Questions About the Flat Earth

You are mistaken . Ushuaia has 17hr 15min daylength today - timeanddate website. Useful research site for pulling the globe model to bits .

What was the comment on YT that stumped you?

RedorBlue wrote:You are mistaken . Ushuaia has 17hr 15min daylength today - timeanddate website. Useful research site for pulling the globe model to bits .

What was the comment on YT that stumped you?

Thank you, yeah I use timeanddate often I was being lazy and went from memory thinking the daylight was closer to 19 hours. My bad on that.

I can't remember which video the YT comment appeared on but I will try my best to explain it here. Please see the following image...



The blue arrow is approximately where Ushuaia is
The green arrow is roughly where New York City is

Ushuaia get 17+hours of daylight today
NYC gets 9+ hours of daylight today

Assuming the map I have featured is somewhat close to real life, I am having a hard time visualizing how NYC could get such a drastic difference in total daylight.

I apologize if this explanation isn't detailed enough, this is really something that would be easier to discuss with someone in person lol.

What was the fuckin comment lolol ?  Does it matter which video it was on ? You mean it affected your thinking so deeply you can't remember what the comment was !!

Ever heard of summer and winter ? You're trying to take the piss .

RedorBlue wrote:What was the fuckin comment lolol ?  Does it matter which video it was on ? You mean it affected your thinking so deeply you can't remember what the comment was !!

Ever heard of summer and winter ? You're trying to take the piss .

Not sure why you're getting upset, I'm trying to have a polite conversation about something I'm confused about. The YT comment was summarized in my previous post. I even created an image to show you the main argument in the person's comment.

Of course I've heard of summer and winter I'm just confused how Ushuaia can have 17+ hours of daylight while NYC can have 9+ because when I view the trajectory of the sun over the widely accepted FE map, it doesn't make sense to me.

It doesn't discredit the model and Erik and many others have done a fantastic job explaining so many other concepts I had been confused about... I just don't understand this one.

Don't worry about replying if its making you angry.

What was the comment that you read from a globe supporter about daylight hours in Ushuaia ? So profound that you were stumped.
I cannot provide an answer to a question you cannot , or will not formulate.
What is the big yellow blob in your image you created lol?

RedorBlue wrote:What was the comment that you read from a globe supporter about daylight hours in Ushuaia ? So profound that you were stumped.
      I cannot provide an answer to a question you cannot , or will not formulate.
What is the big yellow blob in your image you created lol?

How can Ushuaia can have 17+ hours of daylight while NYC can have 9+ hours of daylight in late December?
The yellow blob is the sun.

This wonderful website contains a section " Reference Materials, ebooks, Articles, Videos, Maps "

I think you really need to go there and do some research. Try looking at the subsection " How Everything Works on Flat Earth" within which you will find a video explaining "How Seasons Work on Flat Earth". Very informative and should be useful to you .

RedorBlue wrote:This wonderful website contains a section " Reference Materials, ebooks, Articles, Videos, Maps "

I think you really need to go there and do some research. Try looking at the subsection " How Everything Works on Flat Earth" within which you will find a video explaining "How Seasons Work on Flat Earth". Very informative and should be useful to you .

I appreciate you taking time to reply. I have definitely read/watched all of those videos and understand most of what is presented. I am still stumped by this one which is what I was attempting to explain with my diagram.. but I clearly missed the mark on explaining what is confusing me.

I guess for now we can just leave it. Perhaps at some point I can record a video to more clearly explain what I'm confused about.

Cheers. Happy New Year

I find it synchronistic that carter15 posted this question about the length of days in the 'southern' latitudes because I've been stumped with this too. Now I'm not saying the ball model offers a better explanation, but I can't make any sense of this either. If this has been addressed in another topic please direct me there.

I live in Brisbane, Australia, and as of the time of writing this message, the sun rises at 4:53am and sets at 6:45pm. So just over 14 hours of daylight.

Now Melbourne, which is located on the southern coast of Australia (or closer to the perimeter of the FE map) has over an hour of extra sunlight. The sun rises at 5:58am and sets at 8:44pm (daylight savings time). If we adjust the times to remove daylight savings, this would mean the sun rises at 4:58am and sets at 7:44pm. Which is close to 15 hours of sunlight.

Brisbane:  4:53am - 6:45pm - approx 14 hours of sun
Melbourne: 4:58am - 7:44pm - approx 15 hours of sun

Simply put, why does Melbourne have an extra hour of sunlight? My understanding is that the sun moves more quickly the further out from the center of the FE map. Which explains (to my mind anyway) why northern hemisphere countries have such long summer days (the sun is moving slowly above these countries and therefore prolonging the daylight hours). Yet Melbourne, which is located in the 'outer band' of the FE map has longer summer days then Brisbane, which is closer to the centre...

What am I missing here?

Longer days in the South during Winter Solstice is exactly as expected by the FE model as that is when the Sun is traveling it's Southern-most circuit:



Ushuaia on the longest day of the year gets just over 17 hours of daylight, not "sunlight." Daylight and sunlight are two different things based on light propagation, and the length of daylight is highly influenced by the amount/type of noble gases in the atmosphere:





The place you can and do see the Sun the longest is not in the South during Winter Solstice, but in the North during Summer Solstice, where anywhere above the arctic circle you will see "The Midnight Sun" for days/weeks or even months at a time, unlike in the South where the 17 hour day in Ushuaia is the longest.



The ballers claim 24 hour sunlight happens in Antarctica but only have clearly faked footage to try and prove their claim: https://ifers.123.st/t68-no-midnight-sun-in-antarctica

Nice videos explaination for daylight vs sunlight. Seems like a logical theory for how it might work.

I must say I’m a little unsure about this as well; according to the flat earth model do the southern cities have longer days? The ball earth says they do because the sun is I guess closer for a longer time with the rotation being near them. Does this match with the flat earth? I will say that in Antarctica I saw two clearly fake videos showing the 24 hour sun so I don’t trust videos from there. But for southern cities in say Melbourne Australia we should be able to see if they have normal daylight times. There are independent citizen scientists.

Another possible experiment would be to measure the speed of the sun going across the sky. In a flat earth model it should be traveling faster around the outer perimeter routes when it is closest to the south because the circle it makes is bigger. Where as the ball earth model the sun should be the same speed. Am I right about this? This should be easily measurable, right?

Angular velocity of the sun is a constant 15 degrees of arc per hour - it completes one revolution per day.

On a summer solstice it should be possible to track the path of the sun along the line of the tropic latitude using shadows cast from directly above at noon along a set of measured points.

This could be repeated six months later at the opposite tropic latitude summer solstice for the same set of equidistant points .

The results would be interesting . Has this been done before?

Hello folks, new member however a longtime follower. I have a question in regards to meniscus ( water when it touches a surface like a test tube). I am all about relative density as an explanation for gravity however meniscus...

We can observe a curve in water when it is within a test tube. If arguably there is a dome, how can we exclude the possibility that there is a large meniscus attaching to it? So large in spanning, it appears as it does. Is water always level? If so how can this point be refuted in conversation. Thanks

Do you think that the dome is made of test tube glass? A liquid can form a meniscus. Ice is not liquid . The composition of the dome is not known . Your question seems pointless.

My point is water is observed to curve. Countless discussions within the FE community is that what is level. Here is a situation where it is not. We don’t know the material of this hypothetical dome. It does not have to be a test tube. Make an ice tube and place water in it, it will form a meniscus. My point is how can you claim water is always flat when we have a demonstrable way to show the contrary? This is a genuine question, no need to get snappy.

"Water doesn't curve" is obviously over-simplified and that's your problem.  The claim is "large bodies of standing water do no curve," NOT simply "water doesn't curve."  Waves curve, water droplets curve, meniscus, surface tension, adhesion, or running water attracted to a static electrified comb/balloon will all cause water to curve.  But these are all false equivalencies.  Nobody is claiming the Earth's oceans have a meniscus etc.  The claim is large bodies of water wrapping around and sticking to a spinning ball.  If this cannot be demonstrated then it is not empirical or scientific.  The fact that all you ever get is false equivalencies about meniscus, water droplets etc. shows their desperation and that they cannot make large bodies of water stick to and curve around an object and show it's features upon the surface as is said to happen with the globe.

Digitalbath , a meniscus will form on a liquid dependent on the properties of the solid with which it comes in contact .  Shape of the containing vessel is immaterial . The liquid must be able to stick to the sides - through electrostatic charge . Water will not always form a meniscus in a tube - it depends on the substance of the tube .

I'm not snappy . Short and to the point is not snappy .I don't spend much time on the web. Waffle makes me smile . Water always tends to level .

Thanks for your input Admin (is that you Eric?).

Thanks for the clarity

I get there is some logical flaws with the conclusion of the title but Most of the struggles in defending that the earth is not a sphere is that the moon appears to be one. Granted we only see one side of this object however when the sun casts its light on the moon, the phases do suggest a spherical shape. Most often times I hear from the FE community that the moon is a luminary. Is there any good references to provide explanation so that one can see a feasible alternative?

Digitalbath, good question “the moon is not a sphere”.
A few points I would say:
1. Wether or not the moon is a sphere doesn’t prove the earth is a sphere or not. You may have heard the logic that “you don’t look at the ceiling lights to describe the shape of the floor”.
2. We don’t really know what the moon is past what we can observe from telescopes from the ground. We don’t have to know, we can patiently observe and learn. It’s ok that there is some mystery up there for now.
3. With both of those points out of the way, now we can look at the moon and try to determine what we can know based on our observations with the understanding that we don’t need to prove anything about it to prove the earth is flat.
Some interesting observations about the moon:
1. It appears to be an independent light source (as opposed to being illuminated by the sun). The light it casts has been shown to be cool rather than warm (as would be expected from refracted sunlight). In addition, in my opinion and from what I’ve seen some researched state the light appears to be too “bright” to be just reflected from dusty old rocks. Especially when compared to the moon landing photos that show an dusty shadowy like place.
2. We only see one side of it which is a little suspicious for if it is a sphere. Could be connected at the back or be a different shape behind it? Who knows.
3. It certainly appears rather solid from most telescope pictures, but then it does also appear transparent during its fading out. I don’t know how this would work. There is some evidence that I’ve seen showing stars to be seen “through” the moon. I haven’t researched this as much though.

I have seen footage of it being translucent during the daytime. The shape (regardless that it does not provide much proof for the earth) does a good job dispelling skeptics from the topic. I myself am very fascinated by its existence and appearance (rotates to only reveal the same view point, and provides a depth shadow to suggest a sphere).

Perhaps it’s an impression in the rotating dome. I would be more on board with it providing its own light however it’s “light” lines up with the sun lending more credence to the idea that the sun is providing the light.

Digitalbath wrote:I have seen footage of it being translucent during the daytime. The shape (regardless that it does not provide much proof for the earth) does a good job dispelling skeptics from the topic. I myself am very fascinated by its existence and appearance (rotates to only reveal the same view point, and provides a depth shadow to suggest a sphere).

Perhaps it’s an impression in the rotating dome. I would be more on board with it providing its own light however it’s “light” lines up with the sun lending more credence to the idea that the sun is providing the light.

Please provide evidence of how it’s light lines up with the sun. The moon has been shown in the sky during solar eclipses and this has been documented. This is information is available in the forum. The moons light appears bright white in the night sky. Without light pollution this becomes even more evident. Mainstream science says it is a gray desolate rock. So how can a gray desolate rock reflect white light? It can’t and also if it is reflecting light as you are speculating how is the reflection translucent during the day? Are there any examples of objects appearing translucent by reflecting light and then not being translucent in darkness? If so I would like to take a look at them so if you could provided evidence of this it would be much appreciated.

As you can see at 11:30 here, the Moon's phases do not align with the Sun and for this and many other reasons, we know the Moon is not receiving it's light from the Sun:  









NASA and modern astronomy maintain that the Moon is a solid, spherical, Earth-like habitation which man has actually flown to and set foot on. They claim the Moon is a non-luminescent planetoid which receives and reflects all its light from the Sun. The reality is, however, that the Moon is not a solid body, it is clearly circular, but not spherical, and not in any way an Earth-like planetoid which humans could set foot on. In fact, the Moon is largely transparent and completely self-luminescent, shining with its own unique light.

The Sun’s light is golden, warm, drying, preservative and antiseptic, while the Moon’s light is silver, cool, damp, putrefying and septic. The Sun’s rays decrease the combustion of a bonfire, while the Moon’s rays increase combustion. Plant and animal substances exposed to sunlight quickly dry, shrink, coagulate, and lose the tendency to decompose and putrify; grapes and other fruits become solid, partially candied and preserved like raisins, dates, and prunes; animal flesh coagulates, loses its volatile gaseous constituents, becomes firm, dry, and slow to decay. When exposed to moonlight, however, plant and animal substances tend to show symptoms of putrefaction and decay.

In direct sunlight a thermometer will read higher than another thermometer placed in the shade, but in full, direct moonlight a thermometer will read lower than another placed in the shade. If the Sun’s light is collected in a large lens and thrown to a focus point it can create significant heat, while the Moon’s light collected similarly creates no heat. In the "Lancet Medical Journal,” from March 14th, 1856, particulars are given of several experiments which proved the Moon's rays when concentrated can actually reduce the temperature upon a thermometer more than eight degrees.

So sunlight and moonlight clearly have altogether different properties, and furthermore the Moon itself cannot physically be both a spherical body and a reflector of the Sun’s light! Reflectors must be flat or concave for light rays to have any angle of incidence; If a reflector’s surface is convex then every ray of light points in a direct line with the radius perpendicular to the surface resulting in no reflection.

I’ve been discussing flat earth with my family. They’re coming around to the idea. I’ve noticed a few objections they have and wonder what the best answer/evidence we have for these:
1. How can all countries be in on it, especially regarding GPS with planes. Are they all using United States GPS?
2. Wouldn’t planes notice that they are constantly “turning to the right” if they fly from US to Japan? Even with GPS, they would need to turn more, right?
3. Are there any known whistle blowers?

Thanks for any suggestions on answering these questions. It will help me show them evidence.

Tree wrote:I’ve been discussing flat earth with my family. They’re coming around to the idea. I’ve noticed a few objections they have and wonder what the best answer/evidence we have for these:
1. How can all countries be in on it, especially regarding GPS with planes. Are they all using United States GPS?
2. Wouldn’t planes notice that they are constantly “turning to the right” if they fly from US to Japan? Even with GPS, they would need to turn more, right?
3. Are there any known whistle blowers?

Thanks for any suggestions on answering these questions. It will help me show them evidence.

The only whistleblowers that I know of are Mathew BOYLAN from NASA and Polish astronaut Miroslaw Hermaszewski.