Earth and sun are same size and close
Flat earthers claim the sun and moon are equally sized and equally distant circles of light tracing their paths about 6000 to 8000 miles above the surface of a flat earth.
They claim by measuring the angles of the sunlight coming down through the clouds they have determined that the sun is “not millions of miles away but close to the earth, just above the clouds.”
They can not present any proof of these ideas and the model they present with sun and moon spinning above the flat earth can not reproduce the actual occurrence of day and night as we factually experience it on the earth. For example on the flat earth map it would be impossible for Antarctica to experience “midnight sun” as it is experienced in the northern regions. That is because on the flat earth map it is impossible for the sun to light up the entire Antarctic region simultaneously. However, in reality, this does occur. For some days during the summer the sun remains above the horizon for 24 hours without setting.
Conclusion: There is no factual or even valid theoretical basis for proposing the earth and the sun are the same size and are only 6000 to 8000 miles above a flat earth. The actual occurrence of day and night we experience can not be predicted by this model. This is not proof the earth is flat. It is proof that the flat earth map is incorrect.
Supporting Flat Earth Proofs
- 121) When you observe the Sun and Moon you see two equally-sized equidistant circles tracing similar paths at similar speeds around a flat, stationary Earth. The “experts” at NASA, however, claim your common sense every day experience is false on all counts! To begin with, they say the Earth is not flat but a big ball; not stationary but spinning around 19 miles per second; they say the Sun does not revolve around the Earth as it appears, but Earth revolves around the Sun; the Moon, on the other hand, does revolve around the Earth, though not East to West as it appears, rather West to East; and the Sun is actually 400 times larger than the Moon and 400 times farther away! You can clearly see they are the same size and distance, you can see the Earth is flat, you can feel the Earth is stationary, but according to the gospel of modern astronomy, you are wrong and a simpleton worthy of endless ridicule if you dare to trust your own eyes and experience.
- 123) Heliocentrists’ astronomical figures always sound perfectly precise, but they have historically been notorious for regularly and drastically changing them to suit their various models. For instance, in his time Copernicus calculated the Sun’s distance from Earth to be 3,391,200 miles. The next century Johannes Kepler decided it was actually 12,376,800 miles away. Issac Newton once said, “It matters not whether we reckon it 28 or 54 million miles distant for either would do just as well!” How scientific!? Benjamin Martin calculated between 81 and 82 million miles, Thomas Dilworth claimed 93,726,900 miles, John Hind stated positively 95,298,260 miles, Benjamin Gould said more than 96 million miles, and Christian Mayer thought it was more than 104 million! Flat-Earthers throughout the ages, conversely, have used sextants and plane trigonometry to make such calculations and found the Sun and Moon both to be only about 32 miles in diameter and less than a few thousand miles from Earth.
- 124) Amateur balloon footage taken above the clouds has provided stunning visual proof that the Sun cannot be millions of miles away. In several shots you can see a clear hot-spot reflecting on the clouds directly below the Sun’s spotlight-like influence. If the Sun were actually millions of miles away such a small, localized hot-spot could not occur.
- 125) Another proof the Sun is not millions of miles away is found by tracing the angle of sun-rays back to their source above the clouds. There are thousands of pictures showing how sunlight comes down through cloud-cover at a variance of converging angles. The area of convergence is of course the Sun, and is clearly NOT millions of miles away, but rather relatively close to Earth just above the clouds.
- 147) The ball-Earth model claims the Sun is precisely 400 times larger than the Moon and 400 times further away from Earth making them “falsely” appear exactly the same size. Once again, the ball model asks us to accept as coincidence something that cannot be explained other than by natural design. The Sun and the Moon occupy the same amount of space in the sky and have been measured with sextants to be of equal size and equal distance, so claiming otherwise is against our eyes, experience, experiments and common sense.
What about solar and lunar eclipses?
It’s not the sun and the EARTH as the same size, it’s the MOON and the sun as the same size, 70 miles wide by virtue of the 70 miles wide shadow the moon cast during the last major eclipse. Shadow can’t be smaller that object casting it.
The USA is approximately 2,800 miles wide between the west and east coasts–if the sun were only 70 miles wide then there would be times when it would be in the middle and setting to people on the East Coast and at the same time rising to people on the West Coast. Would be pretty easy to confirm by talking to someone in Manie and California at the same time–but it doesn’t happen.
Why does Alaska have 30 days of night? Why doesn’t Canada have it being close by?
It’s very well explained in the globe earth model. It happens in that model because the earth is spinning on a titled axis and as it goes around the sun at one pint the top, North is pointing away from the sun and bottom, South, is pointing towards the sun. So at that time at south pole the sun never sets and at the north pole the sun never rises. 6 months later the situation is reversed and the opposite happens.
On the flat earth model, it can be explained as the sun moves into the South, it is further away, so the light does not reach the north pole any more, so sun does not rise.
However there is a serious problem at the south pole for the flat earth model. Problem is on the flat earth there is no south pole. So it is not possible for the sun to illuminate the entire south, a circular island around the flat earth.
So flat earthers have to argue that this does not happen at the south pole. Flat earthers claim all the videos of midnight sun at the south pole are faked. Because if there was midnight sun at the south pole, that would break their flat earth model.
But there is midnight sun at both the north and south poles, and this does break the flat earth model.
I went down to have a look even, only to the bottom of South America, still I could clearly see the sun circling around and rising and setting in the south. Something totally impossible on the flat earth model…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GWJEve5A3I
That is only true for shadows cast by objects lighted by a point source of light.
An extended object casts a shadow that gradually darkens when you go from outside of the shadow to the center of shadow. You see less and less of the light source, until it is completely obscured and you have reached what is called the core shadow. This core shadow can easily be smaller that the object casting the shadow.
It’s shape in space is a cone and if you move away from the object casting the shadow (and the light source), at some distance you will not have a core shadow at all.
It is this core shadow that was 70 miles wide.
At times, due to the elliptic shapes of the orbit of the moon and the earth, the will be an annular solar eclipse and there is no core shadow at all.
You can easily view this effect for yourself with a large lamp and a small object between the lamp and some surface.
The Shadow can absolutely be smaller than the object that’s making it! I’m 5’10” tall… if I’m standing almost directly under a light my shadow is not 5’10” long!
Yes. Obviously. It is like a lens effect. Depends on the light source and the relationship of the light source to the object.
Yes, but that doesn’t work out for a sphere. The shadow cast by a sphere from a point source of light will be larger than the sphere’s cross section.
But the sun is not a point source of light??? Sun appears in the sky the same size as moon. That is not a point???
It would be nice to go up high altitude and continuously film the sun and moon. Theoretically, one should be able to see them much longer if the earth is flat since there is less refraction.
You can’t tell the distance and size of the Sun or Moon just by looking. If the Sun were twice as big and twice as far away, it would appear the same size. If the Sun were 400 times bigger and 400 times as far away, it would still appear the same size. I can hold a ping-pong ball at arm’s length and block out the Sun. That doesn’t mean the Sun and the ping-pong ball are the same size.
According to the Flat Earth model, the Sun and Moon are constantly about 6000 to 8000 miles above the Earth, and are just moving around in a circle. Also according to the Flat Earth model, Australia and Argentina are on opposite edges of the Earth. Assuming the distance between Buenos Aires and Sydney was about 20,000 miles, if the Sun was 6000 miles above Sydney, it would still be over 16 degrees above the horizon as seen from across the world in Buenos Aires. You could easily see the midnight Sun from Buenos Aires, or any place else on the planet.
Of course, the apparent size of the Sun and Moon would also have to change. The Sun would appear largest at noon, and smallest at sunrise or sunset. This would be easy enough to check. Take a picture of the Full Moon at moonrise, midnight, and halfway between, using the same magnification. If the Flat Earth model is correct, they should all be different sizes in the images.
Alternatively, you could build a pinhole viewer to view the Sun. Open the top of a cardboard box. Tape a white sheet of paper to the inside of one end. Poke a pinhole in the other end, or use a nail if you need more light. Point the pinhole end at the Sun, and you’ll see an image projected on the paper. Measure that image at noon, sunset, and halfway between. If the Flat Earth model is correct, the size of the Sun should change. In northern latitudes, it should shrink by half or more. As seen from Buenos Aires, the Sun above Sydney would shrink by 75% or more.
The Sun doesn’t shrink, and it doesn’t stay above the horizon. The Sun sets in the evening and it rises in the morning. Anyone can see this, so the Flat Earth model must be wrong.
Ross, how is it you say in one response that no matter how far away the sun is it would still look the same, but in another response you say distance would determine size? Which one is it?
Both. You can’t tell the distance to something just using its apparent size. The Sun is much bigger than the Moon, but it is also much farther away. They are the same apparent or angular size, but they are not the same absolute size.
According to the flat Earth model, the Sun and Moon travel above the surface of the Earth. As they move away from an observer, their apparent sizes should change. They don’t. For this and so many other reasons, the flat Earth model doesn’t work.
Have you ever seen sun dogs? They are caused by refraction in clouds. Similar cause to the ring around the Moon at night.
I suspect your balloonist videographers recorded a sun dog in the clouds. If they moved up, that “hot spot” would have moved away from them. If they moved down, it would have come toward them. If they were able to move laterally, it would have followed them in that direction as well.
Sun dogs. Google it.
Could you please guide me to where in copernicus books that i can find him measuring the distance to the sun to be 3391200 miles. Same goes for Kepler and Newton.
So, geniuses, why don’t one of you take a boat ride to the ice wall / Antarctica and just tell us what you see. You’re theorizing about something that you can PHYSICALLY get to.
So you think that you can just sail to Antarctica do you? Or fly there? Lol.
IF people were allowed to do that they’d find ICE. Lol.
It’s illegal to fly over Antarctica. And sailing there is extremely dangerous. A life threatening adventure, to say the least.
https://www.townandtourist.com/do-flight-paths-go-over-antarctica-north-pole-restricted-truth-revealed/
Hold up guys! just tell to those who have got throught the Antarctica by walk that the were in fact just spinning around the earth. Actually they would have walked tens thousand miles only to reach the opposite point on flat earth theory.
If the flat Earth theory is correct, why does a ship appear to sink into the sea as it goes further away, even when watched by a telescope?
Hi Stokie. You can research this and there is no actual point where a ship sinks below the horizon. It is more or less an illusion. In the sense that if you look with your naked eyes the ship does appear to disappear in the distance, and you imagine it has sunk below the horizon of the curving earth. However, if you take out your telescope and look, you will see the ship is still there. Just you can’t see it with your naked eyes. So the ship did not go over the curve, it just went too far away for you to see it with your naked eyes.
So it is very difficult really to actually establish the ship is sinking below the horizon because, although you may convince yourself you see it sinking below the horizon in the distance, if you look in your telescope it is still there.
This has been done. The Earth is not flat.
https://external-preview.redd.it/bMaoqDKbrSu2z5ippN4-ZZlnegmhlTGgAS-Cccxt4Bs.jpg?auto=webp&s=77288c8e1fadf6c70dbd38ebcfd5573bdd019331
Langernak,
On my computer the image of distant barges ( or whatever ) behind some ocean water shows very little. The most I could obtain was apparently two still photographic images. What was the time spread between photos? The water in front of the barges could just have been a swell. How far away was the photographer?
In short, the photo doesn’t appear to prove anything let alone Earth convexity. The image only spurs questions.
Thanks.
People pick the images that support their ideas. You can certainly get images like this. And you can also get images that show things in the distance you should not be able to see if we were on a globe of 8,000 miles diameter.
The reality is there are all sorts of distortions and optical effects that happen when you try to look in the distance. So it is very difficult to prove anything conclusively in this way.
However it is dishonest for any globe earther to state that the horizon behaves as we would expect it to on a globe of 8,000 miles in diameter. There are things that are accepted by scientists as unexplained contradictions to their models and these observations that are inconsistent with calculated, expected, horizon distances, it is one of these things. The real scientists accept that there are anomalies between the observation and the prediction of the globe earth model in many cases in regard to horizon distances. This has been known as an anomaly by science for hundreds of years and there is no proper explanation for it with the globe earth model, at least not at the moment.
The observations are not consistent with what we would expect on a flat earth either….
On a Ascension Day, I took some pictures on lake Markermeer while sailing.
They show wind turbines with some sail apparently sticking in the water and a large sailing boat of which the sails and bowsprit can be seen, but not the hull.
I have relevant documentation, like local weather conditions, my location and elevation and the location of the wind turbines and probably the ship.
Anyone interested?
If earth is a spinning ball, you could
hover in one spot with a Helicopter China should come to you.
Yes. But that presumes you can get out of the spinning frame of reference. For the globe earth model to be true they say that by some mystical yet to be explained force even when your helicopter has no physical connection with the earth it is still being pulled around with the spin of the earth, it is still in the same rotating frame of reference as the earth, even though it is physically disconnected from the earth. For scientists this is a mystery. They don’t like to talk about it because they can’t explain it.
But without this mysterious unexplained magical force, the globe earth model is completely broken.
Without this magical force you would be able to just go up in your helicopter and hover there for 12 hours and land on the other side of the earth…
That is why the globe earthers have to depend on this mysterious magical force that grabs your helicopter and pulls it around in exact synchronization with the rotation of the earth. Meaning if you go up in the sky in your helicopter and hover there for 12 hours and land you will be in exactly the same spot as from where you took off. Because the magical mystery force kept your helicopter hooked up to the rotation of the earth and pulled it around with the rotation of the earth.
What does it mean to “you can get out of the spinning frame of reference.”
The spinning reference is a theoretical construct that extends to infinity. it is perfectly fine to have relative motion with respect to a frame of reference.
A frame of reference does not imply any physical process. It is just needed to quantify motions.
Rubbish. You are not thinking. Frame of reference, as we are using it, means something you can measure relative motion against. So that means everything in the frame of reference has to be stationary in relation to the object. Otherwise, you can not use it as a frame of reference. So if you are going to consider the earth and the atmosphere around the earth to be in the same frame of reference, that means there has to be a force, a mechanism to connect the rotation of the earth with the atmosphere and everything in it.
And at the same time you have to allow everything in the atmosphere to move freely with relation to the earth underneath it.
The point is we can not detect the rotation of the earth in any way. In every way we test it the earth appears to be stationary. It is just a theory that the earth is rotating. But actually, in every way we test it scientifically, the earth appears to be stationary. There is no indication at all that it is rotating, except for what we see happening in the sky, that is what gives us the idea that the earth is rotating.
There is certainly a rotation between the earth and the sky. We have presumed it is the earth that is rotating, but we have not been able to detect in any way the rotation of the earth. We can only deduce that the earth is rotating by what we see happening in the sky. But what is happening in the sky could easily be caused by the things in the sky rotating. And actually that is really what seems to be happening.
Because if the earth was actually rotating we would be able to detect that. And also, if the earth was rotating you could fly above it and, you would have the rotational motion of the earth, but if you fly your plane in reverse of the direction of the rotation you could negate that initial rotation that you had when taking off the spinning earth, then you could just stay there, and wait for the earth to rotate to your destination at 1000 miles per hour below you and then land…
But you can’t do this. In reality it makes no difference at all what direction you fly, except for the wind, there is no effect of the rotation of the earth as you are flying around in the sky.
For this to happen above a rotating earth it means there has to be some force that is physically connecting your plane to the earth and pulling it around with the rotation of the earth and at the same time allowing you freedom to fly in any direction you desire.
But science has never proposed such a force. And if you talk about this with any scientist, they just run. They are terrified of it. Because there is no answer. This is proof actually that the earth is stationary. There is no rotation. Because there is no way we can keep the atmosphere and everything in it in the same rotational frame of reference as a rotating earth and still allow the storm systems and airplanes and butterfly’s to move independently and effortlessly in any direction they desire…
So this is absolute proof that the earth is stationary, not rotating, and that the rotational movements we see in the sky, they are actually rotational movements in the sky, they are not caused by us viewing it from a rotating earth.
There is no one in science who can argue against this. They just run and hide…
No, because you’d be fighting a 1,000 mph wind storm in your efforts to remain “stationary”. (The earth’s atmosphere moves with it is the planet revolves.)
If earth spins counter clockwise at over a thousand miles an hour flying clockwise at 500 miles per hour with a head wind it is difficult to imagine you would reach your destination at the same amount of time as flying counter clockwise.
Yes. It can only happen if you remain connected to the spin of the earth as you are flying in the sky. This is perhaps the greatest flaw in the globe earth model but I think the flat earthers and most of the globe earthers can’t comprehend this. For things to behave as we experience them the atmosphere, your plane, the butterflies, the storm systems, and everything in the atmosphere must be moving in the exact same frame of reference as the rotating earth while still allowing freedom of movement in all directions within that rotating frame of reference.
So that’s OK, globe earthers presume this is the case. That the atmosphere and everything in it is in the same frame of reference as the rotating earth, means it is connected to and being pulled around exactly with the rotation of the earth. The problem is no such force has ever been described which could do this.
The point is that if you are in a moving vehicle then you are free to move around inside the vehicle, you are moving, everything is moving with the vehicle, so the movement of the vehicle, it becomes irrelevant to you.
So that is the globe earth explanation as to why the rotation of the earth has no effect on your plane flying around the earth. Because, in their imagination, you plane is somehow physically connected to the rotating earth and being pulled around in the direction of the earth’s rotation while allowing your plane to move freely in that rotating field…
But that force, that is holding your plane and rotating it with the earth, no one can imagine what that is or how it could possible work.
In this regard, according to our experience, it appears the earth is stationary. Because if the earth was actually rotating and you take off in your plane, you will still have that rotation of the earth, but you will be disconnected from the rotation of the earth, and you simply have to go in the reverse direction and counteract that initial rotation and you can just then sit still above the earth rotating below you at 1000 MPH and wait for your destination to appear below you and land.
But this is impossible. Why? Because the earth is not rotating, the earth is stationary.
Yes, go ahead and pretend gravity does not exist. If you cannot understand that the earth’s atmosphere and surface are influenced by each other then go ahead playing in your mind with your pretend helicopters.
No one is pretending gravity does not exist Brian. There is no way gravity can explain how a helicopter can be pulled around by the earth rotating below it.
Gravity is a force that pulls objects towards the center of a bigger object. So all gravity can do is pull the helicopter down towards the center of the earth. And as the earth rotates the center of the earth stays in the same position. So there is no rotational component to the gravitational force. It is pulling to the center of the earth, and the center of the earth is staying in the same position, it is not rotating.
What the scientists who try to answer this question say is that the earth is rotating, so the helicopter, when it is sitting on the earth is rotating with the earth and when it goes into the sky, even though it is disconnected from the earth, it still has that same rotational force and continues to rotate as it was rotating on the ground. And this is correct.
If you are spinning around on one of those children’s spinning things in the park and you jump off, you still have that spinning force even after you jump off the spinning thing.
So that is the “correct” answer according to science. It does not have anything to do with gravity.
However this answer is not correct. Because, sure, you do have that same rotational spin as the earth on your helicopter when you take off, but the helicopter can only be going in one direction. So if you want to stop above the spinning earth and wait for China to spin around below you all you have to do is counteract that spinning rotation you got from the spin of the earth. So you just have to fly in the reverse direction to the spin of the earth, until you have negated that spin that you got from the spinning earth, then you are stationary above the spinning earth and can just sit there for 12 hours and the other side of the planet will be below you and you can just land.
Now, if you can’t do this, then the scientists are wrong, the globe earth model is incorrect.
Of course, as you hint, they will have to say this magical unexplained force has not just got hold of your helicopter, it is holding and spinning the entire atmosphere and everything in it, including your helicopter, the air, the clouds, the birds, the insects, etc. All are being held tightly and are being spun in the direction of the rotation of the earth, keeping everything in exactly the same spot above the earth while still allowing them to move around in relation to their position on the earth by exerting some force.
So if we are to believe the earth is rotating then we have to believe in this magical mystical unexplained force.
Otherwise, if we are to believe our observations, the earth is not rotating at all.
There is no explanation from science for this. It is a mystery to them. And they will try to change the subject if you bring it up and get angry if you press them for an explanation. Because they don’t have an explanation.
Because our observations are consistent with the earth being stationary, and the scientists don’t want to accept that the earth is stationary, it is against their religion. That would put the earth in the center, but they don’t want to believe the earth is in the center, they are sun worshipers, they want to believe the sun is in the center, that is their religion.
“Gravity is a force that pulls objects towards the center of a bigger object. So all gravity can do is pull the helicopter down towards the center of the earth. And as the earth rotates the center of the earth stays in the same position. So there is no rotational component to the gravitational force. It is pulling to the center of the earth, and the center of the earth is staying in the same position, it is not rotating.”
Presumably, gravity is centripetal. We only observe objects descend toward Earth’s surface. Directional bias apart from that appears non existent except for weather or wind directions which are intermittent and not directionally or otherwise consistent.
“If you are spinning around on one of those children’s spinning things in the park and you jump off, you still have that spinning force even after you jump off the spinning thing.”
Which is precisely what we don’t find on Earth. A cannon ball fired straight up will often land back into the barrel that fired it. This has been observed more often than you might guess. If it lands apart from the initial launch it will land very close by without any directional bias unless there’s a bias designed into the cannon or projectile. The child’s outdoor gym equipment or ferris wheel does not describe what projectiles and or launch vehicles experience.
Remember Sea Launch. Years ago Boeing was going to launch rockets with satellites from a floating platform in equatorial waters to supposedly benefit from Earth’s supposed 1000 miles per hour equatorial rotation velocity. Of course it didn’t work and the publicity stunt faded onto historical silliness. Unfortunately, NASA’s continued funding ensures an apparently steady stream of nonsense at and costly error at the expense of America’s well being and sanity.
Yes. There is no evidence of the earth rotating. Which there should be if we were rotating. All attempts to prove the earth is rotating have failed. Nothing behaves as we would expect it to if the earth was rotating. So the obvious conclusion is the earth is not rotating. That is how it appears to our senses and to all our experiments. Earth is stationary and the objects we see rising and setting in the sky are rotating around the earth, as they appear to be doing.
So there is a rotational force in the system, but it is the celestial objects rotating around or above the earth, not the earth itself rotating.
That is what appears to be happening if we look at the evidence in an impartial way without any preconceived idea of what is going on.
“Yes. There is no evidence of the earth rotating. Which there should be if we were rotating. All attempts to prove the earth is rotating have failed. Nothing behaves as we would expect it to if the earth was rotating. So the obvious conclusion is the earth is not rotating.”
Not to be argumentative or redundant, but this is why I say the current globe Earth model and previous heliocentric models are neither workable nor scientific. It’s not empirical.
“So there is a rotational force in the system, but it is the celestial objects rotating around or above the earth, not the earth itself rotating.”
Perfectly stated and I agree with you. Btw, prior ages have been called ages of exploration. This cannot be said of the current age. The population seems cowed into subservience by irrational pseudo-scientific paranoia of imaginary cold germs and imbecility so vile past ages of achievement would laugh at the docile stupefying acceptance of it.
Flat Earth Facts,
Please allow me to apologize the two links I provided yesterday don’t seem to work.
However, I do have a question I read from somewhere else regarding Mercury, Venus and our presumed solar system.
Do you know that Venus and Mercury are observable in the night sky through a telescope? The question is: how can the Earth be a globe if we can see the planets nudged between it and Sun. At night the Earth is supposedly turned away from the sun and the presumed inner planets are supposed to be closer to the sun, between Earth and Sun. That shaky but supposedly working model is very wobbly and soon will crash.
Have a great day!
It is all consistent with the globe model On The Level. They are close to the sun, Mercury and Venus particularly, very close to the sun, so you can only see Venus depending on where it is, before sunrise or after sunset, sometimes you can see Venus and Mars crossing the sun, that is called transiting the sun. So all these observations are inline with the globe earth model.
You can not see Venus and Mars if, because of the earth’s rotation, you are looking out in the wrong direction in the sky. So at midnight it will be impossible to see Venus and very unlikely to see Mars. However Mars is further out than Venus. So I do not exact details. But you will find you can only see them when you should be able to see them, considering the globe earth model.
So all these things, they have been tested and checked, and these basic things, the observations are consistent with us being on a rotating globe.
Gravity secures the atmosphere to the surface, which moves with the planet’s rotation, which forces the helicopter to move along with it.
Not sure why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.
Rubbish. It is insane. The atmosphere is NOT secured to the surface, you fool. The atmosphere moves independently to the surface of the earth. Have you heard of wind, storms, etc. The atmosphere is not at all secured to the earth, it moves independently and freely in relation to the surface of the earth.
The problem is, if the earth were to be rotating, the atmosphere and everything in it would have to physically secured to the earth and being pulled around with the rotation of the earth at the same time allowing the completely free movement of the atmosphere, in relation to the surface of the earth.
There is an example to help understand the situation. That is ants walking on a potter’s wheel.
A potter has a spinning wheel that he puts a lump of clay on and spins the wheel and works with the clay. So there may be some ants walking around on the potters wheel. So those ants will spin with the wheel but will stay in there relative positions on the spinning wheel and even as the wheel spins they are free to move over the spinning surface of the wheel as they like.
So this is the situation that would have to be established, if the earth was rotating. There would have to be a mechanism to physically connect in the same frame of reference the spinning earth, the atmosphere and everything in the atmosphere. As the ants are physically connected to, standing on, the potter’s wheel, similarly the atmosphere and everything in it would have to be physically connected with the spinning earth. And, as the ants can still move freely on the spinning wheel, the atmosphere and everything in it still has to be free to move in any direction regardless of the spin of the earth.
I know it is hard to grasp but science has not been able to explain how this is possible. They have never proposed any force that can rotate the atmosphere and everything in it, pulling it around with the rotation of the earth, while still allowing completely free movement in any direction in relation to the earth.
If gravity was so strong that it could secure the atmosphere, and the helicopter, to the earth, and pull them around with it as it rotates, then you also would be secured to the earth and pulled around as it rotates. You would not be able to move.
So you can’t have it both ways, being secured to the surface of the earth and pulled around with the rotation of the earth but at the same time being completely free to move in any direction you desire without consideration of secured to the earth by gravity.
So it is an unexplained mystery. It actually appears the earth is stationary and everything we see in the sky is moving. That is how it appears to us, that is how it was traditionally understood by ancient cultures, and that is what the science points to.
Stationary earth. That is the most likely possibility.
No one said the atmosphere and the surface are locked together atom for atom, so calm down and keep the name-calling in check. You let your emotions ruin any chance for rational thought.
The atmosphere most definitely DOES move with the earth as it rotates, and of COURSE there is some fluidity inherent in that relationship.
I don’t get you actually. Do you claim the earth is a globe like all other observable heavenly bodies, or that it stands alone as a giant pizza? Pick a side already.
You have fallen for the modern deception, “pick a side”. You have to pick a side… Both sides have got their already prewritten scripts. You pick a side, learn the script and repeat it. This “pick a side” it is not science, not logic, and stupid actually. If you honestly analyze both sides you will find flaws on both sides. There are a lot more flaws on the flat earth side because they have not been able to formulate a working model, whereas globe earth model is very well established by some of the greatest thinkers who ever walked on the earth. So logically speaking, the globe earth script is much better, much more substantial, much more convincing, much more scientific then the very poorly developed flat earth script. But that does not mean, given some great scientific minds working on it, an equally convincing globe earth scrip could be developed.
So this idea that there are only two sides and we should pick a side and learn the script and repeat it, that is not going to get us anywhere.
Our idea here, on flatearthfacts.com is to consider if a script based on completely different initial assumptions to the ones that underpin the globe earth model can be written which is at least as good and convincing as the globe earth script.
It is my very strong suspicion that the globe earth script we are currently following is based on a number of fatal flawed initial assumptions. We know at least the globe earth model is not absolutely correct because of a number of clear flaws where it fails to predict our observations. A big one being that you can see too far, in many cases you can see things that should be hidden behind the curve of the presumed globe. And another big one is the missing force that has to exist to hold the atmosphere and everything in it in the same spinning frame of reference as the spinning globe. This is such a gaping hole in the globe earth model. It is such a big flaw that the globe earthers just disappear when you mention it. They have no answer. The reality is our actual observations indicate the earth is stationary. So it is a great leap of faith by the globe earthers to believe the earth is spinning when we have no way of explaining how the earth could be connected seamlessly to the atmosphere and everything in it and be holding and spinning everything in exact synchronization with the earth and at the same time allow free movement in every direction for the storm systems, the butterflies, the airplanes, etc. This is really nails in the coffin of the spinning globe arguement.
So point is there are serious problems with both the globe earth model of the scientists and of course the flat earth model, as it is currently presented, is hopeless from a scientific and logical perspective. So it is not a question of joining one team and learning their script and repeating it. That is not going to get us anywhere at all..
Please view video below. It ties in perfectly with both presumed Earth motion and shape.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL_wplBDrGc
Yes. He’s got the idea but his video is not actually correct.
Because the earth is spinning when the balloon is on the ground it is spinning with the earth, so when it takes off it is still spinning with the earth. Even though disconnected from the earth, it still has the spin, so will still be moving in the same direction the earth is moving. The maker of this video is unaware of or ignores this point.
But if you can counteract that spin on the balloon that it got from taking off from a spinning globe, then it will be stationary above a spinning earth. And you can just wait up there 12 hours and land on the other side of the globe.
If you can’t do this in truth then the spinning globe model is wrong.
If you accept that
“ Gravity is a force that pulls objects towards the center of a bigger object.”,
it follows that huge objects must be almost spherical, or oblate ellipsoids when they rotate.
Material strength of rocks at the center of a flat earth would not Gravity is a force that pulls objects towards the center of a bigger object. Material strength would not be sufficient to support the mass of the outer rims and collapse. Let alone the water in the oceans that would have a force acting on it towards the center of the flat earth, unbalanced by the hydrostatic forces that would act perpendicularly from the water surface.
I don’t accept it. That is the Newtonian idea, but we can not prove it or disprove it from earth. Because whatever experiment we try, it will be completely overwhelmed by the gravity of the earth. So gravity is only a theory, a theory that we are unable to prove or disprove. Of course Einstein rejected this Newtonian idea and proposed gravity was a result of bending time and space??? Because he was frustrated, Newtonian gravity does not work, so Einstein just proposed something totally ridiculous and inconceivable and impossible, bending time and space…
It’s all rubbish speculation that can not be tested. So these are just the daydreams of “scientists” who don’t have anything practical to do with their time.
Flat Earth Facts,
Based on your’ reply I’ve reconsidered my following question:
“Do you know that Venus and Mercury are observable in the night sky through a telescope? The question is: how can the Earth be a globe if we can see the planets nudged between it and Sun. At night the Earth is supposedly turned away from the sun and the presumed inner planets are supposed to be closer to the sun, between Earth and Sun.”
Johanne Kepler’s mentor Geocentric, globe theoretician Tyco Brahe mentally visualized the Sun orbit the Earth and the so called planets or wandering stars orbit the sun. The arrangement accounted for all observation. A similar configuration can also apply to Flat Earth except the sun circles over a level plain rather than around a fixed, unmoving ball.
If you think it through carefully it does explain observations.
On The Level. Venus and Mars are not visible from the other side of the earth when they are between the earth and the sun. But they are not always between the earth and the sun. They are rotating around the sun. So sometimes the are on one side, sometimes on the other, sometimes behind and sometimes in front of the sun. And, at least as far as I am aware, all our observations are consistent with the globe earth model. You can not always see Venus and Mars. When they are hidden behind the globe you can’t see them.
As I say “Flat Earthers Don’t Look at the Sky,” the second part of your post proves that. It is not possible, particularly in the southern hemisphere, to describe what we see in the sky as you propose. What we see in the sky in the Southern Hemisphere is what you would expect to see from a globe.
I am not aware of any observations of Mars passing between the earth and the sun. At least, there is no such thing as a Mars transit in front of the sun.
Mercury and Venus do have transits, during which they can be seen in as black disks moving over the surface of the sun. I remember quite well the Venus transit I saw with my own eyes,
wearing eclipse glasses, on June 8th 2004.
I think you are mixing up Mars with Mercury here.
Mars can sometimes be found opposite to the sun, last time October 13th 2020, but not Venus not Mercury.
Yes, you are correct, I meant to say Mercury. Sorry. Mars is an outer planet, further away from the sun than the earth, so it can not pass between the earth and the sun. Only Mercury and Venus can pass between the earth and the sun and they do and we see it sometimes, coming in front of the sun. So as far as I know all the observations are completely consistent with the sun centered globe earth model.
Venus can indeed be seen at night, currently it shines very brightly after sunset in the south west, but only up to about two hours after sunset (from Europe). It is never visible around midnight. Mercury will even sink below the horizon a shorter time after sunset.
Sinking below the horizon can be interpreted as the globe rotating such that it caries me, the observer, out of view. I see no issues here.
Tycho Brahes model does indeed work just as well when you consider the trajectories of the planets and do not care about the forces required to make them do so, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tychonic_system.
FEF, you keep repeating the statement that science cannot explain why objects suchase aircraft continue to rotate with the planet when not tethered to it. Elementary science has been able to explains it very simply since Newton.
Launch a cannon ball straight up and it still retains its initial angular velocity, and ignoring air local air current effects like wind, thermals, is not accelerated lateral by the atmosphere as this airmail also has the same angular velocity. (During its climb it will be following a fractionally longer path , but this effect is really tiny compared to the size of the Earth. )
The key concept is Newton’s first law, stating that an object in motion will remain at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force. That force is gravity.
Put simply, the Earth, atmosphere and cannonball, once rotating will continue to rotate unless something acts to change this. This was clear to Newton when published in 1687 and makes nonsense of a claim that science is unable to explain the phenomena.
You are totally misconstruing what I have said. I have always accepted that the object, when it becomes disconnected from the earth, will still have the same spin of the earth in its motion. So if you jump up from an earth spinning at 1000 mph then you will still be spinning at 1000 mph. And you are up for a few seconds and you will come down in the same place because you continue spinning with the earth. And your cannon ball example is the same. I have never said anything different to this.
But if you are in an airplane, say, and you take off the earth and earth is spinning, initially you have got that spin of the earth, say 1000 mph, you can turn around and fly in the opposite direction to the spin of the earth underneath you. There is no longer any connection between you and the earth. Gravity does not pull you around with the earth. That is not your argument. Your argument is you continue to spin in the same direction of the earth as the earth is spinning, because of Newton’s law. So you are admitting there is no connection between you and the earth, once you leave it.
So there is no force science have ever proposed that can pull you around with the earth, once you are no longer connected to the earth.
Sure, when you take off from the earth, as well as the direction you are heading in you have the spin of the earth, but you can just fly in the opposite direction to the spin of the earth. Go 1000 mph for an hour in the opposite direction to the spin of the earth. Then you can just stop there and watch the earth spin below you.
BUT THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE.
Actually the earth is stationary. The earth does not spin. That is the only logical conclusion. Otherwise there would be no need of spending on all this fuel. You could just go up. Travel against the spin of the earth, and just wait as the earth spins underneath you, and your destination would arrive, then you can just land.
if you can’t do this, and you can’t do this, that is solid proof that the earth is stationary.
You are not taking into account the atmosphere. The atmosphere is travelling with the surface of the Earth. An aircraft travelling westward at 1000 mph would be travelling through the air at 1000 mph. If it shut down its engines, aerodynamic drag would quickly return it to an airspeed of 0 mph. The aircraft would again be travelling with the surface of the Earth.
Oh, these “scientists” are so stupid!
The atmosphere is not connected to the earth. It can move in any direction. It does not have to move with the rotation of the earth. Atmosphere, that means the air, the winds are blowing in all sorts of directions irrespective to the direction of the rotation of the earth.
AND THERE IS NO FORCE PROPOSDED BY SCIENCE THAT COULD MOVE THE ATMOSPHERE WITH THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH!!!
And even if it was moving with the earth the air does not provide much resistance to the plane. Of course there can be head wind and tail wind, still plane can go in any direction, it is not moved by the air, which is all the atmosphere is.
So there is no way science can answer this question. The earth is stationary. That is the only possible answer.
Hi FEF,
You state:
“So there is no way science can answer this question. The earth is stationary. That is the only possible answer.”
Yet, you yourself provided a more valid scientific rebuttal to James when you stated:
“The atmosphere is not connected to the earth. It can move in any direction. It does not have to move with the rotation of the earth. Atmosphere, that means the air, the winds are blowing in all sorts of directions irrespective to the direction of the rotation of the earth.”
You could go further to note there’s no scientific observational evidence of Earth’s rotation or movement at all! Yes, many “scientists” are stupid but it’s not the case that science is flawed or all “scientists” in their observations and conclusions, or there would be no advancement at all!
Thanks.
Hi OTL
Yes. I have explained this so many times, it becomes tiring to repeat it again and again.
But this is a very fatal flaw in the spinning globe earth model.
For it to work there has to be a contiguous frame of reference including the spinning earth which is somehow physically connected to the atmosphere and everything in the atmosphere up to some undetermined hight.
Because everything works for us as if the earth was stationary. So that is OK if it is all within the same moving frame of reference. Like if you are in a moving airplane, then inside the plane, because everything is moving together, there is no evidence of the movement.
So for a spinning earth to work you need something like the plane, a moving frame of reference, that encompasses the spinning earth and the spinning atmosphere and everything in it.
Then it will work. Like inside the airplane you can move in any direction without any consideration or impact of the direction of the plane.
The problem is how to construct a shared frame of reference like the airplane including the spinning earth and the spinning atmosphere?
There is no connection actually. As you mention atmosphere is just air and the air moves in different directions without any regard to the spinning of the earth.
Even the “scientists,” the only thing they can say is because plane is on spinning earth when it takes off, it still has the spin, which is true, but there is nothing stopping the plane from travelling in the reverse direction of the spin of the earth…
So spinning globe actually falls apart with this realization and no scientist or globe earther has ever presented an answer to this problem. There is no answer, they have no answer. They do not have any way of explaining how the atmosphere and everything in it is held by and spun with the spinning earth, and at the same time the atmosphere and everything in it is completely free to move in any direction at all…
The frame of reference example is ants walking around on a spinning potter’s wheel. The ants are spinning with the wheel because they are connected to it, they are walking on it. And the spin of the wheel is not very important to them, they are still walking around on the wheel and are seen in different places on the wheel at different times.
This works because the ants are connected and spinning with the potters wheel and at the same time they have got the freedom to move to any part of the wheel without and regard to the spinning of the wheel.
But there is no way actually to include the atmosphere, the spinning earth and everything in the atmosphere in such a common moving frame of reference…
I have been studying this and I have 3 questions: 1. On FE model Australia is stretched out, oblong. can the calculations of triangulated measurements be made to correct such inaccuracies and has anyone done this?
2. Because the sun is so bright wouldn’t it be most obvious to observe it beyond the horizon at sunset instead of a ship or light from a light house. has anyone done this?
3. If sun and moon are smaller and more localised how do they appear larger on the horizon when actually they are meant to be farther away?
no. 2. I mean shouldn’t the sun be observes for a further distance with a telescopic or infrared lens dissapearing over the horizon than ships or lighthouses.
I totally get the heliocentric flaws with curvature and gravity, but I have another final question of the FE model that i’ve never heard adressed:
if at any place on the Earth magnetic north point to the centre of “the circle”(North Pole) , and south points toward the outside of the circle( toward the ice wall surrounding “earth”), this would mean east and west is essentially curved and not a straight line. So in the Summer at noon on the Equator the sun is at its zenith but sunrise and sunset would not be observed to rise and set perpendicular to North and South on a compass, but rather rise in the north east and set in the north west. Or am I missing something?
Obviously the map the flat earthers present is impossible. It can not be like that…