Questions About the Flat Earth

pitagoras wrote:I found a video that explains the questions raised by Larken's video perfectly:

Once again, did you watch Eric Dubay’s 200 proofs earth isn’t a spinning ball? I watched the video you provided by “p-brane” and don’t see how that debunks any of the 200 proofs or would cause anyone to be unconvinced.

I’m confused… are you implying that we believe the sun would be visible 24/7? That’s what “p-brane” is debunking with that side view diagram. He demonstrated and explained how the law of perspective works, human vision and the horizon/vanishing point.

You completely ignored everything I said and/or asked of you. There’s really nothing else that can be said other than physics don’t lie but people do.  Go through these forums and thoroughly research genuine flat earth research and information and then comment please.

The truth will remain the same regardless.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/h5fyp0o3yy736yli4gahb/200%20Proofs%20Earth%20is%20Not%20a%20Spinning%20Ball%21.pdf?dl=0

https://youtu.be/x0EGB_o9TZM?si=ThEVQ_vLvZlbbRtY

The Sun's annual track from for example, Spring solstice to the next Spring solstice, when photographed from the same lat/long and same UTC time each day, resembles a figure-8 in the sky over the 365-day time period.
The Moon's monthly track from for example, new moon to the next new moon, when photographed from the same lat/long and approximately 51 minutes later each day, also resembles a figure-8 in the sky over the 29-day time period.
Any thoughts on what could be causing the same figure-8 track, despite the different cycle periods of 365 days versus 29 days?

Hi, these are a couple of objections to FE. Wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this? Thanks.

:1. If the earth were fixed, i.e. not rotating, no matter what shape, air would always flow from high temp zones to cooler ones, in straight lines. Air would always flow from high pressure domes to low pressure ones in straight lines. Rotation would induce the curving of such motion if it occurs. Air only flows because of temp and pressure differentials, but rotation would change the direction, like an ant walking from the edge of a record disk toward the center would have its path curved in the direction of rotation.
If the earth were flat, even rotating, the motion would be curved in the same direction everywhere. In fact, high to low temp flows generally get curved west to east north of the equator, east to west south of it. Motion around a high pressure dome is always clockwise north of the equator, counterclockwise south of it, and exactly the opposite for low pressure trough, counterclockwise north and clockwise south. This is all readily observable, has been so for thousands of years. Just as predicted for a rotating sphere!!
WHY?

Earth is stationary . No scientific experiment has ever shown earth to be rotating. Therefore all your suppositions are purely imaginary , and predictions based on fantasy are fucking meaningless.

All atmospheric effects ,such as those you state, are governed by the local sun on its journey around the stationary plain of our earth between the tropics .

Not trolling here, these are not my arguments but ones that were put to me.

Had some friends in the UK send me these pictures. They weren't trying to talk about conspiracies or debunk anything, just sharing a view of it their window.

How does this work on FE model?

http://www.thegreenwichmeridian.org/tgm/articles.php?article=14

Supposedly someone trying to prove earth is flat proved its round by doing an experiment aligning some light so it goes through some holes over a certain distance and I just want to know what do you guys think about this experiment:

https://twitter.com/historyinmemes/status/1746054002519748763

What do you guys think?

@shill - of all of the ways /:-Why use two holes (not aligned )

Ant wrote:@shill - of all of the ways /:-Why use two holes (not aligned )

Yeah it maybe staged or conducted improperly, but I don't know.

hdog wrote:Hi, these are a couple of objections to FE. Wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this? Thanks.

:1. If the earth were fixed, i.e. not rotating, no matter what shape, air would always flow from high temp zones to cooler ones, in straight lines. Air would always flow from high pressure domes to low pressure ones in straight lines. Rotation would induce the curving of such motion if it occurs. Air only flows because of temp and pressure differentials, but rotation would change the direction, like an ant walking from the edge of a record disk toward the center would have its path curved in the direction of rotation.
If the earth were flat, even rotating, the motion would be curved in the same direction everywhere. In fact, high to low temp flows generally get curved west to east north of the equator, east to west south of it. Motion around a high pressure dome is always clockwise north of the equator, counterclockwise south of it, and exactly the opposite for low pressure trough, counterclockwise north and clockwise south. This is all readily observable, has been so for thousands of years. Just as predicted for a rotating sphere!!
WHY?

Have you ever sensed earth is moving? But you can feel an earthquake correct? Have you seen plumes of smoke or from a volcano curving due to earths alleged spin? Bodies of water can lay perfectly still and flat, rocks and other objects stacked and remain so unless disturbed by someone or something. Everyday of your life you experience a stationary earth yet you’re told you’re on a 1,000+/- mph spinning water covered sphere with a pressurized atmosphere next to a vacuum without a physical container and that ball is hurtling through an infinite universe at unimaginable speeds in multiple directions and has been doing so allegedly for 14 billion years and will continue to do so because it’s an infinite forever expanding universe? Do you find that more believable because you’ve been told so since elementary school and it’s been jammed down your throat and branded on your mind and reinforced by literally every form of media your entire life plus it’s still unfortunately believed by the majority of humanity? Or could you reconcile with the fact that we’ve all been lied to our entire lives, this is a world of deceptions and evil and your senses aren’t lying to you, people are. Comments like this demonstrate how strong the cognitive dissonance is and how desperately they want to cling onto this sci-fi fantasy. Blind faith and appeal to authority, personal incredulity, the bandwagon effect etc. many logical fallacies. It’s time to free your mind from a lifetime of indoctrination, brainwashing, propaganda, misinformation and programming. We all start off being fooled but apparently not all of us are capable of recognizing it and snapping out of it. Go through the five stages of grief and deal with it. Most are stuck on the denial stage.

https://youtu.be/Hn9utRKNwhs?si=jjn3s5p5rtRkqb3a

At this point I would like to say that I always find it more effective when questions are discussed on a factual level. The question referred to the behavior and direction of air currents between high and low pressure areas.
@Forest4theTreez does not give an answer that would be valid for the flat earth, but argues on a meta-level. And finally he liked his own post. Yes, you can do that.
I think the arguments for the flat earth are much stronger and more plausible overall. We could continue to find arguments also in this case. I'm sorry that I myself cannot provide such because I havent studied weather science.
But I am much happier when open questions are dealt with on the same level in a factual and technical-physical manner. That serves the FE cause much better. After all, it's about finding the truth, including individual truths. Or is it?

@Dan-cer,
His comment ended with “ This is all readily observable, has been so for thousands of years. Just as predicted for a rotating sphere!!
WHY?

As predicted for a rotating sphere…. It’s the same hearsay, appeal to authority all globe earthers regurgitate. We don’t have an obligation to explain phenomena we don’t fully comprehend, (at least I don’t). It may be due to the movement of the sun and moon, temperature changes, pressure variations, earths electromagnetic field, etc. but like you mentioned I’m not sure either. There are many unknowns obviously but what isn’t unknown is what I mentioned. I’ll continue to leave comments like I did and liking my own comments. Apparently that bothered you enough that you felt a need comment on it?

We don’t have to have all the answers to globe earthers defense mechanism “questions”. Honest people don’t have all the answers. Not everything is within our capabilities of knowing. That should be a red flag for the people that still believe nasa and mainstream associated sources. To the point they fill in the blanks with BS terms and explanations to make their BS make more sense and possible.  Dark matter and dark energy? They are pathological liars and it’s a never ending battle for them to maintain their lies. Nasas tricks and errors that prove they are faking space have been exposed. An infinite universe with infinite possibilities? Look up the definition of infinite then tell me how anyone can verify if in fact the universe is infinite. They’ve changed their fake distance to the sun multiple times… why didn’t that guy mention that fun fact? The list goes on and on. If you know you know. Control the information and control the minds and worldview.

https://youtu.be/Hn9utRKNwhs?si=jjn3s5p5rtRkqb3a

No, that didn't bother me. Nor was it my intention to criticize you. I just want to focus on the open question, because I am very interested in plausible answers to questions like the one posted above. Precisely because many people justifiably argue that we cannot feel the assumed rotation of the earth anywhere, I would be pleased if the phenomenon of the angle of the sun's rays air currents were also adequately explained from the perspective of the flat earth. As Eric Dubay thankfully has made an explanatory video about the observation of cloud layers that reflect sunlight on their underside at dusk.
Unfortunately, neither you nor I nor @zherot seem to have any more detailed explanations for the angle of the sun's rays the air currents. The method of triangulation makes sense to me, as it can be used to prove that the sun is only a few thousand miles away from the earth's surface.
We would need a physicist who could explain the phenomenon independently of the shape of the earth (if this is possible).

EDIT:// I'm little (or much?) irritated because I mixed up two different treads. I also wrote a post in this tread.
This thread here is about air currents while the other is about sun ray angles.
I beg your pardon mixing it up a bit.

@dan-cer,
crepuscular rays. As above so below. The macro and micro. That’s how real science and observations work. Physics. Light from a streetlight shows the same effect. It’s obvious the sun is smaller and closer but then they will demand we know the exact size and distance. Some things are within our capabilities of knowing and some isn’t. I’ve heard some estimations before. I don’t remember what they were. Maybe something to do with the Freemasons favorite number…

Hi all,

I've been diving into flat earth for the past few months and have started to become convinced. I haven't, though, seen much discussion about this issue and am looking for some help (forgive me if there's already a long thread about this).

When I first saw a flat earth map, I was struck by how different the continents looked compared to what I had been used to -- especially Australia, which appears "wider" and "flatter" than on the globe model and related maps. On the Gleason map, Australia looks nearly twice as "wide" as the United States (crude illustration below).

Google Earth, though, lists the distances between Sydney and Perth as approx. 2,000 miles while the distances between Boston and Seattle are approx. 2,500 miles. Now, I am highly suspicious of the data produced on Google Earth (for obvious reasons), but nevertheless, I'm left wondering the following:

1. Is the "coast-to-coast" distance of Australia verified, and if so, using what methodology?
2. If the distance from Perth to Sydney is indeed around 2,000 miles, why does it appear so much wider than the United States on a flat earth map?

I appreciate in advance any insights or links to resources that have covered this in depth.

Thanks!

Maps aren’t perfect and probably never will be a completely accurate representation of the land we are all familiar with. People try and use these discrepancies and/or inaccuracies, (not implying you are) to somehow try and discredit the physical reality that is a stationary topographical earth. We are limited in what we’re capable of knowing for multiple reasons. Travel is strictly controlled by every mode and specific routes are set. There will always be unknowns and more to explore, learn and comprehend. As long as we are so heavily and obsessively controlled there will remain many unanswerable questions. A map doesn’t determine or change the reality of this world. Since the common folks don’t have control or free reign to explore and try and figure these types of things out what would any of us expect? It would obviously require large sums of money, resources and manpower to accurately map out the known lands. I say known lands because lots of information and evidence point to the idea that we’re being kept from the true North Pole and the surrounding southern ice barrier and beyond. Has anyone stopped to think that there is probably more hidden land within the area we live? “They” control all mainstream modes of transportation and the routes taken. It’s probable there is land being hidden from us all over the place. Out of sight, out of mind…

Accurate maps, to scale and with exact distances and depictions of everything isn’t the end all be all. Exposing these scumbag liars and making humanity aware of the truth is what matters.

Great points!

The thing I've come to most appreciate about Flat Earth is that the arguments are almost entirely based on observable, repeatable experiments (to expose the false claims of curvature, rotation, etc.).

I fully recognize that no map can be a completely accurate representation of our world. And yet, Australia in particular seems so "different" between the two map models that I'm curious about what methods could be used to create a convincing flat earth proof using the size of the continent. Or, conversely, if the distance across the continent is "established," I'm again looking for how such a relatively short distance is reconciled in a flat earth model.

This truly isn't a "gotcha" question from me. Rather, thus far, every time I've dug into a topic, the evidence has pointed convincingly toward a flat model. So my assumption is that it will be the same with Australia -- I'm just curious how so.

@Atreides
I had similar questions in the beginning of my FE journey. You might find some more info in this category.
I also involved myself in that discussion about the real size of Australia in the latest posts on page 4.

The size of Australia is not a problem.

The problem is that many people accept the heliocentric nonsense that the equator is the mid point of earth , the mid point of the suns journey between the tropics, is given the imaginary latitude of zero degrees in order to back up the globe model. Known as the equinoctial circle on old maps.

True latitude is taken from the angle to Polaris from where ever you are.

Of course atmospheric effects including refraction do interfere with observations of the North star but these can be overcome by tracking stars which appear directly overhead at their zenith , i.e. directly overhead on a N - S meridian.

You don't need the sun to map the earth - it's globey nonscience. You cannot triangulate to a moving object. Science should use the celestial dome to map the earth but will not because the globe model will be demolished by what is found . Hence the imaginary equator reinforces their hemisphere nonsense

The point is the equator is not at zero degrees latitude and Australia and the tropics are not at the latitudes we are told. The Northern tropic may be close to its given position but not the southern one because this is based on globe earth nonsense . This tropic passes through Australia I believe.

My point is not whether the dimensions of Australia are a problem, but what methods are available to us to determine the difference from the alleged size.
To get at least approximations to the true size, both the national road lengths can be used (if they are now verifiably correct) and the average speeds of planes or trains.
This has been done, and it showed a significant discrepancy with the globe map. So at least the results tend to confirm the Gleason map and thus the FE.

Dan-cer wrote:My point is not whether the dimensions of Australia are a problem, but what methods are available to us to determine the difference from the alleged size.
To get at least approximations to the true size, both the national road lengths can be used (if they are now verifiably correct) and the average speeds of planes or trains.
This has been done, and it showed a significant discrepancy with the globe map. So at least the results tend to confirm the Gleason map and thus the FE.

My thoughts are that you would first have to solve the question of the position of the equinoctial circle.

I've had a look at flights along this circle - Quito -> Macapa in south America , Libreville -> Nairobi - across Africa , and Nairobi -> Singapore.

None of these flights are direct to their destinations so it's difficult to accept any measurement of equatorial distance. There are two other airports along the Great circle in Africa and there are no direct flights between any of these four airports for commercial air lines so no clues to their true separation in miles.

Timeanddate website gives as the crow flies distances between these locations but these are based on the WGS84 geoid model- or is it WD40.

As I see it these distances are arc measurements . We need the chord measurement between places to give a better idea of the distances .

Will try and work these out when I have time.

Incidently ,the flights from East African airports stop in Mumbai- from west Africa divert South or North and all these flightpaths make more sense on the Gleason map.

The website used:
https://www.flightconnections.com/flights-from-nbo-to-sin

@TyrannicalSawdustRex
I mentioned planes and trains, but didn't mean intercontinental flights, but e.g. Perth - Sydney.
So the idea: With assumed average speeds of trains or planes from west to east, projections can be made regarding the extent of Australia. And this was done, as I said, and at least it revealed clear discrepancies with Google Maps and others.

The flights Quito to Macapa and Libreville to Nairobi are not intercontinental but cross continental along the "equator" which is why I chose to look at those thinking it would be straight forward to get an idea from the flight timings. Coincidently these flights destinations are both around 27degrees along the equator .

Turns out that we don't know the flight lengths since all commercial flights avoid the direct route.

According to the timeanddate distance calculator both these flights are to places around 1897 mls apart . So I worked out the flat chord cutting out the curvature and the distance reduces by around fifty miles.

Now these won't be accurate because the calcs involve the imaginary radius of 3969 mls according to the GPS .

As I see it the only true points by which distances can be measured are the inclination to the Pole Star and the equinoctial circle , both of which are observable to anyone.

The puzzle will be to work out the distance from true North to the equinoctial circle . Will have to look deeper into this.

Maybe the tropics are both 23.4 degrees from the equinoctial circle but this circle is not at 0degrees . This is a value given to promote the globe theory.

Could you point me in the direction of the discrepancies across Australia that you mention please.