# Non-changing view of Stars prove flat earth

Throughout thousands of years the same stars and constellations have remained fixed in their same patterns. If the Earth were a big ball spinning around a bigger Sun spinning around a bigger galaxy shooting off from the Biggest Bang, it is impossible that the constellations would remain so fixed.

Conclusion: The constant non-changing view we have of the stars and constellations and the polestar remaining fixed over the north pole would be impossible if the earth moved in the way it is supposed in the globe earth model. Our observations of the sky lead us to presume the earth is fixed in its position within the universe. Earth could still be a globe rotating but would have to remain fixed in one place for the sky to appear as it does to us. So while this is not proof the earth is flat it is a strong indication the earth does not move in space as it is proposed in the globe earth model.

# Supporting Flat Earth Proofs

• 19) Tycho Brahe famously argued against the heliocentric theory in his time, positing that if the Earth revolved around the Sun, the change in relative position of the stars after 6 months orbital motion could not fail to be seen.
• 148) Quoting “Earth Not a Globe!” by Samuel Rowbotham, “It is found by observation that the stars come to the meridian about four minutes earlier every twenty-four hours than the sun, taking the solar time as the standard. This makes 120 minutes every thirty days, and twenty-four hours in the year. Hence all the constellations have passed before or in advance of the sun in that time. This is the simple fact as observed in nature, but the theory of rotundity and motion on axes and in an orbit has no place for it. Visible truth must be ignored, because this theory stands in the way, and prevents its votaries from understanding it.”
• 149) Throughout thousands of years the same constellations have remained fixed in their same patterns without moving out of position whatsoever. If the Earth were a big ball spinning around a bigger Sun spinning around a bigger galaxy shooting off from the Biggest Bang as NASA claims, it is impossible that the constellations would remain so fixed. Based on their model, we should, in fact, have an entirely different night sky every single night and never repeat exactly the same star pattern twice.
• 150) If Earth were a spinning ball it would be impossible to photograph star-trail time-lapses turning perfect circles around Polaris anywhere but the North Pole. At all other vantage points the stars would be seen to travel more or less horizontally across the observer’s horizon due to the alleged 1000mph motion beneath their feet. In reality, however, Polaris’s surrounding stars can always be photographed turning perfect circles around the central star all the way down to the Tropic of Capricorn.
• 151) If Earth were a spinning ball revolving around the Sun it would actually be impossible for star-trail photos to show perfect circles even at the North Pole! Since the Earth is also allegedly moving 67,000mph around the Sun, the Sun moving 500,000mph around the Milky Way, and the entire galaxy going 670,000,000mph, these four contradictory motions would make star-trail time-lapses all show irregular curved lines.

## 60 Replies to “Non-changing view of Stars prove flat earth”

1. Philip Gunby

#151 I think there is an error by stating the galaxy moves @ 670 million mph. What is the source of that statement?

• Wes Johnson
• Michael

The article quoted states that the speed of LIGHT is 670 million miles per hour, not the Milky Way galaxy. The galaxy does NOT move at the speed of light.

2. Hook

“If Earth were a spinning ball revolving around the Sun it would actually be impossible for star-trail photos to show perfect circles even at the North Pole! Since the Earth is also allegedly moving 67,000mph around the Sun, the Sun moving 500,000mph around the Milky Way, and the entire galaxy going 670,000,000mph, these four contradictory motions would make star-trail time-lapses all show irregular curved lines.”

Nearest star is 2 light year away. A star-trail photo takes maximum 12 hours to take.
12h * 500,000mph = 6,000,000 miles, one light year is 6,000,000,000,000 miles, so there is 1 millionth of scale difference at least. The difference is even way higher for galaxies, as the nearest galaxy is 2 million light year away. If you are thinking that 1 millionth scale difference should be detectable on a star-trail photo, then probably do rest the math. You will get the difference even on a 8k resolution image would be way less than a pixel.

• Big L

Pretty convenient that they are choosing such high numbers then. As if they needed those numbers to make the model work…

• Rico

Forget the stars look up Venus how far is it from earth the sun moves across but Venus is closer and it barely moves.

• On the Level

“Nearest star is 2 light year away.”

How do you know?

Mark Twain

“There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”

― Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi

• Hook

““Nearest star is 2 light year away.”

How do you know?”

Well, the whole topic here could have given you a clue about it.
For close stars, the distance measured by parallax, the closest one is 0.772-arcsec away, from that you can get a pretty accurate distance. Of course, you can claim, that is a lie too, but even an amateur astronomer can make this measurement with a simple telescope for some of the nearby bright stars. (and have been done countless times in the last 150 years)

(note, I was actually wrong, the closest star (Alpha Centauri) is 4.4 light years away)

• Flat Earth Facts

How can you measure parallel over 4.4 light years away???

Why don’t you do the math before speaking.

4.4 light years is 25,865,950,000,000 miles. This is 2 of the sides of the triangle you are trying to measure the angle of.

Other side of the triangle is the movement of the earth from one side of the sun to the other. Earth, so they say, rotates around the sun, and sun, they say is 93,000,000 miles away. So in 6 months the earth moves twice this distance, six months later the earth will have moved to other side of sun which is 186,000,000 miles away. That is the third side of the triangle and the only way you can estimate the distance to the star is by accurately measuring this angle.

So what is this angle you have to measure. This is called an Isosceles Triangle. The base of it is the distance the earth moves in 6 months, 186 million miles away, the distance to the star is unknown. But if you know the base and the angle, then you can get the distance to the star… We know the base. And we have guessed, more-or-less the length of the two long sides, because the angle is so small, sides will be practically the same as the height of the triangle which is the distance to the star, we guess to be 25,865,950,000,000 miles.

So what is the angle we have to measure to verify the distance to the nearest star??

Put in: side b = 186000000
side a = 25865950000000

So we have a very big problem in measuring this angle… The two angles on the base of the triangle are 90 degrees…

The actual angle that we have to measure accurately to verify the 4.4 light year distance of the star is: 0.000412 degrees…

There is absolutely no way that anyone can measure an angle from the earth to an object in the sky with this degree of accuracy.

So there is no such experiment. No one can do this experiment. There is no way whatsoever of verifying the distance to the stars. They have guessed only. And the only reason they put the stars so far away is they have to be so far away if the earth is moving almost 200 million miles in 6 months to the other side of the sun… If the stars were not so so so unimaginably far away, we would be able to measure the parallax.

• Hook

“…The actual angle that we have to measure accurately to verify the 4.4 light year distance of the star is: 0.000412 degrees…”

Man, this was in my comment:
“For close stars, the distance measured by parallax, the closest one is 0.772-arcsec”

1 Degree is 3600 Arsec (if you dont know something (like arcsecond and parallax) then look it up, but as the possible owner of this site, you should really know what is arcsecond and parallax….

So 0.772-arcsec is actually 0.000278 degree, approximately half of your 0.000412 degree value, as it should be…

You have this site and you don’t even know such basic terms?

“So there is no such experiment. No one can do this experiment. There is no way whatsoever of verifying the distance to the stars.”

A typical 8” hobby telescope has a resolution of about 0.6 arcseconds, Ganymede has about 1.4-1.8 arsec angular diameter, you can easily see it with most hobby telescopes. Anything more professional bigger telescope can easily have magnitudes of better resolution.
This is actually so easy measurement that even in 1838 Friedrich Bessel measured that 61 Cygni had a parallax of 0.314 arcseconds (he was about 10% off).

You could buy your own very good telescope and do some actual research, though I warn you, that will take a lot more effort than just googling stuff…

• Flat Earth Facts

Hi Mr. Hook. Thanks for the information. I think you are a bit mistaken about how they are measuring the parallax. What I have said is completely correct. There is no way you can measure an angle so small with a telescope from earth. Impossible. What they are doing actually is looking at the more distant stars. And that is how they are finding the parallax. So they find slightly different relationship of the more distant stars to the star they are observing, that is how they deduce the parallax. But they can not actually measure an angle so small.

So it is an indirect measurement, based on assumptions which may not be correct. They are not measuring the angle, they are looking at the more distant stars and deducing the angle based on their assumptions of the light-year distances of the stars and the earth rotating around the sun. But things could be different from their assumptions, if their assumptions were not 100% correct, then their deductions could be way off. Astronomy is not an exact science…

The same visual effect could be produced with the stars in different positions. Everything could be much closer than they think, or much further away then they think, and still produce the same visual effect. So they don’t know. They can’t measure such a small angle so they can not calculate the distance. Observing parallax by seeing a different arrangement of the stars behind the star you are observing may tell you some things, but it does not tell you the distance. You can calculate a distance based on your assumptions, but your assumptions may not be correct.

• hschuring

“There is absolutely no way that anyone can measure an angle from the earth to an object in the sky with this degree of accuracy.”
The resolution of the unaided eye is 1 to 2 arcminutes. A backyard telescope can magnify this 100x so with the help of a backyard telescope we can already see details smaller than 1 arcsecond (0.0003°). So even an amateur astronomer can make two pictures of a star field 6 months apart and clearly see a nearby star having changed position. The last step is taking a ruler and compare the displacement with the known angular distances of the surrounding stars.

• Flat Earth Facts

You misunderstand. Yes. Of course. You can see the stars changing position in relation to other stars, if they do that. That is not measuring the angle to a star from the earth. Observing changing distances between stars is NOT measuring their angles accurately from earth. Then you can make assumptions, of course, based on the observations of slightly different distances between the stars at different times and you can postulate the cause of this difference. In this way you can imply so many things. But these are not direct observations, and any conclusions you come to are based on many assumptions, which may or may not be correct.

For example you are presuming the earth is rotating around the sun, and you are presuming the distance between the earth and the sun is 93 million miles. The results you get from your observations are determined by these initial assumptions. If it turns out, for example, that the earth is stationary, and the sun is moving around the earth, then the results of your calculations will be meaningless. Garbage in > garbage out.

So my point stands. “You can not measure an angle from the earth to an object in the sky with this degree of accuracy.”

• Michael

Wrong again. Not to be nitpicky, but the nearest star to our Sun is Proxima Centauri, only ~4.24 LY from us. It’s one of three stars that make up the Alpha Centauri SYSTEM, which is the nearest star SYSTEM to our own.

• David Boffey

I like the “Supporting Flat Earth Proofs” which are just claims not proofs, following in the footsteps of Eric.

3. Hook

” I think you are a bit mistaken about how they are measuring the parallax.”

Can you elaborate on that?

“There is no way you can measure an angle so small with a telescope from earth. ”

Again: “A typical 8” hobby telescope has a resolution of about 0.6 arcseconds, Ganymede has about 1.4-1.8 arsec angular diameter.”
I can see Ganymede even with my own hobby telescope that is less than 8”.
Really, any telescope that is about human-sized can easily make the measurement.

“What they are doing actually is looking at the more distant stars …. So it is an indirect measurement, based on assumptions which may not be correct. …. Observing parallax by seeing a different arrangement of the stars behind the star you are observing may tell you some things, but it does not tell you the distance. ”

You can easily find stars or galaxies that have like 1000 times less arsec movement and will look like solid points (on a star map generated from measurments) compared to nearby stars. These stars wouldnt produce a “different arrangement of the stars behind the star”.

“on their assumptions of the light-year distances of the stars and the earth rotating around the sun. ”

You know, all these “assumptions” build on each other, if the “assumption” is not correct somewhere, then all the theories and predictions made from it won’t work. But the thing is, the predictions and theories work in general.

Like you say:
“…The same visual effect could be produced with the stars in different positions. Everything could be much closer than they think, or much further away then they think, and still produce the same visual effect. ”

But in that case that would mean even Mars would be further or closer. A planet where multiple satellites were sent through space and they all managed hit their target (Mars). But I guess, your theory already includes that all those missions must have been fake, like almost everything related to Astronomy in the last 200-500 years. Its not that you remove one brick from this “not exact science” and it collapses, you try to remove every brick to collapse it…

• Flat Earth Facts

You don’t understand Mr. Hook. Having the resolution does not mean you can measure the angle. Resolution just means you can see it. You may be able to resolve it, but you can’t measure the angle your telescope is pointed so accurately. Resolution is a very different thing altogether. I think you should try and do it yourself with your telescope and see if you can measure it actually. You would have to measure the angle between the earth and the star six months apart and compare the results. But you can not get that angle from the earth to the star, so accurately.

You can just remove one brick and the whole thing collapses. I know you think it is impossible, but, for example, if the earth was stationary, everything would collapse and everything would be wrong. This is a fundamental assumption made by modern astronomy, that the rotation we see in the sky is a result of the earth rotating on its axis. There is a rotation certainly, but we are inside the system, so we see the relative rotation. But there are two possibilities. Earth could be rotating or everything could be rotating around the earth. We can not tell the difference from within the system. We have assumed earth is rotating and calculated and speculated everything based on this assumption. If that assumption is wrong then everything following that mistaken assumption is wrong. It is like if you are making some very large complicated calculation, if you make a mistake in the beginning, no matter how wonderful your mathematics is, your result will always be incorrect.

• Hook

“…You may be able to resolve it, but you can’t measure the angle your telescope is pointed so accurately. Resolution is a very different thing altogether. …”

So this how you measure the angle (using an amateur telescope of Meade 10″ (f/10) LX200 Schmidt-Cassegrain):
https://www.quora.com/When-measuring-distances-to-stars-how-is-the-parallax-angle-actually-measured-from-a-photograph

Here are some other examples of amateurs finding star parallax, that I found with a somewhat quick google search:
http://www.astro-richweb.net/astro/nearby_stars.htm#Cyg_61
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/692566-trigonometrical-parallax-measurment-is-it-possible/?p=9990176
not really parallax, but a quite nice animation: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/543768-annual-barnards-star-animation-now-spanning-10-years/
Even using United States Naval Observatory’s database, the parallax is quite visible:
https://www.stelledoppie.it/index2.php?iddoppia=93063

But I guess all these are just fake bricks. (plus the countless professional papers and other amateur astronomers)
So, do you now realize that there can be indeed significant resolution to detect parallax, even in an amateur setup?

” This is a fundamental assumption made by modern astronomy, that the rotation we see in the sky is a result of the earth rotating on its axis. … Earth could be rotating or everything could be rotating around the earth. We can not tell the difference from within the system. ”

We can easily tell the difference even from earth. As the fact is that the rotation we see on the night sky is opposite to each other on the two hemispheres, something that wouldn’t be possible on a flat earth.
Here are some nice shots of that: https://amazingsky.net/2016/08/25/the-moving-stars-of-the-northern-hemisphere/
Though I guess those images are also all fake bricks…

“If that assumption is wrong then everything following that mistaken assumption is wrong. It is like if you are making some very large complicated calculation, if you make a mistake in the beginning, no matter how wonderful your mathematics is, your result will always be incorrect.”

True, but you know, then countless related calculations must be wrong too. It’s like saying the speedometer in your car is wrong (miles/hour), even though the GPS in your phone showing the same speed. They are using very different measurements and calculations, yet they both end up with the same speed. There are countless examples like that in astronomy too. Specially when measuring an object’s distance in our solar system.
Like all planets in the solar system can be even radio pinged and were physically visited, and of course, you can do parallax measurements of them too, but you know, each time you do a parallax measurement on them, it must show something different than the ‘official values’, cause all those measurements or calculations are wrong.

• Flat Earth Facts

Hi Hook. So did you read it? If you read it you would understand that everything I said was correct. You absolutely can not measure such a small angle using a telescope from earth. What this guy is doing is taking pictures of a particular star and getting the photos and identifying all the stars around it. It is completely irrelevant where his telescope is pointing. He is just taking photos of the star with it. But realistically his calculation does not prove anything at all. He is looking for a shift in the star much smaller than a pixel in his camera. In other words he is working well within the margin of error. So the results from this experiment are meaningless. But anyhow, lets say it works. He is doing what I suggested they would have to do to see parallex. He is comparing the position of the star with the position of all the other stars around it. And presumably this star is close and some of the others are far far away. So he is calculating the position of this ‘close’ star in relation to the more distant stars and trying to find a movement in it that is only a fraction of a pixel in his camera.

So it is not a valid experiment. But even if it is, he is not measuring the angle, he has got so many assumptions that underly his experiment and if any one of those assumptions fail then his results are wrong. Anyhow his results are meaningless because they are within the margin of error for his experiment.

So if you actually read it you would understand I am correct. You can’t measure that angle. And any calculation of the parallax is based on many assumptions which maybe wrong.

As far as the rotation, I am not talking about a flat earth. Take the earth as a globe. My point is there is a relative rotation. There are two possibilities, one is the earth is rotating, the other is everything is rotating around the earth. Either possibility could be true. We have arbitrarily chosen to assume it is the earth that is rotating. But that assumption could be wrong, it could be that everything is rotating around the earth, in that case everything in astronomy would be incorrect.

Yes. Of course, all the related calculations would be wrong. That is my point. If you make a mistake in one of your fundamental assumptions, everything after that is wrong.

As far as the speed of your car, that is something you can measure. That is not a good comparison. We can’t measure the distance to a star, but you can measure the speed your car is travelling at.

This guy didn’t measure the distance to that star. He calculated what the angle should be and what the parallax should be, just a fraction of a pixel on his camera, then took some photos, and exclaimed “I found it.” It is cheating, he has not proven anything at all.

• Hook

” If you read it you would understand that everything I said was correct. You absolutely can not measure such a small angle using a telescope from earth. What this guy is doing is taking pictures of a particular star and getting the photos and identifying all the stars around it. It is completely irrelevant where his telescope is pointing. He is just taking photos of the star with it. But realistically his calculation does not prove anything at all. He is looking for a shift in the star much smaller than a pixel in his camera. ”

So, let make these more clear.
It seems one of your problems is that he is comparing the star’s position to other stars and the other that there is not enough “resolution”.
Well, there is not being enough “resolution” is flat out wrong. On a good amateur telescope, there is enough “resolution” for your camera that the difference would be more than 1 pixel. Like even here, that seems to be taken by not so good camera (not even long exposure or high resolution) you can see the difference is more than 1 pixel in a half year: http://www.astro-richweb.net/astro/nearby_stars.htm#Cyg_61
Btw even I can easily 1-2 arcseconds difference with my very basic amateur telescope.

Your other problem seems that the calculations made by comparing them to other stars positons. And that is not direct enough for you. Well, you know, earth moves, so actually there is no other way to do this. Also, feel free to explain how all the stationary stars are not good comparing positions if they are stationary to each other, while all the other stars we see which are not stationary are all moving in different directions explained by the current physics. Are you trying to suggest that those stars not stationary and actually move? If so, please explains how the moving stars actually can move in opposite directions to each other???

“In other words he is working well within the margin of error. ”

Repeated measurements how people deal with margin of error, the links I sent to you have many measurements and not just one. If the measurements are wrong cause margin of error, then there is very little chance that all the like 30 measurements would show the star moving away in one direction for half of the year. Note, this is something done in every field of science (like medical sciences).

“But even if it is, he is not measuring the angle, he has got so many assumptions that underly his experiment and if any one of those assumptions fail then his results are wrong.

I yet to see any of these “assumptions” (not exactly sure to what you refer to that by assumptions) to fail.

“So if you actually read it you would understand I am correct. You can’t measure that angle. And any calculation of the parallax is based on many assumptions which maybe wrong.”

I try to understand. But it’s hard when you are not exact…

“As far as the rotation, I am not talking about a flat earth….There are two possibilities, one is the earth is rotating, the other is everything is rotating around the earth. Either possibility could be true…”

So you do actually realize that the stars rotating in different directions on the opposite hemispheres actually disproves a flat earth shape?
(yes it doesn’t prove that the stars rotate around the earth or the earth rotates, but you know, this whole site is about the “assumption” of the earth is flat and you talk to me about “maybe wrong assumptions”…)

“Yes. Of course, all the related calculations would be wrong. That is my point. If you make a mistake in one of your fundamental assumptions, everything after that is wrong.”

Great, then show me how all those calculations wrong and like how they predict wrong things and such, cause they are wrong.

“As far as the speed of your car, that is something you can measure. That is not a good comparison. We can’t measure the distance to a star, but you can measure the speed your car is travelling at.”

Why? You know, actually, you just measure how much the tires spin in your car when the car measures the speed of your car, by your logic that is an indirect measurement, that is false, you don’t measure any actually “distance” or whatever….

” He calculated what the angle should be and what the parallax should be, just a fraction of a pixel on his camera, then took some photos, and exclaimed “I found it.””

So you not just saying the method is wrong, you also believe that he is faking it… It will be hard to prove anything to you, if you think everything is fake (even amateur astronomers).

• Flat Earth Facts

There’s no point writing all this. You just admitted it is not possible to measure the angle on a spinning earth with your telescope and that is my point. You can’t measure it. And the way they say they are ‘measuring’ it is not a direct measurement and depends on many assumptions that may or may not be correct.

You write so many things but this is my only point and my point is correct. You can not measure the angle of parallax with a telescope from earth. The only way, which I said in the beginning, but you disagreed with me, is what this guy is trying to do. Measure the relative positions of the stars at different times of the year and try to detect the tiny difference that should be there due to parallax in the distances between the stars. But it is such a tiny measurement practically can’t be measured accurately and anyhow it is not measuring the angle and you can’t measure the angle and that is my only point.

• Dave Hope

If the Earth is not rotating, how do you account for the angular momentum differences due to latitude?

• Flat Earth Facts

Explain exactly what you mean by “angular momentum differences due to latitude” and how you have measured these.

4. Hook

“You just admitted it is not possible to measure the angle on a spinning earth with your telescope and that is my point.”

It is not possible to “measure it”, as much as it is not possible for your car to measure the speed of your car… that is what I “admitted”.

“There’s no point writing all this…”

I have the same feeling too. You still claiming that telescopes don’t have enough “resolution”: “it is such a tiny measurement practically can’t be measured accurately”, which is flat out false. Even good amateur telescopes have enough “resolution” and that is a pretty obvious fact, but no, you can not accept even that.
I guess all the amateur astronomers are liars and all these telescopes that cost like 200-500 hundred bucks are fake.
I would like to ask what do you think, what is the resolution of a good astronomer telescope, you can even link a telescope, but I guess you won’t be replying.
It’s sad, cause it is very easy to disprove this false belief of yours, ultimately you can just buy a telescope on your own, which you know, might be a good idea if you have this site going on…

Sadly, as always, I see it’s easier to bail than actually counter my points in a meaningful way.

• Flat Earth Facts

You don’t put forward any meaningful points. So what is there to counter?

I am talking about measuring the angle, which is what is necessary to measure the distance of a star using parallax. Remember, it is an isosceles triangle. It has two equal sided sides going out to the star and we know the base distance is the distance the earth moves in 6 months. twice the distance to the sun, 93,000,000 x 2, so we need that angle to calculate the distance to the star.

My point is you can’t measure that angle with your telescope. No one can measure that angle with a telescope.

You talk about resolution, do you know what it means? It means to resolve. It means to see. So all resolution means is if you can see the star or not. Just because you can see it does not mean you can measure the angle.

The only way, as I have said from the beginning, and what your example guy was trying to do, is to try to estimate the angle by studying the relative distances from this ‘close’ star to more distant stars 6 months apart. But this requires so many assumptions, it is not at all a direct measurement. If any of the assumptions are wrong the result will be totally meaningless.

I know all about telescopes, I own a telescope and use it regularly and know very well what they are capable of and they are NOT capable of measuring this tiny difference in the angle to a star caused by the earth moving to the other side of the sun.

I don’t know what you are talking about, of course you can measure the speed of your car, but you can not measure such a tiny angle with your telescope…

• Non Believer

There are so many assumptions on those who believe and defend the globe position. Instead of defending, why do not they question and explore? My question is: How did they measure the 93 million miles from the earth to the sun? -thanks

• hschuring

It starts with the work Kepler did before he discovered his third law (1619). From the maximum angular distances between inferior planets (Mercury and Venus), and the Sun (their elongation) he could find (with some trigonometry) the distance between the planet and the sun RELATIVE to the distance between the Earth and the Sun. The distance between Earth and Venus could be measured during a Venus passage (crossing the Sun). When two observers, far apart, determine the exact moment of a number of events during that Venus passage, they can use trigonometry (again) for determining the distance. And hence the distance between Earth and Sun. Great travels have been made to get as far away as possible, like the journey James Cook made in 1768 to the pacific.
Nowadays that is done by radar. The time it takes a radar signal to return from f.i. Venus (and a lot of other objects) times the speed of light gives its distance that moment.
Another crude method, already tried by the ancient Greek astronomer Aristarchus, (who as an exceptiont thought that the Earth orbited the Sun in 3rd century B.C. ) is to determine the elongation (the angle Moon – Earth – Sun) of the Moon at the moment of 1st quarter, when the angle Earth – Moon – Sun is by definition 90°. Trigonometry (again) will give you the relative distance Earth – Sun : Earth – Moon. So when we know the second we also know the first. Aristarchus came with a ratio of 20 : 1; obviously he had no way of determining the exact moment of Fisrt Quarter nor determining the angle accurately, so he was way off. Today (distance to the Moon is now easily determined by radar) this method is still rather crude, but repeated and averaged measurements give about the right distance but still with a large margin of error.

• Ninefire

Look up Aristarchus and Pythagoras.
Educate yourself.
I find that all of the Flerfers end up being uneducated and have no clue about how mathematics or physics works.

Go learn something. Do some experiments for yourself. Try actually engaging your brain in cognitive thought for once.

• Michelle Leonard

I think you’re awesome 😎

5. torkild enge

The distance to the stars could also be used to test a flat Earth hypothis.
They would have to be far enough away that they don’t change ther possition in relation to one anorher when they move around in the heavens, but close enough that they change ther angle in relation to the horison.

I find it hard to imagene a flat earth model, that satisfy both of these at the same time, and still allow different stars to be visible at differnt locations.
This is one of the reasons why I think, that we live on a roundish planet.

6. seansaigdeoir

Interesting article. Having studied astronomy at university I have always been troubled by the leaps of faith required to employ these methods of measuring distances of stars etc.

However my question is do with the heavens as witness by the propagation of the constellations.

Taking Polaris as a fixed point then as observations will confirm all stars ‘circle’ around this fixed point. This in itself could be seen as the greatest observable evidence of flat earth. That and day to day observations such as the seas and oceans which by nature of water will remain flat.

However that is not all – throughout the year during the ‘seasons’ the stars clearly move about the sky. The summers months will produce a different sky to those seen in winter. The only conclusion one can make from this is that either the sky tilts or the earth does. Polaris remains fixed so somehow the sky must tilt during the year or the earth does. Considering that the basis of this site is that the earth is flat and fixed how can FE explain the propagation of the constellations through the year? Many thanks for any help in understanding this phenomena.

• Flat Earth Facts

Hi. As I have said many times, “Flat earthers don’t look at the sky.” So the flat earthers can not explain anything we see happening in the sky with their model.

As far as this website is concerned we are neutral. We are just trying to find out the actual situation. I do personally have access to another model, an alternative to the globe earth model, that is presented in the ancient Vedic texts found in India. In that model the earth is stationary and probably flat, or flattish, and it provides a mechanism whereby all the stars, planets and sun and moon are fixed by ‘ropes of wind’ to an axle that comes down from the polestar at an angle, same angle that we presume the globe earth is tilted at. So it is not exactly that the stars are strictly speaking rotating around the polestar. The all have their fixed positions in relation to this axle coming down at an angle to the polestar. And this axle moves around 360 degrees in a year.

So it is a little more complex to comprehend but this model does explain the different view of the stars we get in the summer and winter seasons, because all the stars are fixed in their relative positions to that axle coming down from polestar at an angle, so polestar does not move, but the stars “tilt” as you say, because as this axle moves around the 360 degrees, it tilts all the stars in the sky with it…

So in the future I plan to explore and try to explain this Vedic model in more detail. Unlike the flat earthers, who can not explain anything that happens in the sky, this model, which is completely different from the globe earth model we currently accept, perfectly explains everything we see happening in the sky much better than the globe earth model does.

7. ON THE LEVEL

FEF,

From the article above.

“148) Quoting “Earth Not a Globe!” by Samuel Rowbotham, “It is found by observation that the stars come to the meridian about four minutes earlier every twenty-four hours than the sun, taking the solar time as the standard. This makes 120 minutes every thirty days, and twenty-four hours in the year. Hence all the constellations have passed before or in advance of the sun in that time. This is the simple fact as observed in nature, but the theory of rotundity and motion on axes and in an orbit has no place for it. Visible truth must be ignored, because this theory stands in the way, and prevents its votaries from understanding it.”

If sun, moon and stars vary in rotation rate from day to day as observed above and understood by and accounted for in Flat Earth models, their positions in the night sky at any time from day to day must differ as well even though their relative positions to one another remain unchanged. Capice’?

Further, wandering stars move relative to solar and lunar cycles and both have been explained by Flat Earth models. In fact, Flat Earth models claim solar and lunar velocities change throughout the year to account for them covering different distances day by day and yes season by season.

Thanks and take care.

• Flat Earth Facts

Hm. Yes. The flat earth scripture by Rowbotham…

What does it mean actually?

“148) Quoting “Earth Not a Globe!” by Samuel Rowbotham, “It is found by observation that the stars come to the meridian about four minutes earlier every twenty-four hours than the sun, taking the solar time as the standard. This makes 120 minutes every thirty days, and twenty-four hours in the year. Hence all the constellations have passed before or in advance of the sun in that time. This is the simple fact as observed in nature, but the theory of rotundity and motion on axes and in an orbit has no place for it. Visible truth must be ignored, because this theory stands in the way, and prevents its votaries from understanding it.”

It doesn’t explain anything at all and seems like Samuel has no idea what is going on. He is putting the emphasis on the stars, not the sun. What is going on is there are 2 circular movements that he is merging into one here. There is the daily 24 hour rotation of the stars in the sky. Stars are fixed to that rotation and sun also rotates with the stars, but sun also has its own movement, caused by its chariot traveling around Manasottara mountain, a large circular ring mountain quite far out. So sun is moving with the same 24 hour daily rotation as the stars but it is also moving, what appears to be in the opposite direction, as the axle of its chariot makes its way 360 degrees around Manasottara mountain.

So Rowbotham is just pointing out the obvious, that sun is not moving quite as fast as the stars. Because it is moving forward with the 24 hour rotation with the stars but also simultaneously moving backwards because of the 360 degree annual rotation of the chariot of the sungod around Manasottara mountain.

But like all of the flat earth “proofs” this does not prove the earth is flat or prove it is a globe. In the globe earth model this movement of the sun is nicely explained by the two rotational movements of the globe earth. They explain the 24 hour daily rotation with the rotating earth and they explain the behavior of the sun using the idea of the earth rotating around the sun. So that rotation of the earth around the sun causes the sun to move in regard to the stars so that is why, in the globe earth model, the sun does not move as fast as the stars.

So the point is both the Vedic model and the globe earth model are giving perfectly valid and reasonable explainations for the behavior mentioned by Mr. Rowbotham, however I have never heard a flat earth explanation as to why this is so?

I don’t know why you are asking about seasonal variability, that is a different topic, of course explained very nicely by both Vedic model and by the globe earth model, but flat earthers have no way of explaining it.

Seasonal variation is caused by the changing relationship of the sun with the earth. So both Vedic and globe earth present very reasonable explanations, but nothing from the flat earthers.

• Navigator

Vedic? As you wrote “spiritual texts known to man.” i.e religious just like the biblical literalist Flat Earth cult.
Rigveda 10.58.3 – Earth has 4 corners;
Atharvaveda 6.77.1 – Earth is Fixed;
Yajurveda 32.6 – Earth is immovable;
Atharvaveda 4.11.1 – Earth is supported by Bull.
The shape of the Earth according to Vedas is four cornered:
Rig Veda 10.58.3 Thy spirit, that went far away, away to the four cornered earth…
Satapatha Brahmana says the same,
Satapatha Brahman 6.1.2.29 …Now this earth is four-cornered, for the quarters are her corners: hence the bricks are four-cornered; for all the bricks are after the manner of this earth.
Valmiki Ramayana 5.9.26 “the floor was covered by a carpet, wide and four-cornered like the earth…” Tr. Hari Prasad Shastri
Vishnu Purana 1.4 …The supreme being thus eulogized, upholding the earth, raised it quickly, and placed it on the summit of the ocean, where it floats like a mighty vessel, and from its expansive surface does not sink beneath the waters. Then, having levelled the earth, the great eternal deity divided it into portions, by mountains…

• Flat Earth Facts

Hi Navagator

Problem is the translation. The Vedas are all written down by Srila Vyasadeva, yes there are apparent contradictions in the Vedas, but the ones you are pointing out above are largely due to translation. The earth is not square according to the Vedas. Anyhow the problem is translation. So I am very happy you are studying it, so study it more deeply and see if you can comprehend what is going on. What is spoken of in the Vedas as “The Earth” is generally Bhu-Mandala, which is far bigger than the earth we imagine. We imagine a ball of 8,000 miles diameter. Bhu-Manadala is a circular two billion miles in diameter. A bit bigger than what we imagine earth to be. So we are in the center of Bhu Mandala, according to the Vedas, and generally when Vedas speak of earth it is the whole Bhu-Mandala, which is huge. And it is circular, but there are four elephant’s at the four “corners”. So you know it is all translation confusion. Corners is the four cardinal directions in this case.

It is a very good study of the Vedic idea of the universe.

Problem is translation, this one is very authorized translation, and other Vedic literatures, they are all written by same Srila Vyasadeva, and are actually all consistent with this translation, but these points about the universe are very difficult to comprehend for us so different translators interpret texts in the different Vedic texts differently, hence the confusion.

But Vedas never says the earth is square, but does mention something like the four corners, but it is referring to four directions, not saying that the earth is square….

• ON THE LEVEL

FEF,

“What is going on is there are 2 circular movements that he is merging into one here…”

No, he merely compares the rates of both locations.

“So sun is moving with the same 24 hour daily rotation as the stars but it is also moving, what appears to be in the opposite direction, as the axle of its chariot makes its way 360 degrees around Manasottara mountain.”

Does it? How and when did you observe this? Is mount Manasottara at the North Pole or as you’ve claimed elsewhere the Equator? When did you observe them?

“So the point is both the Vedic model and the globe earth model are giving perfectly valid and reasonable explainations for the behavior mentioned by Mr. Rowbotham, however I have never heard a flat earth explanation as to why this is so?”

You haven’t explained how it works in the Vedic model, but merely asserted that it does. The globe model does not have an explanation free if contradictions as already shown. Should we go over it again? Recall, problem reconciling Earth rotation with orbit already explained & you’ve never had an answer.

“I don’t know why you are asking about seasonal variability, that is a different topic, of course explained very nicely by both Vedic model and by the globe earth model, but flat earthers have no way of explaining it.

Seasonal variation is caused by the changing relationship of the sun with the earth.”

You and Seansaigdeoir wrote of the Seasons I then showed your contradictions and you deleted my post and now pretend not to know why I brought it up. Let’s repeat your claim and sharpen that dull memory of yours:

“So it is a little more complex to comprehend but this model does explain the different view of the stars we get in the summer and winter seasons, because all the stars are fixed in their relative positions to that axle coming down from polestar at an angle, so polestar does not move, but the stars “tilt” as you say, because as this axle moves around the 360 degrees, it tilts all the stars in the sky with it…”

Well the stars all rotate around the Pole Star as you should know and as countless videos and photos attest. Since the Pole Star is fixed relative to Earth’s Pole and surface how do the star fields seasonally adjust when they unvaryingly circle around the fixed Pole Star, wandering stars excluded? Please explain it, you’ve ducked the question once already. do you know the answer?

If Flat Earth models cannot explain it as you claim, how does the Vedic Flat Earth model propose to do so? Please explain it this the 2nd time you’ve been asked. It’s ok if you don’t know

Thanks.

• Flat Earth Facts

There is no flat earth model that explains what is going on in the sky On The Level. That is the point. Point is there is a globe earth model that at least attempts to explain what is going on in the sky and also, for the most part, makes very good predictions as to what is happening in the sky. There is also a Vedic model that explains and makes very accurate predictions as to what is going on in the sky, at least as good, if not better than, the globe earth model.

For example, using the Vedic model, astrologers have been able to accurately predict solar and lunar eclipses in India for thousands and thousands of years. So Vedic model works, as a predictive model. Means you can use it to predict the actual outcomes we observe. Also globe earth model works to a large extent.

My point is flat earth people have no model to explain what is going on in the sky. If you have a model then you explain it. The ball is in your court. You explain to me how the flat earthers explain what is going on in the sky? Both Vedic and globe earth models have elaborate and reasonable explainations for almost everything happening in the sky. But flat earthers, they don’t look at the sky, they can’t explain anything we see happening in the sky with their non-existent model.

So that is my point. There is no flat earth model that works, that makes accurate predictions of what is happening in the sky.

Vedic model is there in the Vedas, it is very elaborate and hard for us to comprehend, but it is there for anyone who wants to study it. Globe earth model also, is very well documented in the scientific literature and we have all learnt that from the beginning of our lives. But flat earth people, all they can say is “earth is flat” but can not explain the most basic things that we see happening in the sky and around us, with the presumption that the earth is flat. Flat earth people can not even present a map which is plausible and fits with our actual physical experiences, presuming the earth is a flat plane.

So that is problem with flat earth people. They are not scientific. It is just a religion, a belief system, but they can not explain how anything could work if the earth was a flat plane.

That is my point.

• ON THE LEVEL

“The heliocentric globe model cannot explain the seasonal star fields! Do you or the globists look at the sky? Between winter and summer solstice the equatorial star field must without contradiction be completely different because the Earth should be on the other side of the sun and the star field observable there no longer obscured by daylight! Capice’? In point of fact, the observed star fields comprises the same constellations disproving by observation the heliocentric model.”

• Flat Earth Facts

Yes. I presume it is. But only for stars around the equator. Because 93 million miles one way or the other is not going to make any difference for north and south view except it should rotate. Why don’t you actually check and get some proof one way or the other and present that? So you might be onto something but you have to research it by looking in the sky and actually checking what is happening in the sky and comparing it to the predictions of the model you are checking.

• Flat Earth Facts

OTL, as I always say, flat earther’s don’t look at the sky. If you looked at the sky you would know that it is divided into 12 different signs of the zodiac in the astrological world, and the sun travels all the way around through these 12 signs in 12 months. So after six months the sun will be in the opposite side of the sky. So obviously the view of the stars will be different in summer and winter from the equator. Because the sun has moved around the sky, so the day and night stars have changed, particularly around the equator, looking North and South you will see the same thing but it will have rotated, but from equator, as correctly predicted by the globe earth model, you will see different stars in summer and winter.

• ON THE LEVEL

The great tragedy of Science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.
Thomas Henry Huxley

• Flat Earth Facts

Yes. You can have any beautiful idea but science will ask you to explain how it works. However, if you can’t imagine how it could work and can’t provide a feasible working predictive model based on your assumptions, science won’t accept your beautiful idea.

• ON THE LEVEL

FEF,

“If you looked at the sky you would know that it is divided into 12 different signs of the zodiac in the astrological world, and the sun travels all the way around through these 12 signs in 12 months. So after six months the sun will be in the opposite side of the sky. So obviously the view of the stars will be different in summer and winter from the equator. Because the sun has moved around the sky, so the day and night stars have changed, particularly around the equator, looking North and South you will see the same thing but it will have rotated, but from equator, as correctly predicted by the globe earth model, you will see different stars in summer and winter.”

Ha, ha! Look again at a celestial map. Each constellation can be seen throughout the year except for perhaps a few weeks or a month when the sun apparently blocks its view. The sun traces the supposed ecliptic. For example, in November Scorpius should be difficult to find, but visible most of the rest if the year or 10-11 months out if the year!

If you think about it the sun and its light is not the problem for the globe model it’s the daylight. Get it? If during the day the sun’s light only effected the Earth we’d still be able to see all the star systems around it, but in fact the emf/ether field excites the upper ionization layer above the Earth, hence our light blue sky. This prevents us from viewing the entire Starfield for half the day more or less. Thus if the Earth really rotated around the sun as the heliocentric model asserts these constellations should be invisible for close to half the year which is not the case apparently.

Moreover, as noted in prior posts if the Copernicus/Galileeo heliocentric claim truly represented reality then the midnight star experience should be observed at high noon in 1/2 year but that’s not the case.

Note, even on a flat Earth model different constellations must be invisible throughout the year due to relative changes in solar, lunar and Starfield circuits. It’ s important to remember there are at least 3 main celestial circuits and the wandering stars. Despite your opinion many attempts to model them have been made over literally thousands of years. The masses get fed only the models most convenient to whatever fiction those in control want to feed them. As I’ve said the Earth is not what those in political power want you to see.

P.S. – Do heliocentrists ever look at the sky?

• Flat Earth Facts

Hi OTL. Yes. of course, sun is more or less in the middle, but the point is it is moving around in the sky 360 degrees in a year, so the part of the sky that is visible at night changes depending on the time of the year. So your original point is that the view of the stars at the equator must be different in the summer and the winter, and you were implying that it is not. But of course it must be different because the sun is in the opposite position in the sky in summer and winter, so that changes the stars that are visible during the day and night, particularly the ones in the middle, not so much north and south. So point is that the reality, what we observe, it is consistent with what the globe earth model predicts.

Yes, you are correct of course, there have been other models proposed but the scientists, astronomers, etc, they concentrate on the model they believe in and find all the points that they can to confirm the model they believe in and they ignore any evidence that may cast doubts on it.

There are only two options. We see two rotations happening in the sky, in the globe earth model the rotation we observe of the stars, planets, sun and moon rising and setting in the sky every 24 hours, that is explained by the earth rotating once every 24 hours, and the other rotation we see in the sky is most clearly shown by the sun moving through all 12 signs of the zodiac, means moving around the sky 360 degrees in a year, in relation to the background stars. In the globe earth model that is explained by the earth rotating around the sun, very nicely explained. Because if you think about it, as the earth moves around the sun the stars behind the sun are going to change, so in a year the background stars will move around 360 degrees. So that is exactly what we see happening in the sky. Sun appears to move all the way around the sky, 360 degrees, with respect to the background stars. So globe earth model provides us with a very good and reasonable and logical explanation as to how this could happen, presuming the earth is a globe.

So any other model, like if you had a flat earth model, for example, would have to explain how these two rotational movements that we observe are produced. The flat earth model, they don’t look at the sky, so I think they have not even considered these things. The Vedic model, as I have mentioned before, it explains these two rotations as the sun moving around on its chariot which is on Manasottara Mountain, it moves around the mountain 360 degrees in a year, and, at the same time, the wheel of the sun gods chariot is rotating once every 24 hours, and all the stars, planets, sun and moon are fixed up in the relative positions to the axle of the sun gods chariot and everything rotates together once every 24 hours.

So that is the explanation, according to the Vedas, of the two rotational movements we observe in the sky. Now, if we were to use “science”, they have something called “Occams Razor”, this is a crazy scientific theory, it says that if you have two explanations of a phenomena, then the simpler one is the correct one… It is a crazy idea, but anyhow if we were to apply it then I think the globe earth model will win. But Occams Razor, like most of science, is incorrect. Nature does not always do things in the simplest way. That is quite obvious if you study nature.

But the point is it is easy for us to imagine the earth rotating in the two ways as the globe earth model proposes, on its axis once every 24 hours and around the sun once a year, and that is really a good explanation of what we see happening in the sky. But for us to conceive of everything in the sky being connected together and all moving as one connected unit, it is difficult to comprehend how this could be possible. So you can understand why people who do look at the sky tend to accept the globe earth model, because it is difficult to comprehend how everything in the sky could be connected together and could rotate as one integrated unit above a stationary earth. So although this is difficult for us to comprehend, this is how it works, at least according to the Vedic description, and Vedas provides an elaborate description of the physical mechanical system that makes it possible, how it works.

• ON THE LEVEL

FEF,

“Because if you think about it, as the earth moves around the sun the stars behind the sun are going to change, so in a year the background stars will move around 360 degrees. So that is exactly what we see happening in the sky. Sun appears to move all the way around the sky, 360 degrees, with respect to the background stars. So globe earth model provides us with a very good and reasonable and logical explanation as to how this could happen, presuming the earth is a globe.”

It seems to me, the Heliocentric model cannot explain how star constellations on the ecliptic, like Scorpius can be seen 10-11 months out of 12! In 1/2 year the prior starfield should be obscured by daylight for several months if not half the year. Moreover, as has been mentioned the mid-night should, 1/2 year from now be experienced at high noon. Neither of these events occur. Therefore, the Heliocentric model does have severe problems.

Cheers!

• Flat Earth Facts

The ecliptic is the path the sun takes in the sky.

Scorpio is on that path, but sun only spends a couple of weeks in it at the most. So what we experience in the globe earth model is correct.

You are not correct when you say that it should be obscured for six months. As the globe earth rotates once every 24 hours, in the winter the night is longer than 12 hours, so between the evening and the morning your view of the sky changes dramatically. In 12 hours the globe rotates 180 degrees. Causing the stars that rose in the evening to be set before the sun rises…

So during the night you are seeing the whole sky, except for the bit where the sun is.

So these things are all correctly predicted by the globe earth model…

• Navigator

“{The ecliptic is the path the sun takes in the sky.”
Erm. no.
For kids. “The ecliptic is an imaginary Great Circle on the Celestial Sphere along which the Sun appears to move over the course of a year. Of course, it is really the Earth’s orbit around the Sun causing the change in the Sun’s apparent direction.”
For maths and physics literates. “The ecliptic is the plane of Earth’s orbit around the Sun. From the perspective of an observer on Earth, the Sun’s movement around the celestial sphere over the course of a year traces out a path along the ecliptic against the background of stars. The ecliptic is an important reference plane and is the basis of the ecliptic coordinate system.”

• Flat Earth Facts

Hi Navigator. Perhaps. That is just a supposition. Imagining that we are on a rotating ball. But we don’t actually know that. The same observations can be explained just as well if we consider us to be stationary and the sun to be moving. In that case the ecliptic is the path the sun takes in the sky. That is what we observe actually. It is just a speculation that what we observe is caused by the earth rotating. But it is a good model, I have to admit that, and may well be correct of course. But my point is the same observations can be explained equally well with a moving sun and a stationary earth.

8. ON THE LEVEL

FEF,

Thanks but a few statements you made seem flawed.

You state:

“So these things are all correctly predicted by the globe earth model…”

Please reread my post specifically addressed the heliocentric model, not the globe model. My criticism you referenced did not apply to the gocentric globe model.

The following statement is particularly problematic:

“As the globe earth rotates once every 24 hours, in the winter the night is longer than 12 hours, so between the evening and the morning your view of the sky changes dramatically. In 12 hours the globe rotates 180 degrees. Causing the stars that rose in the evening to be set before the sun rises…

So during the night you are seeing the whole sky, except for the bit where the sun is.”

You do not see the entire star field surrounding the sun, except where the sun is, each night. This statement regarding the heliocentric model is objectively false. As I mentioned the problem is not sunlight but daylight. Your statement would only make sense if like the moon the sun during the day only blocked from view the stars directly behind it’s .52 arc minute circle. Instead, daylight blocks from our view the entire starfield view during daylight hours. Besides at night the Earth only rotates 180 degrees, not 360 and it only spans at most half the apparent starfield.

• Flat Earth Facts

You are confused. You need to get a globe and look at it. If you are standing on a globe and you rotate it 180 degrees you are looking in the opposite direction. If you rotate it 360 degrees you are back where you started. So after 180 degrees rotation the whole sky you were looking at has changed. You are looking in the opposite direction…

• ON THE LEVEL

“So after 180 degrees rotation the whole sky you were looking at has changed. You are looking in the opposite direction…”

It seems to me you’re confused. For example, if you are at the North Pole the whole sky has not changed. It has only rotated the same starfield! You do not see any additional stars. Remember according to the heliocentric model the Earth rotates about it’s axis, the starfield does not rotate around the Earth. You’ve confused what the model states.

Moreover, if you stand at the Equator as the Earth supposedly rotates you see different stars within the starfield visible during those hours of rotation, not the entire starfield which is obscured both by the Earth’s mass and daylight!

• Flat Earth Facts

You are still confused and bringing in the poles now which is a totally different situation as I explained in my previous comment. We are not talking about the poles, we are talking about at the equator. That is your original point. About the equator. Poles is a completely different situation.

You still seem a bit confused about the equator, many other places as well of course, except the poles. There you can see practically the whole sky at night passing rising and setting during the night. I think you understand that after 12 hours you will be seeing the other half of the sky, at the equator. So during the night at the equator you see the whole 360 degrees of the sky. All the stars and constellations. The only thing you can’t see is a bit around the sun, but not much, because in the morning before sunrise you can see the stars on one side of the sun and in the evening before sunset you can see the stars on the other side of the sun.

9. ON THE LEVEL

FEF,

“You are not correct when you say that it should be obscured for six months.”

“In 1/2 year the prior starfield should be obscured by daylight for several months if not half the year.”

The statement read several months if not half the year. It did not say it had to or should be half the year. Note the longest day of the year, disregarding the poles, is ~17.5 hours, thus leaving correspondingly the shortest day to be ~6.5 hours in length. Which only means that the shortest day & longest night would have an ~17.5 hour view of half the starfield viewable from the unlit side of the Earth’s supposed terminator line. Please understand each night when the Earth rotates in the heliocentric model Earthlings only supposedly see the half starfield not obscured by the daylight impacting the lit region encompassed by the terminator line. The entire starfield cannot be seen. As one approaches the polar regions they split in their ability to observe polar starfields. Half the year the polar night sky can be viewed and about half the year it cannot be seen.

• Flat Earth Facts

Hard to understand what you are saying. I agree that part of the sky, where the sun is, can not be seen by anyone. But it is not much you can’t see. Because when the sun is set you can see the starts on one side of the sun and before the sun rises you can see the stars on the other other side of the sun. So it is not that you can only see half the sky. You can see most of the sky, only part you can’t see is around the sun. So that might be 10% to 20% of the sky, I don’t know, something like that, not half of the sky. You can only see half of the sky at any moment, but sky is moving, so as it moves part of it sets in the west while a different part is rising in the east. So you can see most of it, except directly around the sun.

• ON THE LEVEL

FEF,

Try this thought experiment. Imagine you stand over the North Pole far up in supposed space. As the Earth supposedly orbits the Sun on any given day of rotation it’s orbit position moves barely at all, less than one degree. As the Earth supposedly spins no significant number of knew stars enter the starfield opposite the Sun. The Earth merely rotates providing travelers a different perspective on the field of stars not obscured by daylight and/or the Earth’s mass. At the Poles you merely see the same stars for a longer contiguous time period, but it remains in total about half the year!

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this.

• Flat Earth Facts

Hi FEF. I am not exactly sure what is your point. At the poles you only ever see half the stars, and you always see the same stars. At the poles you have got 6 months day and six months night. The sun never rises and sets at the poles. It just goes round and round in the sky at the same level until it goes down below the horizon and you have night for six months. So the point is nothing rises and sets at the poles. Everything goes around the pole in a circle. And you always see the same half of the sky. So I don’t understand what is the point?

10. Steve Roy

There are not ANY photos or video by Nasa when they supposedly space walk, of the stars. For me, until this is explained and not by stating because of exposure we cant see them, I call bullshit on all of that. I see a fisheye lens being used on those spacestation pics of earth at 17,000 mph that the station is traveling. Why does it travel so fast and satellites are fixed? Look. I am not a great math student but i have seen a desert mirage where the sky reflects the land and it mirrors the land in such a way that it’s impossible to tell where earth stops and the sky starts and if when viewing that rare site, one would lay on the ground and look from the angle opposite it would appear the same. Not very many people get the chance to see what im describing in their lifetime but trust me if you ever have its a game changer for sure or how about the moon when it has a double image on a clear night? Our eyes even magnified are not capable of seeing and identifying correctly what is actually out there. Next is the absolute fact that water is ALWAYS level so globe cant work because that alone proves the earth is not a giant ball. Also as an amateur radio operator, I have heard Japan from the US at night via “Skip” conditions and there is no possible way for a signal to bounce off the F layers and hit the opposite side of a spinning ball. All these things prove that the earth must be flat. In the Bible God made the sun stop for half a day so if the sun doesn’t move, How could he stop it? Also says the moon and stars are for light and signs. The universe if there is anything above the firmirment dome revolves around the earth. BTW Ive heard people state that we have known the earth is round for 2000 yrs! lol Wrong. Only since Columbus sailed from Spain trying to get to India and when he got there he had discovered the earth was round in 1492. Even though to this day we call natives “Indians” Ole’ Chris never made it to India. It was bs from the start and it was a hundred more yrs before the world accepted the round earth theory. About 700 yrs not 2000. God bless us all.

• Flat Earth Facts

Yes. You make a very important point: “Our eyes even magnified are not capable of seeing and identifying correctly what is actually out there.”

It is true, our eyes are useless. They can not see actually what is out there. Visible light is such a tiny part of a very large spectrum, And our eyes distort things. We see in perspective, for example, pulling distant things down towards the horizon. But that is not actually how the things are. So we can not see things as they actually are with our senses.

So this is a problem for both flat earthers and globe earthers. Our sense perception is useless in trying to understand the true nature of the world around us, because so much of the world around us we can not see, it is beyond the ability of our senses to perceive and beyond the ability of our minds to comprehend.

Therefore the only way of understanding the actual situation of the planet we are on and the universe we are in is to hear about it from someone who actually knows the truth.

• ON THE LEVEL

Steve Roy,

Great points. Your radio observations have been noted from the beginning. Marconi was surprised his initial radio transmissions seemed to transverse the globe and ham radio to operators also. One in particular with a 75′ antenna was able to communicate with every nation on Earth except Russia supposedly.

As to Columbus, he only landed on the Bahamas for which vacationing resort types can be greatful apparently.

The Earth is flat and the globe model a failed contrivance.

Cheers!