New to all this

Hi all,

I’m new to the world of fe. A friend of mine has really been pushing me to explore it and I think I’m coming around.

Any good resources you all recommend?

Yes.

This channel for starters:

https://www.youtube.com/@SciManDan/videos

Yes.

This channel for starters:

https://www.youtube.com/@SciManDan/videos

This old series of videos does a really good job of explaining the massive discrepancies, IMO.

It is however incredibly insulting towards flat earthers. Which some people may find quite funny, others very much not.

Hi all,

I’m new to the world of fe. A friend of mine has really been pushing me to explore it and I think I’m coming around.

Any good resources you all recommend?

Lurk moar.

A good resource to start with: your EYES.

Go out at night and look at the sky, with an unprejudiced mind. It will appear to you as the inner surface of a sphere, punctuated with tiny dots of light, rotating AROUND you. NOT as a flat ceiling rotating ABOVE you. So you could still imagine an Earth flat as a pie, suspended near the center of a much bigger, hollow celestial sphere. But...

But there is a little problem. Can you see it?


Or go to the beach, on a clear day, and watch a ship (maybe with binoculars) as it sails away till its hull begins to be hidden by the sea horizon. Go up 6 meters, you'll see the whole ship again. Go down again, the hull is hidden again. So it's clear that water interposes between the hull and your eyes. If eyes and hull were both above a flat sea surface, this shouldn't happen.

But flat-earthers claim: “It's perspective!”.

Why, then, could Rowbotham see that boat 6 miles away (as he claimed) on Bedford Canal? Was perspective ON STRIKE, that day?


In addition, you can travel, with a sextant. And see that the angle between any two given stars is exactly the same, no matter where you are. If the stars were close by (say, at one million miles), one should see that angle change in an appreciable way, moving even only 10,000 miles on Earth's surface (even if it were flat). Because of the parallax effect.

So if Polaris (like all stars) is extremely far away, the fact that we see it drop toward the horizon as we travel South proves that the Earth is curved in direction North-South

And the fact that a certain star (Sirius, Altair) can be seen low to the West in Rome and, at the same time, low to the East in Los Angeles proves that the Earth is curved in direction East-West

But flat-earthers claim: “You cannot tell Earth's shape looking at lights in the sky!”

Why not? If, on a moving train, I see the Sun rotating around me in a matter of minutes, shouldn't I be able to understand that the track is curved?


Still another easy way (though not too cheap) to see whether the Earth is flat or not.
You go to N. Dakota, at about 45° N latitude, and measure the distance, along route 94 (which runs almost straight in the E-W direction) between 2 locations A and B, whose longitudes differ by ONE degree.

Then you go to Argentina at 45° S latitude, and measure the distance between 2 locations C and D, whose longitudes differ also by ONE degree.

And if distance C-D is THREE times the distance A-B, then you have the proof! Earth is flat, and correctly represented by Gleason's map!

Because, on Gleason's map, the 45° S parallel is a circle whose radius (distance from the N Pole) is 3 times the radius of the 45° N parallel, so it has to be 3 times longer.

If, instead, these distances turn out to be equal, the Earth would prove a globe.

Because, on a globe, the 45° S and 45° N parallels have the same length.

Mind well. You need NO “MS source” to know the difference in longitude between locations. You only need a pal who stands, say, in B while you are in A. If he sees the Sun culminating 4 minutes later or sooner than you, then the difference in longitude is 1°.

PS: I see now that, unfortunately, there's no road in Argentina running straight in the E-W direction for a difference in longitude of 1° at 45° S. So, to avoid having to make complicated surveys, you might prefer going to Australia to measure distances along the longest straight route in the world, between Caiguna and Balladonia. Not exactly E-W (and 32° S instead of 45° S) but the difference is not so great. And you can easily correct the result with just a little math

A good resource to start with: your EYES.

Go out at night and look at the sky, with an unprejudiced mind. It will appear to you as the inner surface of a sphere, punctuated with tiny dots of light, rotating AROUND you. NOT as a flat ceiling rotating ABOVE you. So you could still imagine an Earth flat as a pie, suspended near the center of a much bigger, hollow celestial sphere. But...

But there is a little problem. Can you see it?


Or go to the beach, on a clear day, and watch a ship (maybe with binoculars) as it sails away till its hull begins to be hidden by the sea horizon. Go up 6 meters, you'll see the whole ship again. Go down again, the hull is hidden again. So it's clear that water interposes between the hull and your eyes. If eyes and hull were both above a flat sea surface, this shouldn't happen.

But flat-earthers claim: “It's perspective!”.

Why, then, could Rowbotham see that boat 6 miles away (as he claimed) on Bedford Canal? Was perspective ON STRIKE, that day?


In addition, you can travel, with a sextant. And see that the angle between any two given stars is exactly the same, no matter where you are. If the stars were close by (say, at one million miles), one should see that angle change in an appreciable way, moving even only 10,000 miles on Earth's surface (even if it were flat). Because of the parallax effect.

So if Polaris (like all stars) is extremely far away, the fact that we see it drop toward the horizon as we travel South proves that the Earth is curved in direction North-South

And the fact that a certain star (Sirius, Altair) can be seen low to the West in Rome and, at the same time, low to the East in Los Angeles proves that the Earth is curved in direction East-West

But flat-earthers claim: “You cannot tell Earth's shape looking at lights in the sky!”

Why not? If, on a moving train, I see the Sun rotating around me in a matter of minutes, shouldn't I be able to understand that the track is curved?


Still another easy way (though not too cheap) to see whether the Earth is flat or not.
You go to N. Dakota, at about 45° N latitude, and measure the distance, along route 94 (which runs almost straight in the E-W direction) between 2 locations A and B, whose longitudes differ by ONE degree.

Then you go to Argentina at 45° S latitude, and measure the distance between 2 locations C and D, whose longitudes differ also by ONE degree.

And if distance C-D is THREE times the distance A-B, then you have the proof! Earth is flat, and correctly represented by Gleason's map!

Because, on Gleason's map, the 45° S parallel is a circle whose radius (distance from the N Pole) is 3 times the radius of the 45° N parallel, so it has to be 3 times longer.

If, instead, these distances turn out to be equal, the Earth would prove a globe.

Because, on a globe, the 45° S and 45° N parallels have the same length.

Mind well. You need NO “MS source” to know the difference in longitude between locations. You only need a pal who stands, say, in B while you are in A. If he sees the Sun culminating 4 minutes later or sooner than you, then the difference in longitude is 1°.

PS: I see now that, unfortunately, there's no road in Argentina running straight in the E-W direction for a difference in longitude of 1° at 45° S. So, to avoid having to make complicated surveys, you might prefer going to Australia to measure distances along the longest straight route in the world, between Caiguna and Balladonia. Not exactly E-W (and 32° S instead of 45° S) but the difference is not so great. And you can easily correct the result with just a little math

"Go out at night and look at the sky, with an unprejudiced mind. It will appear to you as the inner surface of a sphere, punctuated with tiny dots of light, rotating AROUND you. NOT as a flat ceiling rotating ABOVE you. So you could still imagine an Earth flat as a pie, suspended near the center of a much bigger, hollow celestial sphere. But..."
Celestial bodies actually revolve around the flat Earth, which is very different from what most FEs claim.

Setting celestial bodies rise in the east, set in the west, and pass beneath the Earth, where rapidly rotating etheric currents flow, causing them to rise on the other side in a matter of seconds.
The claims about "perspective" are completely false, perspective is not capable of hiding anything. The bending of light caused by universal acceleration is the real reason why objects disappear over the horizon.
Refraction is capable of making some curved light rays straight, which is why we can sometimes see targets over 100 kilometers away. Totally impossible on a globe.


"In addition, you can travel, with a sextant. And see that the angle between any two given stars is exactly the same, no matter where you are. If the stars were close by (say, at one million miles), one should see that angle change in an appreciable way, moving even only 10,000 miles on Earth's surface (even if it were flat). Because of the parallax effect."
Remember the bending of light.

"So if Polaris (like all stars) is extremely far away, the fact that we see it drop toward the horizon as we travel South proves that the Earth is curved in direction North-South"
"And the fact that a certain star (Sirius, Altair) can be seen low to the West in Rome and, at the same time, low to the East in Los Angeles proves that the Earth is curved in direction East-West"
All celestial bodies are at most 31 kilometers high.
Wolfgang Pauli made a calculation showing that the radius of curvature of the observable universe cannot be more than ≈ 31 km if zero-point energy/ether exists. It is impossible for the radius of curvature of the observable universe to be something like 31 km without the Earth being flat, because the diameter of the Earth is about 40075 km, if the observable universe with its 31 km radius of curvature were around a spherical Earth, this would require the Earth to be less than 31 kilometers! A flat Earth solves this, as it allows the observable universe to have the shape of a parabola, thus being able to have a radius of curvature of 31 km without being in contradiction with the Earth's diameter of 40075 kilometers.

Image credits: Sandokhan.

"If the electromagnetic field really had a zero-point energy that did not disappear, then the radius of the universe would be 31 km."
- Wolfgang Pauli
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F0901.3640&ved=2ahUKEwiywPSt-quGAxUNppUCHb78Bx4QFnoECA8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3vsIgyQMZQbZyV36GpemxI
https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article-abstract/53/1/1.24/218451?redirectedFrom=fulltext
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/9/1/011/pdf

It is not possible to deny the existence of the ether without violating the scientific method and the principle of Occam's Razor, because only it is capable of explaining a gigantic amount of facts that are inexplicable in other theories.

And again: remember the bending of light.

"Still another easy way (though not too cheap) to see whether the Earth is flat or not.
You go to N. Dakota, at about 45° N latitude, and measure the distance, along route 94 (which runs almost straight in the E-W direction) between 2 locations A and B, whose longitudes differ by ONE degree.

Then you go to Argentina at 45° S latitude, and measure the distance between 2 locations C and D, whose longitudes differ also by ONE degree.

And if distance C-D is THREE times the distance A-B, then you have the proof! Earth is flat, and correctly represented by Gleason's map!

Because, on Gleason's map, the 45° S parallel is a circle whose radius (distance from the N Pole) is 3 times the radius of the 45° N parallel, so it has to be 3 times longer.

If, instead, these distances turn out to be equal, the Earth would prove a globe."
This is great for disproving the ridiculous map that is defended by most FE, but it does not disprove the flat Earth.

The first thing a newbie to the subject should know is that there are multiple theories and models about the flat Earth, and that a good part of the ideas defended by most FEs are wrong, but that does not prevent the Earth from being flat.
Some basic links to understand FET:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration
https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration
https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration
https://wiki.tfes.org/Bi-Polar_Model
https://sacred-texts.com/piri/index.htm
https://sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/index.htm

My flat earth publications:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92891.0

I don’t usually bother with all this anymore, and I’m sure someone will be along with a point by point rebuttal before very long.  (Good morning Jack).

However I’ll talk about this little bit:

The claims about "perspective" are completely false, perspective is not capable of hiding anything.  The bending of light caused by universal acceleration is the real reason why objects disappear over the horizon.
Refraction is capable of making some curved light rays straight, which is why we can sometimes see targets over 100 kilometers away. Totally impossible on a globe.

It’s great that you don’t believe im magic perspective, but you’ve only got yourself in a mess with bendy light.

You need light to bend enormously to explain sunsets and why the sun, stars etc are obversed in wildly different directions to where they appear on flat earth drawings.  So you attribute that to universal acceleration.

However, the flat earther favourite argument of seeing further than should allegedly be possible on a globe relies entirely on light traveling in perfectly straight lines.  So now you say that refraction can bend the light back again, coincidentally by exactly the right amount to straighten it.

But only for the observations you want.  You have massively bending light for some things, and perfectly straight light for others. 

And your still saying it’s impossible to see things further than flat earthers think should be possible on a globe.  An argument that completely ignores refraction, because it only requires atmospheric refraction to curve light a very small amount under the right conditions. 

And by another amazing coincidence, all this somehow lines up to make everything appear exactly where it should if the earth was indeed spherical and light just travels in straight lines, with only a tiny amount of atmospheric distortion?

Occam’s razor indeed.

Celestial bodies actually revolve around the flat Earth, which is very different from what most FEs claim.

No, the RE rotates.
This produces a visual observation similar to what would be expected if the stars rotated about a round Earth.
But yes, it is very different from what most FEers claim.

Setting celestial bodies rise in the east, set in the west, and pass beneath the Earth

Which would make a FE fundamentally incompatible with what we observe.

Where you can observe a celestial object set for you, and have a friend elsewhere on Earth then be able to see it.

The bending of light caused by universal acceleration is the real reason why objects disappear over the horizon.

And now like so many FEers, you appeal to magic, with no explanation at all.

How does UA bend light? How does this result in objects disappearing over the horizon?
How isn't Earth torn apart by UA.

Totally impossible on a globe.

No, something entirely possible on the globe, requiring particular view points.

Remember the bending of light.

You mean the magic you can't explain which results in the results expected for a round Earth?

Wolfgang Pauli made a calculation showing that the radius of curvature of the observable universe cannot be more than ≈ 31 km if zero-point energy/ether exists.

And it is clearly more than that. If the radius of curvature of the universe is no more than 31 km, then the universe must entirely fit inside a sphere of radius of 31 km.
The fact we can travel over 100 km easily disproves that.
So either the calculation is wrong, or the ether does not exist.

Either way, no point in bringing this up unless you are intentionally lying to people.

the diameter of the Earth is about 40075 km

The diameter of your FE is that, but notice that that is still larger than 31 km.

A flat Earth does not solve this.
Anyone who says otherwise either has no idea what they are talking about, or they are wilfully lying to everyone.

A flat Earth solves this, as it allows the observable universe to have the shape of a parabola, thus being able to have a radius of curvature of 31 km without being in contradiction with the Earth's diameter of 40075 kilometers.

No, it doesn't.

The "peak" of the parabola has the smallest radius of curvature, with the rest having a larger radius of curvature.
The radius of curvature for any curve is given by:
(1+(dy/dx)^2)^(3/2) / (d2y/dx2)

Any parabola can be normalised to one of the form y=k*x^2 by rotation and translation.
This then gives dy/dx = 2*k*x.
And d2y/dx2 = 2*k.

This turns the formula into:
(1+4*k^2*x^2)^(3/2) / (2*k)

This gives a minimum radius of curvature at x=0, with the radius of curvature being 1/2k.
We can also consider the limiting case as x->infinity. That gives:
4*k^2*x^3
i.e the radius of curvature tends to infinity.

For any parabola you choose, there will be a point on it where the radius of curvature exceeds that 31 km.

We can also just take the formula and sub in where x=31 km.
That gives:
(1+4*k^2*31^2)^(3/2) / (2*k)

You can then differentiate that, w.r.t. k, to find the minimum, and find out it is roughly 80 km.
i.e. for a point at least 31 km from the centre, you have a radius of curvature of at least 80 km.
So that is too big for your equation.

Image credits: Sandokhan.

Congratualations.
You have accepted the lies of a known conman, who has been repeatedly refuted on their lies, yet they keep making them.

Also, you shouldn't be giving credit to Sandy here for the image, when it is literally a screenshot of a paper.

It is not possible to deny the existence of the ether

It is TRIVIAL to deny it, as there is no evidence it exists.
It was clung to because the idea that all waves need a medium to propagate, resulting in it having impossible properties.
Following the scientific method would lead one to reject it.

only it is capable of explaining a gigantic amount of facts that are inexplicable in other theories.

Only when you cling to a flat Earth.
When you discard that, there is no need for magic ether at all.

And again: remember the bending of light.

The thing you cannot justify at all?

This is great for disproving the ridiculous map that is defended by most FE, but it does not disprove the flat Earth.

Because dishonest FEers just keep pushing the problem around, and that is why they don't want to provide a definitive map, so they can pretend their fantasy works.

But I would say, no, it does disprove a FE, at least with other observations.

If you go far enough north, you can observe the sun appear to circle, remaining above the horizon (you can also do this to the south, but most FEers claim fake because you can only do it in Antarctica or Antarctic waters).
So if Earth is flat, there MUST be a point somewhere in the north that the sun is circling.
A line of longitude, defined by observing the sun pass due north or due south at a given time, requires it to be a line going from this point in the north, straight out.
The point in the north MUST be closer together. It not being closer together refutes the FE.

The first thing a newbie to the subject should know is that there are multiple theories and models about the flat Earth, and that a good part of the ideas defended by most FEs are wrong, but that does not prevent the Earth from being flat.

Or to express it more honestly:
FE has no theories, instead it has a collection of contradictory models that they bring out to try to address a single problem while ignoring all the problems it would cause for the rest of the models or observations.
These observations when taken collectively, clearly show Earth is not flat.

"Go out at night and look at the sky, with an unprejudiced mind. It will appear to you as the inner surface of a sphere, punctuated with tiny dots of light, rotating AROUND you. NOT as a flat ceiling rotating ABOVE you. So you could still imagine an Earth flat as a pie, suspended near the center of a much bigger, hollow celestial sphere. But..."
Celestial bodies actually revolve around the flat Earth, which is very different from what most FEs claim.


etc.

Why haven't you gone on the record for the final experiment?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92861.0

And why haven't you commented on the proposed Eratosthenes experiment?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92862.0

I don’t usually bother with all this anymore, and I’m sure someone will be along with a point by point rebuttal before very long.  (Good morning Jack).

However I’ll talk about this little bit:

Quote from: AnneFrothingslosh on November 20, 2024, 09:00:16 AM

The claims about "perspective" are completely false, perspective is not capable of hiding anything.  The bending of light caused by universal acceleration is the real reason why objects disappear over the horizon.
Refraction is capable of making some curved light rays straight, which is why we can sometimes see targets over 100 kilometers away. Totally impossible on a globe.

It’s great that you don’t believe im magic perspective, but you’ve only got yourself in a mess with bendy light.

You need light to bend enormously to explain sunsets and why the sun, stars etc are obversed in wildly different directions to where they appear on flat earth drawings.  So you attribute that to universal acceleration.

However, the flat earther favourite argument of seeing further than should allegedly be possible on a globe relies entirely on light traveling in perfectly straight lines.  So now you say that refraction can bend the light back again, coincidentally by exactly the right amount to straighten it.

But only for the observations you want.  You have massively bending light for some things, and perfectly straight light for others. 

And your still saying it’s impossible to see things further than flat earthers think should be possible on a globe.  An argument that completely ignores refraction, because it only requires atmospheric refraction to curve light a very small amount under the right conditions. 

And by another amazing coincidence, all this somehow lines up to make everything appear exactly where it should if the earth was indeed spherical and light just travels in straight lines, with only a tiny amount of atmospheric distortion?

Occam’s razor indeed.

"You need light to bend enormously to explain sunsets and why the sun, stars etc are obversed in wildly different directions to where they appear on flat earth drawings.  So you attribute that to universal acceleration."
Light does not bend enormously, the Sun and Moon are about 12 km high and the stars are about 20 km high, the bending required to cause the celestial bodies to set is not very large.

"However, the flat earther favourite argument of seeing further than should allegedly be possible on a globe relies entirely on light traveling in perfectly straight lines.  So now you say that refraction can bend the light back again, coincidentally by exactly the right amount to straighten it.

But only for the observations you want.  You have massively bending light for some things, and perfectly straight light for others."
In fact, the globe works this way too. It is claimed that refraction would cause objects to be visible at distances where they should be behind the curvature.
https://flatearth.ws/curvature-calculation
However, this should affect the entire horizon.

Although the ETF may seem somewhat complex, the aether could not exist if the ETF were false. The denial of the aether makes the interpretation of reality completely complex and unbalanced.

"Which would make a FE fundamentally incompatible with what we observe.

Where you can observe a celestial object set for you, and have a friend elsewhere on Earth then be able to see it."
Remember the bending of light.

"And now like so many FEers, you appeal to magic, with no explanation at all.

How does UA bend light? How does this result in objects disappearing over the horizon?
How isn't Earth torn apart by UA."
A string extended over a long distance will be curved because the center will be the heaviest part, the same thing happens with light rays, which are caused by the gravity generated by UA.
According to the equivalence principle and the theory of relativity, a gravity generated by the curvature of spacetime caused by the mass of a globular Earth would be identical to a gravity generated by the acceleration of a flat Earth. The gravity generated by the curvature of space-time caused by the mass of a globular Earth would be capable of bending light, a phenomenon called gravitational lensing. The curvature of light is like the gravitational lensing of FE.

Some illustrations showing how the bending of light hides distant objects on the horizon:




The distribution of mass over the Earth's plane is uneven, which is why we have differences in gravitational acceleration in different regions of the Earth.

"No, something entirely possible on the globe, requiring particular view points."
False. It is a consensus among REs that refraction makes targets visible that should be behind the curvature, however, the curvature would affect the entire horizon and not just the target.

"And it is clearly more than that. If the radius of curvature of the universe is no more than 31 km, then the universe must entirely fit inside a sphere of radius of 31 km.
The fact we can travel over 100 km easily disproves that.
So either the calculation is wrong, or the ether does not exist."
False. A radius of curvature applies to any curved geometric shape, it does not have to be a sphere.

"The "peak" of the parabola has the smallest radius of curvature, with the rest having a larger radius of curvature.
The radius of curvature for any curve is given by:
(1+(dy/dx)^2)^(3/2) / (d2y/dx2)

Any parabola can be normalised to one of the form y=k*x^2 by rotation and translation.
This then gives dy/dx = 2*k*x.
And d2y/dx2 = 2*k.

This turns the formula into:
(1+4*k^2*x^2)^(3/2) / (2*k)

This gives a minimum radius of curvature at x=0, with the radius of curvature being 1/2k.
We can also consider the limiting case as x->infinity. That gives:
4*k^2*x^3
i.e the radius of curvature tends to infinity.

For any parabola you choose, there will be a point on it where the radius of curvature exceeds that 31 km.

We can also just take the formula and sub in where x=31 km.
That gives:
(1+4*k^2*31^2)^(3/2) / (2*k)

You can then differentiate that, w.r.t. k, to find the minimum, and find out it is roughly 80 km.
i.e. for a point at least 31 km from the centre, you have a radius of curvature of at least 80 km.
So that is too big for your equation."
You are contradicting what you yourself have said.
This may be evidence for an assumption I had made earlier that the firmaments must be something like a curved cone, rather than a perfect parabola.
Conical reasoning indicates a height of ≈ 10 km to the first firmament, something that corresponds to our expectations based on reality.
In the 1958 Encyclopedia Americana in volume II, it is reported that in Admiral Byrd's explorations, the first firmament was found at 13000 feet high, which is equivalent to 3962,4 meters:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23572221-antarctic_regions-1960-edition-of-the-encyclopedia-americana-v-2-pp-11-15
Antarctica is ≈ 7472 kilometers away from the edge/Antichtone.
Following linear reasoning and considering that the height of the firmament increases as it moves away from the edge, we can conclude that the height increases by 3962,4 meters for every 7472 km closer to the center.
Height of the first firmament at the center of the Earth, near Ethiopia:
A = 20037,5 ÷ 7472
A = 2,68167827
A = 3962,4 x 2,68167827
A ≈ 10625,882 meters (10,626 km)
Just look at these images of parhelia (which depend on the firmament to form, just like rainbows), they appear to have an appearance similar to a curved cone:






"It is TRIVIAL to deny it, as there is no evidence it exists.
It was clung to because the idea that all waves need a medium to propagate, resulting in it having impossible properties.
Following the scientific method would lead one to reject it."
"Only when you cling to a flat Earth.
When you discard that, there is no need for magic ether at all."
There is much evidence that the ether exists.
https://www.inovacaotecnologica.com.br/noticias/noticia.php?artigo=quintessencia-fisicos-dizem-ter-detectado-quinto-elemento&id=010130201127
https://sacred-texts.com/alc/arr/index.htm

Without ether, it is impossible to explain variations in the speed of light, the process that allows spirits to materialize and/or interact with matter, the diet of breatharians, alchemy and many other facts.
The entire interpretation of reality becomes completely unbalanced and wrong when you deny a basis of everything that exists, which is the ether.

"But I would say, no, it does disprove a FE, at least with other observations.

If you go far enough north, you can observe the sun appear to circle, remaining above the horizon (you can also do this to the south, but most FEers claim fake because you can only do it in Antarctica or Antarctic waters).
So if Earth is flat, there MUST be a point somewhere in the north that the sun is circling.
A line of longitude, defined by observing the sun pass due north or due south at a given time, requires it to be a line going from this point in the north, straight out.
The point in the north MUST be closer together. It not being closer together refutes the FE."
As Sir John Leslie had already said, the Earth has two extra suns.
The Midnight Sun is caused by Eos, there is one Eos for each pole.
During the daytime, Eos orbits over the pole, outside the aperture, generating the phenomenon of the Midnight Sun.
Like the Moon, the Eos are photovoltaic, absorbing energy from the Sun to shine.

AnneFrothing:

The maximum deflection angle of light caused by the mass of the Earth as a gravitation lens is on the order of ten billionths of a degree. There is no way it could affect perspective in a noticeable way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

Quote

"You need light to bend enormously to explain sunsets and why the sun, stars etc are obversed in wildly different directions to where they appear on flat earth drawings.  So you attribute that to universal acceleration."

Light does not bend enormously, the Sun and Moon are about 12 km high and the stars are about 20 km high, the bending required to cause the celestial bodies to set is not very large.

Altitude is very far from your only problem.

At spring and autumn equinoxes, everyone on earth observes sunrise due east and sunset due west.

Try to find a position for your tiny sun relative to any flat earth map, where everyone at the same line of longitude (or time zone if you prefer) observes sunrise due east, while everyone on the opposite line of longitude (or 12 hours different time zone) sees the sun set due west, all at the same time.

It just can’t be done, unless the sun is not even remotely in the direction that people see it.  The paths of light needed to try to shoehorn real world observations into a flat earth model that works for every location at all times would be absolutely bonkers.  Let alone coming up with any kind of mechanism to actually explain it.

Quote

"However, the flat earther favourite argument of seeing further than should allegedly be possible on a globe relies entirely on light traveling in perfectly straight lines.  So now you say that refraction can bend the light back again, coincidentally by exactly the right amount to straighten it.

But only for the observations you want.  You have massively bending light for some things, and perfectly straight light for others."

In fact, the globe works this way too. It is claimed that refraction would cause objects to be visible at distances where they should be behind the curvature.
https://flatearth.ws/curvature-calculation
However, this should affect the entire horizon.

You can see an illustration of a curved light path on your own link.  Curving at the same rate between horizon and observer as between object and horizon (assuming a constant rate of refraction along its length).  Light from the object and horizon are affected the same way.

Although the ETF may seem somewhat complex, the aether could not exist if the ETF were false. The denial of the aether makes the interpretation of reality completely complex and unbalanced.

I’d suggest starting with the basics.

Where is Sun?

Light does not bend enormously, the Sun and Moon are about 12 km high and the stars are about 20 km high, the bending required to cause the celestial bodies to set is not very large.

Then how do they appear at an angle of 45 degrees for someone roughly 5000 km away?
All you are doing is trying to shift the problem.
And this now requires light to bend both up and down depending on the time.

You now also have the issue of the sun and stars being at different heights, yet the effect on the angle is the same. How?

Are you sure you aren't appealing to magic.

In fact, the globe works this way too. It is claimed that refraction would cause objects to be visible at distances where they should be behind the curvature.

No, the globe doesn't work this way.

The globe doesn't claim impossibly long views.
And it appeals to the well known refraction, which is easily testable in a lab.

The denial of the aether makes the interpretation of reality completely complex and unbalanced.

No, clinging to aether makes the interpretation of reality nonsense.
Discarding it makes it so much simpler.

Remember the bending of light.

You mean the thing FEers claim happens, with no explanation of how it works, or even being able to provide a coherent statement of just what the bending is; instead opting for it to be a vague claim that can do anything needed of it?

A string extended over a long distance will be curved because the center will be the heaviest part, the same thing happens with light rays, which are caused by the gravity generated by UA.

Except light rays are nothing like a string suspended at 2 ends.
A more honest comparison would be like a ball thrown through the air, or a rod held at one end.
The light would curve down. Just like we would expect from gravitational lensing, which can be measured for things like redshift/blueshift caused by the same principle.

And the amount it bends is entirely insignificant over Earth.

So this wouldn't create the horizon, instead it would make things appear higher, and the effect is so insignificant it wont help you.
Your diagrams directly contradict what would be expected.

The distribution of mass over the Earth's plane is uneven, which is why we have differences in gravitational acceleration in different regions of the Earth.

And if you have gravity, why isn't it making Earth collapse into a roughly spherical object?
Why isn't it changing the direction of down as you move over Earth?

False. It is a consensus among REs that refraction makes targets visible that should be behind the curvature, however, the curvature would affect the entire horizon and not just the target.

Last time I checked, the RE has an atmosphere, and refraction is expected for that, and refraction will allow you to see further than you can without. Yes, refraction will effect the horizon as well as the target, but as the target is passing through more air, it is effected more.

So no, this is NOT impossible on the globe.

False. A radius of curvature applies to any curved geometric shape, it does not have to be a sphere.

That in no way contradicts what I said.
Yes, that radius of curvature applies to any shape. You can even have an infinite radius of curvature for a flat surface.

But if you have maximum radius of curvature, and you want to get the largest possible volume, you do so by having a sphere.
Otherwise, you have a point with a smaller radius of curvature, pulling it in from the sphere and making it smaller.

So if the universe has a maximum radius of curvature of 31 km, the entire universe MUST fit inside a sphere with a radius of 31 km. It could be smaller, but it MUST fit inside.

You are contradicting what you yourself have said.

How?

I have explained how a parabola would easily exceed that maximum radius of curvature you want to allow.

This may be evidence for an assumption I had made earlier that the firmaments must be something like a curved cone, rather than a perfect parabola.

No, it is evidence that it doesn't help you at all.

Conical reasoning indicates a height of ≈ 10 km to the first firmament, something that corresponds to our expectations based on reality.

Our expectations based upon reality is no firmament.

In the 1958 Encyclopedia Americana in volume II, it is reported that in Admiral Byrd's explorations, the first firmament was found at 13000 feet high, which is equivalent to 3962,4 meters:

Where?
You make a claim with no evidence to support it.
Providing a link to a long article, without even specifying where in that article it allegedly is, doesn't help you at all.

You have a mountain rising 13 200 ft above sea level.
You have an "ice barrier" a mere 150 feet above the water.

Are you appealing to the ground at a point 80 degrees south, 90 degrees east, being roughly 13 000 ft high?
If so, that isn't a firmament.

Just look at these images of parhelia (which depend on the firmament to form, just like rainbows)

No, they don't.
They require various things in the air, like droplets of water, or ice crystals.
This is trivial to demonstrate with a hose and a light creating a rainbow.
No firmament is required.

There is much evidence that the ether exists.

There is none.
The cosmic background radiation is not either
Appealing to conspiracy texts is not evidence.

Without ether, it is impossible to explain variations in the speed of light

It is trivial.
Interaction with a medium, e.g. water or air.

the process that allows spirits to materialize and/or interact with matter, the diet of breatharians, alchemy and many other facts.

None of those are facts.

As Sir John Leslie had already said, the Earth has two extra suns.

Someone saying it doesn't make it true.
If it has 2 extra suns then either you have a point where no sun is visible, creating a disconnect between the suns; or you have a region of overlap where you can see both.

There is no evidence for any extra magic suns.

so many things from Anne, so little will to waste my time. Just a few things, at random

Setting celestial bodies rise in the east, set in the west, and pass beneath the Earth, where rapidly rotating etheric currents flow, causing them to rise on the other side in a matter of seconds.

1  so, Rigel (or another star) rises in the East just SECONDS after it has set in the West? How can one ignore reality in such a blatant way?

2  In the naïve flat-earth model I suggested as logically possible, stars DO pass beneath the flat Earth. But  why invoke “rapidly rotating etheric currents” only for their passage under the Earth? Why not for their rotation ABOVE the flat Earth too?

3  and of course Anne doesn't see the “little problem” I hinted to. The inclination of the apparent axis of rotation of the celestial sphere shouldn't vary much on a flat Earth suspended inside a bigger, hollow celestial sphere . Surely not from 90° at the N Pole to 0° at the Equator to -54° in Ushuaia

The bending of light caused by universal acceleration is the real reason why objects disappear over the horizon.
Refraction is capable of making some curved light rays straight, which is why we can sometimes see targets over 100 kilometers away. Totally impossible on a globe.

Well, congratulations to Anne. She sees that the only hope to straighten the Earth would be to make light curve.

But she shouldn't say “impossible on a globe”. To see farther than theoretically possible on a globe one only needs a refraction which CURVES light rays normally straight, not the other way around. And THIS is indeed how refraction works. Hasn't her teacher in middle school shown her the “broken pencil” immersed in water?

Anyway, let's discuss the theoretical possibility that the light from stars curves UPWARDS, for whatever reason, as shown by Anne. This would affect the altitude of stars (making them to appear LOWER than they are), NOT their azimuth (unless Anne introduces some other bizarre assumption). And the light from a star at zenith should NOT be curved.

So, 2 stars A and B, both a little above the celestial Equator and differing almost 6 h (90°) in right ascension should be seen from the N Pole both near the horizon, with the angle between them (difference in azimuth) unaffected by the curvature of light. This would be the TRUE angle between them.

And an observer near the Equator, while A is at his zenith (its altitude unaffected by the curvature of light) and B near the horizon (its altitude affected), should see a DIFFERENT angle between them. A BIGGER angle.

This does NOT happen. Indeed, this angle is SMALLER. A star appears a little higher than it should be, when near the horizon. Because of the atmospheric refraction which curves (a little) light from stars DOWNWARDS. Just the opposite way Anne says.

Too complicated? Let's summarize: Anne's bending of light would make the angle between  ANY 2 given stars to vary widely, with the latitude of the observer and the apparent rotation of the celestial sphere. We do NOT observe this, with the exception of a little variation (when a star is very close to the horizon) in a way OPPOSITE to that postulated by Anne. And due to the well known atmospheric refraction.

Summarizing, to Djudy1987's benefit: to save the flat Earth, Anne introduces a series of most bizarre assumptions, often contradictory, not backed by any experimental evidence (indeed, disproved by experimental evidence) and not even stated in a precise mathematical way, making every recourse to them intrinsically ill-founded.

Just something more:

All celestial bodies are at most 31 kilometers high.

So, when the Sun is at my zenith, it should appear a HUNDRED times bigger than when it's above some place at 3100 km from me? (therefore, a hundred times more distant from me).

Besides, when the Sun is at my zenith, someone at 31 km from me should see it at 45° (no, lower, with Anne's bending of light)

(here, one cannot help remembering the old safety rule: before starting to speak, or type, be sure that your brain is ON)

Wolfgang Pauli made a calculation showing that the radius of curvature of the observable universe cannot be more than ≈ 31 km if zero-point energy/ether exists.

Well, provided Pauli didn't make a mistake (always possible), this only proves that the “zero-point energy/ether” (whatever this means, this expression seems to conflate a supposed material medium with a value of a physical quantity) does NOT exist. It's up to you to prove it exists, if you want to make that claim.

Indeed, Pauli's proof (if authentic, if not retracted later – why was the paper not published?) was obviously intended as a reductio ad absurdum, to prove either:
that such a zero-point doesn't exist
or
that something is amiss with the current theories (believe it or not, scientists submit their theories to the most severe critic ALL THE TIME)

Besides, a radius of curvature of the observable universe of ≈ 31 km would imply that, travelling 6.28 times 31 km, we should be back to the starting point.

Besides, we would see an obviously non-euclidean geometry

Besides, a radius of curvature of the observable universe has NOTHING to do with the radius of curvature of the supposed dome.

Besides, a paraboloid (NOT parabola, which is just a curve) with a 31 km curvature at its top and able to encompass a diameter of 40,000 km would be more than 6 MILLIONS km high, as a little calculation shows. So much for Anne's claim that “All celestial bodies are at most 31 kilometers high”

It is a consensus among REs that refraction makes targets visible that should be behind the curvature, however, the curvature would affect the entire horizon and not just the target.

The horizon is closer, so light from it is less affected by refraction. What matters, for the target “emerging” above the horizon, is the refraction which happens BETWEEN it and the horizon


(enough for today, maybe something more later)

"Then how do they appear at an angle of 45 degrees for someone roughly 5000 km away?"
I have already explained this to you in another discussion. The aether works like a magnifying glass, it magnifies the apparent size of celestial bodies when they move away, this only occurs at the distance at which the celestial bodies are because the aether is much denser at the distance at which they are.
And this also proves the existence of the aether, here is an important observation about the distances and apparent sizes of stars:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92835.0
If the aether did not exist, many stars would be impossible to see and they would have very different apparent sizes from each other.
"You now also have the issue of the sun and stars being at different heights, yet the effect on the angle is the same. How?"
You don't give any reasons why the effect would be different.

"The globe doesn't claim impossibly long views.
And it appeals to the well known refraction, which is easily testable in a lab."
These observations do occur, and official "science" acknowledges this. But refraction cannot explain these observations on a globe because it would distort the entire horizon.

"No, clinging to aether makes the interpretation of reality nonsense.
Discarding it makes it so much simpler."
The interpretation of reality becomes a complete paradox when the existence of aether is rejected.
The theory of general relativity itself proves the existence of aether, space would depend on aether to be curved by mass because a genuine vacuum could not be curved as it has no properties, general relativity DEPENDS on the fact that space works like a fluid.
"According to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there would not only be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense"
- Albert Einstein, “Geometry and Experience,” in Sidelights on Relativity, 1983, p. 30
"…in 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical, as we will see later when we discuss the general theory of relativity. It does remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling all space and to assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states…once again “empty” space appears as endowed with physical properties, i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case according to special relativity. One can thus say that the ether is resurrected in the general theory of relativity….Since in the new theory, metric facts can no longer be separated from “true” physical facts, the concepts of “space” and “ether” merge together."
- Albert Einstein, “Grundgedanken und Methoden der Relativitätstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung dargestellt,” Morgan Manuscript, EA 2070, as cited in Ludwik Kostro, Einstein and the Ether, 2000, p. 2.
There are no theories capable of explaining reality without aether, all attempts to refute it invariably end up leading to its confirmation.

"Except light rays are nothing like a string suspended at 2 ends"
They are under the action of the same natural conditions, and photons actually have mass.

"The light would curve down. Just like we would expect from gravitational lensing, which can be measured for things like redshift/blueshift caused by the same principle."
Light would not bend downward. The centermost part of the light rays is heavier. Any kind of gravity in any theory would cause the light rays to have a sharp, CONCAVE bend.

"And if you have gravity, why isn't it making Earth collapse into a roughly spherical object?
Why isn't it changing the direction of down as you move over Earth?"
Gravity is NOT mass attraction.
I am thinking that loop quantum gravity theory may be a better alternative than UA.
Both UA and mass attraction are incompatible with gravitational variations.
Experiments at the Tamarack Mines, proof that gravity has no center below the Earth:
https://www.mtu.edu/physics/department/history/1901-1916/
https://dsimanek.vialattea.net/hollow/tamarack.htm
Gravitational variations totally INCOMPATIBLE with the hypothesis of mass attraction:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190912011146/https://lhcrazyworld.wordpress.com/2017/06/03/gravity-and-isostasy/amp/
https://web.archive.org/web/20190914002119/https://lhcrazyworld.wordpress.com/2014/09/06/gravity-anomaly/
https://web.archive.org/web/20190728080158/https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ae59/7456f647efb7155ac419edf5c9f38f240fb0.pdf
http://www.geosocindia.org/index.php/jgsi/article/download/83944/64911


"Last time I checked, the RE has an atmosphere, and refraction is expected for that, and refraction will allow you to see further than you can without. Yes, refraction will effect the horizon as well as the target, but as the target is passing through more air, it is effected more."
On a globe, the horizon should look like this when refraction is capable of making such distant objects visible:


"But if you have maximum radius of curvature, and you want to get the largest possible volume, you do so by having a sphere.
Otherwise, you have a point with a smaller radius of curvature, pulling it in from the sphere and making it smaller.

So if the universe has a maximum radius of curvature of 31 km, the entire universe MUST fit inside a sphere with a radius of 31 km. It could be smaller, but it MUST fit inside."

https://arxiv.org/html/2210.11426v4

Scientific evidence suggests that the shape of the observable universe (second firmament) may be a torus.
This shape allows the second firmament to have a radius of curvature of 31 km on a flat Earth when we add several walls to the firmament with a spacing of 62 km in diameter between each wall.

"Where?
You make a claim with no evidence to support it.
Providing a link to a long article, without even specifying where in that article it allegedly is, doesn't help you at all."



"You have a mountain rising 13 200 ft above sea level.
You have an "ice barrier" a mere 150 feet above the water.

Are you appealing to the ground at a point 80 degrees south, 90 degrees east, being roughly 13 000 ft high?
If so, that isn't a firmament."
The measurements you claim for the "ice barrier" and the mountain are wrong. These height measurements do not take into account the existence of the aether. The density of the aether has parabolic gradients and increases as one moves away from the center of the Earth.
We know that the height between the firmament and the center of the Earth is ≈ 10 km, so everything must be lower than is assumed by calculations that ignore the ether. Mount Everest, for example, must be at most 3 km high.

It's something I can try to determine more precisely soon.

"No, they don't.
They require various things in the air, like droplets of water, or ice crystals.
This is trivial to demonstrate with a hose and a light creating a rainbow.
No firmament is required."
This doesn't refute anything I said.
You can't create a rainbow with artificial light without glass; you use sunlight when you make a rainbow in a garden.
In order to reproduce a natural-looking rainbow in an environment isolated from sunlight, three things are needed:
1) Water.
2) Light.
3) Glass.
Glass disperses the light that passes through it and the colors are seen in the water droplets. Without glass, rainbows do not occur because water alone cannot disperse enough light to create a rainbow.
In an open environment, the rainbow occurs without the need for glass because there is already the firmament, which disperses the light, while the colors are visible in the raindrops.
A rainbow takes the shape of the glass that disperses the light, outdoors, the rainbow has the shape of an arch because it takes the shape of the firmament.
Even if rainbows were possible on the globe, water droplets would have to magically form an arc in the sky for the rainbow to have that shape, or the arc shape could be a result of the curvature of the globe, but that would require the Earth to be the same size as the rainbow, so it is equally impossible.

Parhelia are like rainbows, but with ice particles instead of water droplets.

"There is none.
The cosmic background radiation is not either
Appealing to conspiracy texts is not evidence."
There is so much evidence that we can practically classify the amount of evidence as infinite.
The links do not appeal to cosmic background radiation or conspiracies. Please read them again.

"It is trivial.
Interaction with a medium, e.g. water or air."
You have admitted the existence of the aether.
The aether is a medium with which light interacts, so light can vary even in a "vacuum".
https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.03680

"None of those are facts."
You can see spirits materialize and interact with matter, many people have experienced this empirically.

Many people have had the opportunity to try the Breatharian diet and empirically prove to themselves that it is possible:
https://www.allthingsvedic.in/post/pranic-living
https://casapino.com.br/viver-bem/comportamento/viver-de-luz-como-e-sobreviver-apenas-de-oxigenio-e-luz-solar/

If you doubt, then you can try this:
https://www.wikihow.com/Perform-Astral-Projection
In astral projections, the silver cord can extend for long distances without breaking, this is only possible because the cord absorbs ether to increase its extension and elasticity. Without ether, you are not able to explain this.

And as for the extra suns, the extra Sun (Eos) will always be in front of the main Sun, so they will rarely be visible simultaneously.

According to NASA scientists:

"The perception began to change in the mid-1980s, after the launch on August 3, 1981, of two Dynamics Explorer satellites designed to study the magnetosphere near Earth. DE-1 carried Chappell's Retarder Ion Mass Spectrometer (RIMS), designed to measure the population of the plasmasphere, a low-energy torus or doughnut in the inner magnetosphere. To Chappell's surprise, the real discovery was around the north pole, where RIMS measured gases streaming from the ionosphere into space."  https://www.ourhollowearth.com/Earth_weaves_its_own_invisible_cloak.pdf
http://hollowplanet.blogspot.com/2007/09/earth-weaves-its-own-invisible-cloak.html?m=1
As one moves toward the poles, temperatures rise, snow and ice diminish, and fauna and flora reappear. Modern explorers continue to find wood, pollen, animals, and insects in northern Russia and at the poles as they move toward them. In Greenland, it is assumed that animals migrate south during the winter, but in fact they migrate north, and the northerly winds in Greenland are warmer than the southerly winds in winter.  https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierra_hueca/tierrahueca/contents.htm
https://mortesubita.net/realismo-fantastico/a-terra-oca/
Flying over the Arctic, pilot Richard Evelyn Bird reported on the radio that he did not observe ice and snow, but rather areas of land with mountain ranges, vegetation, lakes and rivers and a strange animal similar to a mammoth in the undergrowth.
Richard Byrd uttered the following phrases:
“That Enchanted Continent in the Heavens, Land of Eternal Mystery!”
“I would like to see that land beyond the (North) Pole. That area beyond the Pole is the Center of the Great Unknown!”
https://mortesubita.net/realismo-fantastico/a-descoberta-momentosa-do-almirante-byrd-a-terra-oca/

I have already explained this to you in another discussion.

No, you provided a vague non answer as you have done now.

If you want to explain it, then clearly explain how the sun and moon vs the stars, being at different heights, appear at the same angle of elevation when above a point a certain distance away, including any math behind the bending.

Vague handwaving to have a magic substance do pure magic to get the results expected for a RE is not an explanation.

this only occurs at the distance at which the celestial bodies are because the aether is much denser at the distance at which they are.

Do you mean distance or altitude?
And again, how?

And this also proves the existence of the aether,

No, it proves the desperation of FEers.

If you want to link to a thread on this forum, link to one in the debate or discussion section where everyone can speak and object to BS.

If the aether did not exist, many stars would be impossible to see and they would have very different apparent sizes from each other.

You mean if the aether didn't exist and the rest of your model was true.
The RE model works just fine.

"You now also have the issue of the sun and stars being at different heights, yet the effect on the angle is the same. How?"
You don't give any reasons why the effect would be different.

The point is the effect would need to be different for each to make them line up.
Otherwise, the sun and moon, being lower, would appear lower.

These observations do occur, and official "science" acknowledges this. But refraction cannot explain these observations on a globe because it would distort the entire horizon.

Again, distorting everything doesn't mean you can't see further.

At a simple level, the horizon is where a line from your eye is tangent to Earth.
Without refraction, this is a straight line from your eye to Earth.

With refraction, this is usually a line that is curving down, meaning it starts going up higher, and ends up tangent to Earth at a point further along.
A straight line from your eye to that point would go through Earth.

Yes, the ground where the horizon would be without refraction is elevated, but the ground past that is refracted more due to greater distance making it appear even higher.

If you want to say it is impossible, do the math.

"Except light rays are nothing like a string suspended at 2 ends"
They are under the action of the same natural conditions, and photons actually have mass.

And did you bother reading on to see why it doesn't help you?
A light ray is not suspended from the 2 ends and dangling down.

Light would not bend downward. The centermost part of the light rays is heavier.

Pure BS.

If you have a laser, shining out perfectly horizontally, what will happen to the light in your fantasy?

If we recognise photons like you have above, this is the laser emitting photons. These photons travelling through space will be effected by gravity and fall.
That means they curve down.

What kind of delusional nonsense would make it magically curve up?

Gravity is NOT mass attraction.

It is. Your rejection of reality wont save you.

Even general relativity, what you just appealed to, is mass bending spacetime resulting in other masses accelerating towards it.
It doesn't matter how you want to dress it up. That should cause Earth to collapse.

I am thinking that loop quantum gravity theory may be a better alternative than UA.

And you know what is even better? A round Earth.

Both UA and mass attraction are incompatible with gravitational variations.

Why?
Because you say so?

The main variations in g is a variation with latitude.
The poles, being closer to the centre of Earth experience a greater gravitational attraction.
The equator, being further away, and also having the effects of rotation counter it, has a smaller effective gravitational attraction.
Just like we would expect.

Experiments at the Tamarack Mines, proof that gravity has no center below the Earth:

No, they demonstrate you do not understand how gravity works.
When you go BELOW earth, you are now having Earth above you pulling you up as well.

So the exact change in gravity depends on the distribution of mass.

On a globe, the horizon should look like this when refraction is capable of making such distant objects visible:

That entirely depends on what the refraction is.
If it is just a calm pressure gradient in the atmosphere from gravity, it shouldn't look like that at all.

Scientific evidence suggests that the shape of the observable universe (second firmament) may be a torus.

You mean your desperation?
Even that doesn't help you.

The maximum radius of curvature for a torus is the outer circle.
i.e. the outer blue circle in this diagram:

So if the maximum radius of curvature is 31 km, then that torus will fit inside a sphere with a radius of 31 km.

There is no way out of that.

I already pointed out what you have highlighted.
That is not describing the firmament.
That is describing a dome AT THAT LOCATION. i.e. a feature on the ground.

The measurements you claim for the "ice barrier" and the mountain are wrong.

So you claim your own source is wrong?

We know that the height between the firmament and the center of the Earth is ≈ 10 km

No, you don't.
You baselessly assert it with no justification.

so everything must be lower than is assumed by calculations that ignore the ether. Mount Everest, for example, must be at most 3 km high.

Or, you are entirely wrong.

This doesn't refute anything I said.

Yes it does.
By clearly showing a firmament is not needed and instead things like droplets of water in the atmosphere can create these effects.

In order to reproduce a natural-looking rainbow in an environment isolated from sunlight, three things are needed:
1) Water.
2) Light.
3) Glass.

No. 2 things are needed:
1) water.
2) light.

No glass is required.

A rainbow takes the shape of the glass that disperses the light

No, a rainbow takes the shape of a circular arc, based upon the geometry for the refraction in raindrops.

There is so much evidence that we can practically classify the amount of evidence as infinite.

You mean there is so little that you need to be incredibly desperate and claim it is infinite.

You have admitted the existence of the aether.

No. I have admitted the existence of air and water.

light can vary even in a "vacuum".

Prove it.

You can see spirits materialize and interact with matter, many people have experienced this empirically.

Many people claim all sorts of crap, plenty of which has been directly debunked.
People claiming to see things doesn't make it real.

Many people have had the opportunity to try the Breatharian diet and empirically prove to themselves that it is possible

No, many people have had the opportunity to lie to you, and you fell for it.

There was even a case where one woman claimed to follow it, and had new crews follow her filming her and she almost died.

There has never been a single documented case of an actual person living this BS diet.

If you doubt, then you can try this:
https://www.wikihow.com/Perform-Astral-Projection

More nonsense, again without any evidence of it being real.

And as for the extra suns, the extra Sun (Eos) will always be in front of the main Sun, so they will rarely be visible simultaneously.

Firstly, pure nonsense. It can't be in front for everyone.

Secondly, and far more importantly, if it was, then it is useless and doesn't explain it at all.

According to NASA scientists:

No, that is according to crazy people from "ourhollowearth.com".
Try an actual reference from NASA.
Or a valid, reliable source.

"𝙄𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙬𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙞𝙩, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙘𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙡𝙮 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙪𝙣 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙢𝙤𝙤𝙣 𝙫𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙨, 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙩 𝙙𝙞𝙛𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩𝙨, 𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙖𝙧 𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙖𝙢𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙡𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙚𝙡𝙚𝙫𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙫𝙚 𝙖 𝙥𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙩 𝙖 𝙘𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙖𝙬𝙖𝙮, 𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙡𝙪𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙝 𝙗𝙚𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜."
Light arrives straight and only starts to bend when it is closer to the surface, where gravity is stronger, the distance/height of the celestial bodies makes no difference.

"𝙑𝙖𝙜𝙪𝙚 𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙬𝙖𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙖 𝙢𝙖𝙜𝙞𝙘 𝙨𝙪𝙗𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙙𝙤 𝙥𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙜𝙞𝙘 𝙩𝙤 𝙜𝙚𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙪𝙡𝙩𝙨 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙖 𝙍𝙀 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙣 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣."
These results are expected for RE only in your imagination. Aether was proven by general relativity, Albert Einstein admitted it explicitly and openly, and you refused to talk about these quotes.
And if space/aether is malleable and can be curved, that means it can also be compressed and assume different densities.
Observations of stars prove the existence of aether and the magnification effect generated by aether:

As we stand on the Earth and look at our Sun, it appears about the size of a golf ball held at arm’s length, while being some 93 million miles distant and about some 864,000 miles across. If we do the same from Mars, the Sun appears smaller than the size of a ping pong ball at arm’s length and from Jupiter, it is about the size of a pea.
The supposedly largest Star presently known is UY Scuti, which, if placed in our solar system, would fill the inner solar system out to about the orbit of Jupiter. Therefore, its diameter is approximately 1,000,000,000 (one billion) miles.
Now, using the above idea/sample, if the Sun (diameter 840,000 miles) looks like a pea from 142,000,000 miles (Mars) then we can postulate that UY Scuti would look approximately the size of a basketball from Pluto, some 3,186,000,000 (3 billion one hundred and eighty six million) miles distant.
We look at the night sky and we see a blanket of Stars, some large, some small, some close and some very distant, but we see them with the naked eye.
Noting the above, we would not be able to see our own Sun from Pluto but we can see stars of relatively the same size from ones, tens, hundreds or thousands of light years away.
A “pix” taken by Voyager shows all planets and the Sun. These are greatly magnified pix and still the Sun is only barely visible from the approximate 4 billion mile distance. This assumes that there actually were Voyager space crafts.
However, if “they” wanted to prove that other stars were real why show our own star almost invisible from a mere 4 billion miles but the Universe full of equal sized stars being easily visible with the naked eye?

"𝘿𝙤 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙤𝙧 𝙖𝙡𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙪𝙙𝙚?
𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝙖𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣, 𝙝𝙤𝙬?"
Distance and altitude. The aether gradients are parabolic.

"𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝙙𝙞𝙙 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙤 𝙨𝙚𝙚 𝙬𝙝𝙮 𝙞𝙩 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨𝙣'𝙩 𝙝𝙚𝙡𝙥 𝙮𝙤𝙪?
𝘼 𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙧𝙖𝙮 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙨𝙪𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙙 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝟮 𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙙𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙙𝙤𝙬𝙣."

"𝙄𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙖 𝙡𝙖𝙨𝙚𝙧, 𝙨𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙛𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙡𝙮 𝙝𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙯𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮, 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙝𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙞𝙣 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙛𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙨𝙮?

𝙄𝙛 𝙬𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙜𝙣𝙞𝙨𝙚 𝙥𝙝𝙤𝙩𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙫𝙚, 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙡𝙖𝙨𝙚𝙧 𝙚𝙢𝙞𝙩𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙥𝙝𝙤𝙩𝙤𝙣𝙨. 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙨𝙚 𝙥𝙝𝙤𝙩𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙫𝙚𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝 𝙨𝙥𝙖𝙘𝙚 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙗𝙚 𝙚𝙛𝙛𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙗𝙮 𝙜𝙧𝙖𝙫𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙛𝙖𝙡𝙡.
𝙏𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙣𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙘𝙪𝙧𝙫𝙚 𝙙𝙤𝙬𝙣.

𝙒𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙙 𝙤𝙛 𝙙𝙚𝙡𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙣𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙚 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙢𝙖𝙠𝙚 𝙞𝙩 𝙢𝙖𝙜𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙘𝙪𝙧𝙫𝙚 𝙪𝙥?"
A better and clearer explanation:
Light rays bend when they reach the ground.
Imagine the light rays as ropes, the ends of the ropes will bend when they touch the ground.
This is enough to make the perspective work like this:




"𝙄𝙩 𝙞𝙨. 𝙔𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙧𝙚𝙟𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙬𝙤𝙣𝙩 𝙨𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪.

𝙀𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙡 𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙩𝙮, 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤, 𝙞𝙨 𝙢𝙖𝙨𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙨𝙥𝙖𝙘𝙚𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙪𝙡𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙞𝙣 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙢𝙖𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙚𝙡𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤𝙬𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙨 𝙞𝙩.
𝙄𝙩 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨𝙣'𝙩 𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙬𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙙𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙞𝙩 𝙪𝙥. 𝙏𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙀𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙝 𝙩𝙤 𝙘𝙤𝙡𝙡𝙖𝙥𝙨𝙚."
Even RE scientists are beginning to reject this.
The theory of loop quantum gravity resolves the contradictions between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and explains gravity without resorting to the absurd and disproven mass attraction hypothesis.

"𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙗𝙚𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧? 𝘼 𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙 𝙀𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙝."
A globular Earth does not solve the problems related to gravity, that is why RE scientists created the theory of loop quantum gravity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity

"𝙒𝙝𝙮?
𝘽𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙨𝙖𝙮 𝙨𝙤?

𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙫𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙞𝙣 𝙜 𝙞𝙨 𝙖 𝙫𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙪𝙙𝙚.
𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙤𝙡𝙚𝙨, 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙘𝙡𝙤𝙨𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙀𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙝 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙖 𝙜𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙜𝙧𝙖𝙫𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣.
𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙚𝙦𝙪𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧, 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙛𝙪𝙧𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙖𝙬𝙖𝙮, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙖𝙡𝙨𝙤 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙚𝙛𝙛𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙧𝙤𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙞𝙩, 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙖 𝙨𝙢𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙧 𝙚𝙛𝙛𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙜𝙧𝙖𝙫𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣.
𝙅𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙬𝙚 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩."
Mass attraction is completely incapable of explaining some of the variations in gravitational acceleration. Read the links and you will see why.

"𝙉𝙤, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙙𝙚𝙢𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙙𝙤 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙜𝙧𝙖𝙫𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠𝙨.
𝙒𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙜𝙤 𝘽𝙀𝙇𝙊𝙒 𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙝, 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙀𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙝 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙫𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙥𝙪𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙪𝙥 𝙖𝙨 𝙬𝙚𝙡𝙡."
This hypothesis was ruled out by the researchers. In a mine, you would have a few meters to kilometers of mass above you, but you would also have thousands of kilometers of mass below you exerting a much greater pull.

"𝙏𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙙𝙚𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙨 𝙤𝙣 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙛𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙨.
𝙄𝙛 𝙞𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙖 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙢 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙜𝙧𝙖𝙙𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙩𝙢𝙤𝙨𝙥𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙜𝙧𝙖𝙫𝙞𝙩𝙮, 𝙞𝙩 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙𝙣'𝙩 𝙡𝙤𝙤𝙠 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙡𝙡."
A calm refraction would not be able to make a target visible below a curve, strong refraction would be necessary.

"𝙎𝙤 𝙞𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙭𝙞𝙢𝙪𝙢 𝙧𝙖𝙙𝙞𝙪𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙘𝙪𝙧𝙫𝙖𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝟯𝟭 𝙠𝙢, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙪𝙨 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙛𝙞𝙩 𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙙𝙚 𝙖 𝙨𝙥𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙖 𝙧𝙖𝙙𝙞𝙪𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝟯𝟭 𝙠𝙢."
With several curved walls in the outer blue circle, the radius of the universe will be the distance between one wall and the center of the area between 4 walls.
Therefore, there is no need for the observable universe to fit into a sphere with a radius of 31 km or for there to be domes on the ground.


"𝙎𝙤 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙤𝙬𝙣 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙬𝙧𝙤𝙣𝙜?"
Apparently, the measurement described for the firmament is correct, because it corresponds to what is expected, but the other measurements cannot be correct.

"𝙉𝙤, 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙙𝙤𝙣'𝙩.
𝙔𝙤𝙪 𝙗𝙖𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙡𝙮 𝙖𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙣𝙤 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣."
We know that the first firmament must be below the Sun, because rainbows can only occur if the first firmament scatters the Sun's light. Furthermore, a Sun below the firmament would cause the Earth to become extremely hot.
So, based on the height of the Sun, we can find an approximate height for the firmament.
The height of the Sun (and the Moon too) is ≈ 12 km












https://x.com/TheFlatEartherr/status/1802890626830139482?t=krbsPtw6irKtunfy36JZGQ&s=19
https://x.com/Eric_Dubay_Flat/status/1698134692841591254?t=aysW1CPHUouhX8WmZ5Tdzg&s=19

Apparent diameter of the Sun/Moon: 0,5º
Apparent radius of the Sun/Moon: 0,25º
Apparent radius of the Sun/Moon in radians: 0,004363 radianos
Average height of an airplane on the globe/flat Earth without aether: 10 km
Average height of an airplane in the flat Earth theory with aether: 2 km

Occasionally, the Sun/Moon appear to be below the observer when observed at high altitudes, this proves that they cannot be at a very high altitude, because if they were, refraction and perspective would not be sufficient to cause this illusion.
Let us take into account only the flat Earth theory, because these phenomena are absolutely impossible in the globularist hypothesis.
Considering that both are about 0,5 degrees in angular diameter, if the Sun/Moon were 9000 km altitude, for example, would need to be 2063973 km horizontally away from the observer just to appear to touch the horizon to an observer at an altitude of 10 km.
(9000 km – 10 km = 8990 km
8990 ÷ 0,004363 ≈ 2063973 km)

Another example: If the Sun/Moon were 3000 km above sea level, they would need to be 685308 km away.
(3000 km – 10 km = 2990
2990 ÷ 0,004363 ≈ 685308 km)
Therefore, the assumptions of the given examples are impossible, since the diameter of the known Earth is ≈ 20000 km. It would be impossible even if the diameter of the known Earth were 40000 km, as some say.

With a Sun/Moon at ≈ 12 km altitude, the horizontal distance they need to be from the observer to appear to touch the horizon is 2292 km.
(12 – 2 = 10
10 ÷ 0,004363 ≈ 2292 km)
This is perfectly possible.

Refraction caused by aether and atmospheric factors also help create the illusion that the Sun/Moon appear to be below the observer when viewed at high altitudes.
The refraction would have to be inexplicably intense to cause this phenomenon if the Sun/Moon were hundreds or thousands of kilometers away.

"𝙔𝙚𝙨 𝙞𝙩 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨.
𝘽𝙮 𝙘𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙡𝙮 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖 𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙣𝙚𝙚𝙙𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙖𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙨 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙙𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚𝙩𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙬𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙩𝙢𝙤𝙨𝙥𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙨𝙚 𝙚𝙛𝙛𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙨."
A rainbow made in a garden uses SUNLIGHT THAT HAS BEEN DISPERSED BY THE FIRMAMENT, water is just the medium in which the colors are seen.

"𝙉𝙤. 𝟮 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙣𝙚𝙚𝙙𝙚𝙙:
𝟭) 𝙬𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙧.
𝟮) 𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩.

𝙉𝙤 𝙜𝙡𝙖𝙨𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝙧𝙚𝙦𝙪𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙙."
To make a rainbow without using sunlight or moonlight, you need to use glass.


"𝙉𝙤, 𝙖 𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙗𝙤𝙬 𝙩𝙖𝙠𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙝𝙖𝙥𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙖 𝙘𝙞𝙧𝙘𝙪𝙡𝙖𝙧 𝙖𝙧𝙘, 𝙗𝙖𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙪𝙥𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙜𝙚𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙩𝙧𝙮 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙛𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙣 𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙨."
In fact, it is the geometry of the refraction of the firmament.

"𝙔𝙤𝙪 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙨𝙤 𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙣𝙚𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙗𝙚 𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙗𝙡𝙮 𝙙𝙚𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢 𝙞𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙣𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙚."
No.
I have already mentioned several pieces of evidence, I will mention a few more:

Doppler effect:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

In the Boötes Void, the "low presence of galaxies" may be a result of a low amount of aether in that area, which would hinder the propagation of light and make galaxies in that area harder to detect:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo%C3%B6tes_Void

"𝙋𝙧𝙤𝙫𝙚 𝙞𝙩."
https://www.laserfocusworld.com/optics/article/16552839/photons-move-faster-than-the-speed-of-light
https://www.inovacaotecnologica.com.br/noticias/noticia.php?artigo=vacuo-nao-existe-velocidade-luz-variar&id=010130130409

"𝙈𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙨𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙘𝙧𝙖𝙥, 𝙥𝙡𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙙𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙡𝙮 𝙙𝙚𝙗𝙪𝙣𝙠𝙚𝙙.
𝙋𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙨𝙚𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙨 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨𝙣'𝙩 𝙢𝙖𝙠𝙚 𝙞𝙩 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙡."
Many people claim this, are they all lying? Are they all involved in a conspiracy?

"𝙉𝙤, 𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙝𝙖𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙤𝙥𝙥𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙪𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙩𝙤 𝙡𝙞𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙮𝙤𝙪, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙛𝙚𝙡𝙡 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙞𝙩.

𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙖 𝙘𝙖𝙨𝙚 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙬𝙤𝙢𝙖𝙣 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙛𝙤𝙡𝙡𝙤𝙬 𝙞𝙩, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙝𝙖𝙙 𝙣𝙚𝙬 𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙬𝙨 𝙛𝙤𝙡𝙡𝙤𝙬 𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙛𝙞𝙡𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙨𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙡𝙢𝙤𝙨𝙩 𝙙𝙞𝙚𝙙.

𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙣𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙖 𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙡𝙚 𝙙𝙤𝙘𝙪𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙘𝙖𝙨𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙖𝙣 𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙖𝙡 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙤𝙣 𝙡𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝘽𝙎 𝙙𝙞𝙚𝙩."
There are liars everywhere.
Science has documented cases of people living without eating or drinking:
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/International/man-eat-drink/story?id=10787036

"𝙈𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙚, 𝙖𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙚𝙫𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙞𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙡."
The evidence is anecdotal.
Anyone can test astral projection and prove to themselves that it is real.

"𝙁𝙞𝙧𝙨𝙩𝙡𝙮, 𝙥𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙚. 𝙄𝙩 𝙘𝙖𝙣'𝙩 𝙗𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙣𝙩 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮𝙤𝙣𝙚.

𝙎𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙙𝙡𝙮, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙛𝙖𝙧 𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙡𝙮, 𝙞𝙛 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙖𝙨, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙞𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙪𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨𝙣'𝙩 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙞𝙩 𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙡𝙡."
There are still other possibilities that should be investigated, it is possible that Eos generates the midnight sun through refraction, reflection, phosphorescence or movement synchrony.

"𝙉𝙤, 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙘𝙧𝙖𝙯𝙮 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 "𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙝𝙤𝙡𝙡𝙤𝙬𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙝.𝙘𝙤𝙢".
𝙏𝙧𝙮 𝙖𝙣 𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙖𝙡 𝙧𝙚𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙉𝘼𝙎𝘼.
𝙊𝙧 𝙖 𝙫𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙙, 𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚"
https://web.archive.org/web/20090404141630/https://www.science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast09dec97_3.htm

Light arrives straight and only starts to bend when it is closer to the surface, where gravity is stronger, the distance/height of the celestial bodies makes no difference.

This then requires the light to be going straight down to Earth because it then magically bends up, and light to not come in from any other angle.

These results are expected for RE only in your imagination.

No, not my imagination, reality.

Aether was proven by general relativity

No it wasn't.
Not at all.
People who are desperate to cling to the aether might pretend it does, but it does not.

Observations of stars prove the existence of aether and the magnification effect generated by aether

No, they don't.
Again, these are the results directly expected for a RE.
No need to invoke any magical aether.

Your inability to understand how light works, and how can you still see bright enough objects which are too small to resolve, does not make aether exist.

Distance and altitude. The aether gradients are parabolic.

Still not explaining how.

Imagine the light rays as ropes, the ends of the ropes will bend when they touch the ground.

NO!
Don't just tell me to imagine them as something fundamentally different to what they are to pretend your nonsense works.
Instead, clearly explain what is making them bend up, because it clearly isn't what you are claiming before.

Again, an honest analogy to imagine them as would be a ball thrown through the air, or an rod suspended at one end, with it curving down.

This is enough

It is not enough to do anything, as it still completely lacks any kind of explanation.

Even RE scientists are beginning to reject this.

No, they aren't.
Gravity is quite well established and known to cause large finite objects like Earth to collapse into a roughly spherical shape.
Any model trying to tie together general relativity and quantum mechanics will still have that.

the absurd and disproven mass attraction hypothesis.

You mean the experimentally verified fact?

A globular Earth does not solve the problems related to gravity

For the problems being discussed, IT DOES!

Mass attraction is completely incapable of explaining some of the variations in gravitational acceleration. Read the links and you will see why.

Have you bothered reading the links?
Because guess what? One even describes you:

In fact, one can find these first results still cited even today (usually incompletely, incorrectly, and/or with significant creative embellishments) as evidence for a hollow Earth,3 government conspiracies, coverups, UFOs, and/or for the general failure of Newton’s law of gravity.

And it even explains it:

for additional measurements.5 In some cases the pendulums were closer together at the bottom, though in most cases they were farther apart and there was no difference seen between the use of magnetic and non-magnetic materials. Based on a very strong correlation with ventilation conditions, they concluded that the effect was entirely due to the significant (natural) airflow in the mine shafts.

But that doesn't stop people like you dishonestly misrepresenting it to pretend that it contradicts gravitational models.

This hypothesis was ruled out by the researchers. In a mine, you would have a few meters to kilometers of mass above you, but you would also have thousands of kilometers of mass below you exerting a much greater pull.

A much greater pull than the mass above you, or a much greater pull than on the surface?

A calm refraction would not be able to make a target visible below a curve

Continuing to repeat the same false claim wont save you.
Once more, the greater distances makes that behind the horizon rise more, allowing it to be seen over the horizon.

And you don't even really need to consider that.
Again, the horizon is former when the line of sight from your eye is tangent to Earth. That gives one particular distance based upon your height if light travels in straight lines. If instead light curves downwards due to refraction that will necessarily be a greater distance.

If you want to claim otherwise you need more than just an assertion.

With several curved walls in the outer blue circle

So you are now abandoning your idea of a torus. Why provide it if you are just going to discard it?
If you allow multiple curved walls, then you can get something like this:

and make the universe as large as you want.
That then means there is problem with the RE model and the massive universe it has.

And they are really your only 2 options.
Either the universe must entirely fit inside a sphere of that limiting radius, or it can be arbitrarily large.

Apparently, the measurement described for the firmament is correct, because it corresponds to what is expected, but the other measurements cannot be correct.

i.e. you dismiss anything that doesn't fit your fantasy, rejecting pretty much the entire thing, but then happily accept and cling to a single measurement which you want.

We know that the first firmament must be below the Sun, because rainbows

have nothing at all to do with the firmement.

a Sun below the firmament

You leave out the sane option, a sun without a firmament.

The height of the Sun (and the Moon too) is ≈ 12 km

No, it isn't.
Showing pictures which clearly show the FE model is wrong doesn't help you.
Especially not with how much you are demanding light curves.

Try getting a real time video of a plane taking off just before mid day, quite close to the path of the subsolar point, and then flying up above the sun, at mid day, so the sun passes below it.

But also notice just how ridiculous your position would need to be now.
You have the sun appear below the plane to claim it must be below, but then have the sun above the firmament, while the plane needs to be below it.
That just doesn't add up.

if they were, refraction and perspective would not be sufficient to cause this illusion.

They aren't sufficient to explain what is observed already with a FE. So you appeal to magical aether which you cannot justify or explain, so how do you know it can't?

Let us take into account only the flat Earth theory

No, lets keep reality on the table where Earth is round.

these phenomena are absolutely impossible in the globularist hypothesis.

Why?
Because you say so?

These phenomena are clear evidence that Earth is round and the sun is not circling above a flat disc.

Therefore, the assumptions of the given examples are impossible

And don't forget other examples.

If Earth was flat and the sun was 5000 km high, then for the sun to appear at an angle of 45 degrees, it would need to be above a point 5000 km away.
Which does match up to what is observed, and other heights of the sun don't.

If instead you put in a height of 12 km, you end up with a distance of 12 km needed.

With a sun that low over a flat disc, it should appear quite low in the sky for the vast majority of the time, only rising high when the sun approaches the subsolar point.


Do you know what it key to all those examples? Earth being flat with the sun circling above.
It is that baseless assumption which is impossible.

And guess what? We don't even need to appeal to the height for it.
Consider the equinox, where to observers along an entire line of longitude, the sun is observed due east, and 180 degrees away it is observed due west.
Even if we ignore that 180 degree away part, and make an allowance of 1 degree, and limit it to just 5 000 km from the equator, that still requires a distance of 286 000 km, putting it completely off Earth.

So yes, all those examples are impossible, because they use a flat Earth.

Using a round Earth you have no problem.

A rainbow made in a garden

You don't need a garden.
You can do it entirely inside.

What it requires is droplets of water to deflect the light, with different wavelengths coming off at a different angle.

Water is what causes the rainbow.

Your imaginary firmament has nothing to do with it.
You can provide no justification for why it is needed, nor explain why we can't see it just from the firmament alone.

Meanwhile, I can explain why all we need is water.
As light goes through water droplets, it reflects and disperses, this results in light coming out at a different angle for each wavelength.
The geometry of a rainbow is based entirely upon that angle.
From the sun, to the droplet, to your eye.
That causes it to be a circle.

I have already mentioned several pieces of evidence

No, you haven't.
You have mentioned a few things which don't support your claim at all.

Doppler effect

Does not require aether.

In the Boötes Void, the "low presence of galaxies" may be a result

Of plenty of things.
What it certainly isn't is some magic making it harder for light to pass through. As we can still see things behind it.

"𝙋𝙧𝙤𝙫𝙚 𝙞𝙩."

So your 2 sources are a crappy news article stating claims, which doesn't even link to a paper and the one link it does have doesn't work; and an article saying that a vacuum can still have particles in it which can still slow down light, and which appeals to a theoretical possibility that the speed of light is not fixed.

So I'll say again, PROVE IT!

Many people claim this, are they all lying?

Lying or confused.

There are liars everywhere.

Yet you happily believe them.

Science has documented cases of people living without eating or drinking:

A news article is not a documentation by science.
It is full of claims, and some show it is nonsense. e.g. it literally states:
Shah said that Jani gargled water and took baths, but consumed nothing.
How do they know he didn't consume any of that water he gargled, or any from the bath?
They are admitting they literally saw him put water into his mouth, but then claim he didn't drink anything.

The evidence is anecdotal.

Not when you have instruments which document it.

Anyone can test astral projection and prove to themselves that it is real.

Or prove it's not.

There are still other possibilities that should be investigated

One big one you want to keep ignoring is that Earth is round.

https://web.archive.org/web/20090404141630/https://www.science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast09dec97_3.htm

Which don't show any evidence of a second sun.