1

Flat Earth General / Re: An Open Letter To Flat Earthers

« on: June 15, 2025, 10:45:27 PM »

Gravity is stronger at the poles than at the equator.
This is because the Earth is not a perfect sphere;
it bulges at the equator due to its rotation, making
the poles closer to the Earth's center of mass.
Additionally, the centrifugal force from the Earth's
rotation counteracts gravity more significantly at
the equator, further reducing the effective
gravitational acceleration there.

The measured values are:

At the poles, it's approximately 9.832 m/sē, while at the equator, it's around 9.780 m/sē.

So, if the downward force is a result of an upward acceleration of Earth
then the North Pole and the Outer Rim are accelerating faster, bulging up,
and after a day or less they are taller than Mount Everest.

Very soon the Earth would look like a dish for baking Kugelhopf.

2

Flat Earth General / Re: Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?

« on: October 04, 2022, 01:14:42 PM »

I see no mention of the dangers of moon light, which are indeed central to flat earth theory, there. Because you indeed have not gained nor shown a good understanding of FE theory.

Ok, nice.
Let us know what the FE theory says about the spectrum of the moonlight, which components are harmful  and what are their intensities?
Did eny FE-er ever actually identified and measured them?

3

Flat Earth General / Re: heads up to newcomers

« on: February 18, 2022, 02:12:30 AM »

The "truth" is that Earth is flat...

Except when you take sextant and/or theodolite, and measure Earth yourself.
Then you see it's a globe.

Back in 2016 you could buy theodolite on eBay for as low as $200, sextant for as low as $20.

Meanwhile, hordes of geodesists measured Earth millions of times and they are still doing it.
.

4

Flat Earth General / Re: The distance to the sun

« on: February 04, 2022, 12:34:29 PM »

Apparently one only needs the Bishop Constant:



Where (0,0) is understood to be the point at which the light ray is horizontal (that is, the derivative of this function is zero).

Definition of terms:
x, y - co-ordinates in the plane of the light ray, where y is increasing in the direction of fastest decreasing Dark Energy potential, and x is increasing in the direction of the component of propagation of the ray which is perpendicular to y.
c - the speed of light in a vacuum.
β - the Bishop constant, which defines the magnitude of the acceleration on a horizontal light ray due to Dark Energy. When the theory is complete, attempts will be made to measure this experimentally.
It is believed that the bending of light does not simulate the rate of globe earth curvature. Instead, the bending occurs more gradually over a greater distance.

Have fun with the non-calculation calculation.

That's the parameter used in stereographic projection / Moebius transformation from sphere to plane (and vice versa).
It will transform the whole set of concentric spheres into set of parallel planes, together with transformation of straight lines (light paths) into curves.
.

5

Flat Earth General / Re: The distance to the sun

« on: January 27, 2022, 02:57:16 AM »

Remember this?

In case the Earth is flat, we have serious problem
how to find the height of the Sun above the surface.

Let's try to measure it.

~~~~~

In north Brazil there is place named Sao Gabriel de Cachoeira.
It is at the Equator.

Noon, March 20, equinox.
Sun directly above heads.
Shadow lengths zero.

In Maine, USA there is place Wesley, 3110 miles north of Sao Gabriel.
From there Sun is seen under angle of 45 degrees above horizon, south.
Simple Pythagoras' triangle gives height of the Sun also as 3110 miles.

In Argentina there is place Bahia Bustamante at the east coast.
From there you see the Sun at 45 degrees above horizon, north.
Bahia Bustamante is 3110 miles south from Sao Gabriel.
Again, Sun height above Sao Gabriel is 3110 miles.

~~~~~

Ok, let's test it further.

Few hours earlier, in Africa and Europe.
Still March 20th, still equinox, now noon is here, directly above Mbandaka, Congo.
Mbandaka is also at the equator.

Directly to the north, in Europe, there is place Brestovac, Croatia.
Sun is from there seen 44.669 degrees (again above horizon), south.
Brestovac is 3131.53 miles away from Mbandaka.
Again, Pythagoras' triangle, Sun is above Mbandaka 3095 miles high.

But:

There is closer place, Bin Jawad, Libya.
Sun angle (again above horizon) 59.203 degrees. Distance to Mbandaka 2126.98 miles.
Sun is above Mbandaka 3568 miles.

Even closer, Koro Toro, Chad.
Sun angle 73.942 degrees, distance from Mbandaka 1108.39 miles.
Sun height above Mbandaka 3851 mile.

On the other side of Brestovac we have, Upsala, Sweden.
Sun angle 30.141 degrees, Mbandaka distance 4135.74 miles.
Sun height above Mbandaka 2401 mile.

Bjornoja, Svalbard.
Sun angle 15.562 degrees, distance from Mbandaka 5143.34 miles.
Sun is above Mbandaka 1432 miles.

~~~~~

As we go closer to the equator, our calculations show Sun higher and higher.
In the sample above we have changes from 1432 to 3851 mile.

Which one is wrong?
Pythagoras' triangle?
Or flatness of Earth?

HINT:
Draw any version of right-angled triangle, measure and
calculate legs and hypotenuse, to see if it works.

Repeat until you "find error" or get tired.

6

Flat Earth General / Re: The distance to the sun

« on: January 23, 2022, 03:04:13 AM »

... Can radar be used to find the distance from earth to sun? ...

Yes, it can.
Not directly, though.

The angle between Venus and Sun can be observed and measured.
At the moment when that angle has the greatest value we use astronomy radar to measure the distance between Venus and Earth.
How does it help?
To calculate the whole triangle you need one side and angles at its ends.
One side is the distance between Earth and Venus measured by radar.
The first angle is the angle between the Earth-Venus side and Earth-Sun side (the measured maximal angle).
The second angle is the angle between the Earth-Venus side and the Venus-Sun side. At the moment when the other one is the greatest, this one is 90 degrees.



(from: How To Measure Sun Distance Indirectly Using Radar )

7

Flat Earth General / Re: Zetetic methods

« on: December 27, 2021, 05:18:45 AM »

The model is having the phases of the moon caused by the sun illuminating the moon with the illuminated portion facing the sun.

Is the illuminated portion facing somewhere else?

8

Flat Earth General / Re: Zetetic methods

« on: December 23, 2021, 12:50:20 AM »

This is the issue, where is this knowledge coming from?

You could quite easily model something like this.

Which means it is no longer zeteticism.

It doesn't assume anything, we SEE the right angle at the Moon point.

That would require going to the moon to measure that angle.
Far beyond the reach of the zetetics.

From the observer's point of view it is clear that the Sun illuminates the Moon directly from aside.

That is a model.
While it makes sense, that model is not allowed as part of the zetetic method.
Unless you actually go to the moon to measure the angle, that triangle has an unknown angle for the zetetic method.

REAL Moon and REAL Sun right where you can see them directly.
Where do you see "model" in that?
Just look at them...

9

Flat Earth General / Re: Zetetic methods

« on: December 21, 2021, 01:09:19 AM »

Zetetic Method:
"A system of scientific inquiry that bases conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is not be proved or disproved."

For example:
We don't assume the distance of Sun and Moon and then confirm or disprove, we measure it directly.

Like this:


In the exact moment of half-moon we have triangle Sun-Moon-Earth like this and from the angle φ we see how much farther is Sun than Moon.
If the angle φ is, say, 89 degrees, then L/S = cos φ = 0.017452, which means S is 57.3 times greater than L.

(In reality φ is approx. 89.8531 degrees and S is 390 times greater than L.)

Unfortunately, this assumes there is a right angle triangle like that for the sun, moon and Earth.
You would first need to use the Zetetic method to establish that is the case.

The one I prefer is observations of a sunset, clearly showing the sun is going below you, meaning it can't just be above you and far away.

Assumes?
It doesn't assume anything, we SEE the right angle at the Moon point.
From the observer's point of view it is clear that the Sun illuminates the Moon directly from aside.
Simply compare the bright and the dark part.
Use your own senses for that.

10

Flat Earth General / Re: NASA Artemis

« on: December 18, 2021, 05:41:59 AM »

Some are angry (both Flatties and Roundies) trying to force their conclusions, some others are just expressing opinions, and some are trying to point out the facts.

Do you want to KNOW the real shape of the Earth?
Or you want to BELIEVE it is flat?

11

Flat Earth General / Re: Zetetic methods

« on: December 18, 2021, 05:25:01 AM »

Zetetic Method:
"A system of scientific inquiry that bases conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is not be proved or disproved."

For example:
We don't assume the distance of Sun and Moon and then confirm or disprove, we measure it directly.

Like this:


In the exact moment of half-moon we have triangle Sun-Moon-Earth like this and from the angle φ we see how much farther is Sun than Moon.
If the angle φ is, say, 89 degrees, then L/S = cos φ = 0.017452, which means S is 57.3 times greater than L.

(In reality φ is approx. 89.8531 degrees and S is 390 times greater than L.)

12

Flat Earth General / Re: Atmosphere?

« on: October 28, 2021, 09:07:10 AM »

Because the spherically curved shape is needed for the "lensing" explanation elsewhere (several Flat-Earth versions of air optics).
Plane-parallel structures can't provide such lensing.

The word "Lense" etymology:

The word lens comes from lēns, the Latin name of the lentil, because a double-convex lens is lentil-shaped.

13

Flat Earth General / Re: NASA Artemis

« on: October 09, 2021, 03:48:47 PM »

"If NASA didn't put Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin (and ten more people) on the Moon, then who did?"

At the time NASA had 400 000 employees. Give them $100k each to keep silent, and it is 40 billion.
Add the "filming and evidence fabrication" expenses and the numbers multiply.
Those numbers also grow more when you add subcontractors.

To send people to the Moon was cheaper and easier:

NASA's total budget appropriations for the Apollo Program through 1969 was $16.1 billion per official documents.
The total cost of the Apollo Program up through about 1974 was $25.4 billion.

And how many of those employees would get greedy and want more?
And how many of them would take the money and still blow the whistle?

Why Soviets (main Cold War enemy) didn't debunk "the conspiracy"?
They would benefit greatly by denying the American victory in The Space Race.

14

Flat Earth General / Re: This earth is not the real world

« on: August 23, 2021, 12:57:01 AM »

... never the less everything we experience here is created by those who live in what I call the real world outside this reality....

That other "real world" is also the simulation created by entities of the "even more real world"...

If we measure our "simulated" Earth and determine the curvature and the shape irregularities, we can and we do use that measurements successfully in our work.
Everything works well in Architecture, Civil Engineering, Navigation, Geology, Meteorology, Astronomy, Space travel, ...

Was it created by some "external real world" or by the laws of physics really becomes irrelevant.

15

Flat Earth General / Re: Is "g = 9.8 m/s/s = GM/d^2 bona fide on the surface of earth?

« on: August 16, 2021, 10:43:56 AM »

Make it simpler. Here on earth, anything if throws upward it comes downward. The momentum of that thing is not conserved.

Exactly. You can not have conserved momentum while there is external force.

16

Flat Earth General / Re: New model of the Universe.

« on: July 14, 2021, 08:10:28 AM »

Official diameter of Mercury is 4.8 thousand km, Moon - 3.5 thousand km.
Look at large craters with long, light streaks.
Stripes from one of such craters on Mercury cover (encircle) it completely. The Moon also has several such craters with long light stripes, but they are much smaller (shorter) relative to the Moon's surface.
Moon's diameter is about 700-900 km. The diameter of Mercury is about 10-15 km.

The size of Moon and Mercury were measured.
For example, you can measure the Moon yourself.
I did it twice in my life.

Back in late 70s I was member of the YU1AFX radio club.
I've sent 432MHz radio pulse to Moon and measured the return time.
It was nearly 2.5 seconds.
Radio wave travels at the speed of light, which gives the distance to the Moon to be about 380000 km.
Angular diameter of the Moon is about 0.5 degrees.

That way one can calculate the diameter of the Moon to be about 3500 km, not 800-900 km.

Back in 2016 there were cheap sextants on eBay. Under $30.
By measuring lunar parallax with it I found the distance to the Moon to be about 380000 km.

People do radar astronomy for decades now. They use radar to measure distances to the near celestial bodies.
They measured distance to Venus at the moment of the greatest elongation.
That is the moment when the Sun, Earth and Venus form a right triangle with the right angle at Venus.
If you know angle at Earth and measure distance to Venus by radar, you can calculate distances between Venus and Sun, and Earth and Sun.

Distance from Earth to Sun is 149 000 000 km.
Distance from Venus to Sun is 108 000 000 km.

Mercury is obviously closer to Sun than Venus, the amateur astronomy telescope "for the masses" is enough to see it.

In short, the diameter of the Mercury is about 4800 km, not 10-15 km.

The reason for the longer stripes is simply higher impact energy of the body that made them.

17

Flat Earth General / Re: Are round earthers simply examples of the Dunning Kruger effect, or just wrong?

« on: May 22, 2021, 12:33:32 AM »

This very forum has several threads explaining how to make or use your own equipment and do your own research, yet no Flat Earther did any of it.
Sextant can be used to measure for yourself the divergence of vertical lines (if the Earth was flat they would be parallel).
Simple water rig clearly shows how the horizon dip exists (horizon doesn't remain in the eye level as you go higher).
There are phone applications that show where are major orbiting objects, you can use simple telescope to se with your very eyes that they are there.
Hang your own replica of Cavendish and see that gravity does exist.
If you live near the sea climb up some tall building and see how you can see further behind the bulge as you go higher.
Wallace destroyed the Old Bedford by simply moving the observing line upper, away from the light refraction near the water, you can do the same.
And more...

But no:
It is easier to try discrediting what others already measured without doing it yourself.
It is easier to declare 98.6% people "conspiring against the remaining 1.4% to take their money".

"Oh, my God, I'm too deep into Flat Earth claims, I can't bail ot now, people will see that I was wrong."

Yes, people will see, small number will laugh for a few days, and then stop.
This way many more laugh for much longer.

~~~~~

On the other hand, after they admit the Earth was not Flat, what will they do with their lives?
Do some "ordinary stuff"?
Boring.

18

Flat Earth General / Re: Why do people believe that the earth is round

« on: April 15, 2021, 07:46:47 AM »

Some people are ignorant enough to believe that the Earth is round, however, when presented with the truth, they still say that this is not true, what is the reason?
...

There are several reasons, the main of which is direct measurement, done many times by millions of people.

Back in 2015/16 there were cheap sextants at eBay, some under $30.
Using your own sextant you can skip what others say and measure things on your own.
Things like lunar parallax, or Earth's curvature.

If the Earth was flat, all verticals would be parallel.
However, two verticals that are 1852 meters apart (one nautical mile) are tilted away from each other for one arc minute.

Nautical mile was defined few centuries ago because of the Earth's curvature.
One degree of the curvature was divided into 60 nautical miles just for that purpose: easier to measure distances that ships travel at sea.

As you can see, saying that the Earth was "flat" is not really a truth, and no cherry-picking can change that.

19

Flat Earth General / Re: Sea and air pressure

« on: October 30, 2020, 04:46:56 PM »

The bit in bold shows exactly how much you take notice. Not at all.

You claim that air stacks above the object and presses that object down.

No, I'm not...not entirely. I'm claiming that any dense mass pushing into the stacking system is acted on by that very same displacement of its own dense mass, plus the absolute direct portion of atmosphere above the object.

In other words, you claim that the column of the air above the object presses it down.
While doing that you avoid the fact that the pressure of air column also presses the object from below and from sides.
And since the column is taller at the bottom, it presses up a bit harder than down.

In reality, when you pull lot of air out of a vacuum chamber the object inside weighs more.

You don't pull air out of anything. You allow it to expand by pushing air away from the source to allow that air to expand into the lower pressure area you created by your push or by the push of a pumping system.

Here you are trying to distract reader using semantics.
In reality you DO reduce pressure of the external air, allowing some internal air molecules to exit, and allowing the remaining air inside to expand.
Technically, your action allowed some air to exit and you can say that "you pulled it out".

So, the claim that "less air presses the object harder" is direct consequence of your own "theory".

I never claimed this so get your facts right.

My facts are not that you said it, my facts are that your theory "says it" (has it as the direct consequence).

Not only that, but your "stack system" should also give this:
"Putting glass plate above an object, and pulling that plate up, should disrupt the stacks and reduce the weight of the object."

But in reality it doesn't happen that way at all.

Understand dense mass displacement and you'll maybe have a chance of understanding what's happening in this scenario.

You might not like it, but looks like I understand it better than you do.
That's because you are hiding the flaws from yourself, and expect others to do the same in order to "understand".

20

Flat Earth General / Re: Sea and air pressure

« on: October 27, 2020, 06:49:16 AM »

The bit in bold shows exactly how much you take notice. Not at all.

You claim that air stacks above the object and presses that object down.
In reality, when you pull lot of air out of a vacuum chamber the object inside weighs more.
So, the claim that "less air presses the object harder" is direct consequence of your own "theory".

Not only that, but your "stack system" should also give this:
"Putting glass plate above an object, and pulling that plate up, should disrupt the stacks and reduce the weight of the object."

But in reality it doesn't happen that way at all.

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distance to the Sun

« on: October 23, 2020, 07:15:34 PM »

Have you personally verified any of those "exact figures", or are you just taking their word for it?

Personally?
Nope.
Have you?

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distance to the Sun

« on: October 22, 2020, 06:32:51 AM »

At the moment of Equinoctial Solar Noon, the angle between Sun and Local Vertical matches (and shows) the latitiude you are at.
Seen from the Equator (latitude 0 deg) the Sun is over head, and seen from pole (latitude 90 deg) the Sun is on the horizon.
The length of each degree is 60 nautical miles, so
- 15 degrees is 900 nautical miles,
- 30 degrees is 1800 nautical miles,
- 45 degrees is 2700 nautical miles,
- 60 degrees is 3600 nautical miles,
and so on.

Are you taking the effects of electromagnetic eddification (bendy light) into account?

Introducing bendy light will show that horizon is not in the horizontal plane,
because the incoming angles of the light shows horizon lower than it really is.
And since it is shown in the horizontal plane, it means it is higher than that,
which reveals concave shape of the earth's surface.

23

Flat Earth General / Re: Is Google supressing us?

« on: October 21, 2020, 12:48:18 PM »

OMG, bitch about the Google.

Start your own search engine.
Spend a few billion dollars so you can serve the planet.
Structure your venture to not make any money.

Good luck spending thank you's.   

I bet people bitched and moaned about billboards 80 years ago.

Nobody works for free.

Well, AltaVista did just that.
They had the best searching algorithm, easy for search querry customization, best relevance.
Then Yahoo bought it, and instead of using it to improve own search engine, they just killed it.

24

Flat Earth General / Re: Sea and air pressure

« on: October 21, 2020, 12:43:59 PM »

Not understanding the stacking system is a big problem for you all.

Sorry to disappoint you, we do understand your stacking system.
But we have to point out the differences between your stacking system and the reality.

Clearly you do not understand my stacking system or you wouldn't be arguing it, wrongly. But let's see.

Clearly you don't understand it either.
Otherwise you wouldn't try to use it as an explanation where reality clearly works in the opposite way.

Less air (nearly vacuum) presses the object harder down? LOL

25

Flat Earth General / Re: Living in a sci-fi movie.

« on: October 21, 2020, 10:01:05 AM »

Hi! I am convinced the earth is flat.

I found out 2-3 years ago by the age of 32 that the earth was indeed flat, due to some discussion on a forum that lead to me watching youtube videos of a german man laughing at astronauts. cant remember hes acc, its probably banned either way.
...
I think a false ego pumped up by the system is what governs most people, and their investment in the society followed by no religion or life after death isnt liberating them, its ruling them.

Well, I'm not convinced that the Earth is flat,because direct measurement shows it is not.

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distance to the Sun

« on: October 21, 2020, 09:52:35 AM »

At the moment of Equinoctial Solar Noon, the angle between Sun and Local Vertical matches (and shows) the latitiude you are at.
Seen from the Equator (latitude 0 deg) the Sun is over head, and seen from pole (latitude 90 deg) the Sun is on the horizon.
The length of each degree is 60 nautical miles, so
- 15 degrees is 900 nautical miles,
- 30 degrees is 1800 nautical miles,
- 45 degrees is 2700 nautical miles,
- 60 degrees is 3600 nautical miles,
and so on.

It all means that from 15 degrees (north or south) you see Sun 75 degrees above your horizon.
Sun's altitude is 900 nautical miles x tan (75 deg) = 3359 nautical miles = 3865 miles = 6220 km.
From 30 degrees you see Sun 60 degrees above your horizon.
Sun's altitude is 1800 nautical miles x tan (60 deg) = 3118 nautical miles = 3588 miles = 5774 km.
From 45 degrees you see Sun 45 degrees above the horizon.
Sun's altitude is 2700 nautical miles x tan (45 deg) = 2700 nautical miles = 3107 miles = 5000 km.
From 60 degrees you see Sun 30 degrees above the horizon.
Sun's altitude is 3600 nautical miles x tan (30 deg) = 2078 nautical miles = 2391 miles = 3848 km.

Flat model can't give consistent results of Sun's altitude measurement.

That's why some Flat Earthers try to "save the day" using "curved light rays".
Doing tha they are forgetting that the light from horizon would also be curved, showing us horizon lower than "it realy is".
If we see horizon in the horizontal plane, then in "reality" it is higher than that, making the Earth's surface concave.

Or the light from the Sun can be curved and from horizon can't through the same air?

27

Flat Earth General / Re: Sea and air pressure

« on: October 18, 2020, 07:05:22 PM »

Not understanding the stacking system is a big problem for you all.

Sorry to disappoint you, we do understand your stacking system.
But we have to point out the differences between your stacking system and the reality.

Bodies immersed in the air will lose part of their weight equal to the weight of the displaced air.

One cubic meter of air is 1.293 kg, which is 1.293 grams per cubic decimeter.
So, if some object has the volume of one cubic decimeter, it will displace 1.293 grams of air and lose 1.293 grams of own weight.
(Buoyant force in air is much weaker than in water, but still exists.)

In vacuum the object with volume of one cubic decimeter will be heavier for 1.293 grams.
I don't see how you can stack vacuum.

28

Flat Earth General / Re: Is Google supressing us?

« on: October 18, 2020, 06:51:45 PM »

Hello. I found something intresting. When searching "Flat Earth Society" on DuckDuckGo we come as 3 result. Above us is other FE society and wiki page.

On Google we come at 37 place for now. I belive we were higher up before, as i didn't have to search it for so long?

Other FE society came at 2 place, above wiki. Why does Google promote them and supress us?

Above is were many pages of news articles. I am pretty sure more people came to us than this:


https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/the-flat-earth-movement-a-society-of-disbelievers-in-scientific-fact/


Is it beacuse FE's here post real scientific stuff (I am thinking about sandokhan) which is threat to establishment?

Google suppresses every site that won't bring them revenue.
Their results favorize the sites where you can buy something, especially when they get percentage from that purchase.
I worked as SEO (Search Engine Optimizer) from 2001 to 2006 and watched their gradual search algorithm changes towards it.

29

Flat Earth General / How far is the "down?

« on: October 08, 2020, 04:35:59 AM »

Ok, let me ask this as a separate question:

How far is the "down" below the Flat Earth?
How far would an object fall?

Is it infinite there?
Does the infinite space exists in that direction only, or in all directions?

If it is not, where it ends?
What is beyond that "end"?
If there's nothing, why all the "something" above doesn't fall into that "nothing"?

30

Flat Earth General / Re: WATCH THIS VIDEO!!! FIRMAMENT PROOF

« on: October 08, 2020, 04:25:09 AM »

Hard to refute this....

Refute what?
Light refraction in the air doesn't confirm some "firmament" at all in the first place.
Have you seen the rainbows in some aerosols aroud waterfalls or geysers?
Are there also some small firmaments in them?