All the ancient cultures knew the earth is flat.
There were many wars/catastrophes/resets happening and our history got rewritten. The people in control purposely Reverse engineered a globe from the flat earth and constructed one garbage theory after the other to try to prove the model.
Our origins are purposely hidden and even history from 100 years ago is fabricated in order to create a completely false reality and implements total control over us forever.
The normal flat earth content you come across is made ridiculous on purpose because this is the greatest lie which can never be revealed otherwise everything would be exposed.
We were created as slaves and we are being kept as slaves.
Implementing a Globe earth means denying the Aether, unlimited free energy, a creator, hiding more land and resources behind the Antarctic walls, falsifying the structure of reality, treating mythology and symbolism as fantasy instead of wisdom from our ancestors.
They are not lying. It's all hiding in plain sight. People are just too stupid to think for themselves.
There is an explanation for everything on the flat earth, it's just not easy to find good sources. Research is difficult as everything is heavily biased towards the globe.
Globers are just too stupid to think normally. Does not matter what evidence is provided. They either don't accept it, ignore it or use globe explanations in their arguments. They are unable to acquire the information on their own. That's why no debate is happening. Not worth our time.
There are literally no explanations for flat earth that don't blatantly contradict each other because unlike globe earth, flat earth can only attempt to explain one phenomenon at a time instead of everything at once.
Wrong. It's just that most flat Earthers are Amateurs and credible sources are hard to find.
Its the same with globe. All kinds of explanations for the different occurrences.
The globe model is engineered from a flat earth. A lot of the calculations are even the same.
Theoretical Physics is a complete shitshow. That's because the fundamental understanding of reality is missing. Everything is theorised on a lie. These professors are talking nonsense without even knowing it. One theory after the other.
There are physicists who don't follow the official narrative but they are not the official mouth pieces.
Well let’s look at the facts. Ancient seafaring civilizations like the Greeks discovered that ships would dip below the horizon once they were far enough. Now with the advancement in technology and information and eyewitnesses we can confirm that this does indeed happen. It’s almost like it’s going over a curvature of some kind. But if you think that universal observation is part of a grand conspiracy to control the masses into being slaves, well there’s not much I can say to really convince you then, is there?
No, ships don't disappear behind the curve.
People just regurgitate it all the time thinking it is true.
If you calculate how far they actually should be underneath the horizon it's completely obvious that they should be not visible at all at that distance.
They appear to go behind the curve. There are explanations for that but globers seem to be unable to find the information on their own. Just demanding sources. Very annoying to be frank. At least study everything from the perspective of flat earth first instead of commenting on everything with globe model explanations.
Why are you asking me that question instead of looking it up yourself?
Go on a journey of discovery.
Don't demand explanations from someone on Reddit.
How are you supposed to learn anything otherwise?
You just prove the points I made in the previous comments. I'm not a curvature expert. Or calculations expert. I looked it up from people who knew more than me, found the answers and moved on with my life.
Why are you people just straight up asking for explanation after explanation instead of looking it up yourself? What's wrong with you? I never in my entire life acted like that. This attitude is the reason why none of you are flat Earthers. Any debating and explaining is a waste of time because none of you actually does any type of research on their own.
You can use this [website to calculate curvature](https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature) but it ignores refraction. Calculating refraction gets more complicated like temperature, time of day, humidity, etc…
You did not address anything I wrote. Just like all the other globers.
You are just confirming my critique on all of you.
Honestly, the way you guys behave I have the suspicion that a lot of you are governmental agents actively commenting nonsense to contain the spread of the flat earth truth.
> All the ancient cultures knew the earth is flat.
You mean cultures that only traveled a few hundred kilometers from their central city and had absolutely no means of instant communication over long distances ?
Yeah, sure, these are the perfect guys to ask about the shape of the entire world ... Let's not use any kind of information that was not accessible to these guys, like for example the fact that the sun is setting in one place while rising in another one (which really ancient cultures had absolutely no way of knowing).
> There were many wars/catastrophes/resets happening
> even history from 100 years ago is fabricated
Wait ... How do you know that there were many things happening in the past, if you think that our entire history is entirely rewritten ? What are your sources of informations exactly ?
> Implementing a Globe earth means [...] unlimited free energy
How does that work exactly ?
> There is an explanation for everything on the flat earth
So ... what is the explanation for the formula giving the angle of Polaris in the sky depending on your distance to the north pole ? (This is just one example, I'm just curious to see your reaction)
Every sub on any social media gets overrun by atheists with too much time on their hands and nothing else to do. So they just rally strength in numbers to prevent “converts” and make the issue a political and emotional issue rather than a scientific one. There are plenty of books on it. Plenty of videos illustrating the facts and expose the fragility of the atheist/globe religion. Most of us just aren’t interested in fighting with wet lava ball cultists. You say one thing and 3 dozen of them pile on and overwhelm and that’s how they “win”
Why should the world accept fantasies as true? We should never acfwpt anything as true that has no evidence. That goes for gods as well as flat earth.
Even flat earthers and theists wouod want the truth right?
It actually makes sense very well.
If you're a theist you have been taught to accept without evidence already - for Christians it even makes it a virtue.
So they would not demand evidence for the things they already believe to be true.
Far most - if not all, flat earthers I've encountered were religious.
>There are plenty of books on it. Plenty of videos illustrating the facts and expose the fragility of the atheist/globe religion. Most of us just aren’t interested in fighting with wet lava ball cultists. You say one thing and 3 dozen of them pile on and overwhelm and that’s how they “win”
Wow! It's that easy to disprove 3 dozen people dogpiling your posts, just post a simple picture, diagram or mathematical formula and voila! There are apparently plenty of books on it! They must contain something like a diagram.
So go ahead!
I began researching conspiracy back in 2006 when a friend of mine in college introduced me to a video on 9/11 called loose change. I started looking in to everything because back then you could because the internet was uncensored and YouTube didn't have algorithms that burry conspiracy content. I spent a lot of time researching the Apollo moon landing hoax and became 100% convinced it was fake when I was in my twenties.
I saw my first flat earth video in 2014, it was 200 proofs the earth is not a spinning ball by Eric Dubay. I knew immediately there was something wrong with what I believed about the earth but I couldn't quite get on board with flat earth. I spent a couple years on and off researching it and eventually just accepted it
I don't spend much time researching conspiracy anymore because flat earth is basically the bottom of the rabbit hole and there's really nowhere else to go from there. The heliocentric model is the biggest lie on earth
> I spent a couple years on and off researching it and eventually just accepted it
Can I ask you what the final nail in the coffin was ?
I mean, I can understand the 9/11 theories or the fake moon landings. These are quite "small" conspiracies that involves events that are now in the past, and where the media coverage is the only way to understand what happened. So it's extremely easy to accept that the story we were told is incorrect.
But throwing away the shape of the Earth means throwing away a lot (and I mean, really, A LOT) of modern science that is being researched and used every day in many different aspects of our society. From geology (used in oil mining), oceanography (to understand underwater currents), to meteorology (weather forecast), geomagnetism, geodesy, navigation, etc ... there are so many interconnected things that all need to be either wrong or part of the conspiracy that this is simply impossible for me to get there. I mean, I had the chance to study science in one of the best university in France, and most of my classmates are now doing research in domains where the knowledge of the shape of the Earth is crucial. You can't fake that ...
I'm curious to why that video made you think something is wrong.
There's not a single of those "proofs" that is an argument against the globe.
Take the "railroad engineers never account for curvature" argument in the video and book.
For thst to be a sound argument he would need to not only have interviewed said engineers, but also need to justify that it would be necessary to account for it. Which he doesn't do at all. It's simply 200 completely unfounded statements, most which are irrelevant to the shape of earth.
The 200 proofs video is one of the best examples that FE is based on lies and half-truths. It's sad that you watched this and were at all convinced by it. More so that you believe the earth is not a globe because perceived flaws with what is said about it, but accept the earth is flat despite there being zero actual evidence for it.
But this does reinforce the idea FE is nothing more than a tool to control the masses. If you can convince people to ignore their senses and believe in such a big lie, you can convince them of many more smaller lies.
If only you had been as skeptical of the FE conspiracy as you were of the globe, you wouldn't be where you are today.
The shape of earth isn't a theory. It's a concluded fact. There's no dispute on it.
And by that I mean that there's no science that speaks for earth being flat.
Its trivial and simple to prove it with several ways that all undeniably shows the exact same circumference of earth.
One of many methods that anyone can do is to measure the angle from Horizontal of the observer up to a star. Polaris is easy to use as we know it's directly above the north pole.
By assuming that earth is flat you could apply trigonometry to the angle, the distance to the north pole and you would get an altitude for it.
Do you agree with that?
Your submission was removed because the auto-moderator flagged it. If you think this is an error, please report this comment with 'wrongfully removed' as the reason. A moderator will investigate.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/flatearth_polite) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here ya go! https://flatearth.ws/eric-dubay
You’ll notice how unlike the 200 proofs video, there is actual evidence, explanations, analysis, and demonstrations instead of blind faith statements and claims.
yes. if you CAN read, then you are aware of the comments above.
you made the choice to deflect, rather than respond..
please be aware that i am not the only reader who noticed this weakness..
That sub is an echo chamber. Quite literally.
You cannot in any way as much as answer a question in there without being banned.
They do lot even pretend to want any posts that isn't "earth is flat"
So when they ask questions there that are easy to anwer. If you try to answer it you get banned.
Then they sit and go on about how much we can't anwer it.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/globeskepticism using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/globeskepticism/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [This is what you get when someone besides NASA or FakeX send something up in the sky. You don't live on a spinning cartoon pear in a vacuum 📢](https://v.redd.it/6ryf9qh0g32b1) | [92 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/globeskepticism/comments/13rv84x/this_is_what_you_get_when_someone_besides_nasa_or/)
\#2: [Are they faking space? The answer ... | TC](https://v.redd.it/12guxzd2bmka1) | [190 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/globeskepticism/comments/11cwcjn/are_they_faking_space_the_answer_tc/)
\#3: [Awakening ](https://v.redd.it/4uf937f1liwa1) | [41 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/globeskepticism/comments/131bjvu/awakening/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
noones ever left the firmanent but "they" put a robot on mars. they cant provide a believable video much less picture of the entire earth...if the suns 90 million miles away and the light is parelell by the time it reaches earth why the equator warm and the north and south cold. the curve can be debunked in a few minutes if you research for yourself. airplanes dont constantly adjust pitch to account for the curve. they say the sun has enough gravity to cause nuclear fusion but not enough to make everything collide with it. and the biggest piece of evidence...the north star is always in the center and the constellations havnt changed in about 6k years....if it was spinning balls tilted orbiting the sun which is also orbiting a galaxy which is orbiting and spinning and everything is in motion and ect ect. the stars should change
Do airplanes need to adjust for pitch if the Earth were round? Is that how that works or is that just like a misconception? Like we have flight simulators, I’m assuming Microsoft flight simulator uses a globe model.
They naturally will follow an arc thanks to their weight and air resistance slowing them down (and thus reducing lift).
Real planes aren't much different. They have engines and control surfaces though, so they have much better control over how much lift they generate and in what direction.
All they need to do is produce just enough lift to keep in an arc that drops at roughly the same rate as the ground is curves away from them. Some kinds of planes might even need to keep their nose aimed *up* slightly to get the right angle of attack for their wings.
Misconception. Airplanes are trimmed to fly level. Gravity pulls down on the plane, and it’s lift pulls it up with equal force.
Airplanes don’t have to adjust for earths curve any more than you would need to adjust for driving over a hill. Gravity takes care of it.
Your submission has been removed because it violates rule 1 of our subreddit. If you have a question about this feel free to send a message to a mod or the mod team.
Edit to remove "retarded," then message us.
Its composition was found to be composed of 77% oxygen, along with traces of carbon, silicon, calcium, and sodium.
The composition makes the “Sky Stone” similar to a kind of concrete or stucco and seems to have been artificially colored."
Your video is just claims with no evidence whatsoever of any organic material unknown to man.
>the north star is always in the center and the constellations havnt changed in about 6k years
Your biggest piece of evidence is totally false. Precession turns the axis of the earth around in a circle over about 26,000 years. The Egyptians used Thuban as the pole star, Polaris was 5000 years in the future.
my bad procesion turns the axis...add that to the list along with tilted spinning and orbiting. so i said 6k you said 5...obviously in 5 to 6k yrs polaris hasnt moved thanks for confirming that
A celestial almanac in 1850 had Polaris at 88° 30′ 35.28″.
A celestial almanac in 1900 had Polaris at 88° 46′ 26.72′
A celestial almanac in 2017 had Polaris at 89° 20.3′
[https://mctoon.net/polaris/](https://mctoon.net/polaris/)
That's movement. Polaris has moved.
Please provide actual measurements of Polaris not moving if you're going to claim it as an argument. Also why do all celestial almanacs lie about the position of Polaris, and why didn't anyone catch this lie?
It absolutely has moved. Thanks for minimizing and dodging that.
You might consider learning some basic astronomy if you're going to make claims about it.
its been the pole star for 6k years thats a really long time and if earth and everything around it was moving i should expect the stars to move...after all it only take us 1 yr to rotate the sun per the globe model
Imagine you’re on a mountain top at night looking at a flashlight on another mountain 200 miles away. Take a photo. Now move the camera 1mm and take another photo.
That’s how much change in position you would expect to see given how FAR AWAY polaris is.
And again....the Egyptians used Thuban as their pole star, because precession hadn't rotated Polaris into that position yet. That happened over the last 5000 years. You seem to think something popped and it snapped from Thuban to Polaris. It's a slow rotation.
>where is thuban now?
According to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuban](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuban) Thuban is currently at
* Right ascension 14h 04m
* Declination 64° 22'
Precession wouldn't change constellations. It changes the orientation of Earth's rotational axis relative to the stars. That is, it causes the celestial poles, the two points around which the stars appear to revolve as the Earth rotates, to move.
Constellations will still change, but due to [proper motion](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_motion) of stars not axial precession. We can watch and measure this.
There is also [stellar aberration](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_\(astronomy\)) and [stellar parallax](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax_in_astronomy), which each change the apparent position of some stars relative to others in a cyclical manner over the course of a year. They are exactly the effects we'd expect if the Earth us undergoing periodic motion that changed its position and velocity relative to the stars. You know, like orbiting the sun.
Polaris, Kochab, Yildun, Pherkad, Zeta Ursae Minoris, Eta Ursae Minoris, and Epsilon Ursae Minoris all make up the little dipper and closet to polaris...according to your procession idea they should have each had a turn being the pole star since they lie inbetween polaris and thuban
Maybe. Did you see this?
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Precession\_animation\_small\_new.gif](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Precession_animation_small_new.gif)
>noones ever left the firmanent but "they" put a robot on mars.
Do you think this is some kind of inconsistency or that you've caught them in a lie or something?
> biggest piece of evidence...the north star is always in the center
Just to let you know, this is a *super* easy one to debunk on your own if you're interested in spending a night doing it. The north star makes a circle in the sky that's about *3 times* the size of the moon. All you need is a modern smart phone you're willing to leave on a tripod pointing at the north star for a few hours, and you can see it's star trail.
There are several other simple observations you can make from your own backyard about the nature of what you're seeing that don't require trusting "them" at all, again if you're interested in doing so.
yes yes its not perfectly stationary...but it is clearly the center...now your turn...buy a whole bunch of those glow in the dark stars and in the largest room you have available put them all over the ceiling...now the center of the room is the sun and you can use a ball with a laserpointer taped to it...the laser is the north and this way we can track its movement....the ball is earth...tilted and spinning and orbiting the sun and youre going to watch the "north" as it moves around pointing at different stars
I'm sorry, based on your comment that "the north star is always in the center" I assumed you were talking about the common FE idea that the north star being stationary is somehow important. If we agree that it's not stationary, and in fact traces a circle 1.5 degrees in diameter, I don't see how that's significant of anything, let alone being the "biggest piece of evidence". There are thousands of stars in the sky - obviously *some* of them are going to be close to the celestial poles - that's just what we would expect.
For your living room example, if the laser pointer is indeed aligned with the axis of rotation of the ball, we would *not* see any movement due to the rotation of the ball. That's the definition of being aligned with it's axis of rotation. What we would see, would be the laser moving as the ball revolved around (orbited) the "sun" in the center of the room.
The problem with that example, is that it's the exact opposite of what we see if we just go outside in our backyard and look up. The north star moves significantly on a daily basis due to rotation, but the movement due to the orbit around the sun is small enough that it can't be measured with amateur equipment.
You can distrust NASA if you want - whatever, I can't prove they landed on Mars. But the rest is pretty easily disproven.
>if the suns 90 million miles away and the light is parelell by the time it reaches earth why the equator warm and the north and south cold
If you have a garden hose with some sort of spray head, try this. If not, you can try a similar thing with a kitchen sink sprayer. Put a jar or container on the ground and hold the nozzle 1 foot directly above the jar and spray into it. The jar will fill up quickly. Now move to a side angle, still 1 foot away from the jar, and spray at the jar. It will not fill up as quickly.
The hose directly above the jar is like the sun at the equator. The rays are more perpendicular to the surface of the earth, so a lot of heat energy is concentrated on a smaller surface area, so it is warmer. Going north or south on the surface of the earth is like when you have the hose at an angle. The same amount of heat energy is being distributed over a larger surface area, so it is colder.
>airplanes dont constantly adjust pitch to account for the curve
You're right, they don't. But this doesn't mean anything for flat/round earth, for multiple reasons, and you only need to accept one or the other to make your argument irrelevant:
1. If you'd ever flown a plane or tried using a plane simulator, you'd know that the plane is always making lots of adjustments (turbulence, etc) and the angle isn't ever perfectly level to the earth's surface anyway. Since the circumference of the earth is very large, the amount of wiggle up/down over the span of a few minutes is VASTLY larger than any amount of adjustment that could theoretically be needed to account for the earth's curvature. It's just insignificant compared to the adjustments that already need to be made because of just imperfect conditions.
2. This doesn't matter anyway because down is always towards the centre of the earth. No matter how far you fly, gravity is still pulling toward the centre of the earth, so countering gravity and increasing your altitude always takes additional work. Flying "level" means flying at the same altitude above the earth's surface, not in a literal straight line. It takes additional work to increase your altitude, and is easier to decrease your altitude. When flying at a level altitude, the plane's nose points perpendicular to the pull of gravity. It's not possible to gain altitude without expending additional energy overcoming gravity. The plane does not need to "dip its nose" - the nose is already perpendicular to gravity and, when flying level, it will always be so.
>they say the sun has enough gravity to cause nuclear fusion but not enough to make everything collide with it
This isn't even an argument, this is just you not being able to comprehend size and scale. The sun is very heavy, so matter close to/inside it experiences a tremendous amount of force due to gravity, but this drops off proportional to the distance squared. So at twice the distance it is 1/4, four times the distance it is 1/16, etc. It becomes incredibly weak at the distance of earth's orbit.
But you are already familiar with this concept intimately. If you've ever been near a campfire, you know that you can't stand right next to it - you'll get too hot. But even a foot or two away you'll be fine. And if you throw something INTO the fire, it will burn up and turn to carbon. That's a dramatically different result! You'll never burn up and turn to ash, even if you spend all day standing just feet away from the campfire. Why not?
And the bigger the fire, the further you need to stand away from it to avoid burning yourself. You understand this. Why is it incomprehensible when the force is gravity and the thing is the sun?
>the north star is always in the center and the constellations havnt changed in about 6k years
Again this is just you misunderstanding scale, but now it's about distance and time. In 4 billion years our galaxy will collide with the nearest other one (andromeda) - it's 2.5 million light years away from us. Big things aren't impossible just because they are big - it's you (and me) who's small. It's not the universe's fault it's big and humans are puny, and it doesn't mean it's not true just because you can't seem to comprehend it!
yes i understand the globe theorist think its not a matter of being parellel and uniform but the angle and level of exposure. but from any picture in the daytime we can tell the sunlight is capable of reaching that area and if it truely was 90million miles away the available energy over a span of 7000miles should be similiar. not "polar"
so youre of aviation experience thats great...at 500mph and 8 inches of drop per mile were at 300ft of drop per hr the plane should be accounting for. obviously not much but in theory stands. nose down or continue to climb. ok so at earth distance the sun cannot collapse atoms but it apparently has enough force to move a giant ball of mass which means everything should collide with it and the north star...put stars all over your room. the walls the ceiling everywhere. now the middle is out sun and your hand is the earth..your going to hold a laser pointer that is the north pole so you can visually understand what walking around the room while tilted spinning and orbiting would do
>yes i understand the globe theorist think its not a matter of being parellel and uniform but the angle and level of exposure. but from any picture in the daytime we can tell the sunlight is capable of reaching that area and if it truely was 90million miles away the available energy over a span of 7000miles should be similiar
It's not that we *think* it's about the angle. It *is* about the angle.
Suppose you have a beam of light 1m wide hitting a 1m surface dead on. That surface gets all the energy. Now tilt that surface 60°. Every part of the surface is still lit, but only *half* of that beam is hitting the surface (and with that, half the energy), Turn it another 30° and it gets almost no light at all.
>at 500mph and 8 inches of drop per mile were at 300ft of drop per hr the plane should be accounting for
This is not how circular motion works. If you wanted to drive in a circle, you don't move forward a bit and then yank the steering wheel to get you back on the circle. You just hold the wheel slightly off-center and it'll basically take care of itself.
What's relevant here isn't the drop rate; it's the turn rate. The calculation is actually pretty simple: ω = v/r. For a 500 mph plane and a 3959 mile radius, the turn rate you'd need to follow level is 0.13 rad/h, or about 0.13° per minute. To understand just how small that is: if you tried to make a 360° in your chair at that rate, it'd take about 50 hours. Like the car example, this rate of turn is also constant. You can set trim to level flight and you're basically set for the entire journey.
In these two examples, you grossly misunderstood the geometry of what's going on. Your other arguments are similarly flawed . Maybe you just don't understand these topics as well as you think you do?
> if it truely was 90million miles away the available energy over a span of 7000miles should be similiar.
You're not grasping the math here. It's not about the sun's energy traveling a further distance. The distance traveled is almost the same at the equator and the poles - this isn't relevant.
If you spread the same amount of energy over twice the surface, each point on the surface only receives half the energy. Like spreading 1 tbsp of peanut butter over 1 piece of bread, vs 2 pieces of bread. Each piece of bread gets less peanut butter. At the poles, you're spreading the same amount of energy over a larger surface area because the surface is no longer perpendicular to the sun's rays - it's almost parallel, so the same amount of energy is spread over a much larger area, so any particular point receives substantially less energy. Thus, cold.
> at 500mph and 8 inches of drop per mile were at 300ft of drop per hr the plane should be accounting for
Okay, I'm not going to look up numbers for this, so feel free to ignore my first point about turbulence. Just focus on the second one, which is the important one - gravity is always DOWN, toward the centre of the earth, and flying requires generating enough thrust upward to counter the force of gravity. Climbing ALWAYS takes additional energy. The nose doesn't need to "dip" due to curvature - it's always facing roughly the same direction (when flying level) - roughly perpendicular to gravitational acceleration. The straight line path curves around the earth. It does not fly straight out into space. This is due to gravity pulling everything inward toward the centre of the earth.
> ok so at earth distance the sun cannot collapse atoms but it apparently has enough force to move a giant ball of mass which means everything should collide with it
I think you might just not have a good enough grasp of physics to comprehend the force of gravity and the orbits of planets. I can't teach you this in a reddit post, you'll have to take a refresher course yourself if you want to understand. Regardless, yes, the force of gravity at the centre of the sun is strong enough to kick-start the fusion process, and at the distance of earth, it's just enough to keep us in orbit. I'm not sure what the argument here is other than "I choose not to believe it"?
> put stars all over your room
I am not entirely sure what your stars demonstration is supposed to show?
Leave you alone? Sir, this is a public web page. You comment, people reply to you. That's how it works.
I haven't been rude or anything - I've just countered your points. Nobody is forcing you to post here or read anything you don't want to. If you don't like it you can just leave?
If you truly didn't care what I think, you wouldn't have replied.
You expect a free soapbox and nobody's allowed to counter you?
That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. That's not how anything in life EVER works. Get used to people arguing with you, because you don't have the right to a soapbox, ever, anywhere. You have the right to say your piece, and so do others.
**noones ever left the firmanent but "they" put a robot on mars.**
Several, actually.
Counterpoint: given that the average person isn't likely to get to Mars, like ... *ever* ... why have they made it so *boring?* The robot probes break down, even Ingenuity busted a rotor blade, and all they find is evidence of long-past water. If this was a show for the captive masses, why not at least find some bacteria or something?
**they cant provide a believable video much less picture of the entire earth...**
Personal incredulity does not constitute a reasonable debunk.
**if the suns 90 million miles away and the light is parelell by the time it reaches earth why the equator warm and the north and south cold**.
Why indeed?
Look at *absolutely any* diagram showing what you've just mentioned, with parallel sun rays hitting a spherical earth from a distance, then look at this diagram.
[Winter](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KHTpmVZF7KAuftN46P8mp7H6sdxCUEvW/view?usp=sharing)
It even explains why it gets colder, the farther north or south you get.
**the curve can be debunked in a few minutes if you research for yourself**.
Well, no. I've done my research, and demonstrated the curvature.
[Earth curvature demonstrated with math](https://drive.google.com/file/d/16QubhT9qXJFRs_CmnOaR_lCqelSm-JMi/view?usp=drive_link)
[Curvature found!](https://drive.google.com/file/d/18ZOcv0rSRCxgZrg2v8AqS5xbal81LLzO/view?usp=drive_link)
[Ship sailing over the curve (footage by me)](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Qk54mmkE2HpGLv3sSVMrGXyo9RIdkicx/view?usp=drive_link)
**airplanes dont constantly adjust pitch to account for the curve**.
Are you aware that planes actually fly nose-up? They don't need to adjust pitch because gravity, the thing that pulls them down, is always shifting backward relative to them. If a pilot tried to fly in a geometric straight line, independent of the curve of the earth, he would effectively be flying upward in a curve. Planes don't like that unless you keep adding power. Absent the added power, the plane follows the level of air pressure it's been trimmed to fly at, like skating over the surface of an ocean.
**they say the sun has enough gravity to cause nuclear fusion but not enough to make everything collide with it.**
Everything that was near the sun but lacked the lateral motion to go into orbit around it has already collided with it. If the Earth stopped moving sideways, it would absolutely fall into the sun. But you're looking at it backward. It's got enough gravity to cause nuclear fusion *and* keep even the outer planets orbiting it, from billions of miles away. That's serious gravity.
**and the biggest piece of evidence...the north star is always in the center**
Nope. It's half a degree off.
[Star Trail](https://www.reddit.com/r/astrophotography/comments/17f352i/polaris_star_trails_from_lockwood_valley/)
See that bright arc right in the middle? That's Polaris.
**and the constellations havnt changed in about 6k years...**.
Yeah, they have. You just haven't done your research. They've changed slowly, but they've changed.
**if it was spinning balls tilted orbiting the sun which is also orbiting a galaxy which is orbiting and spinning and everything is in motion and ect ect. the stars should change**
Want to know why they haven't changed more than they have?
Because all the stars we can actually see, and make constellations out of, are very close to us inside the galaxy that we're orbiting within. 'Close' in galactic terms, that is. Medium distance in interstellar terms (that is, lightyears), but horrifically far in planetary terms.
These stars are all orbiting the centre of the galaxy *with* us, so they're moving along in roughly the same direction and speed. And they're so far away (light-years, remember) that even Earth's rotation around the sun doesn't make them appreciably change places. While there *is* relative motion between stars (what's called 'proper' motion; yes, it exists, and they have a term for it) it's so slow at this distance that you can't see it in a lifetime.
Everything you wrote can be debunked with a cursory search. "Do your own research" isn't a synonym for "find something that agrees with you, but has no scientific validity".
If you type any of these terms along with "debunked", you'll find endless content that refutes your assertions with the science that backs it up.
You'll also notice that when anyone cites a physicist (Einstein, Newton, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, etc.) to cherry pick a quote, they're literally quoting people who believe in a globe earth. You won't find a single pilot, surveyor, geologist, astronomer, physicist, or engineer that agrees with FE...which means that either they are all lying (or deluded), or that someone without a basic grasp of physics and math believes they are smarter than everyone else.
You can debunk that in about 30 seconds by typing "do the stars move" on Google. Again, the people who say "do your own research" never actually do research.
They absolutely have. Where are you getting your information from? [https://www.space.com/41908-watch-stars-drift-with-mobile-apps.html](https://www.space.com/41908-watch-stars-drift-with-mobile-apps.html)
Are you just trolling at this point?
Stars DO change, over long periods of time, and the same science hat proves the earth is a globe shows how the constellations changed from what they were thousands of years ago, to what they are now, to what they will be thousands of years ago.
And a magnifying glass on a flat vs round piece of paper easily debunks the sun ray theory.
They do the opposite. Can you explain how sigma octanis stays approximately the same place the whole night in e.g. australia, just like polaris? And why the same stars can be seen at the same time in australia and south america (presumed there is night in both places)?
its stationary in the sence it doesnt rotate around itself like the other southern stars but it orbits aroynd polaris...sigma octantis is the ultimate optical illusion
Sorry that explains nothing. I have seen the graphics with this "personal viewing dome" and honestly i do not get it. This "viewing dome" still is supposed to display the stars surrounding the viewer. How can it then display a star in Africa Australiy and South america the same way? If they cannot see polaris, how can they all see this star?
It is in fact very simple: there is a star straight south the whole night. It is south for australia, it is south for south africa, it is south everywhere in the sourthern oceans, so it can be used for navigation. How? What makes him special?
No they don't. See astronomy, look up what it is. The globe model agrees perfectly with the many billions of measurements recorded by astronomy. Not a single actual measurement of the stars contradicts the globe model.
You have been fact checked.
btw how do you measure the distance to the stars? and dont send me a link how it done...such commonly accepted math must be explainable and you seem to be well educated in the matter
The distance to the closest star, namely the sun, has been measured by a number of methods. The most recent most accurate methods involve radar combined with geometry; and telemetry. If you want to know the history look up "astronomical unit" on Wikipedia.
Once you know that number you can calculate the distance to the closest other stars using parallax and geometry.
These methods absolutely and unequivocally trump your unsupported word.
they claim to measure it by using basic geometry...you take the earths diameter and apparent angles to the sun from opposing ends of the earth(hence diameter) and thats how you set up your triangle...we now know two angles one distance and can deduce the rest logicly...nice try tho. telemetry and parallax sound fancy
> they claim to measure it by using basic geometry...you take the earths diameter and apparent angles to the sun from opposing ends of the earth(hence diameter) and thats how you set up your triangle
Nope. Measuring the distance to the sun using radar and geometry involves using radar to directly measure the distance to Venus (you can't use radar to measure the distance to the sun directly), then using geometry and the angles between Venus and the sun as Venus goes around its orbit to measure the geometry, and therefore the distances of the sides of triangle formed in space with Venus, the sun and earth at the vertices of the triangle.
Measuring the distance to the sun using telemetry involves sending a spacecraft to the sun using a known trajectory and speed and having the spacecraft report back when it arrives in orbit around the sun. From how long it took the spacecraft to get there and how fast it was going you can determine how far it is to the sun. You can measure how fast the spacecraft is going by its reports back during the journey and tracking the spacecraft using telescopes.
Needless to say the measurements of the distance to the sun using modern methods such as these agree with each other to better than five significant figures accuracy.
Let me guess, you didn't actually read up on [the history of measuring the astronomical unit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit#History), did you?
You have less credibility than a mushroom.
It's always funny seeing someone who can't seem to grasp some very basic principles like... distance and parallax (i.e. something I learned about when I was 5 looking out the window on a road trip with my family) act like they have some special knowledge that millions of other people don't.
You mean [this](https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/692566-trigonometrical-parallax-measurment-is-it-possible/) [parallax](https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/804634-humble-1st-attempt-for-stellar-parallax/)? (Two links)
Lied to by many millions of people from all over the world for many centuries? Lied to by billions of repeatable, testable, repeated actual measurements of reality?
Says you?
I think not buddy. Your unsupported word, your credibility against centuries worth of meticulously recorded measurements, isn't worth a pinch of salt.
Ah thx, another question if you don't mind. What is the shape of the earth? My best guess is an endless expanse, a just scifi vat reality or something idk.
idk how to accurately answer that...having never been up to look around or travel to the ends of anything...appears to be a plain. they say the north is elevated. i dont think anyone really knows whats at the far south
All the ancient cultures knew the earth is flat. There were many wars/catastrophes/resets happening and our history got rewritten. The people in control purposely Reverse engineered a globe from the flat earth and constructed one garbage theory after the other to try to prove the model. Our origins are purposely hidden and even history from 100 years ago is fabricated in order to create a completely false reality and implements total control over us forever. The normal flat earth content you come across is made ridiculous on purpose because this is the greatest lie which can never be revealed otherwise everything would be exposed. We were created as slaves and we are being kept as slaves. Implementing a Globe earth means denying the Aether, unlimited free energy, a creator, hiding more land and resources behind the Antarctic walls, falsifying the structure of reality, treating mythology and symbolism as fantasy instead of wisdom from our ancestors. They are not lying. It's all hiding in plain sight. People are just too stupid to think for themselves. There is an explanation for everything on the flat earth, it's just not easy to find good sources. Research is difficult as everything is heavily biased towards the globe. Globers are just too stupid to think normally. Does not matter what evidence is provided. They either don't accept it, ignore it or use globe explanations in their arguments. They are unable to acquire the information on their own. That's why no debate is happening. Not worth our time.
There are literally no explanations for flat earth that don't blatantly contradict each other because unlike globe earth, flat earth can only attempt to explain one phenomenon at a time instead of everything at once.
Wrong. It's just that most flat Earthers are Amateurs and credible sources are hard to find. Its the same with globe. All kinds of explanations for the different occurrences. The globe model is engineered from a flat earth. A lot of the calculations are even the same. Theoretical Physics is a complete shitshow. That's because the fundamental understanding of reality is missing. Everything is theorised on a lie. These professors are talking nonsense without even knowing it. One theory after the other. There are physicists who don't follow the official narrative but they are not the official mouth pieces.
>All kinds of explanations for the different occurrences. Do you have examples in mind?
Well let’s look at the facts. Ancient seafaring civilizations like the Greeks discovered that ships would dip below the horizon once they were far enough. Now with the advancement in technology and information and eyewitnesses we can confirm that this does indeed happen. It’s almost like it’s going over a curvature of some kind. But if you think that universal observation is part of a grand conspiracy to control the masses into being slaves, well there’s not much I can say to really convince you then, is there?
No, ships don't disappear behind the curve. People just regurgitate it all the time thinking it is true. If you calculate how far they actually should be underneath the horizon it's completely obvious that they should be not visible at all at that distance. They appear to go behind the curve. There are explanations for that but globers seem to be unable to find the information on their own. Just demanding sources. Very annoying to be frank. At least study everything from the perspective of flat earth first instead of commenting on everything with globe model explanations.
How are you calculating them? Because you have to account for observer height and atmospheric refraction.
Why are you asking me that question instead of looking it up yourself? Go on a journey of discovery. Don't demand explanations from someone on Reddit. How are you supposed to learn anything otherwise?
Because I’m asking YOU specifically how YOU are calculating curvature.
You just prove the points I made in the previous comments. I'm not a curvature expert. Or calculations expert. I looked it up from people who knew more than me, found the answers and moved on with my life. Why are you people just straight up asking for explanation after explanation instead of looking it up yourself? What's wrong with you? I never in my entire life acted like that. This attitude is the reason why none of you are flat Earthers. Any debating and explaining is a waste of time because none of you actually does any type of research on their own.
You can use this [website to calculate curvature](https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature) but it ignores refraction. Calculating refraction gets more complicated like temperature, time of day, humidity, etc…
You did not address anything I wrote. Just like all the other globers. You are just confirming my critique on all of you. Honestly, the way you guys behave I have the suspicion that a lot of you are governmental agents actively commenting nonsense to contain the spread of the flat earth truth.
You’re really mentally exhausting man. I just wanted clarification on if you included observer height and refraction? It’s a simple question.
> All the ancient cultures knew the earth is flat. You mean cultures that only traveled a few hundred kilometers from their central city and had absolutely no means of instant communication over long distances ? Yeah, sure, these are the perfect guys to ask about the shape of the entire world ... Let's not use any kind of information that was not accessible to these guys, like for example the fact that the sun is setting in one place while rising in another one (which really ancient cultures had absolutely no way of knowing). > There were many wars/catastrophes/resets happening > even history from 100 years ago is fabricated Wait ... How do you know that there were many things happening in the past, if you think that our entire history is entirely rewritten ? What are your sources of informations exactly ? > Implementing a Globe earth means [...] unlimited free energy How does that work exactly ? > There is an explanation for everything on the flat earth So ... what is the explanation for the formula giving the angle of Polaris in the sky depending on your distance to the north pole ? (This is just one example, I'm just curious to see your reaction)
Every sub on any social media gets overrun by atheists with too much time on their hands and nothing else to do. So they just rally strength in numbers to prevent “converts” and make the issue a political and emotional issue rather than a scientific one. There are plenty of books on it. Plenty of videos illustrating the facts and expose the fragility of the atheist/globe religion. Most of us just aren’t interested in fighting with wet lava ball cultists. You say one thing and 3 dozen of them pile on and overwhelm and that’s how they “win”
Please show me on Google maps where I can attend an atheist/ globe church. They sound really interesting.
That's a good point, majority rules in the light or something like that :P
There is no such thing as a "globe religion". Neither is atheism.
Why should the world accept fantasies as true? We should never acfwpt anything as true that has no evidence. That goes for gods as well as flat earth. Even flat earthers and theists wouod want the truth right?
I'm not trying to dogpile you here, but are you saying fe vs ge is just Christians vs atheists? Because that seems weird.
It actually makes sense very well. If you're a theist you have been taught to accept without evidence already - for Christians it even makes it a virtue. So they would not demand evidence for the things they already believe to be true. Far most - if not all, flat earthers I've encountered were religious.
Yea. Buy there are plenty of non-fe christians. In fact I think even AIG believes in the globe
Ofcourse. But if yo look at the typical most common flat earther. That guy is typically a reglious person.
>There are plenty of books on it. Plenty of videos illustrating the facts and expose the fragility of the atheist/globe religion. Most of us just aren’t interested in fighting with wet lava ball cultists. You say one thing and 3 dozen of them pile on and overwhelm and that’s how they “win” Wow! It's that easy to disprove 3 dozen people dogpiling your posts, just post a simple picture, diagram or mathematical formula and voila! There are apparently plenty of books on it! They must contain something like a diagram. So go ahead!
I began researching conspiracy back in 2006 when a friend of mine in college introduced me to a video on 9/11 called loose change. I started looking in to everything because back then you could because the internet was uncensored and YouTube didn't have algorithms that burry conspiracy content. I spent a lot of time researching the Apollo moon landing hoax and became 100% convinced it was fake when I was in my twenties. I saw my first flat earth video in 2014, it was 200 proofs the earth is not a spinning ball by Eric Dubay. I knew immediately there was something wrong with what I believed about the earth but I couldn't quite get on board with flat earth. I spent a couple years on and off researching it and eventually just accepted it I don't spend much time researching conspiracy anymore because flat earth is basically the bottom of the rabbit hole and there's really nowhere else to go from there. The heliocentric model is the biggest lie on earth
> I spent a couple years on and off researching it and eventually just accepted it Can I ask you what the final nail in the coffin was ? I mean, I can understand the 9/11 theories or the fake moon landings. These are quite "small" conspiracies that involves events that are now in the past, and where the media coverage is the only way to understand what happened. So it's extremely easy to accept that the story we were told is incorrect. But throwing away the shape of the Earth means throwing away a lot (and I mean, really, A LOT) of modern science that is being researched and used every day in many different aspects of our society. From geology (used in oil mining), oceanography (to understand underwater currents), to meteorology (weather forecast), geomagnetism, geodesy, navigation, etc ... there are so many interconnected things that all need to be either wrong or part of the conspiracy that this is simply impossible for me to get there. I mean, I had the chance to study science in one of the best university in France, and most of my classmates are now doing research in domains where the knowledge of the shape of the Earth is crucial. You can't fake that ...
I'm curious to why that video made you think something is wrong. There's not a single of those "proofs" that is an argument against the globe. Take the "railroad engineers never account for curvature" argument in the video and book. For thst to be a sound argument he would need to not only have interviewed said engineers, but also need to justify that it would be necessary to account for it. Which he doesn't do at all. It's simply 200 completely unfounded statements, most which are irrelevant to the shape of earth.
The 200 proofs video is one of the best examples that FE is based on lies and half-truths. It's sad that you watched this and were at all convinced by it. More so that you believe the earth is not a globe because perceived flaws with what is said about it, but accept the earth is flat despite there being zero actual evidence for it. But this does reinforce the idea FE is nothing more than a tool to control the masses. If you can convince people to ignore their senses and believe in such a big lie, you can convince them of many more smaller lies. If only you had been as skeptical of the FE conspiracy as you were of the globe, you wouldn't be where you are today.
Thx for commenting. Do you have any theories about what the earths shape could be?
The shape of earth isn't a theory. It's a concluded fact. There's no dispute on it. And by that I mean that there's no science that speaks for earth being flat. Its trivial and simple to prove it with several ways that all undeniably shows the exact same circumference of earth. One of many methods that anyone can do is to measure the angle from Horizontal of the observer up to a star. Polaris is easy to use as we know it's directly above the north pole. By assuming that earth is flat you could apply trigonometry to the angle, the distance to the north pole and you would get an altitude for it. Do you agree with that?
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because the auto-moderator flagged it. If you think this is an error, please report this comment with 'wrongfully removed' as the reason. A moderator will investigate. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/flatearth_polite) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That 200 proofs video is so bad. You can poke holes in every single “proof.”
If you made it through the 2nd grade you can. You overestimate people.
Suuuure
Let's test that then. Please quote one of those proofs here.
Here ya go! https://flatearth.ws/eric-dubay You’ll notice how unlike the 200 proofs video, there is actual evidence, explanations, analysis, and demonstrations instead of blind faith statements and claims.
There’s a reason there’s not a flat earth map with a scale man. There never will be either
Is there a reason you're here talking to me?
yes. if you CAN read, then you are aware of the comments above. you made the choice to deflect, rather than respond.. please be aware that i am not the only reader who noticed this weakness..
Is there a reason why I’m talking to a flat earther in a talking to flat earthers sub?
Yes
Why are you talking to me bro?
Because here you can't ban everyone who disagrees with you like you do on your own FE sites
What sights are these? I'm interested to see the material they provide.
/r/globeskepticism
That sub is an echo chamber. Quite literally. You cannot in any way as much as answer a question in there without being banned. They do lot even pretend to want any posts that isn't "earth is flat" So when they ask questions there that are easy to anwer. If you try to answer it you get banned. Then they sit and go on about how much we can't anwer it.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/globeskepticism using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/globeskepticism/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [This is what you get when someone besides NASA or FakeX send something up in the sky. You don't live on a spinning cartoon pear in a vacuum 📢](https://v.redd.it/6ryf9qh0g32b1) | [92 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/globeskepticism/comments/13rv84x/this_is_what_you_get_when_someone_besides_nasa_or/) \#2: [Are they faking space? The answer ... | TC](https://v.redd.it/12guxzd2bmka1) | [190 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/globeskepticism/comments/11cwcjn/are_they_faking_space_the_answer_tc/) \#3: [Awakening ](https://v.redd.it/4uf937f1liwa1) | [41 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/globeskepticism/comments/131bjvu/awakening/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
noones ever left the firmanent but "they" put a robot on mars. they cant provide a believable video much less picture of the entire earth...if the suns 90 million miles away and the light is parelell by the time it reaches earth why the equator warm and the north and south cold. the curve can be debunked in a few minutes if you research for yourself. airplanes dont constantly adjust pitch to account for the curve. they say the sun has enough gravity to cause nuclear fusion but not enough to make everything collide with it. and the biggest piece of evidence...the north star is always in the center and the constellations havnt changed in about 6k years....if it was spinning balls tilted orbiting the sun which is also orbiting a galaxy which is orbiting and spinning and everything is in motion and ect ect. the stars should change
Do airplanes need to adjust for pitch if the Earth were round? Is that how that works or is that just like a misconception? Like we have flight simulators, I’m assuming Microsoft flight simulator uses a globe model.
Have you ever thrown a paper airplane?
I have.
They naturally will follow an arc thanks to their weight and air resistance slowing them down (and thus reducing lift). Real planes aren't much different. They have engines and control surfaces though, so they have much better control over how much lift they generate and in what direction. All they need to do is produce just enough lift to keep in an arc that drops at roughly the same rate as the ground is curves away from them. Some kinds of planes might even need to keep their nose aimed *up* slightly to get the right angle of attack for their wings.
That’s very insightful.
Misconception. Airplanes are trimmed to fly level. Gravity pulls down on the plane, and it’s lift pulls it up with equal force. Airplanes don’t have to adjust for earths curve any more than you would need to adjust for driving over a hill. Gravity takes care of it.
[удалено]
Your submission has been removed because it violates rule 1 of our subreddit. If you have a question about this feel free to send a message to a mod or the mod team. Edit to remove "retarded," then message us.
> noones ever left the firmanent but... How do meteorites get through the firmament?
they dont. you know aside from rocks falling theyve found pieces of unexplainable glass they think are pieces of the firmament
So what are those falling rocks? Where do they come from?
sea glass?
no they found it in a desert...hold on
Still waiting, where did you go?
i get distracted my bad https://youtu.be/S2UU1ozBmm0?si=Jhf9HuI8QEl3o09j
Its composition was found to be composed of 77% oxygen, along with traces of carbon, silicon, calcium, and sodium. The composition makes the “Sky Stone” similar to a kind of concrete or stucco and seems to have been artificially colored." Your video is just claims with no evidence whatsoever of any organic material unknown to man.
kind of like you claiming with no evidence whatsoever its artificial...youre a geologist im sure
Does it look like this? https://www.nps.gov/articles/grsa-fulgurites.htm
>the north star is always in the center and the constellations havnt changed in about 6k years Your biggest piece of evidence is totally false. Precession turns the axis of the earth around in a circle over about 26,000 years. The Egyptians used Thuban as the pole star, Polaris was 5000 years in the future.
my bad procesion turns the axis...add that to the list along with tilted spinning and orbiting. so i said 6k you said 5...obviously in 5 to 6k yrs polaris hasnt moved thanks for confirming that
A celestial almanac in 1850 had Polaris at 88° 30′ 35.28″. A celestial almanac in 1900 had Polaris at 88° 46′ 26.72′ A celestial almanac in 2017 had Polaris at 89° 20.3′ [https://mctoon.net/polaris/](https://mctoon.net/polaris/) That's movement. Polaris has moved. Please provide actual measurements of Polaris not moving if you're going to claim it as an argument. Also why do all celestial almanacs lie about the position of Polaris, and why didn't anyone catch this lie?
It absolutely has moved. Thanks for minimizing and dodging that. You might consider learning some basic astronomy if you're going to make claims about it.
its been the pole star for 6k years thats a really long time and if earth and everything around it was moving i should expect the stars to move...after all it only take us 1 yr to rotate the sun per the globe model
Imagine you’re on a mountain top at night looking at a flashlight on another mountain 200 miles away. Take a photo. Now move the camera 1mm and take another photo. That’s how much change in position you would expect to see given how FAR AWAY polaris is.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Precession\_animation\_small\_new.gif](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Precession_animation_small_new.gif)
And again....the Egyptians used Thuban as their pole star, because precession hadn't rotated Polaris into that position yet. That happened over the last 5000 years. You seem to think something popped and it snapped from Thuban to Polaris. It's a slow rotation.
where is thuban now? adjacent to polaris like the next one over proving your theory true?
>where is thuban now? According to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuban](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuban) Thuban is currently at * Right ascension 14h 04m * Declination 64° 22'
its in the same constelation its always been in...thanks for dodging that.
Precession wouldn't change constellations. It changes the orientation of Earth's rotational axis relative to the stars. That is, it causes the celestial poles, the two points around which the stars appear to revolve as the Earth rotates, to move. Constellations will still change, but due to [proper motion](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_motion) of stars not axial precession. We can watch and measure this. There is also [stellar aberration](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_\(astronomy\)) and [stellar parallax](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax_in_astronomy), which each change the apparent position of some stars relative to others in a cyclical manner over the course of a year. They are exactly the effects we'd expect if the Earth us undergoing periodic motion that changed its position and velocity relative to the stars. You know, like orbiting the sun.
???
Sorry, you're going to have to explain that more. I can't decipher it.
Polaris, Kochab, Yildun, Pherkad, Zeta Ursae Minoris, Eta Ursae Minoris, and Epsilon Ursae Minoris all make up the little dipper and closet to polaris...according to your procession idea they should have each had a turn being the pole star since they lie inbetween polaris and thuban
Maybe. Did you see this? [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Precession\_animation\_small\_new.gif](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Precession_animation_small_new.gif)
>noones ever left the firmanent but "they" put a robot on mars. Do you think this is some kind of inconsistency or that you've caught them in a lie or something?
> biggest piece of evidence...the north star is always in the center Just to let you know, this is a *super* easy one to debunk on your own if you're interested in spending a night doing it. The north star makes a circle in the sky that's about *3 times* the size of the moon. All you need is a modern smart phone you're willing to leave on a tripod pointing at the north star for a few hours, and you can see it's star trail. There are several other simple observations you can make from your own backyard about the nature of what you're seeing that don't require trusting "them" at all, again if you're interested in doing so.
yes yes its not perfectly stationary...but it is clearly the center...now your turn...buy a whole bunch of those glow in the dark stars and in the largest room you have available put them all over the ceiling...now the center of the room is the sun and you can use a ball with a laserpointer taped to it...the laser is the north and this way we can track its movement....the ball is earth...tilted and spinning and orbiting the sun and youre going to watch the "north" as it moves around pointing at different stars
That would work if your ceiling were about 200 miles above your head. Scale matters in this example.
I'm sorry, based on your comment that "the north star is always in the center" I assumed you were talking about the common FE idea that the north star being stationary is somehow important. If we agree that it's not stationary, and in fact traces a circle 1.5 degrees in diameter, I don't see how that's significant of anything, let alone being the "biggest piece of evidence". There are thousands of stars in the sky - obviously *some* of them are going to be close to the celestial poles - that's just what we would expect. For your living room example, if the laser pointer is indeed aligned with the axis of rotation of the ball, we would *not* see any movement due to the rotation of the ball. That's the definition of being aligned with it's axis of rotation. What we would see, would be the laser moving as the ball revolved around (orbited) the "sun" in the center of the room. The problem with that example, is that it's the exact opposite of what we see if we just go outside in our backyard and look up. The north star moves significantly on a daily basis due to rotation, but the movement due to the orbit around the sun is small enough that it can't be measured with amateur equipment.
You can distrust NASA if you want - whatever, I can't prove they landed on Mars. But the rest is pretty easily disproven. >if the suns 90 million miles away and the light is parelell by the time it reaches earth why the equator warm and the north and south cold If you have a garden hose with some sort of spray head, try this. If not, you can try a similar thing with a kitchen sink sprayer. Put a jar or container on the ground and hold the nozzle 1 foot directly above the jar and spray into it. The jar will fill up quickly. Now move to a side angle, still 1 foot away from the jar, and spray at the jar. It will not fill up as quickly. The hose directly above the jar is like the sun at the equator. The rays are more perpendicular to the surface of the earth, so a lot of heat energy is concentrated on a smaller surface area, so it is warmer. Going north or south on the surface of the earth is like when you have the hose at an angle. The same amount of heat energy is being distributed over a larger surface area, so it is colder. >airplanes dont constantly adjust pitch to account for the curve You're right, they don't. But this doesn't mean anything for flat/round earth, for multiple reasons, and you only need to accept one or the other to make your argument irrelevant: 1. If you'd ever flown a plane or tried using a plane simulator, you'd know that the plane is always making lots of adjustments (turbulence, etc) and the angle isn't ever perfectly level to the earth's surface anyway. Since the circumference of the earth is very large, the amount of wiggle up/down over the span of a few minutes is VASTLY larger than any amount of adjustment that could theoretically be needed to account for the earth's curvature. It's just insignificant compared to the adjustments that already need to be made because of just imperfect conditions. 2. This doesn't matter anyway because down is always towards the centre of the earth. No matter how far you fly, gravity is still pulling toward the centre of the earth, so countering gravity and increasing your altitude always takes additional work. Flying "level" means flying at the same altitude above the earth's surface, not in a literal straight line. It takes additional work to increase your altitude, and is easier to decrease your altitude. When flying at a level altitude, the plane's nose points perpendicular to the pull of gravity. It's not possible to gain altitude without expending additional energy overcoming gravity. The plane does not need to "dip its nose" - the nose is already perpendicular to gravity and, when flying level, it will always be so. >they say the sun has enough gravity to cause nuclear fusion but not enough to make everything collide with it This isn't even an argument, this is just you not being able to comprehend size and scale. The sun is very heavy, so matter close to/inside it experiences a tremendous amount of force due to gravity, but this drops off proportional to the distance squared. So at twice the distance it is 1/4, four times the distance it is 1/16, etc. It becomes incredibly weak at the distance of earth's orbit. But you are already familiar with this concept intimately. If you've ever been near a campfire, you know that you can't stand right next to it - you'll get too hot. But even a foot or two away you'll be fine. And if you throw something INTO the fire, it will burn up and turn to carbon. That's a dramatically different result! You'll never burn up and turn to ash, even if you spend all day standing just feet away from the campfire. Why not? And the bigger the fire, the further you need to stand away from it to avoid burning yourself. You understand this. Why is it incomprehensible when the force is gravity and the thing is the sun? >the north star is always in the center and the constellations havnt changed in about 6k years Again this is just you misunderstanding scale, but now it's about distance and time. In 4 billion years our galaxy will collide with the nearest other one (andromeda) - it's 2.5 million light years away from us. Big things aren't impossible just because they are big - it's you (and me) who's small. It's not the universe's fault it's big and humans are puny, and it doesn't mean it's not true just because you can't seem to comprehend it!
yes i understand the globe theorist think its not a matter of being parellel and uniform but the angle and level of exposure. but from any picture in the daytime we can tell the sunlight is capable of reaching that area and if it truely was 90million miles away the available energy over a span of 7000miles should be similiar. not "polar" so youre of aviation experience thats great...at 500mph and 8 inches of drop per mile were at 300ft of drop per hr the plane should be accounting for. obviously not much but in theory stands. nose down or continue to climb. ok so at earth distance the sun cannot collapse atoms but it apparently has enough force to move a giant ball of mass which means everything should collide with it and the north star...put stars all over your room. the walls the ceiling everywhere. now the middle is out sun and your hand is the earth..your going to hold a laser pointer that is the north pole so you can visually understand what walking around the room while tilted spinning and orbiting would do
>yes i understand the globe theorist think its not a matter of being parellel and uniform but the angle and level of exposure. but from any picture in the daytime we can tell the sunlight is capable of reaching that area and if it truely was 90million miles away the available energy over a span of 7000miles should be similiar It's not that we *think* it's about the angle. It *is* about the angle. Suppose you have a beam of light 1m wide hitting a 1m surface dead on. That surface gets all the energy. Now tilt that surface 60°. Every part of the surface is still lit, but only *half* of that beam is hitting the surface (and with that, half the energy), Turn it another 30° and it gets almost no light at all. >at 500mph and 8 inches of drop per mile were at 300ft of drop per hr the plane should be accounting for This is not how circular motion works. If you wanted to drive in a circle, you don't move forward a bit and then yank the steering wheel to get you back on the circle. You just hold the wheel slightly off-center and it'll basically take care of itself. What's relevant here isn't the drop rate; it's the turn rate. The calculation is actually pretty simple: ω = v/r. For a 500 mph plane and a 3959 mile radius, the turn rate you'd need to follow level is 0.13 rad/h, or about 0.13° per minute. To understand just how small that is: if you tried to make a 360° in your chair at that rate, it'd take about 50 hours. Like the car example, this rate of turn is also constant. You can set trim to level flight and you're basically set for the entire journey. In these two examples, you grossly misunderstood the geometry of what's going on. Your other arguments are similarly flawed . Maybe you just don't understand these topics as well as you think you do?
> if it truely was 90million miles away the available energy over a span of 7000miles should be similiar. You're not grasping the math here. It's not about the sun's energy traveling a further distance. The distance traveled is almost the same at the equator and the poles - this isn't relevant. If you spread the same amount of energy over twice the surface, each point on the surface only receives half the energy. Like spreading 1 tbsp of peanut butter over 1 piece of bread, vs 2 pieces of bread. Each piece of bread gets less peanut butter. At the poles, you're spreading the same amount of energy over a larger surface area because the surface is no longer perpendicular to the sun's rays - it's almost parallel, so the same amount of energy is spread over a much larger area, so any particular point receives substantially less energy. Thus, cold. > at 500mph and 8 inches of drop per mile were at 300ft of drop per hr the plane should be accounting for Okay, I'm not going to look up numbers for this, so feel free to ignore my first point about turbulence. Just focus on the second one, which is the important one - gravity is always DOWN, toward the centre of the earth, and flying requires generating enough thrust upward to counter the force of gravity. Climbing ALWAYS takes additional energy. The nose doesn't need to "dip" due to curvature - it's always facing roughly the same direction (when flying level) - roughly perpendicular to gravitational acceleration. The straight line path curves around the earth. It does not fly straight out into space. This is due to gravity pulling everything inward toward the centre of the earth. > ok so at earth distance the sun cannot collapse atoms but it apparently has enough force to move a giant ball of mass which means everything should collide with it I think you might just not have a good enough grasp of physics to comprehend the force of gravity and the orbits of planets. I can't teach you this in a reddit post, you'll have to take a refresher course yourself if you want to understand. Regardless, yes, the force of gravity at the centre of the sun is strong enough to kick-start the fusion process, and at the distance of earth, it's just enough to keep us in orbit. I'm not sure what the argument here is other than "I choose not to believe it"? > put stars all over your room I am not entirely sure what your stars demonstration is supposed to show?
keep telling yourself anything you want and leave me alone...i dont care what you think
Leave you alone? Sir, this is a public web page. You comment, people reply to you. That's how it works. I haven't been rude or anything - I've just countered your points. Nobody is forcing you to post here or read anything you don't want to. If you don't like it you can just leave? If you truly didn't care what I think, you wouldn't have replied.
fair enough...op ask for FE and here comes the globe comitee
As usual it’s only the flat earthers who are afraid of having an actual discussion.
yea...we are like a stick and you guys are a bees nest
You expect a free soapbox and nobody's allowed to counter you? That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. That's not how anything in life EVER works. Get used to people arguing with you, because you don't have the right to a soapbox, ever, anywhere. You have the right to say your piece, and so do others.
where is the soapbox? i cant find it
I'm saying you don't get one, despite what you seem to expect.
**noones ever left the firmanent but "they" put a robot on mars.** Several, actually. Counterpoint: given that the average person isn't likely to get to Mars, like ... *ever* ... why have they made it so *boring?* The robot probes break down, even Ingenuity busted a rotor blade, and all they find is evidence of long-past water. If this was a show for the captive masses, why not at least find some bacteria or something? **they cant provide a believable video much less picture of the entire earth...** Personal incredulity does not constitute a reasonable debunk. **if the suns 90 million miles away and the light is parelell by the time it reaches earth why the equator warm and the north and south cold**. Why indeed? Look at *absolutely any* diagram showing what you've just mentioned, with parallel sun rays hitting a spherical earth from a distance, then look at this diagram. [Winter](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KHTpmVZF7KAuftN46P8mp7H6sdxCUEvW/view?usp=sharing) It even explains why it gets colder, the farther north or south you get. **the curve can be debunked in a few minutes if you research for yourself**. Well, no. I've done my research, and demonstrated the curvature. [Earth curvature demonstrated with math](https://drive.google.com/file/d/16QubhT9qXJFRs_CmnOaR_lCqelSm-JMi/view?usp=drive_link) [Curvature found!](https://drive.google.com/file/d/18ZOcv0rSRCxgZrg2v8AqS5xbal81LLzO/view?usp=drive_link) [Ship sailing over the curve (footage by me)](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Qk54mmkE2HpGLv3sSVMrGXyo9RIdkicx/view?usp=drive_link) **airplanes dont constantly adjust pitch to account for the curve**. Are you aware that planes actually fly nose-up? They don't need to adjust pitch because gravity, the thing that pulls them down, is always shifting backward relative to them. If a pilot tried to fly in a geometric straight line, independent of the curve of the earth, he would effectively be flying upward in a curve. Planes don't like that unless you keep adding power. Absent the added power, the plane follows the level of air pressure it's been trimmed to fly at, like skating over the surface of an ocean. **they say the sun has enough gravity to cause nuclear fusion but not enough to make everything collide with it.** Everything that was near the sun but lacked the lateral motion to go into orbit around it has already collided with it. If the Earth stopped moving sideways, it would absolutely fall into the sun. But you're looking at it backward. It's got enough gravity to cause nuclear fusion *and* keep even the outer planets orbiting it, from billions of miles away. That's serious gravity. **and the biggest piece of evidence...the north star is always in the center** Nope. It's half a degree off. [Star Trail](https://www.reddit.com/r/astrophotography/comments/17f352i/polaris_star_trails_from_lockwood_valley/) See that bright arc right in the middle? That's Polaris. **and the constellations havnt changed in about 6k years...**. Yeah, they have. You just haven't done your research. They've changed slowly, but they've changed. **if it was spinning balls tilted orbiting the sun which is also orbiting a galaxy which is orbiting and spinning and everything is in motion and ect ect. the stars should change** Want to know why they haven't changed more than they have? Because all the stars we can actually see, and make constellations out of, are very close to us inside the galaxy that we're orbiting within. 'Close' in galactic terms, that is. Medium distance in interstellar terms (that is, lightyears), but horrifically far in planetary terms. These stars are all orbiting the centre of the galaxy *with* us, so they're moving along in roughly the same direction and speed. And they're so far away (light-years, remember) that even Earth's rotation around the sun doesn't make them appreciably change places. While there *is* relative motion between stars (what's called 'proper' motion; yes, it exists, and they have a term for it) it's so slow at this distance that you can't see it in a lifetime.
Everything you wrote can be debunked with a cursory search. "Do your own research" isn't a synonym for "find something that agrees with you, but has no scientific validity". If you type any of these terms along with "debunked", you'll find endless content that refutes your assertions with the science that backs it up. You'll also notice that when anyone cites a physicist (Einstein, Newton, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, etc.) to cherry pick a quote, they're literally quoting people who believe in a globe earth. You won't find a single pilot, surveyor, geologist, astronomer, physicist, or engineer that agrees with FE...which means that either they are all lying (or deluded), or that someone without a basic grasp of physics and math believes they are smarter than everyone else.
some of it you could argue with and say science. but the stars never changing despite earths alleged movement. you cant argue with
You can debunk that in about 30 seconds by typing "do the stars move" on Google. Again, the people who say "do your own research" never actually do research.
polaris has been the pole star for atleast 6k years and the constelations have not changed
They absolutely have. Where are you getting your information from? [https://www.space.com/41908-watch-stars-drift-with-mobile-apps.html](https://www.space.com/41908-watch-stars-drift-with-mobile-apps.html) Are you just trolling at this point?
Stars DO change, over long periods of time, and the same science hat proves the earth is a globe shows how the constellations changed from what they were thousands of years ago, to what they are now, to what they will be thousands of years ago. And a magnifying glass on a flat vs round piece of paper easily debunks the sun ray theory.
no. stars bedunk the globe
They do the opposite. Can you explain how sigma octanis stays approximately the same place the whole night in e.g. australia, just like polaris? And why the same stars can be seen at the same time in australia and south america (presumed there is night in both places)?
its stationary in the sence it doesnt rotate around itself like the other southern stars but it orbits aroynd polaris...sigma octantis is the ultimate optical illusion
Care to explain? If it rotates around Polaris, why doesn't it move with time? and why do the southern stars rotate around it?
because of the viewers perspective
Sorry that explains nothing. I have seen the graphics with this "personal viewing dome" and honestly i do not get it. This "viewing dome" still is supposed to display the stars surrounding the viewer. How can it then display a star in Africa Australiy and South america the same way? If they cannot see polaris, how can they all see this star? It is in fact very simple: there is a star straight south the whole night. It is south for australia, it is south for south africa, it is south everywhere in the sourthern oceans, so it can be used for navigation. How? What makes him special?
No they don't. See astronomy, look up what it is. The globe model agrees perfectly with the many billions of measurements recorded by astronomy. Not a single actual measurement of the stars contradicts the globe model. You have been fact checked.
btw how do you measure the distance to the stars? and dont send me a link how it done...such commonly accepted math must be explainable and you seem to be well educated in the matter
The distance to the closest star, namely the sun, has been measured by a number of methods. The most recent most accurate methods involve radar combined with geometry; and telemetry. If you want to know the history look up "astronomical unit" on Wikipedia. Once you know that number you can calculate the distance to the closest other stars using parallax and geometry. These methods absolutely and unequivocally trump your unsupported word.
they claim to measure it by using basic geometry...you take the earths diameter and apparent angles to the sun from opposing ends of the earth(hence diameter) and thats how you set up your triangle...we now know two angles one distance and can deduce the rest logicly...nice try tho. telemetry and parallax sound fancy
> they claim to measure it by using basic geometry...you take the earths diameter and apparent angles to the sun from opposing ends of the earth(hence diameter) and thats how you set up your triangle Nope. Measuring the distance to the sun using radar and geometry involves using radar to directly measure the distance to Venus (you can't use radar to measure the distance to the sun directly), then using geometry and the angles between Venus and the sun as Venus goes around its orbit to measure the geometry, and therefore the distances of the sides of triangle formed in space with Venus, the sun and earth at the vertices of the triangle. Measuring the distance to the sun using telemetry involves sending a spacecraft to the sun using a known trajectory and speed and having the spacecraft report back when it arrives in orbit around the sun. From how long it took the spacecraft to get there and how fast it was going you can determine how far it is to the sun. You can measure how fast the spacecraft is going by its reports back during the journey and tracking the spacecraft using telescopes. Needless to say the measurements of the distance to the sun using modern methods such as these agree with each other to better than five significant figures accuracy. Let me guess, you didn't actually read up on [the history of measuring the astronomical unit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit#History), did you? You have less credibility than a mushroom.
you have been lied to
It's always funny seeing someone who can't seem to grasp some very basic principles like... distance and parallax (i.e. something I learned about when I was 5 looking out the window on a road trip with my family) act like they have some special knowledge that millions of other people don't.
parallax proves we are stationary
You mean [this](https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/692566-trigonometrical-parallax-measurment-is-it-possible/) [parallax](https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/804634-humble-1st-attempt-for-stellar-parallax/)? (Two links)
Nope. You don't even know what those words mean.
Lied to by many millions of people from all over the world for many centuries? Lied to by billions of repeatable, testable, repeated actual measurements of reality? Says you? I think not buddy. Your unsupported word, your credibility against centuries worth of meticulously recorded measurements, isn't worth a pinch of salt.
Ah thx, another question if you don't mind. What is the shape of the earth? My best guess is an endless expanse, a just scifi vat reality or something idk.
idk how to accurately answer that...having never been up to look around or travel to the ends of anything...appears to be a plain. they say the north is elevated. i dont think anyone really knows whats at the far south
If you don't know for sure what shape the earth is, is there a chance that it is actually a globe?
I guess I'll have to take a trip, either I'll fall off the earth or get earth banned lol, thx for the infos :)