do the same. A physical modeling of the sky holds far more weight than wordy arguments.
@@josephhanvey5891 Love the model Joesph. it's fascinating and rad. But where and how have you demonstrated a 24 hour sun as seen? I stress "as seen". Yes, the sun would reflect off the firmament. Yes, in certain areas you would perhaps see a sun AND it's reflection for a total of a 24 hour period. We agree. That's great. But it simply isn't enough. Because it is not at all demonstrating what happened. What we observed was the same sun circling for 24 hours. It didn't set while a second reflected sun rose. It appeared as one object the entire time. How does the sun seamlessly transition into a mere reflection of the sun off the side of the dome without any optical effect or distortion? To then continue on the exact same trajectory? I haven't seen your model do anything of the sort. Even if it were somehow possible (please correct me if you're claiming you have evidence) we still have nobody on the flat side claiming how it would happen, how the angle would change as it travels through the sky, etc... You have a model showing it's possible for the sun to be on top of the dome while also reflecting off the side. But no one has demonstrated how these two things would flow perfectly and fluidly into one apparent image/object for a 24 hour period.
Jospeh, what happens when you turn this same thing back on yourself? Youre spending how much of your money and time creating this dome model? But of what happens in the sky tells us "nothing" about our Earth...ugh, this would mean your model is pointless and nonsensical. For even if we know its sunny in Chicago while at the same time its night foe my friend on the phone in China...this tells us "nothing" about the shape or our model. Sorry, Joe. But that makes no sense. Youre having your cake and eating it to. God bless. Love the original work youre doing, but this fallacy would also apply to all of us. And if we follow the logic to its end point this would mean no model is possible or explanatory. Therefore all models would be worthless.
@@mikemolaro4198 terrible strawman fallacy. I don’t need to model the floor… it’s level. So you are right the sky doesn’t determine the floor. I’m modeling the sky over our level floor to show proof of concept for how the sky works above our level floor. Fallacious logic is unfortunately the only responses wobbly, space pear believers have.
Your comment makes zero sense. His point was really simple and how you completely missed it.. I have no idea.. The only way your comment would make sense would be if Joe had been saying that his model "proves FE".. but he has never said that. His model is specifically about proving that the 24 hour sun is POSSIBLE in our model. 🤦🏻
@LiveByTheSword but his model doesn't do that. The earth might be flat, even with a 24 hour sun. But his model doesn't explain how it's possible. Ok, so yes, a reflection on a dome is possible. But how does sun travel, then reflect itself at the exact same spot on the dome, before disappearing from sight, as the reflection on the dome continues in the exact same trajectory. And it's all totally seamless without any apparent anomalies. This is absurd, and his model doesn't do this. I would love if it did. But FE has to admit the map is wrong. We now have evidence of a 24 hour sun in Antarctica therefore the Gleason/AE map is wrong. Not admitting this is an embarrassing cope.
@mikemolaro4198 it's not a reflection on a dome 🤦🏻 it's how refraction works through a dome, and in his model he used a 2 way mirror to simulate a super fluid.. it doesn't matter how he got it to work, because he got it to work. It's one singular source light but every observer is going to basically see their own version of the sun dependent on their location. You can say it doesn't, but he fkn replicated it so what are you talking about?!?! It's just a basic model. It's obviously not exactly how it works.
@@mikemolaro4198 we always have our cake and eat it to. I’ve never had a cake given to me that I did not eat. Terrible analogy my friend. The lights in the ceiling do not prove the floor beneath our feet. You are correct in saying that, as I’ve stated that repeatedly. Modeling the ceiling has nothing to do with the floor. We know the floor is level. Now we are trying to model the ceiling… not with perfection in mind, only to provide proof of concept. Which has been demonstrated in a physical sky model over our level circular earth. Too many miss the point of modeling the sky. It’s not yo prove the floor… we know that’s level. It to prove that our sky can be accounted for under the claims of a super-reflective dome sky system.
I like that, "the floor measures flat."
Spot on 💪. No shame in changing stance on a subject which has been falsified during 500 years.
TFE will show out to be more usefull for FEs as we now know they are on a continent (not on The Great Barrier) . Going there to observe what you describe in your model and observe what probably been know for a very long time.
Keep up your great work 🙏
I have subbed to you Joseph ....Mainly because you at least present yourself in an honest and Humble way . Also agree we do not fully understand how what is above really works . Though Nasa etc claim they do ..LOL .Anyway Mate ....love your work please keep it up ...i think you are heading in the right direction ..
no worries joe, the naysayers will get it sooner or later. you are exactly what we need for the new year. so, happy new year from germany
Couldn’t agree with you more brother! Keep up the great work!
Hi Joe, when will your FE model available to purchase?
@@santmali I’m working on creating a kit that people can buy. I still have many things to work out first though.
@@josephhanvey5891 you are creating the model according to Moon Theory, that is also promoted by Vibes of Cosmos, Right?
? I never said it was a wobbly pear or a oblate whatever they say. Im merely pointing out the double standard. You said we cant make poaitive claims because we dont have all the variables. Sure. But then that works both ways. We dont have all the variables. So it could be giant and round and have a dome around it, no?
It could be a lot of things. But the AE and gleason map no longer work. There was a 24 hour sun. Can any model explain how a sun could perfectly match and line up in a perfect seamless arc with a reflection of the sun of the dome?? What are the chances and where is there any evidence of this being possible, even on a model?
God blessed us with a wonderful mysterious place. But we should call a spade a spade. The 24 hour sun prooves the most popular flat earth models wrong. I see no way around that fact.
@@mikemolaro4198 I’ve demonstrated it in a physical model based off of biblical descriptions.
Therefore claiming it falsifies any level circular map is false. Not to mention it is a logical fallacy to say that a light in the ceiling falsifies the floor.
You are the one using hypocritical thought patterns. I don’t think you are doing it intentionally, but you are doing it.
If I can model the ceiling according to scripture and provide demonstrable proof of concept in a physical model, then I challenge all naysayers to do the same. A physical modeling of the sky holds far more weight than wordy arguments.
@@josephhanvey5891 Love the model Joesph. it's fascinating and rad. But where and how have you demonstrated a 24 hour sun as seen? I stress "as seen". Yes, the sun would reflect off the firmament. Yes, in certain areas you would perhaps see a sun AND it's reflection for a total of a 24 hour period. We agree. That's great. But it simply isn't enough. Because it is not at all demonstrating what happened. What we observed was the same sun circling for 24 hours. It didn't set while a second reflected sun rose. It appeared as one object the entire time. How does the sun seamlessly transition into a mere reflection of the sun off the side of the dome without any optical effect or distortion? To then continue on the exact same trajectory? I haven't seen your model do anything of the sort. Even if it were somehow possible (please correct me if you're claiming you have evidence) we still have nobody on the flat side claiming how it would happen, how the angle would change as it travels through the sky, etc... You have a model showing it's possible for the sun to be on top of the dome while also reflecting off the side. But no one has demonstrated how these two things would flow perfectly and fluidly into one apparent image/object for a 24 hour period.
@@mikemolaro4198 these are the types of conversations flat earthers should be having... Not crap about fake breath and missing footprints.
Jospeh, what happens when you turn this same thing back on yourself? Youre spending how much of your money and time creating this dome model? But of what happens in the sky tells us "nothing" about our Earth...ugh, this would mean your model is pointless and nonsensical. For even if we know its sunny in Chicago while at the same time its night foe my friend on the phone in China...this tells us "nothing" about the shape or our model. Sorry, Joe. But that makes no sense. Youre having your cake and eating it to. God bless. Love the original work youre doing, but this fallacy would also apply to all of us. And if we follow the logic to its end point this would mean no model is possible or explanatory. Therefore all models would be worthless.
@@mikemolaro4198 terrible strawman fallacy. I don’t need to model the floor… it’s level. So you are right the sky doesn’t determine the floor.
I’m modeling the sky over our level floor to show proof of concept for how the sky works above our level floor.
Fallacious logic is unfortunately the only responses wobbly, space pear believers have.
Your comment makes zero sense. His point was really simple and how you completely missed it.. I have no idea..
The only way your comment would make sense would be if Joe had been saying that his model "proves FE".. but he has never said that. His model is specifically about proving that the 24 hour sun is POSSIBLE in our model.
🤦🏻
@LiveByTheSword but his model doesn't do that. The earth might be flat, even with a 24 hour sun. But his model doesn't explain how it's possible. Ok, so yes, a reflection on a dome is possible. But how does sun travel, then reflect itself at the exact same spot on the dome, before disappearing from sight, as the reflection on the dome continues in the exact same trajectory. And it's all totally seamless without any apparent anomalies. This is absurd, and his model doesn't do this. I would love if it did. But FE has to admit the map is wrong. We now have evidence of a 24 hour sun in Antarctica therefore the Gleason/AE map is wrong. Not admitting this is an embarrassing cope.
@mikemolaro4198 it's not a reflection on a dome 🤦🏻 it's how refraction works through a dome, and in his model he used a 2 way mirror to simulate a super fluid.. it doesn't matter how he got it to work, because he got it to work. It's one singular source light but every observer is going to basically see their own version of the sun dependent on their location. You can say it doesn't, but he fkn replicated it so what are you talking about?!?! It's just a basic model. It's obviously not exactly how it works.
@@mikemolaro4198 we always have our cake and eat it to. I’ve never had a cake given to me that I did not eat. Terrible analogy my friend.
The lights in the ceiling do not prove the floor beneath our feet. You are correct in saying that, as I’ve stated that repeatedly.
Modeling the ceiling has nothing to do with the floor. We know the floor is level. Now we are trying to model the ceiling… not with perfection in mind, only to provide proof of concept. Which has been demonstrated in a physical sky model over our level circular earth.
Too many miss the point of modeling the sky. It’s not yo prove the floor… we know that’s level. It to prove that our sky can be accounted for under the claims of a super-reflective dome sky system.