Any links, videos, infographics, articles, or any resources recommended

>>17869104
As in... What? The sun doesn't exist? Doesn't produce heat? Isn't a light source? Exactly what is sun denial supposed to entail?

>>17869197
I'm not entirely sure, I think it is along the lines of it doesn't exist. I read the term alongside other proven and hypothetical conspiracies.

I'm always interested to read and hear about other's ideas, sa farfetched as they might seem.

lmao what the fuk man

>>17869104
maybe start looking into theories of heliocentrism and geocentrism?

Sun denial? It seems like a fun notion to play around with. Sun denial. Wow, something so simple and obvious for one to deny. Wild.

You must have misheard or misread 'Sun Dial', OP.

>>17869104
I came across this.
Don't follow it quite too well.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63776.0

lmao sun denial wtf. conspiracy theories are getting dumber and dumber.. flat earths and shit.. I think conspiracy theorists are running outta things to "theorize" about.

File: 1389391853763.jpg (79KB, 682x1024px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 682x1024px

>>17869328
Thanks! I'm off to bed now, but I'll read it tomorrow.

>>17869359
lol. probably. sun denial is amusing in itself. :)

>>17869328
You don't follow it too well because it's barely better than gibberish. Since the paranoid theorists will call me out as some kind of shill, I'll break it down here:

>I'm starting to come to the conclusion that the Sun is merely a reflection of the flat moon... The Sun is like a big disc and the moon can be understood as a giant lightbulb. Its convex lens directs light towards the Earth's core, creating the illusion that the Sun is bright when in all actuality it's the moon.

Simplification: the sun is a concave mirror that focuses the light of the moon (which is the real light), which makes it seem brighter.

>The reason the sun appears to illuminate the sky is merely that the sun and moon do not often exist in the sky at the same time.

Since the sun focuses light (to appear bright) instead of diffusing it, and is much smaller and closer than scientists think (in order for the luminosity difference to be anywhere near plausible), and receiving light from a source smaller than the earth, it can't illuminate the whole sky. But it can though because the moon isn't usually in the sky with it? I honestly don't understand the assumptions being made at this point.

>According to Einstein's field equations devised in the early 20th century concerning the relationship between space and time as one cohesive continuum, the rate at which gravity decreases with distance is expected to be exponential... [We get it, you're totally a believer of flat Earth hypothesis] However, when analyzing the Gravity equation Fg = GM1M2/R^2, it becomes evident that the existence of the gravitational constant "G" was fabricated to support the round earth. The equation did not fit, so scientists fabricated a variable to create support for their failing theory.

G was added because that is what you do to make an equation that is already directly proportional to a known quantity fit that quantity exactly. It was Newton who discovered G (and Cavendish who gave it a value), not Einstein.

>>17869800

Dude.

>Buy mini rocket / drone / balloon
>Attach camera/go pro
>Start recording
>Send upwards into sky
>Retrieve camera
>Watch footage of space
>Stop wasting your time believing in retarded shit
>Profitz

>>17869800
>If we properly view the gravitation equation as Fg = MM/R^2, barring the illogical constant G, it becomes clear that the mass of the Sun simply cannot be supported. In other words, there is an Earth-Moon system that both contains and does not contain the Sun.

If he means that the equation doesn't come out right for the spherical planet system, that is true (you can't just throw constants out based on personal vendettas and expect the equations to work).

The real answer: That's what Einstein noticed. Newton's equation didn't accurately predict gravitational interactions of more than two objects. That's what a major part of the theory of General Relativity is dedicated to solving.

I'm still not sure how eschewing a constant from a generalized equation proves that the sun isn't a certain mass. That argument is leaving out so many steps it's barely better than SEO word salad.

>We know photons have no mass... it only follows that the Sun also contains mass.

Again. What? This is true, but counter his point.

>Is it not ridiculous to assume that the Sun is a Disc with no mass?

You have literally no evidence. Even if you were somehow right for everything leading up to this, you only would have succeeded in arguing that the sun is not a sphere, not that it is any other particular way. So yes, yes it is absurd to make assumptions based on no evidence

>We have yet to explore the Sun and our modern understanding of it could be merely wrong.

This is partially true. We have explored it in the sense of observing as much as we can from the distance we're at with the tech we have, but we haven't landed on it and felt its curvature with our hands, so I guess we have no evidence to support our outlandish "spherical" claims. And we could be wrong. Theories are wrong all the time, but that's why we have a method for observing and refining them (called "The Scientific Method") instead of just trying to argue whatever hypothesis suits our whimsy.

>>17869851
I don't follow. I'm not a flat Earth theorist, so I don't believe in that "retarded shit"

But if you think a simple thing like easily replicated, at-home, DIY experiments with pretty definitive results is gonna sway flat-earthers, I've got bad news for you. That's not how the brains of paranoiacs work, literally everything, even reality sometimes, is pitted against them (since they're infallible and it's the evidence that's flawed)

>>17869800
>>17869860
Great analysis bro! Thanks for giving us your viewpoints on that article.

>>17869851
That would be the same as saying:

>wait for night time
>look up to the sky
>watch the moon
>light comes from it
>then the moon produces photons

Not everything can be proven true with simple first hand experience.

>>17870087

I second....

>>17869800
>>17869860

Great analysis bro! Thanks for giving us your viewpoints on that article.