Tag Archives: sun

Boycott the Flat Earth AE map?

The youtuber Flat Earth Asshole uploaded a video yesterday pointing out how the azimuthal equidistant flat earth model is inaccurate due to how the sun behaves. I myself tried to figure out too some time ago how the sun supposedly moves on the circular flat earth model, and it didn’t make sense to me. According popular theories the sun goes around in circles around the disc of the earth as is shown in the picture below, but FEA points out in the video how it does not work based on the actual behaviour of the sun. I recommend watching the video.

 

Angle of the Sun

In his video Flat Earth Asshole refers to the website, SunCalc, which shows the location where the sun rises and sets in each location on earth. The video also shows a couple of film clips from Australia that seem to confirm the website’s information is accurate, at least in Australia. There is a consistent theme on SunCalc, that the sun always seems to rise from the south-east and set in south-west. The difference is that nearer the center, or the equator, the angle in which the sun heads south-west is more flat, whereas near the north pole and down south near Antarctica, the angle is more steep.

Below is how the angle is in Australia. Europe, the Americas, Africa and Asia have the same angle. The yellow line on the right represents sunrise, and the red line on the left represents sunset.

Below is the steep angle in Antarctica.

Below is the steep angle in Greenland up in the north.

 

I suggest checking out SunCalc and playing around with it for a while to understand it better. It is fairly simple to use.

 

Sun heads to Antarctica?

Based on SunCalc, assumming it is correct, it would suggest the sun is always coming from south-east in the morning and it sets in the south-west. The sun is coming from Antarctica and heading towards Antarctica? It doesn’t make sense. Or does it?

One theory I came up with, which seems compatible with the azimuthal equidistant map, is that maybe the sun is actually located above the alleged ice ring in Antarctica. It circles around the circle of the earth clockwise once each day. It acts like a big directed spotlight. When it summer on the southern “hemisphere”, the spotlight of the sun is projected toward the tropic of Capricorn. See the image below.

 

When it’s summer on the northern “hemisphere”, the spotlight shines on the tropic of Cancer.

 

It might be that this theory is dumb and easily refuted, but so far it’s the best model that I can conceive of based on observation. The regular sun models on the AE map don’t work, but I don’t think the earth is a sphere either. The fact that water does not curve in reality as it does on the pictures of the globe is proof of that. So maybe we don’t need to discard the AE map just yet?

My aim is not to defend the azimuthal equidistant projection. I’ve never accepted it as the gospel. I am simply trying to understand how things work.

I did try to think of alternative models based on the SunCalc-supported notion that the sun is always coming from south-east and heading south-west. If the AE map is wrong and SunCalc is correct then it would suggest that all of our maps are significantly false. They are not simple inaccurate to a certain extent, but the shapes of the continents and their locations are very different to we are shown in both the spherical model and the AE map.

I was trying to figure out a flat earth model that wasn’t like the AE disc. This is the best I could come up with.

 

As can be seen, this model is very rough, but the basic idea is that the sun come from the east and is heading south-west. After going past the Americas, it heads into the Antarctic, possibly going underground. The problem is that there is always day somewhere on earth, and if the sun is in the Antarctic or underground, how can there be daylight somewhere else? My only solution is that there are two suns, which is one possibility that Flat Earth Asshole mentioned in one of his older videos. One sun goes underground and the other rises somewhere in the east. If this model is correct, it would suggest there is something to the myth of the Black Sun.

The problem is, however, that Kamchatka in eastern Russia and Alaska in North America are nearly connected. So the map shown above cannot be correct, since those two parts are far from enough. Moreover if it looks like the sun is always coming from south-east, you’d have to rotate or mutate the continents into something completely different.

 

Conclusion

I do think that the Flat Earth Asshole made a great videos poking holes in the commonly held flat earth theories, and he called out some flat earthers for pushing this questionable narrative. Yet maybe it’s not time to retire the AE map just yet. I certainly don’t think the map is 100% accurate, probably nobody does, however maybe the basic idea depicted on the map is correct, but just the theories about the movement of the sun are faulty. At least so far, the alternatives to a flat earth round disc model that I can think of seem very far-fetched and go into Möbius strip kind of scifi territory.

Flat Earth Asshole rightly suggested in his video that it’s better not to have any model than a faulty one. So I’m curious to see what people have to say about my sun circulating around the Antarctic ice ring-model. It is entirely possible that I am not the first one to come up with this idea, but I don’t recall anyone else mentioning this possible explanation for the movement of the sun.

 

Links:

The End of the FAKE Flat Earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvryGzjPpz8

SunCalc: http://suncalc.net

Advertisements

Does Astrotheology actually make any sense?

I just finished watching a video (edited) by Eric Dubay titled “Jesus Christ Never Existed”. I wasn’t convinced by the argumentation of the video. In fact, seeing blatant anti-Jesus propaganda like that makes me think that maybe he did. I’ve always been contrarian like that. Ever since I was child I’d thought the story of Jesus is just a silly myth, but around ten years ago when I saw the documentary Zeitgeist, which was trying convince the viewer that Jesus did not exist, because there were allegedly numerous other Gods and heroes in the ancient world whose exploits paralleled those of Jesus. He was supposedly just another version of an older story, so we should just discard him, and possibly focus on the older myths. I however entertained seriously for the first time the notion that maybe Jesus did exist if there were these alleged parallels in the ancient world.

Though now it seems much of these alleged connections between pre-Christian deities and Jesus are fabrications or exaggerations. I am not 100% convinced on these connections either way, but the video by Eric Dubay certainly did not manage to convince me to see it his way since, as usual, they don’t properly cite their sources to show that Jesus was plagiarized from earlier deities. They state a lot of claims, with little proof. Moreover listening to people in the documentary like the late Acharya S. (who interestingly allegedly died December 25, 2015) is a chore. Her smugness and how she despises Jesus and those who believe in him are unbearable. This bothered me even back when I was more receptive to her ideas, but not her attitude.

This isn’t supposedly to be a critique of Eric Dubay or his video, but I wanna mention one thing before I move onto astrotheology. I recently discovered a Youtube-channel, La verdad Absoluta, that claims to expose several inconvenient truths about Dubay. I cannot attest that all of the channel’s claims are totally accurate (and I haven’t watched every video), or that the person making the videos isn’t just on a personal vendetta against Dubay, but I do think it’s worth having a look.

 

Astrotheology

Let’s get to the main event. This is something that been gnawing my mind for a while now. Over the course of many years I’ve seen plenty of videos by people like Jordan Maxwell and Santos Bonacci who claim that the Bible is just allegory for astrotheology, Jesus is merely a reference to the sun, and so on. At first it sounded very profound, but I never really just got it. I didn’t understand what’s the actual significance in veiling stories about the heavenly bodies as events taking place on earth. I thought maybe I’m just dumb, I’m not spiritual enough. Yet now I think that’s actually the point of astrotheology: to make the people who espouse it look smart like veiling fact and mythology among the convoluted BS to confuse you and intrigue you at the same time.

While there are some verses in the Bible that might be interpreted to refer to astrology, such as Genesis 1:14-16:

Gen 1:14  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:
Gen 1:15  And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16  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.

The “lights in the firmament” presumably refer to stars. Them being for “signs and seasons” might certainly have an astrological reason behind it, since according to astrology doing certain actions on certain days can be more beneficial than on others. The Book of Job refers to the Mazzaroth, that supposedly means the Zodiac. Ultimately I don’t know what is meant by these things, but I mention them to point out that there seems to be some grain of truth in astrotheology.

 

Jesus and Sun

However, I’ve never really understood the claim about Jesus being an analogy for the sun. First of all, I don’t get how it is supposed to be a great esoteric secret? How does is empower you to “know” that Jesus is actually just the sun? All I see it makes Jesus into something banal. He was supposedly a man who did miracles and rose from the dead. That is quite unique and extraordinary, whereas the sun is something quite ordinary. The sun is important for life on earth to be sure, but it is quite mundane in my opinion, and it is not the way to any kind of salvation. Moreover, what need is there to turn the sun into a man in the form of a myth? If you want to describe the behaviour of the sun during different seasons, why don’t you describe what the sun does? How is it beneficial to come up with stories of a virgin birth, turning water into wine, betrayal by Judas, death and resurrection and so on? It just seems like needlessly convoluted nonsense to me.

Let’s look at Jesus dying for three days and coming back to life and how it is supposedly related to the sun. Jesus died and was resurrected around Easter, i.e. March or April. Astrotheologists claim that the sun dies in December and is resurrected three days later. Notice the difference in months? Jesus does not die in December, his birth is celebrated then, although scholars tend to dispute that Jesus was born in December. Nevertheless the sun “dying” and Jesus dying are at two completely different times. Even if Jesus being born on December 25 represents him being reborn, he would have to be dead 8 months or so, if he died in April.

Even more nonsensical is the claim that the sun dies in December for and is resurrected three days later. Even here in Finland the sun does not “die” for three days in winter. The days get short, but there are 4-6 hours of daylight even during the darkest days. Sometimes in the very far north in Lapland they might have dayless days. We have the concept of “kaamos”, the Polar Night. During that time the sun does not rise above to horizon. It only affects the very north, though. So you might say that the astrotheologists are talking about kaamos in Lapland then. Not really. First of all the Bible was written in the Middle-East and Mediterranean region. I don’t think they have kaamos down there. Why would they be describing the behaviour of the sun in the far north? Even if they for some reason thought the way the sun behaves in the arctic circle is of the utmost importance, Jesus’ death and resurrection is not applicable here.

I found a newspaper article from 2016 marking how long kaamos lasted in Lapland. It says in the northernmost municipality, Utsjoki, kaamos started November 26th and they got to enjoy sun’s rays again in mid-January. Apparently the sun was dead for 52 days last winter, not three days. The article also mentions that it’s not pitch black even during kaamos. Although the sun is under the horizon, it still shines from underneath and some of the light is reflected down via the atmosphere.

 

Try replacing Son with Sun

One more thing before I finish. The Eric Dubay documentary has Michael Tsarion (whose both names are numerologically 33) saying how you should replace the “son of God” with the “sun” or “sun of God”. I think I’ve heard him say it before, and it sounds smart and mysterious when he says it, but this time I actually decided to heed his advice. For example:

Psalm 2:7 “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.

This would be: “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Sun, Today I have begotten You.

Matthew 3:17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.”

This would be: and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is My beloved Sun, in whom I am well-pleased.”

1 John 4:10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Propitiation apprently means “appeasing a god” or “atonement” so God sent the sun to atone our sins. How does that work exactly? By giving us a tan?

John 5:19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.

This would be: Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Sun can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Sun also does in like manner.

First of all, if we take Tsarions’s advice we see the sun speak these words. Moreover, the sun is copying the actions of his father. It sounds like nonsense.

Sorry MTSAR, this sounds like nonsense to me.

 

Conclusion

The claim that Jesus is just an allegory for the sun is utter nonsense. I feel silly for taking it seriously for a long time. I suppose it was due to the Emperor’s New Clothes -syndrome. When you first “wake up” to the fact that there are conspiracies and that we’ve been lied to about most things, then you find these alternative researchers and they seem so smart and edgy, you don’t dare dismiss their claims, especially since some things they are saying you recognize as true. However, it seems that most of the alternatives we are given are pushing lies, just different lies from the mainstream. The difference between main stream and the alternative is that the latter mixes truth with lies.

When it comes to Jesus, I don’t know if he existed or not. But seeing that there is seems to be an agenda to convince you that he did not exist, or that he’s not important, makes me think the establishment is worried about him for some reason. I wonder why?

 

Links:

Jesus Christ Never Existed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-k2glNuwLI&t=3435s

La verdad Absoluta: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCKQeXoqLfTkFYhPbi3qixw/videos

Polar Night: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_night

Kohta alkaa kaamos – näin pitkään se kestää eri paikkakunnilla: http://www.is.fi/matkat/art-2000004877281.html