Questions to you, flat-Earth-people. Why do you think ...

... we are living on round disc, why not on hexagonal disc, or triangular, or square? If no one saw the disc from high, how do you know that?

...Earth is still accelerating upwards? I understand that you must do this to explain gravity, but why is Earth accelerating and how?

Why you don't go and fly for example from Johannesburg in South Africa to Sydney in Australia? This is flying above sea, and on the flat Earth it must fly above Africa and Asia. Why you don't take the camera and film it from the plane window?

Why you don't go to film Antarctica and all the people wich are patrolling it? Isn't it worth for discovery the biggest mystery of the world?

How do you explain hiding sun under the sea during sunsets? It make no sense on flat Earth.

And finally, what is more predictable :
-we are living in unimaginable, fantastic conspiracy, that costs someone billions of money every day bribing teachers, scientists on  the world, and it is no one knows why, because they don't get anything for doing that
-you are wrong

WHy do you roundies always think you're being smart, when all you're doing is repeating the same tired old shit we've heard dozens fo times before? It was stupid then, it was stupid now.

If for once you people could stop spamming the forum and let the multitude of threads where all this was answered stay accessible, maybe you could learn to be honest, but I guess that's never going to happen huh?

Learn a little about FET before you embarass yourself with those ridiculous claims. Barely anyone on this site believes in an accelerating Earth, people patrolling Antarctica is nonsense, roundies are the only ones that claim to know the shape of the disc, no one thinks the Sun hides under the sea, and no one is bribing fucking teachers except apparently your sorry ass because I have no idea how you got through school otherwise.

If you need to completely make things up in order to argue against it, it ain't us that's wrong.

Gentlemen, let's try to keep things civil.  Brawling has it's place in the lower fora.

Welcome back JRowe.

Ok, maybe I just met wrong flat earthians. But if earth is not accelerating, how do you explain, that objects are falling down? How do you explain sunsets? Why teachers are saying that Earth is round, they can easily verify it. Why planes are flying above the sea, while on the flat Earth the shortest way would be completely different? Why you don't take a picture of that ring of ice surrounding disc?

Gentlemen, let's try to keep things civil.  Brawling has it's place in the lower fora.

You aren't the one that has to put up with being expected to repeat themselves hundreds of fucking times.

Ok, maybe I just met wrong flat earthians.

Or you've never read anything beyond REers mocking us.

But if earth is not accelerating, how do you explain, that objects are falling down?

There's a downwards force, ta-da.

How do you explain sunsets?

The Sun gets far enough away that we cannot see its lit face.

Why teachers are saying that Earth is round, they can easily verify it.

because that's what they believe, same reason you believe it.
No, they can't easily verify it. They can perform a bunch of experiments which still make perfect sense on a flat earth but there is this fundamental problem with roundies in that you cannot comprehend there being more than one explanation for the same observation.

Why planes are flying above the sea, while on the flat Earth the shortest way would be completely different?

Source?
As in: actual source, not some random projection of a globe map that a roundie made and that no FEer thinks is accurate.

Why you don't take a picture of that ring of ice surrounding disc?

Because there isn't one.

Barely anyone on this site believes in an accelerating Earth, people patrolling Antarctica is nonsense, roundies are the only ones that claim to know the shape of the disc, no one thinks the Sun hides under the sea...

It that because barely anyone on this site is actually a flat earther?

However, the accelerating disc, ice wall, UN/NASA patrols, etc. seem to be common ideas bandied about on YouTube, so it’s not surprising a newcomer would think they represent most flat earthers.

As for the sun, it certainly looks like it dips below sea level, which is not exactly well explained by any flat earthers I’ve spoken to.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on June 11, 2018, 09:23:21 AM

Barely anyone on this site believes in an accelerating Earth, people patrolling Antarctica is nonsense, roundies are the only ones that claim to know the shape of the disc, no one thinks the Sun hides under the sea...

It that because barely anyone on this site is actually a flat earther?

However, the accelerating disc, ice wall, UN/NASA patrols, etc. seem to be common ideas bandied about on YouTube, so it’s not surprising a newcomer would think they represent most flat earthers.

As for the sun, it certainly looks like it dips below sea level, which is not exactly well explained by any flat earthers I’ve spoken to.

More often than not youtubers are in it for the ad revenue and merch, cheap publicity and cash rather than the science. Though true, there are far too few FEers on this site because the constant lies and harassment put about by you roundies is fucking exhausting to deal with.

That's been trivially explained for ages. It gets further away, it seems to get closer to the Earth's surface.



Given too that the Sun is a spotlight and only one face is lit, as it gets further away you'd see it 'flatten' against the horizon, thus vanishing bottom-up as it's cut out of view by the unlit side, literally being cut off bottom-up.

But the sun is going down, not further on the sky. If it goes further, it will be getting smaller and smaller, which it don't.

But the sun is going down, not further on the sky. If it goes further, it will be getting smaller and smaller, which it don't.

Instead of being tedious and idiotic with the same old stock responses, how about actually reading what I said?
It does not vanish because it is getting smaller and smaller, it vanishes because it is a spotlight.

That's been trivially explained for ages. It gets further away, it seems to get closer to the Earth's surface
You said that sun is getting further, not me

Quote from: Dybak on June 11, 2018, 10:12:39 AM

But the sun is going down, not further on the sky. If it goes further, it will be getting smaller and smaller, which it don't.

Instead of being tedious and idiotic with the same old stock responses, how about actually reading what I said?
It does not vanish because it is getting smaller and smaller, it vanishes because it is a spotlight.

You should try being a globe earther. Always giving answers to the same old questions over and over again.
There really is no need to be annoyed at a new member on the forum like that, though yeah, his questions are pretty old.

I'll say this though, that I had yet to hear that the sun vanished due to being a spotlight. It has always been due to perspective or atmosphere or other things from most flat earthers.

Spherical earther
You return me believe in humanity

BTW How this downwards force work? Is seems like "it is because I want it

That's been trivially explained for ages. It gets further away, it seems to get closer to the Earth's surface
You said that sun is getting further, not me

If the notion of the Sun being overhead moving until it's on the horizon being referred to as moving 'further away' is genuinely new to you, you are not old enough to be on this site. And that still doesn't make up for you blatantly ignoring the rest of my post in which, if there was somehow any misunderstanding, you would have found clarification.

You should try being a globe earther. Always giving answers to the same old questions over and over again.
There really is no need to be annoyed at a new member on the forum like that, though yeah, his questions are pretty old.

I'll say this though, that I had yet to hear that the sun vanished due to being a spotlight. It has always been due to perspective or atmosphere or other things from most flat earthers.

I will be annoyed at a lazy self-righteous prick when they repeat the same old nonsense, completely ignore the answer so they can repeat the same old stock rubbish, and then act like it's somehow my fault.
Ditto to you. This isn't a new answer, it just gets buried by roundies who spam the same question over and over until we get sick of repeating ourselves.

Spherical earther
You return me believe in humanity

BTW How this downwards force work? Is seems like "it is because I want that '

Nope, linked in my sig, always has been. Turns out actual scientific explanations take time and I don't particularly feel like typing it all out every time some random guy demands it.

I don't said that sun is vanish because it's getting smaller and smaller. I said that if the sun goes further it will must getting smaller and smaller. This is how perspective work. But sun is always the same size, which means it is always in the same distance.

OK, Earth orbit is elliptical so the distance to the sun isn't the same all the time, but this is too small to notice it

I don't said that sun is vanish because it's getting smaller and smaller. I said that if the sun goes further it will must getting smaller and smaller. This is how perspective work. But sun is always the same size, which means it is always in the same distance.

No, just that the distance change is relatively negligible while it's visible, even ignoring other factors.

This is why your point centers on the Sun vanishing into the distance. Size change can only be noticed while it is visible. If you're going to repeat stock arguments, at least understand them.

What about equinoxes? If sun is above the Earth it will must light in one way further than in the second to light half of the disc.
And what about objects hiding under horizon only by part of them like ships on the sea? And don't tell me this is thanks to perspective or ether, both things don't work like this!

You said, that distance when we can see smaller sun is too short. But, due to this words, it is too short that sun can go 'flatten' to horizon.
Sun should be always at the same high on the sky, never go down during time when we can see it and never rise from horizon and hide in your vision of this world.

Quote

Gentlemen, let's try to keep things civil.  Brawling has it's place in the lower fora.

You aren't the one that has to put up with being expected to repeat themselves hundreds of fucking times.

Quote

Ok, maybe I just met wrong flat earthians.

Or you've never read anything beyond REers mocking us.

Quote

But if earth is not accelerating, how do you explain, that objects are falling down?

There's a downwards force, ta-da.

On a global Earth we call that gravity, and it is the mass of the earth that creates it.
It is indistinguishable, from that’s what you claim is on a flat Earth, what creates this downwards force?

How do you explain sunsets?

Quote

The Sun gets far enough away that we cannot see its lit face.

Alpha Centauri is 4.37 light-years a way, we can still see it, just how far does the sun have to get so we don’t see it.

Why teachers are saying that Earth is round, they can easily verify it.

Quote

because that's what they believe, same reason you believe it.
No, they can't easily verify it. They can perform a bunch of experiments which still make perfect sense on a flat earth but there is this fundamental problem with roundies in that you cannot comprehend there being more than one explanation for the same observation.

Quote

Why planes are flying above the sea, while on the flat Earth the shortest way would be completely different?
Source?
As in: actual source, not some random projection of a globe map that a roundie made and that no FEer thinks is accurate.

Quote

Why you don't take a picture of that ring of ice surrounding disc?

Because there isn't one.

WHy do you roundies always think you're being smart, when all you're doing is repeating the same tired old shit we've heard dozens fo times before? It was stupid then, it was stupid now.

And if it wasn't stupid then, it likely wont be stupid now.

We often repeat the "same old shit" because it hasn't been addressed properly.
Although some new people will ask questions simply because they have the questions and can't be bothered looking for answers.
But for things which do have answers I will often answer them.

If for once you people could stop spamming the forum and let the multitude of threads where all this was answered stay accessible, maybe you could learn to be honest, but I guess that's never going to happen huh?

Or if you guys could come up with an agreed upon model and have say a wiki or the like explaining it all so we don't need to search through a multitude of threads, many with just complaints about "the same old shit" people would be less likely to ask the same questions.
It is a problem with a positive feedback loop.
The more people ask, and the more complaints about it, the more likely people are to ask again rather than trying to search to find the answer.
Us REers can't do anything about it, but FEers can.

And if we do search we do find many things.
For example, we find numerous claims about the shape of Earth, such as your claims that it is 2 discs, some claiming it is infintie, some claiming it is a circular disc with an ice wall.
We find FEers repeatedly claiming that no one is allowed to visit Antarctica, with some claims of it being patrolled.

no one thinks the Sun hides under the sea

He never suggested that.
He said that is what it looks like.
How does FE explain that?
The better worded question would be how does FE explain sunsets where the sun drops below an angle of elevation of 0?

no one is bribing fucking teachers

Then why don't they teach that Earth is flat?
Why do they teach that Earth is round?
Why do so many others (it isn't just teachers) all teach or say that Earth is round?
And why would anyone lie when there is nothing to get out of it?

Again, as a better worded question:
Why would anyone lie about the shape of Earth, which would require a massive conspiracy, when there is nothing to gain?
Which is more likely, this massive conspiracy and a FE; or a RE and FEers being wrong?

There's a downwards force, ta-da.

That is effectively just saying things fall.
Why is there a downwards force?
What gives it its directionality?

The Sun gets far enough away that we cannot see its lit face.

That would not result in the sun setting.
That would result in it disappearing.
At sunsets we can clearly see its lit face as it gets obscured by Earth.

They can perform a bunch of experiments which still make perfect sense on a flat earth

No. While some of the experiments do make sense, the vast majority don't.
The mere existence of the horizon doesn't.
The sun setting beyond the horizon doesn't.
Objects disappearing beyond the horizon doesn't.
The existence of 2 celestial poles always 180 degrees apart doesn't.

As in: actual source, not some random projection of a globe map that a roundie made and that no FEer thinks is accurate.

Again, plenty of people indicate that the AEP is a map of the FE, at least a rough map.

Some use this map, and the fact that there are basically no flights in the southern hemisphere which go long distance and near the pole to try to "prove" a FE, often acting like there are no flights.
They also use indirect flights such as where they stop in Dubai to again act like proof Earth is flat, claiming that route makes no sense of a RE, but makes perfect sense on a FE as the plane flies directly there, just stopping at an airport along the way.

If you think this map is wrong can you provide a map of a FE you agree with?

That's been trivially explained for ages. It gets further away, it seems to get closer to the Earth's surface.

And that trivial explanation fails to actually explain it.

As things get further away, they also appear to get smaller, while the sun and moon do not.
While they do appear closer to Earth, that can only ever make them appear at 0 degrees at an infinite distance.
Meanwhile, the bottom of the sun goes well below 0 degrees, and we can observe light being cast upwards which again indicates it is below 0 degrees.
Perspective can't do that.
The other issue is just how far away the sun would need to be for it to appear so close to the horizon.
Using the often quoted 5000 km, it would need to be over 280 000 km away to appear 1 degree above the horizon (ignoring refraction which makes it appear higher).
Yet it is always above some point on Earth.

So perspective clearly doesn't explain it.
This has also been pointed out repeatedly.
This is the kind of thing which makes these questions get repeatedly asked, FEers repeatedly providing "explanations" which don't work.

Given too that the Sun is a spotlight and only one face is lit, as it gets further away you'd see it 'flatten' against the horizon, thus vanishing bottom-up

No you wouldn't.
If there was no obstruction on the side, it would appear as an ellipse, shrinking into a line.
If there was an obstruction then that would obstruct the view to the top first. This would then result in the top of the oval disappearing before the bottom.
This would also mean it would disappear high in the sky.
A spotlight can explain why it becomes dark (i.e. night time). It doesn't explain why it appears to set. It also fails to match the illuminated areas, but that links back to the lack of a map.

And that still doesn't make up for you blatantly ignoring the rest of my post

It could be that he is trying to focus on one topic.
Which I would recommend you do for my post rather than trying to address it all (or else the posts will get very long).

There is also the issue of if your explanation has a fatal flaw, it doesn't matter what comes after that, as anything built upon that fatal flaw is likewise flawed.

Nope, linked in my sig, always has been.

And repeatedly refuted/shown to be unjustified.

No, just that the distance change is relatively negligible while it's visible, even ignoring other factors.

Which would mean its angle of elevation would change negligibly.
You need a dramatic change in distance to make it go from directly overhead to it appearing on the horizon.

And like I said above, if you want to make my replies short, I suggest picking one topic to focus on.

And as a nice summary focusing on what appears to be the main topic of discussion (sun sets).
In order for perspective to explain the sun setting, it would need to move very far away (>280 000 km for a height of 5000 km), which puts it well out of range of the disc.
This massive change in distance would result in a massive change in the apparent size of the sun.

This massive change in size is not observed and thus indicates perspective can't explain it.
The other key observation showing perspective can't explain it is that the sun doesn't just go to 0 degrees, it goes below 0 degrees and stars casting light upwards.
Perspective can never make things appear below 0 degrees if they are above you.

The other idea is that of a spotlight sun.
If this was the case the sun should still disappear high in the sky and should only appear circular when viewed from directly below. At any other angle it should appear as an oval.
If there is a side on it which obstructs the view (like a normal spotlight) this would result in it disappearing from the top down.

Again, this does not match what is observed and thus is not an explanation.

Learn a little about FET before you embarass yourself with those ridiculous claims. Barely anyone on this site believes in an accelerating Earth,

Try claiming that the earth is not accelerating upwards at about 9.8 m/s² to Ski or th3rm0m3t3r0 - though we haven't heard from th3rm0m3t3r0 lately.
And you try arguing against Universal Acceleration on the TFES.org site and you'll have a fight on your hands!
Read all about it in TFES, Wiki, Universal Acceleration.

people patrolling Antarctica is nonsense,

Whenever anyone tells flat-earthers to go to the South Pole and see for themselves, the answer is always, "We can't it's guarded by NASA (or the UN)".

roundies are the only ones that claim to know the shape of the disc,

While this is not claimed as the definitive map of the flat earth it is presented as the general layout of the flat earth.

What does the map of the Earth look like then?
As evidenced by the logo of the United Nations the Earth is a round disk of indefinite dimensions. The geographic North Pole is located in the center of the disk, and the Antarctic lies around the outer edges.

It is not "roundies . . . . that claim to know the shape of the disc", that is The Flat Earth Society FAQ!
Where else are newcomers supposed to get this information, if not "the FAQ" or "the Wiki"?
So often it seems to be us "roundies" that have to point people at the sources of this information and what else can we do?

no one thinks the Sun hides under the sea,

Who claims that? All we claim is the as the sun sets it is being hidden by the curved surface of the earth, be it land or sea.
How else do you explain this?

Some sharp line certainly appears to hide more than half the sun, but no-one is claiming that "the Sun hides under the sea".

If you need to completely make things up in order to argue against it, it ain't us that's wrong.

We're not making this stuff up.  That and more is argued by many flat-earthers here and is in "the FAQ" and "the Wiki".
It's not us "roundies" fault if you don't agree with the usual "Flat Earth Theory". Take that up with the administrators of the site.

The reason you hear the same arguments over and over is simple. Many of these arguments are completely valid. Many of us REs come to this site because we're completely dumbfounded that anyone would disagree with these arguments. Before we post here, most of us HAVE tried to research the answers to these questions, but we find the "answers" totally incredible. Take for example this one, "The Sun gets far enough away that we cannot see its lit face." Just go out and watch a sunset, and you'll see this statement is inaccurate. We do not see the sun fade away, nor does it turn away, nor does it shrink. It gets dimmer, redder, and often squished, but it slides behind the horizon. Clear for all to see, and if you are unconvinced, get a solar filter and watch carefully.

I cannot speak for everyone, but I personally came here looking for insight into whether any genuine FE believers even existed. (There is a hypothesis out there that all FE "believers" are faking.) So yes, I ask the same tired old questions you've read over and over. Yes, I've probably read the answers before. I find the answers are extremely inconsistent depending on who you ask, and it is the conversation I'm seeking more than the answers anyway.

I'm sorry for your pain. It must be very frustrating to have people constantly questioning your beliefs. If you're going to read the general forum (and now the debate forum), I think you can expect a lot of people to come asking the same old questions over and over. It's just to be expected.

The reason you hear the same arguments over and over is simple. Many of these arguments are completely valid. Many of us REs come to this site because we're completely dumbfounded that anyone would disagree with these arguments. Before we post here, most of us HAVE tried to research the answers to these questions, but we find the "answers" totally incredible. Take for example this one, "The Sun gets far enough away that we cannot see its lit face." Just go out and watch a sunset, and you'll see this statement is inaccurate. We do not see the sun fade away, nor does it turn away, nor does it shrink. It gets dimmer, redder, and often squished, but it slides behind the horizon. Clear for all to see, and if you are unconvinced, get a solar filter and watch carefully.

I cannot speak for everyone, but I personally came here looking for insight into whether any genuine FE believers even existed. (There is a hypothesis out there that all FE "believers" are faking.) So yes, I ask the same tired old questions you've read over and over. Yes, I've probably read the answers before. I find the answers are extremely inconsistent depending on who you ask, and it is the conversation I'm seeking more than the answers anyway.

I'm sorry for your pain. It must be very frustrating to have people constantly questioning your beliefs. If you're going to read the general forum (and now the debate forum), I think you can expect a lot of people to come asking the same old questions over and over. It's just to be expected.

"I can not speak for everyone."
But.......
I personally find myself in agreement with all of the above.

Before we post here, most of us HAVE tried to research the answers to these questions, but we find the "answers" totally incredible.

No, most haven't done any research into anything. Most rely on pictures from NASA and don't think about it any further. Most don't have any intention of having a conversation. Most are only interested in trolling the forum.

I cannot speak for everyone, but I personally came here looking for insight into whether any genuine FE believers even existed. (There is a hypothesis out there that all FE "believers" are faking.) So yes, I ask the same tired old questions you've read over and over. Yes, I've probably read the answers before. I find the answers are extremely inconsistent depending on who you ask, and it is the conversation I'm seeking more than the answers anyway.

Angry nerds have been joining this forum and posting about how we're all fake for years. You asking the same tired old questions is a separate issue.

I'm sorry for your pain. It must be very frustrating to have people constantly questioning your beliefs. If you're going to read the general forum (and now the debate forum), I think you can expect a lot of people to come asking the same old questions over and over. It's just to be expected.

What pain? Do you really think you're telling us something we don't already know? lol This forum has been here for more than 10 years. If we were in pain we'd ban all the RE. Such drama.

Lol ... I understand that all the trolls who believe in the ball do not believe in God. Well, if they read the Bible, they could ask less stupid questions.

Lol ... I understand that all the trolls who believe in the ball do not believe in God. Well, if they read the Bible, they could ask less stupid questions.

You are gravely mistaken in that understanding!  Are you claiming that all of the early church and the leaders of the Reformation "did not believe in God".

That is highly presumptuous of you.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The early church certainly believed the earth to be a Globe. Very committed Christians like the Venerable Bede, John Calvin and Martin Luther certainly believed the earth to be a Globe.

Quote from: The Venerable Bede

We call the earth a globe, not as if the shape of a sphere were expressed in the diversity of plains and mountains, but because, if all things are included in the outline, the earth’s circumference will represent the figure of a perfect globe. … For truly it is an orb placed in the centre of the universe; in its width it is like a circle, and not circular like a shield but rather like a ball, and it extends from its centre with perfect roundness on all sides.
<< from:  The flat earth myth. >>

And look at the introduction to John Calvin's Commentary on Genesis - Volume 1.

Quote from: John Calvin

Page 25,26:
We indeed are not ignorant, that the circuit of the heavens is finite, and that the earth, like a little globe, is placed in the center.

Page 55:
In the meantime, however, the benediction of God so prevails that the earth everywhere lies open that it may have its inhabitants, and that an immense multitude of men may find, in some part of the globe, their home.

Page 73:
From this difficulty, some would free themselves by saying, that the surface of the globe may have been changed by the deluge;

All from: Commentary on Genesis - Volume 1, Author: Calvin, John (1509-1564)

It would appear that John Calvin certainly believed the earth to be a Globe, as did most people of his day.
And in LUTHER ON THE CREATION, A CRITICAL AND DEVOTIONAL COMMENTARY ON GENESIS, Martin Luther leaves no doubt the he believed the Ptolemaic System with its spherical earth.

I guess you think that your interpretation of the Scriptures is better than that of the Venerable Bede, Martin Luther and John Calvin. I claim no such expertise.

In closing,  you might read:

Quote from: Creation 16, no 2 (March 1994): 48-49

Who Invented the Flat Earth?

Evolutionists often falsely accuse creationists of believing in a flat Earth. But neither history nor modern scholarship supports the claim that Christians ever widely believed that the Earth was flat. And the Bible doesn’t teach it.
<< Read the rest in: Answers in Genesis, Who Invented the Flat Earth? >>

About the author: Author: Adapted by Ian Taylor for Creation Science Association of Ontario, Feature No. 30, from the book Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians (ISBN 027595904X), by history professor Jeffrey Burton Russell. Summarized by Paula McKerlie. Further modified March 2004.

So, I advise you to change your understanding. You have every right to your opinion
but you have no right to judge others, far more mature and knowledgeable than yourself, in this way.

A few ideas:
-the sun and earths horizon behave like nothing  else and so common sense does not apply
-sunlight is intermingled with radiation and interacts with the plane of the earth
-the broad spectrum of wavelengths of light interact to produce effects not reproducible in the laboratory in a word, synergy
just my 2 cents

One simple thought, that's all meaningless gobbledegook.
And a few ideas:
-the sun is a huge source of visible light and other EM radiation
-the earth's horizon is simply the apparent line that separates earth from sky and simple common sense applies
-sunlight, present and past, is the source of almost all the energy used on earth
-the broad spectrum of wavelengths of light and the particles from the sun enable much information about processes in the sun to be learned.
just my 2 cents

And all this fits so well with sunsets like this:

That sharp line that we call "the horizon" certainly appears to divide the sun in two.
The Globe and distant sun is such a simple explanation for what we see. There's no need for all your mysterious unknowables,  as in:

-the sun and earths horizon behave like nothing  else and so common sense does not apply
-sunlight is intermingled with radiation and interacts with the plane of the earth
-the broad spectrum of wavelengths of light interact to produce effects not reproducible in the laboratory in a word, synergy

No, most haven't done any research into anything. Most rely on pictures from NASA and don't think about it any further. Most don't have any intention of having a conversation. Most are only interested in trolling the forum.

Are you referring to the (apparent) flatties or globlurists here?

Angry nerds have been joining this forum and posting about how we're all fake for years.

But you are fake. 

 rabinoz
Excuse me if my statements to anyone seemed an insult, I did not mean it, because religion and faith are very different things. Now there is a real war for the minds of believers. Understand - there is cosmos, then there is no God. And if you believe in space, it does not matter that you believe in God. Because these are incompatible things.

In the early church, true Christians not only knew the book of Enoch in which the design of our land is described, but even the apostles themselves cited examples from it - thus confirming its her truth. And it just says that the ground is the cornerstone plane covered by a dome, along which walk the stars and stars through the system of portals. You probably know the case when in the Middle Ages the sun not shone all over the earth for a while? That once again proves that the sun is ruled by God.

@rabinoz
Excuse me if my statements to anyone seemed an insult, I did not mean it, because religion and faith are very different things. Now there is a real war for the minds of believers. Understand - there is cosmos, then there is no God. And if you believe in space, it does not matter that you believe in God. Because these are incompatible things.

I'm afraid that just because you say, "it does not matter that you believe in God. Because these are incompatible things" does not mean that I accept your opinion.
I do not see what is incompatible with the cosmos and God.

In the early church, true Christians not only knew the book of Enoch in which the design of our land is described, but even the apostles themselves cited examples from it - thus confirming its her truth.

Sure, the Book of Enoch might give a good description of ancient Hebrew cosmology, but I've see little evidence that it has been regarded as describing the true shape of the earth by many since around the 4th century AD.

And it just says that the ground is the cornerstone plane covered by a dome, along which walk the stars and stars through the system of portals.

Yes, the earth model in the Book of Enoch fits what is seen in a small region like Israel or even that plus Mesopotamia, but it is totally impossible to fit to the currently known earth.
And yes, the Book of Enoch teaches that, "the ground is the cornerstone plane covered by a dome, along which walk the stars and stars through the system of portals".
But the modern flat-earth model is, however, completely incompatible with that. You, yourself wrote:

And they are just moving in one direction with circles around the polar star and this is happening all over the planet regardless where you are at its center or edge, which has long been documented. At the center of the earth you can see how they are circling around the polar star, and at its edge go along an arc - with the center - the polar star.

And that is certainly nothing like that taught in the Book of Enoch, where the sun, moon and stars rise from portals on the horizon in the east and set through portals on the horizon in the west.

You probably know the case when in the Middle Ages the sun not shone all over the earth for a while? That once again proves that the sun is ruled by God.

No, I did not "know the case when in the Middle Ages the sun not shone all over the earth for a while", only that in Joshua, but what be it's significance anyway?
Is your God limited to stopping your little sun, but not a huge sun or a Globe earth?
I thought God was omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and timeless. I regard these as being outside the limitations of space and time - our "spacetime".

Frankly, I and most others do not believe that the Bible was ever intended to teach science or cosmology in particular.
Just imagine if Moses tried to teach modern science to the people of that era. The message had to be couched in words those people could understand. 

As I stated above the modern flat-earth model bears little resemblance to that in the Book of Enoch, so most modern flat-earthers tacitly admit that the old Hebrew cosmology was wrong.

In other words, you modern flat-earthers have changed the model from the Book of Enoch because it cannot possibly apply to the whole earth as we know it.

Well, in like manner, even before the 3rd century BC people realised that the old model did not fit observations

The Globe with, as they thought, the sun, moon planets and stars orbiting around the earth from east to west, fitted what they saw very well and could apply to the whole earth as we now know it.

So, please do not claim that you are following scripture and the cosmology from the Book of Enoch because you are not - the current flat-earth model, as you have presented is definitely not the same as that in Enoch.

Maybe you could read more of what others think: The Creation.com site is dedicated to "young earth creationism" but has a lot of anti-flat earth material, mainly on historical evidence, see
         The flat earth myth.
         Creation Ministries, The flat-earth myth and creationism        
         A flat earth, and other nonsense, Dealing with ideas that would not exist were it not for the Internet
and
         Flat Earth Myth - More Bogus History, Creating  Bogus  History, What is the Myth About the Flat Earth ?