Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Jadyyn

Pages: [1] 2
Flat Earth Debate / Sundials on a FE
« on: July 06, 2016, 07:14:51 AM »
Exactly how do sundials work on a FE?

Specifically, on the equinox on the equator, a vertical sundial produces a shadow that (1) travels due W/E and (2) therefore, it travels in a straight line and (3) only the length of the shadow changes. The video below shows how it works on a RE. Starting @1:30:

If the Sun is 1/4 of the Earth away NE at sunrise (NW at sunset), how on a FE can it produce straight shadow lines?

On the equinox using the map below (it doesn't have to have equidistant latitudes):
1) IF the Sun is where the yellow vertical line (longitude) meets the red circle just below Africa (noon)
2) 6 hrs earlier it was where the horizontal line (longitude) meets the red line on the right
3) 6 hrs later it will be where the horizontal line (longitude) meets the red line on the left
4) How does that produce a shadow that is a straight line E/W that only varies in length?

Flat Earth Debate / FE Quest
« on: June 17, 2016, 06:38:32 AM »
As pointed out below, the FE people can't just live on one side of a disk/plane because of the nature of rotating bodies/heavens. Apparently the DE model is not going forth and people are still trying to use a single sided model. So what will it take to make it work? (

Amateur astronomy (visual/photographic) supports/proves or falsifies/disproves/destroys/annihilates any Earth model. It is hard to fake and any model must demonstrate what we (laypeople) see everywhere on Earth.

The quest is to show how easy or hard it is to make a WORKING single sided FE model. As pointed out here, there really is no reason for the N.Pole to be in the middle of a FE model: (

So to demonstrate what is necessary on Earth and in the sky, I have decided to "simplify" the concept. Simply, make the S.Pole azimuthal projection (SPAP) "work". If you can make the SPAP work, you can make the NPAP work the same way. It has the same problems and distortions as the SPAP. As 80%+ of the people live north of the equator, your explanations can be verified much easier.

Unfortunately, you will not have thousands of miles of uninhabited oceans to help. Just make the shapes of Europe, Russia, Alaska, Canada and Greenland correct. Make the distances from Europe to Alaska correct (not ~25,000+ mi with it being shorter to go through the S.Pole). Explain how we view the N. Celestial Pole and Polaris due north everywhere on Earth. Explain how we see the stars below the N. Celestial Pole when they are on the other side of the Earth.

Here is my attempt that can be applied to this situation:

Flat Earth Debate / A working FE model
« on: June 06, 2016, 07:09:55 PM »
OK, I believe I have created a WORKING FE model AND map(!) that does NOT conflict with a RE model!

Mind you, I don't believe in it but it CAN theoretically work. I don't know how or if the sky works, but the land definitely does.

If you take a globe (with a single point S.Pole) and map it to an azimuthal (equidistant?) projection, there is a specific formula that maps every latitude and longitude to the projection. The S.Pole (a single point) will map to the edge (~50,000 mi circle - 90 S). Supposedly, the map is as accurate as the globe it is mapped from (1:1).

Everything on this FE is distorted by some sort of space time? A person standing one foot away from the S.Pole being one foot deep (chest to back) will be correct N-S but his one foot at the longitude of Australia and the other at say Africa will stretch him in an arc 10,000's of mi long.

The only way to perceive this person "correctly" - same size and shape - is to reverse engineer the formula (i.e. correct for the space time distortion). This will map the FE back to a globe and everything in proper proportions/distances. So the Earth would be flat and somehow (aether or a "reverse engineering" something) would make the Earth seem "correct".

I don't know how to map the sky. I got this off the top of my head.

You can also map the Earth beyond the FE to a concave Earth using this method (or any shape really as long as there is a formula). Again, I don't know how the sky would look.

Flat Earth Debate / Help for FEers - dual Earth model
« on: April 13, 2016, 09:48:41 AM »
Simply put, the sky and heavens DO NOT WORK with ANY FE model where everyone lives on one side of it. Period.

Rotation, Axis, 2 Points

First, Geometry 101.

Any rotating body has an Axis of Rotation - a line between 2 points ("North Pole" (NP) and "South Pole" (SP)). I will use 3 examples.

1) A sphere. Take a ball and rotate it on your finger. On top you will see a SINGLE point - NP. On the bottom (your finger), you have a SINGLE point - SP. At its widest, you have its equator.

2) A disk/plane. Take a dish and rotate it on your finger or stick. On top you will see a SINGLE point - NP. On the bottom (your finger), you have a SINGLE point - SP. At its widest, you have its equator.

3) Disk flip. Take a coin and flip it. On one edge you will have a SINGLE point - NP. On the opposite edge you will have a SINGLE point - SP. At its widest, you will have its equator.

"Motion is Relative"

Second, if you take those shapes and make THEM stationary, the sky/heavens (you) will appear to rotate around an observer on the surface. The Axis of Rotation REMAINS THE SAME (NP - SP). 2 new SINGLE points appear in the sky/heavens. The "North Celestial Pole" (NCP) above the NP. The "South Celestial Pole" (SCP) above the SP. The Celestial Equator (CE) will be above the object's equator.

What works and doesn't work

1) Sphere. This WORKS. Above a SINGLE point NP, you have a SINGLE point NCP (center of northern star trails ~Polaris). Above a SINGLE point SP, you have a SINGLE point SCP (center of southern star trails ~Sigma Octantis). The CE is above the equator.

2) Disk/Plane. This DOES NOT WORK. Above a SINGLE point NP, you have a SINGLE point NCP (center of northern star trails ~Polaris) - good... But, the SCP is above the true SP, BELOW the NP, UNDERNEATH the Earth. This CAN NOT be seen from above the disk/plane. The CE is NOT between the NP and Antarctica but is the EDGE of the disk beyond Antarctica. There is no place on Earth that is a SINGLE point that the SCP can be above.

3) Disk flip. This DOES NOT WORK. Above a SINGLE point NP, you have a SINGLE point NCP (center of northern star trails ~Polaris). Above a SINGLE point SP, you have a SINGLE point SCP (center of southern star trails ~Sigma Octantis). The CE is above the equator... BUT... the sky/heavens/Sun/Moon etc. would only appear for 12 hrs EVERYWHERE on Earth then disappear for 12 hrs EVERYWHERE on Earth. Also, the land masses on the surface are wrong.


A disk/plane with people living on just one side does not work. The sky/heavens are all wrong. You ABSOLUTELY MUST have a SINGLE point SP on the Earth (with its corresponding SCP in the sky). Therefore, FEers (The FE Society), must get rid of this type of model.

Therefore, the FE MUST have people/land masses/etc. on BOTH sides - a dual Earth model. At least JRowe is going "in the right direction".

Furthermore, discussions of UA, sunsets/sunrises, travel distances, etc. are worthless when the basic model is demonstrably wrong. What is the point of debating "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" when there is no "pin"?

Flat Earth Debate / Direct irrefutable proof of FE/RE
« on: February 03, 2016, 11:30:24 AM »
Here is a method, based on THOUSANDS of years of sailing that will put the shape of the Earth to rest. It is relatively easy to do (compared to traveling to Antarctica). Since the major differences between a flat and spherical Earth are south of the equator, we would need to do this in Australia (with someone with a telescope).

1) Take a cell phone (with stop watch for time correction to ~second) to Sydney or Brisbane, Australia.

2) Pick a star near the equator (e.g. Rigel).

3) Align an equatorially mounted telescope facing the SCP (due south). Swing the telescope due north toward the equator setting it to Rigel's declination (8.20164 S).

4) With an eyepiece that has cross-hairs, when Rigel hits the vertical cross-hair, start the stop watch. This will allow you to correct the time to within a second of its transit. Record the time.

5) Do (3) & (4) at Perth, Australia.

6) Subtract the time you got in (5) from that in (4). This tells you how long it took the sky to rotate from E.Australia to W.Australia.

7) See if the time is less or more than the time it takes to go along the equator. If less, Earth is a sphere, if more, flat.

153.0333 E (B) Brisbane
151.2094 E (S) Sydney
115.8589 E (P) Perth

A sidereal day (same star in same place in the sky) is 23.944699 hrs.

23.944699/360 = 0.066513052 hrs/deg longitude

Equator Times:
P-B = 153.0333-115.8589 = 37.1744 x 0.066513052 = 2.472582829 = 2h 28m 21.3s
S-B = 151.2094-115.8589 = 35.3505 x 0.066513052 = 2.351269672 = 2h 21m 04.6s

Those are the times to beat. Which shape will win?

Flat Earth Debate / "Spotlight" Sun, Moon, planets and stars
« on: February 01, 2016, 11:01:46 AM »
If the Sun lights up the Earth as a "spotlight" as shown below:

AND the Sun is ONLY ~3000/whatever mi up (keep in mind the Sun's size is GREATLY exaggerated in the diagrams - it would just be a pinpoint):

AND the Sun is lower than the stars. Looking at the June diagram above (works for the others as well but not as clearly), the Sun's "spotlight" is basically a cone.

As soon as the edge of the "spotlight" goes into nighttime, wouldn't you see basically ALL the stars in the heavens? Outside of the circle of light on Earth and the cone to the Sun above (daytime), you can see ALL the black where the stars are supposed to be even through the cone.

Once in the nighttime, can you see through the cone to the stars on the other side? Is the "spotlight"/cone a solid object so you can't see through it? Light is coming DOWN from the sun, not SIDEWAYS through the cone.

BTW, the Moon, planets, stars and galaxies would need to do the "spotlight" effect also. The Moon is most obvious as its "orbit" is very similar to the Sun's and can be viewed from the same places similarly during the year. So basically, how does EVERYTHING in the heavens (near the equator +/-) have a "spotlight" effect?

Flat Earth Debate / Sun's and Moon's "skin" moving
« on: February 01, 2016, 06:13:52 AM »
On a rectangle, you can move the "skin" (its face) easily without "breaking" (left/right). But how do you move the "skin"/surface/face across a circle/disk?

Here are some videos showing the "skin"/surface/face of the Sun moving:
(" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">)
(" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">)

BTW, it happens to the Moon as well - Lunar Libration:
(" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">)


How does the "skin" move like that across a circle/disk without "breaking"?

Flat Earth Debate / A new FE map
« on: December 31, 2015, 07:48:28 AM »
Other than the Antarctica conspiracy theory, why does the FE Society use the traditional UN type map with the N.Pole in the middle?

Why don't they use this map with the S.Pole in the middle:

It has the same distortions, but in the N.hemisphere. Would anyone north of the equator buy it?

The south celestial pole (center of southern star trails) would be correct, but unfortunately, the north celestial pole would not be viewed by anyone above the disk. Polaris would go around a 50,000+ mi circle.

Travel distances in the southern hemisphere would be better, but I doubt anyone in the northern hemisphere would be pleased with the 50,000+ mi distance at Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia.

Since the FE Society really doesn't care what people in the southern hemisphere think (I doubt there are many people from S. America, southern Africa, Antarctica, Pacifica or toward Australia/New Zealand on this website) and it is mostly oceans, that isn't much of a problem, is it? One air traffic controller from New Zealand, just got blown off (see

Flat Earth Debate / DEF Moon eclipses/phases
« on: December 26, 2015, 10:32:25 AM »
The moon is the final such entity. The same basic principles hold, though it doesn't exist in the center. Instead, it rotates (sic) around the Sun, as well as on its own access (sic): hence the phases. As it rotates, it will have its image projected by the same flow of aether, to the top and bottom. Sometimes this will be a full moon, and sometimes less of the face will be visible.
Common belief is that the same face of the moon faces us at all times. this is an optical illusion: any notable features will still be visible on the tilted moon, so we will certainly observe some similarities. The moon is too far away for us to say anything more.
To quickly cover eclipses, it is clearly possible for the moon to, at some points, cross the lit face of the Sun: when it does so, and blocks the light, there will be a solar eclipse. A lunar eclipse occurs when the moon shines at a different angle, past the Sun: the increased distance meaning light will scatter.
This is total 100% BS. It demonstrates that JRoweSkeptic knows NOTHING about the Moon. Makes me wonder whether he has ever actually seen it - yes, it is THAT bad. This is the type of explanation to a 5 yr old - not anyone who has any understanding of the Moon.

A) Keep in mind the Sun and Moon are ~0.5 in the sky, so approximately the same size inside the Earth.
B) The Moon is self-illuminating (Proof required. DEF knows this how? See the "Moon and heat" thread).

1) "Instead, it rotates(sic)(should be revolves) around the Sun, as well as on its own access (sic)(should be axis): hence the phases."

1a) Problem, this statement is cute and naive. It may explain SOLAR ECLIPSES but would also imply that the Sun would block the Moon completely at times during the orbit during a Full Moon. This of course NEVER happens. The Moon does NOT revolve around the Sun. Total 100% BS.

1b) Its rotation cause phases. JRoweSkeptic is under the false impression that the Rock part of the Moon is the BACK SIDE of the Moon (this would be REAL news for all astronomers everywhere). Astronomers and anyone who has actually watched/photographed the Moon over several days know this is totally 100% false. Showing the same face is a "Common belief" by ALL astronomers. ONLY JRoweSkeptic knows the truth - it is an optical illusion because DEF says so. Total 100% BS.

As demonstrated below, there is NO new information on the visible part of the Moon. Look at the Full Moon and compare it to the lit side on all the phase pictures. All that changes is the phase shadow crossing its surface - NOT because the Moon is rotating. Total 100% BS.

1c) Is the white-hot metal turning into rock? or vis versa?

1d) Because Earthshine (the Earth illuminating the phase shadow of the Moon) demonstrates the phase shadow is the same as in the Full Moon pictures, JRoweSkeptic just decides to throw away this experimental evidence (look up "Earthshine Images" - because his model can't explain it and disproves his Moon rotation BS. BTW, at times YOU can see the Earthshine directly looking at the Moon without equipment obviously.

2) "The moon is too far away for 'us' (JRoweSkeptic) to say anything more." - We have telescopes - JRoweSkeptic doesn't. We can say A LOT. Total 100% BS.

3) "A lunar eclipse occurs when the moon shines at a different angle, past the Sun: the increased distance meaning light will scatter."

Lunar Eclipses are the nemesis of FE models. The Moon must be Full and yet must dim (penumbra) then really dim and turn red with a fuzzy larger curved shadow crossing it (umbra). The Moon must be Full on the OPPOSITE side from the Sun as viewed on Earth.

3a) If the Moon is BEHIND the Sun during a Full Moon with its light shining past the Sun, why is it in the OPPOSITE side of the sky - ALWAYS?
3b) If the Moon is self-illuminating, why should it darken during a lunar eclipse?
3c) So what causes the curved fuzzy red shadow (~4x bigger in diameter than the Moon)?
3d) The Sun doesn't have an atmosphere (like the Earth). Why would light scatter and make the shadow red? Per Einstein's Relativity test of starlight (Hyades cluster behind a solar eclipse), light BENDS slightly, not changes color. Proof needed.
3e) How does the Moon's light going past the Sun make the Moon dim on different parts of its face? (go through the penumbra (dimming) part then the umbra (dimming and turning red))? Is the Sun blocking the Moon causing the fuzzy red shadow ~4x the size of the Moon? Need diagram.

4) If the increasing distance is so dramatic, then why does the Moon remain the same size during all phases?

ALL this is totally 100% BS/rubbish as spoken by someone that doesn't know what he is talking about (i.e. probably has never observed any of these events).

Flat Earth Debate / Moon and heat
« on: December 26, 2015, 08:55:59 AM »
Per DEF, the Sun, Moon, planets and stars are white-hot metal in some whirlpools made by Aether.


This presents several problems.
  • As the Sun and Moon are ~0.5 of arc in the sky (hence solar eclipses), they are basically the same size in the Earth (the Moon is "near the Sun"),
  • As they are supposedly made of the same stuff - white-hot metal surrounded by rock (proof needed),
  • Clearly the Moon is white/gray and should be hotter than the yellow-hot metal Sun especially since it is closer (to make solar eclipses)
  • Since the Sun is hot enough to make magma and heat the Earth, the Moon should be hotter and scorch the Earth.
  • The Sun, making magma, should melt or at least make the rock part of the Moon glow red/orange/yellow like magma.
Through this thermal camera, the surrounding sky is about ~2 C while the Moon is ~5 C. Shouldn't it be MUCH hotter?

Flat Earth Debate / JRoweSkeptic and DEF problem
« on: December 23, 2015, 07:11:38 AM »
Since the traditional, single disk FE model is destroyed (DEF blows it off with just a hand-wave) - you can't see the S. Celestial Pole from above the disk, hence DEF with 2 poles to the rescue - DEF is THE FE model. Like JRoweSkeptic's sig says - "Dual Earth Theory (sic), the best FE model"

The funniest thing is that ONLY JRoweSkeptic, out of ALL the people on Earth understands it! ONE person! THAT is the Flat Earth Society. If he dies, FE dies too...


Flat Earth Debate / NCP - disproving FE models
« on: December 18, 2015, 11:26:10 AM »
Simply put, when aligning equatorially mounted telescopes, they must be parallel to the axis of the Earth/sky so we can track the sky with 1 motor to take pictures. The axis is defined by the N.Pole and S.Pole on Earth and their extensions in the sky - N. Celestial Pole and S. Celestial Pole.

N. Celestial Pole viewed from Uttarakhand, northern India (Polaris near center):

S. Celestial Pole viewed from Australia (sigma octanis near center):

Telescopes point at the NCP/SCP based on the latitude of the observer (they are also parallel to the axes). This is a direct proof that the Earth is spherical.

How does pointing at the NCP/SCP based on the latitude of the observer support that the Earth is FLAT?

Technical Support / RESOLVED: Remove tan border
« on: December 17, 2015, 08:27:29 AM »
The tan border, especially the left and right margins, needlessly adds couple of inches to the width of the screen. When viewing wide images, it makes them even worse. It is cosmetic and provides no useful service but makes viewing wide content more difficult.

I request removing it. Only the google rounded corner box should remain.

Flat Earth Debate / Is ISS a projection?
« on: December 10, 2015, 07:52:16 AM »
My problem is this picture of the space shuttle and ISS (from the "The space shuttle" thread):

Here's a lovely photo of the space shuttle approaching the ISS to dock, while orbiting the spherical earth at around 7 km/s. This was taken by an amateur photographer in the Forest of Dean, UK.

The response is this isn't real, a laser projection.

So my question is how is the projection, against a black background, also one, against the Sun? (Dual Earth Theory thread):

I did not reject it because I did not like it, the story was fine. Your hypothesis about space travel on the other hand is very easy to reject, I have done so many times my self.

Again, the non-existence space travel is a conclusion. You reject it with no evidence beyond the assertion the numerous FE responses are wrong: that is not scientific.

That is your opinion, I reject it with alot of evidence, my favourite is this

Flat Earth General / Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster
« on: December 07, 2015, 05:43:32 AM »
If there are no satellites/space shuttles, FEers, please explain the Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster:

One of MANY images/videos/eye-witness accounts of the shuttle breaking up over Texas:

The yellow-red in this radar image is the debris from the shuttle. It was NOT flying at some 600 mph (747 aircraft). Over Dallas, when they lost contact, it was traveling ~Mach 18; 200,000 ft above ground. Debris was scattered over 2000 square miles in E.TX alone (area around the left pink spot below).

Flat Earth Debate / Killer Asteroids
« on: December 03, 2015, 09:56:22 AM »
An interesting question occurred to me...

Since FE models do not believe in outer space, should we be worrying about killer asteroids and comets (like Halley's comet) hitting the Earth?

Since space is sooo big and these are sooo small (actually a 1 km asteroid is quite big and can destroy massive amounts of life on Earth but in space at a distance of 10,000,000's km, it is next to nothing) and dim (mag ~18+, some are dark so they really need to be close to see them), the astronomical community has telescopes with CCD cameras and computers sweeping the sky looking for "Pluto" - asteroids whose orbits may hit Earth. This is an area of astronomy where amateur astronomers can really help around the world running their telescopes all night. ( and (

Per FE, asteroids are just 5000 km up and tiny or at best somehow come from under the single disk and create craters on Earth. Is there really nothing to worry about? Are we wasting our time?

Should everyone on Earth rely on FE - outer space (and killer asteroids) don't exist? If one actually is going to hit the Earth and destroy us, will you drop your FE models? Will it be too late to say "sorry" or "ooops"? I bet you will believe in NASA and its pictures...

Furthermore, are FEers comfortable with potentially being responsible for killing millions or billions of people if their FE models are wrong?

Flat Earth Debate / UFET Dome does not exist
« on: November 06, 2015, 11:47:03 AM »
Uniplanar Flat Earth Theory (UFET) is the normal FE model (one disk with a dome that rotates around the N. Pole that has the Sun, Moon, planets, stars, galaxies and satellite images on it). Similar to the "Truman Show", it starts in Antarctica.

Per the Dual Earth fiction/fantasy (DEF), there is a S. Pole. The sky rotates around the N.Pole to S.Pole axis. The DEF disproves UFET.

Flat Earth Debate / FE model - Height of Sun and Moon
« on: October 31, 2015, 07:41:25 AM »
  • In the uniplanar FET model (disk with dome), prove the height of the Sun and Moon.
  • In the DET model - prove the Sun and Moon are inside the Earth.

Flat Earth Debate / Earthquakes - P & S waves
« on: October 30, 2015, 06:01:37 PM »

When an earthquake happens, it can be measured on the opposite side of the Earth in a spherical model. This is caused by P waves.
  • P waves travel through any material, solid or liquid.
  • How would the P waves travel to the "other side of the world" (as defined by a spherical Earth model)? What is so special there on a FE model?
  • In DET, wouldn't they just pass straight down to what is directly underneath on the other hemidisk?
  • Wouldn't they just radiate out basically from the center of the earthquake and go everywhere?
  • Why would they converge on the "other side of the world" in a circular pattern (as defined by a spherical Earth)? How do they know to do that?
  • There is a Shadow Zone (dead zone) that is 105-140 per spherical Earth model that is concentric where very few P waves go. Spherical Earth explains this zone by the waves going through different spherical layers with different densities. Why would this happen on a FE model?
  • S waves do not travel through liquids. These waves are blocked by a liquid core in a spherical Earth. What causes them to blocked under a disk, but allows them to pass where a spherical Earth core would not be? On a FE model, wouldn't the liquid be from edge to edge not allowing ANY S waves to pass? If no liquid, then ALL S waves would pass. The S waves would act like P waves - they don't.
Please provide a diagram explaining earthquake P & S waves in your FET model...

Flat Earth Debate / FE maps
« on: October 29, 2015, 08:54:05 AM »
If the Earth is Flat (2D), wouldn't someone (especially the FE society) have mapped it accurately on a piece of paper (2D) without distortion?

It would be THE most accurate map available and used by everyone.

IF it could have been done, it would have been done YEARS and DECADES ago. Why hasn't it?

Are cartographers really that inept?

Flat Earth Debate / DET - discussions
« on: October 27, 2015, 12:17:48 PM »
This thread is for discussing Dual Earth Theory (DET) concepts. You need to get the information from JRoweSkeptic directly. If you haven't, don't bother putting your 2 cents in...

Here is the DE Fantasy described (

Flat Earth Debate / Life Style
« on: October 26, 2015, 04:39:14 AM »
I'm curious...

For everyone who believes in the FET/model/map, how has your life become better?

For the pilots and sailors, have your trips become shorter?

Has it encouraged you to explore the planet? go into outer space?

Or as a wet blanket, has it caused you and others before you to give up?

Why try to go into outer space/to the Moon? - there is just a dome there...
Why try to sail to Antarctica? - there is just a wall there...

To be perfectly honest, this type of discouragement is exactly what I would expect the world conspiracies to foster...

Flat Earth Debate / Amateur Astronomy - Equatorial Alignment
« on: October 24, 2015, 07:47:05 AM »
There are two major problems with any Flat Earth model as it applies to amateur astronomy.

A) Personal. Most unfortunately, most people (probably 99%+) have not done amateur astronomy (i.e. using a telescope with an equatorial mount). This is a terrible flaw IMO. For anyone who has, much of the Flat Earth debate can be ended right there. Without this knowledge, there is a lot of hand-waving and blowing-off, because of the lack of understanding and experience, of real facts that have been experienced by 10,000's of amateur astronomers over decades.

B) Equatorial Mount. This is one of the keys to disproving any Flat Earth model and proving a spherical Earth model. Let me explain for those of you who have not done amateur astronomy.

Distances and Movement. Basically, the closer to the Earth something is, the faster it moves relative to the "stationary" sky (i.e. galaxies).
  • Galaxies. These are SOOOO FAR away that they do not appear to move at all. A stationary point of reference.
  • Stars. These are very FAR away. Most appear to be stationary. There are a couple dozen stars close enough to us to move perceptively in a human life-time.
  • Planets and Sun. Far away. These move across the heavens noticeably but slowly. Venus is particularly noticeable - it is the closest to the Earth and moves quickly around the Sun.
  • Moon. Moves "quickly". Can be noticed night to night.
  • Satellites. Move VERY quickly. Can move from one end of the horizon to the other in less than 2 hrs.
  • Meteors. Woooosh.
The trick is taking pictures of these. Now-a-days, with CCD cameras, we take very short pictures (keeps atmospheric turbulence down and alignment isn't as critical) and "sandwich" them with software to get pictures. Back in the day, when pictures required many minutes or hours to photograph, alignment was critical or you got smudged stars. The good news is that most near heavenly bodies are also relatively bright and only require seconds for the photograph. So we will deal with stars and galaxies.

To take pictures, you have to track the stars in 3 ways - up/down, left/right and the rotation of the sky. If you don't compensate for the sky moving, stars move out of frame very quickly. The higher the magnification, the faster they move.

Altazimuth Mounts. Basically, these are mounts for viewing terrestrial objects (e.g. birds, buildings, etc.). For viewing the heavens, they have to have 2 sets of motors (up/down and left/right) and need to be software/hardware controlled to simulate the moving heavens. These can be quite accurate. The problem with long exposures, is that the actual telescope tube needs to rotate with the sky. That is harder to do (from a mount perspective) and would need another motor.

Equatorial Mounts. These simplify tracking the sky TREMENDOUSLY. You only need one motor, typically running at one speed (the speed the sky is rotating). Basically, you align the telescope with the axis of spin of the Earth and turn on the motor. It tracks the sky "perfectly" based on how good your alignment is. You aim at the star and take your picture. The telescope tube rotates with the sky as well.

The KEY is the alignment. On a spherical Earth, the Earth spins around its axis as defined by its N. and S. Poles. The equatorial mount needs to be aligned with that as perfectly as possible. This means that at the N. and S. Poles, the alignment would be perfectly vertical (90 deg). On the equator, it would be perfectly horizontal (0 deg). The alignment needs to be the EXACT latitude of your location (e.g. Denver 39.7392 deg, S. Georgia Island 54.2500 deg).

This alignment matches PERFECTLY with a spherical Earth model's latitudes.

That is THE problem with ANY Flat Earth model. Since the axis of ANY Flat Earth model is always vertical everywhere, telescopes with an equatorial mount would be aligned vertically EVERYWHERE on Earth. Since we have to align telescopes based on latitude, this clearly shows the Earth is not flat but spherical.

Flat Earth Debate / Proof of a Flat Earth
« on: October 13, 2015, 07:57:21 AM »
Looking over the various threads, it seems to me that most are about disproving a Flat Earth model (as svenaders presents in his "Problems with a flat earth" or my SCP and real boat trip measurements threads) or disproving a rotating Spherical model as most threads tend to turn into. Keep in mind, disproving the Spherical model/map does not prove/disprove a Flat Earth model/map.

Are there any actual PROOFS that the Flat Earth theory/model/map DOES work? (first you will need to present the model/map you use to discuss these).

Flat Earth Debate / Flat Earth Debate - what it is really about
« on: October 07, 2015, 07:22:38 AM »
  • ALL there is, is the Flat Earth THEORY - i.e. what if the Earth was flat instead of spherical?

  • There actually is no Flat Earth model/map to accurately measure and prove/disprove this theory (if there is, please provide one).

    • MY ASSUMING the Flat Earth model/map is a disk (that either has a boundary (wall at Antarctica) or goes on "forever", with the N. Pole at its center (because we can view and have pictures of the North Celestial Pole (NCP - center of N star trails) and the associated locations of continents), and not being able to see the South Celestial Pole (SCP - center of S star trails) from above the disk, directly disproves the Flat Earth model/map being ANY form of disk.

    • MY ASSUMING the Flat Earth map is some form of the U.N. (azimuthal projection) map and measuring travel times and distances of a REAL boat from S. America to S. Georgia Island, demonstrates the a spherical Earth matches these precisely - the flat Earth does not come close. This disproves the Flat Earth map being any form of U.N. map.

    If you notice, I can ONLY discuss these arguments IF there is something to observe and measure. How would I prove the SCP argument if there was no disk? How would I prove REAL boats' travel times and distances without a U.N. map?

    How can YOU make ANY arguments, for or against, a Flat Earth model/map if there isn't one?

    Look at the "Does albatross migration prove a flat earth?" thread. Even if the measurements were somehow accurate, how can this prove/disprove a flat earth if there is not Flat Earth map? What would we measure against? The video uses a Spherical Earth map - that DOES exist.

  • Assuming only the THEORY (since no model/map exists) is true, most of all math, science, logic and evidence (pictures) developed over the past 100's or 1000's of years need to pretty much be thrown away (i.e. they are wrong or faked). This is highly unlikely.

  • Folks, these "Flat Earth Debates" are NOT about proving/disproving the Flat Earth theory! You would need a model/map to do that.

    These debates are about proving/disproving the Spherical Earth theory ASSUMING the Flat Earth THEORY is correct (i.e. prove the Spherical Earth theory/model/map is correct assuming the Flat Earth assumption being true (see #1 above)).

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Concave Earth Theory
« on: October 05, 2015, 07:46:12 AM »
Now for something really weird...

There are several theories of the Earth out there: Spherical Earth (SE) (solid), Hollow Earth (HE)(sphere - "empty" inside), Flat Earth (FE)(disk - may go on forever), Cube (Flat Earth with 6 sides), Concave (CE)(sphere - we live on the inside surface of the sphere). Each has its physical properties.

The CE theory - basically, the Earth is a sphere some 8000 mi in diameter. We live on the inside surface of it. The heavens (sun, moon, planets and stars) are a sphere on the inside the Earth a few 1000's of miles above the inside surface. The outside of the Earth is "empty" (

It actually has different compelling proofs (some here, some of which probably can be used in the FE model. Furthermore, many of the HE arguments also apply as the outside of the globe is "empty/hollow" (" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">). My arguments against the FE model do not apply to it!
  • In the FE model, you can't see the Celestial South Pole above the disk. In the CE theory you can.
  • In the FE model, boats traveling at around 60 deg south latitude do not match FE measurements - in the CE theory they do.
  • In the FE model, the equator latitude is nothing special - the sun and moon bounce between +23.5 deg and -23.5 deg. In the CE theory, like the SE theory, the equator is a line of demarcation and some version of the Coriolis Effect can produce ocean currents and other things.
I believe it would be MUCH harder to disprove the CE theory than the FE theory.  What do you all think?

In case you are wondering what this has anything to do with the FE theory - that it should be posted on a different website, actually it is fine here. In general, the FE theory is being compared to the SE theory in all these posts. Why? Why not compare the FE model to the CE model as well? Why only the SE model? If the SE model is wrong based on FE arguments, perhaps the HE or CE theories are correct. Why not give them a shot?

Flat Earth Debate / Disk Moon
« on: October 04, 2015, 08:49:11 AM »
To summarize:
A) Any theory of the moon has to account for ALL the following things we can observe and take pictures of:
B) The Spherical Earth model (Heliocentric) accounts for ALL these simply and elegantly:
  • The Moon is spherical. This naturally causes the phases of the moon (A1) and the libration (A3) as seen from the 8000 mi diameter Earth and the Moon orbit (B2)
  • The Moon orbits the Earth in a basically circular orbit at an approx 5 degree inclination to the Earth equator.
  • The Earth orbits the Sun. Based on the orbit of the Moon (B2), the Moon gets between the Sun and Earth to produce Solar Eclipses (A5). The Earth gets between the Sun and Moon producing Lunar Eclipses with a circular Earth's shadow cast. (A2)
  • The inner planets (Mercury and Venus), depending on the inclination of their orbits, come between the Sun and the Earth and produce transits (Solar Eclipses) A(5)
  • The Sun's light bouncing off the Earth lights up the phase shadow of the moon (A6)
There are 4 models of a DISK Moon that require lots of manipulation to fit SOME of the requirements in (A) but not all (specifically A2,A3,A4):

C) Sun theory (assuming the Moon is dark - only lit by Earth Shine (A6)):
  • The Sun and Moon are in the sky all the time.
  • The Sun's light hits then Moon disk ALL the time except during Solar eclipses.
  • The Sun can not produce phase shadows on the Moon disk, just shadows in craters(A1). A disk is an all or nothing deal.
  • The Sun can not produce curved phase shadows on the Moon (A1). (C3) and the Sun is round.
  • The Sun can not explain how on a disk, you can have libration.(A3)
  • The Sun can not produce Lunar Eclipses (A2) - since there is nothing on a DISK Earth that is high enough to block the Sun. The Sun and Moon are on opposite sides of the Earth (i.e. Full Moon)
D) Another light source theory (assuming the Moon is dark originally - only lit by Earth Shine (A6)):
  • No external Light Source (LS), other than the Sun that is clearly round 100% of the time, has been observed other than Earth Shine (A6) that is uniform on the phase shadow.
  • The Sun must not affect the Moon. There would be no phase shadow on the disk.
  • The LS has to be close to the moon to make phases clear and relatively sharp (A1)
  • The LS has to change from concave to flat to convex, then convex to flat to concave to account for the shapes of the phases (A1)
  • The LS has to be very bright on the moon side (to light up the moon) and totally transparent as viewed from the Earth (we can see moon features and the occultation of planets (A1-A4,A6) and not see this LS??(D1). If it is not over the Moon, we still need to be able to see stars through it.
  • The LS must have a sharp edge the shape of the Moons limb so it does not brighten the occulting planets near the Moon's surface (i.e. the planets must have the same brightness coming toward toward and away from the Moon and when they are on the light and dark limbs of the Moon).(A4)
  • The LS can not explain how on a disk, you can have libration.(A3)
  • The LS must create Lunar Eclipses - be "smart enough" to mimic at specific times of the year, the Earth's curved shadow and make it RED on a FULL MOON. (A2)(as calculated by the spherical/heliocentric model - because that is EXACTLY what we observe)
E) Something that creates the lunar shadow (LSh) theory (assuming the Moon is lit originally - by the Sun):
  • The LSh must be between the Earth and the Moon.
  • The LSh has to be close to the moon to make phases clear and relatively sharp (A1)
  • The LSh has to change from concave to flat to convex, then convex to flat to concave to account for the shapes of the phases (A1)
  • The LSh is not pitch black but must lighten the phase shadow to simulate/create Earth shine effect (A6).
  • The LSh must have a sharp edge the shape of the Moons limb so it does not darken the occulting planets near the Moon's surface (i.e. the planets must have the same brightness coming toward toward and away from the Moon and when they are on the light and dark limbs of the Moon).
  • The LSh can not explain how on a disk, you can have libration.
  • The LSh must create Lunar Eclipses - be "smart enough" to mimic at specific times of the year, the Earth's curved shadow and make it RED on a FULL MOON. (A2) It must know when and how to appear during a FULL MOON! (as calculated by the spherical/heliocentric model - because that is EXACTLY what we observe)
F) The Backlit Moon (BM) theory (assuming the Moon produces its own light like the Sun and the phase shadow is not pitch black but somewhat lit (A6)):
  • Since no one has been behind the Moon, this can not be proved/disproved by anyone directly.
  • The Sun must not affect the Moon. There would be no phase shadow on the disk or at least a very washed out one.
  • The BM would need to have a mechanism to make phases clear and relatively sharp (A1)
  • The BM would need to have a mechanism to change from concave to flat to convex, then convex to flat to concave to account for the shapes of the phases (A1)
  • The BM can not explain how on a disk, you can have libration.
  • The BM must be "smart enough" to mimic at specific times of the year, the Earth's shadow and make it RED on a FULL MOON (A2).  (as calculated by the spherical/heliocentric model - because that is EXACTLY what we observe).

Flat Earth Debate / "Wrong" arguments
« on: October 02, 2015, 12:29:31 PM »
Folks, my 2 cents (and probably that is all it's worth)...

People are trying to prove/disprove spherical/flat earth with "wrong" arguments.  The arguments usually rely on measurements that relatively speaking are very fine and/or difficult to imagine or test or can be argued away with methods that for the most part, can't be tested.  For example:
  • Curvature of the horizon is flat. Even if you go 100 mi up, on an 8000 mi in diameter sphere or a disk at least twice that, the curvature would be hard to measure (minuscule), especially with the fuzzy horizon.  Furthermore, unless the disk extends "forever", both will show up as circles at high enough altitudes proving basically nothing.
  • Weight difference at the equator vs N. Pole. Apparently no one has done this and rightfully so. You would have to get like a certified 100 lb mass measured accurately to less than an ounce; haul it close to the N. Pole, a task not easily performed, especially by regular individuals; measure its weight on a certified scale; haul it down to the equator; measure the weight again; then verify that the difference is like 0.3% (5.5 oz); make sure nothing else affects these measurements; have other people witness this - that you are not switching masses or scales; then publish your results somewhere where someone cares. As you can see 0.3% weight difference is minuscule and a person holding the 100 lb mass would not notice it. So why argue this?
  • Gravity - does it exist? Greater minds than ours have pondered this and have different conclusions. Einstein said it is curvature of space. Newtonian physics says it is a force. This type of debate will go nowhere ultimately. We definitely will not resolve this here without serious experiments or mathematics beyond the scope of most readers here. So why argue this?
  • Sun and Moon being less than 4000 miles above us vs 93M mi/250K mi away. Depending on your assumptions, experiments tend to yield expected results for each model. Yes, the spherical model describes what we see in the heavens more elegantly, but with tweaking, the disk model explains these also for the most part. Although the sun would need a "spotlight" effect shaped like half a circle to account for time zones and seasons, who knows if it does or not?
  • Satellites, rockets, landing on the Moon. Since very few specialized people are involved with these (many with nondisclosure agreements), the general argument "how do you know this really happened and NASA (whomever) isn't just faking it?" can't really be proved by normal people (e.g. is the Space Station really there or is it a laser light show image against the dome? - same for images of planets, stars, etc.). Since NASA has been found to manipulate images it takes, how can you trust anything? You must rely on things everyone can do (i.e. amateur astronomers) for truth in what you see, but what about the laser light show possibility? Again, can you argue this away?
  • Everything in the solar system is spherical and rotates or revolves around something else. Through amateur astronomer backyard telescopes we can see much of this. This does not prove the Earth is round or it rotates or revolves around anything. Why argue this?
  • Moon disk. The Moon is not a disk in the sky. To cast curved shadows and account for "Lunar Libration", it has to be somewhat spherical (at least 59% of a sphere). It therefore most likely is a sphere. If it is a sphere attached to the dome, this does not disprove the dome. This does not prove how big it is either. Why argue this?
If we assume the Flat Earth model is a disk with a dome over it, then probably most if not all things having to do with the dome can not be tested directly. We should concentrate our efforts on the gross differences between a spinning sphere and a stationary disk (which is where I have been doing most of my comparisons - with success). These include:
  • On a disk, the South Celestial Pole can not be seen from above the disk. We have LOTS of pictures that say it does exist.
  • The length of a trip near 60 deg south latitude. The distances between a sphere and disk are very large and can be measured directly by boats that travel near that latitude. The timing is not subtle and corresponds with a spherical earth precisely. The disk model does not match at all (at that latitude, it is one of the longest boat trips on the planet).
  • Ocean currents. Millions of tons of water spin in different directions above and below the equator. A spinning spherical Earth is basically mirrored around the equator and explains this (Coriolis Effect). What is so special about the equator on a stationary Flat Earth map that would cause this?

Flat Earth Debate / Colonization of Moon and Planets
« on: September 26, 2015, 11:37:59 AM »
Problem: if the sky is a dome some 4000 miles above us where the sun, moon and planets "live", then the sun and moon are only 10's of miles in diameter and Mars is maybe 1 mile in diameter or less.

There is an awesome site people should visit ( where a guy named Skipper documents various anomalies he finds - including sources.

There are a lot of problems with Apollo photos as documented on the internet showing that the Apollo missions weren't real (e.g.  But, there are lots of moon pictures where NASA is obfuscating things to hide them.  Here are some pictures (

Concerning Mars, ESA (European Space Agency) has some Mars photos that show colonization (  The problem here is if Mars is only like 1 mile in diameter and these pictures are about 1 crater, how small is this colony (1 foot?).

So, hoping for some interesting conversation...

Pages: [1] 2