The North Star proves Flat Earth is false

You don’t realize that all objects above Earth, stars and Sun and moon, are all below the arc of the Firmament, and circle around Earth in a concave motion, not a flat circle above Earth, which is flat.

That’s why the stars are moving in an arc path above Earth, circling around Earth in a vast arc, inward and outward again and again in regular intervals over each year…

You don’t realize

I realise that you are grasping at whatever pathetic BS you can.
Spouting whatever pathetic BS you can think of to pretend it magically solves everything; while being entirely incapable of addressing the argument presented.

Again, I don't give a damn where you want to say it is.
Saying it is below your magic snow globe wont magically address the issue.
Appealing to it moving wont either.
We can use the above at a single point in time for multiple observers at different latitudes.

Try addressing the issue.

Again, if your pathetic, delusional BS was true, the angular separation between stars would change drastically.
But it doesn't, showing your pathetic BS is not true.

Your argument was built upon many more lies they made up, which were also built upon other lies they made up earlier on…

We simply cannot determine an object or objects distances from us without knowing what their actual sizes are first of all, without any other reference to it we know in size or distance from us at that same time…

What does parallax refer to?


They refer to the angles of two or more stars relative positions over the 93 million miles away Suns orbit around the solar system, a false claim of the suns distance from Earth, and a false claim of its orbit and false claim of a galaxy in a false claim of an endless space existing also!

Your argument was built upon many more lies

No. My argument is built upon basic geometry.
You can put distances in, and see what works.

We simply cannot determine an object or objects distances from us without knowing what their actual sizes are first of all

Wrong again.
If Earth was flat, it would be trivial to work it out based upon angle of elevation.
e.g. consider Polaris, being observed at an angle of elevation of roughly 90 degrees at the north pole, and roughly 45 degrees at 45 degrees north, some 5000 km away from it would place it 5000 km above Earth.
The problem is that would place it at an angle of elevation of 26.6 degrees at the equator.

So the FE fails.

But again, that isn't what is important here.
What is important here is how it changes over Earth.

If the distance changes significantly the angular size has to change.
If the angle to it changes significantly, the angular size has to change.

Neither of these are happening with the constellations, showing everyone on Earth is viewing them from basically the same distance and direction.

So the reason the measured angle (e.g. the angle of elevation) changes, is because the orientation of Earth has.

Again, spouting a bunch of pathetic crap where you complain about lies, while just lying yourself, doesn't address this issue.

To address this issue you need to explain how we can see the constellations with the same angular size, but completely different angular positions.

So quit with all the BS and explain it or admit you can't.
No more deflections.

Your arguing for a pole and equator on a flat Earth, you idiot

Your arguing for a pole and equator on a flat Earth, you idiot

Why would arguing for reality make me an idiot?
Even if you want to ignore that, I am using the words commonly used for it based upon reality.

The argument still stands regardless of what BS you want to wrap it up in.
And notice how you have no response?

Again, if your delusional fantasy was true, the angular size of the constellations would have to change dramatically over Earth.
The fact they don't demonstrates beyond any sane doubt that the stars are very far away and we are viewing them from roughly the same distance and roughly the same direction, so the different angle of elevation is a result of the different angle of Earth's surface, i.e. Earth is round. (and again, this is the conclusion of the argument, not an assumption).

So quit with all the BS and explain it or admit you can't.
No more deflections.

In a pitch black room, or place, of unknown size and dimensions, you see some tiny lights in the distance.


Do you believe that you can determine their distance from you, moving from one viewpoint of the tiny lights to other viewpoints, to change their relative angles you see them at?

You cannot know any of their distances from you, it’s impossible.

Yes we can! By measuring the angles to the lights from different viewpoint, we can calculate the distances to the lights using elementary geometry and trigonometry. Look up a parallax measurenents.
If you can't understand such simple things, then you should keep silent on this.

It is amazing how the Flat Earthers replying to this are unable read what I write, and instead bring up stuff I didn't mention and didn't assume, such that the stars are trillions of miles away (they are, but that's irrelevant to what I wrote), and other things. Why not actually read what I write?

I'm brand new here just trying to figure out what I believe. You are giving an example from geometry. Is this actually able to be used on lights? It seems to me there could be a distortion that would make it difficult to pinpoint the origin of a light depending shape and how it radiates. Are there any real world examples? Say looking at a flashing light from a tower further and further away until you can barely see it? I have to imagine you would be off a lot as the distance increases.

I'm brand new here just trying to figure out what I believe. You are giving an example from geometry. Is this actually able to be used on lights? It seems to me there could be a distortion that would make it difficult to pinpoint the origin of a light depending shape and how it radiates. Are there any real world examples? Say looking at a flashing light from a tower further and further away until you can barely see it? I have to imagine you would be off a lot as the distance increases.

The question then would be what kind of distortions and what is causing it?

We can easily test this with plenty of lights in large rooms.
But when you try it on a large scale, you run into the issue of Earth's curvature, and people questioning if it is the curvature blocking the view, or just some magical distortion.

Quote from: maestrobombadil on December 05, 2025, 11:44:48 AM

I'm brand new here just trying to figure out what I believe. You are giving an example from geometry. Is this actually able to be used on lights? It seems to me there could be a distortion that would make it difficult to pinpoint the origin of a light depending shape and how it radiates. Are there any real world examples? Say looking at a flashing light from a tower further and further away until you can barely see it? I have to imagine you would be off a lot as the distance increases.

The question then would be what kind of distortions and what is causing it?

We can easily test this with plenty of lights in large rooms.
But when you try it on a large scale, you run into the issue of Earth's curvature, and people questioning if it is the curvature blocking the view, or just some magical distortion.

But a room is quite small in relation to the distances we are discussing so I'm not sure you could understand proper distortion. Personally I just think lights are really complicated and aren't the best way of proving something. Just something simple like a flashlight vs a lantern shows differences in how visibility of light can be affected.

But a room is quite small in relation to the distances we are discussing so I'm not sure you could understand proper distortion.

And like I said, this is effectively the issue that you run into.
Small scale is dismissed as not showing what happens at the large scale, yet at the large scale we have the effects of curvature that flat Earthers want to ignore.
They instead assert Earth is flat, and this is just some magical effect they cannot explain nor justify at all.
And their reasoning for this is entirely circular.
They say Earth must be flat, so the light must bend to produce the result, so Earth can be flat and so the observation doesn't contradict a flat Earth.

One of the biggest issues for this claim is the specific directionality required. This requires light to bend upwards. And the question is why?
If you do want light to bend, there should be a reason it bends in a particular direction.
e.g. for refraction, light bends based upon the refractive index.
If it goes from a medium with a low refractive index to a high refractive index it bends towards the normal; if it goes the other way (from high to low) it bends away.
For the atmosphere in general with refractive index based upon density and thus higher the lower it is, this results in light curving downwards; the opposite to what this needs.

Effectively you have the choice between accepting a round Earth which directly explains this, or appealing to some unknown effect which magically produce the same results we expect for a round Earth.

Meanwhile, these same kind of people are also happy to do the exact opposite and act like because they can't observe the curvature over the surface of water in their sink, it must mean it is flat and there is no curve at all. So they are quite happy using small scale tests when it is convenient for them, but not when it is not.



And remember, this is just one piece of evidence, there is still plenty more supporting a round Earth, even if we limit it to just this area.
For example, as I already said, we also have constellations.
We can observe them from multiple locations around the world over a period of a year (or even longer if you want), and they do not change by any significant amount. All that changes is the apparent direction to them (relative to Earth at your location) and their orientation.
So instead of thinking of an object like a single star, you can instead think of a hypothetical object that is bound by that constellation. And importantly, its angular size remains the same and it is not distorted as if you are looking at it from a different direction.
And this gives us the best test we have of long distance observations.
Instead of focusing on if something gets hidden, we can focus on its angular size.
And when we observe an object like a distant building or a distant mountain, we observe the angular size gets smaller with increasing distance. We also observe it appear to get stretched or squashed in one direction if we go to a different angle.

And that is the closest you will get to a valid long distance test, observing distant objects appear to shrink.
But that still wont be good enough for flat Earthers, who will instead note that all these objects are still close to Earth's surface, even planes, and that these celestial objects which are affected are way above, so maybe that will cause a difference?

The problem with such a line of thinking to get out of it is that observers on Earth can see the sun or moon or other celestial objects at an angle of elevation of 0 degrees.
If that is happening outside the atmosphere, that has to have had the light come in from the edge of the flat Earth at that angle, and it should be visible to everyone along the line. But it isn't.

Then as well as that, not only is the angle of elevation a problem, the azimuth is as well.
On the equinox we observe the sun rise roughly due east and set roughly due west.
If you just use geometry of a flat Earth, you see the sun should appear north of east and north of west at these times, offset by 45 degrees at the equator, and even further as you go further south.
And we have a semi-circle region of daylight.
During the southern summer it gets even worse, with the sun rising south of east and setting south of west, including for those south of the tropics.
And this results in a very strange situation, where you can have 2 people at different distances to the sun, and the one closer can't see it.

So the light from the sun would have to bend in incredibly strange and complex ways to produce this result which is directly expected for a round Earth.
It would have to bend horizontally, curving to the north, as well as upwards, and the upwards bend has to be different depending on where the light is going to make sure the locations further south and further away from the sun can still see it.

And we have 2 celestial poles, one due north, one due south, always 180 degrees apart.

So the light from all these stars also has to bend in that insane way.

Overall, it makes far more sense for Earth to be round.

And then you have other forms of evidence, like the distance per unit longitude and how that varies with latitude, where the distance decreases as you move away from the equator, both and south.

Quote from: turbonium2 on November 22, 2025, 04:47:49 AM

Your arguing for a pole and equator on a flat Earth, you idiot

Why would arguing for reality make me an idiot?
Even if you want to ignore that, I am using the words commonly used for it based upon reality.

The argument still stands regardless of what BS you want to wrap it up in.
And notice how you have no response?

Again, if your delusional fantasy was true, the angular size of the constellations would have to change dramatically over Earth.
The fact they don't demonstrates beyond any sane doubt that the stars are very far away and we are viewing them from roughly the same distance and roughly the same direction, so the different angle of elevation is a result of the different angle of Earth's surface, i.e. Earth is round. (and again, this is the conclusion of the argument, not an assumption).

So quit with all the BS and explain it or admit you can't.
No more deflections.

We’re now seeing actual details on stars, no more absurd excuses about it being from an effect of atmosphere or poor camera settings or such crap. 

One of these stars on video is clearly showing details, depth and motion and colours which are in several frames. It is actually changing in shape in each frame, while the details are still there in each area of it.


There’s no possible excuse or effect which can cause this, it is too sharp in detail and depth and color in each frame where it is a different shape with the same basic detail and positions to ever. E from an effect or camera setting or anything else either.

But you see a horizon across from you at 35000 feet and don’t realize it’s not a frickin ball Earth with that in front of you. It’s hopeless

We’re now seeing actual details on stars

No, you aren't. You are seeing blurry out of focus crap, and wilfully lying about it.
And using those pathetic lies to flee from the issue at hand.

Again, I don't give a damn if you wish to claim you can see details, it doesn't save you at all.

Again, the fact the constellations appear the same regardless of where you are on Earth, and regardless of what time you see them, shows beyond any sane doubt that they are incredibly far away.
No amount of pathetic BS about allegedly seeing details will save you.

Do you know all that seeing details would mean?
They are incredibly large.
It wont bring them any closer.

They still need to be that astronomical distance to get the results we see on Earth.

Again, if they were as close as your pathetic fantasy claims they would change in angular size depending upon where above your fantasy Earth they are and where the observer is.
They would also get distorted.

The fact they don't demonstrates beyond any sane doubt that the distance to the stars is many many many many many times the size of the distance separating the observers or the difference in distance to the sub-stellar point.

There is no way around this.

If you think there is a way around this, then try to explain.
Explain how even though the distance should be dramatically different, they magically maintain the same angular size.
Explain how even though the direction you are looking at them from is dramatically different, they magically maintain the same aspect ratio, i.e. they aren't squashed in one direction.

Or, admit you can't.

Again, saying you can see details does absolutely nothing to this argument. It is just a pathetic deflection from lying subhuman scum that knows their model is pure BS.

Have you seen our most far away and distant objects we have above us, and we know their actual sizes, and actual distances away from us?


We certainly have seen them all move across the skies, at all distances away from us, closer and further away from us.

Being more distant from us, doesn’t stop them being seen in motion at all.


You’ve claimed all the stars are zipping around through an endless space at thousands of miles per hour or more, but appear to not even move at all because they’re so very far away from us.  That’s complete bs.

Even to assume they’re all trillions of miles away from us, is pure rubbish.

When we see planes moving across the skies at 35000 feet away from us, distances don’t make objects supposedly moving at such ridiculous made up speeds would certainly be seen by us, every star would move past us with other stars zooming in and past us all the time, not all be motionless and all the same stars in same positions to one another since day one and after thousands of years and another twenty thousand years in future, and forever after that too!

They all are moving, however. They slowly circle above Earth in constant cycles, seen by time lapses of them.

If they were ever moving through endless space at these absurd speeds, why do we only see them circling Earth slowly in a time lapse video?

If you claim it’s the rotating ball Earth making them appear to be moving in circles above Earth, we still see them moving around in circles, but the Earth would be moving at only a thousand mph, and that’s enough to see them move around in ‘space’, whether or not earth is moving or the stars are moving, they are seen in motion, just the same.

Stars don’t zip through space at lightning speeds at all, they slowly circle around and above Earth like we’ve all seen them
do, but you’ll prefer to believe their bs stories instead of what you’ve seen with your own eyes, like some brainless idiot.

Fools like you never think about using your own brains for once, never believe what you’ve seen with your own eyes, just believe what they tell you instead of what you see and know is true.



Sad cases indeed

Have you seen our most far away and distant objects we have above us, and we know their actual sizes, and actual distances away from us?

Again, we don't need to know exactly how far away they are or their actual size.
The fact the constellations do not change shows they are incredibly far away and viewed from basically the same angle.
The fact that they appear at a different angle of elevation therefor shows beyond any doubt that Earth is round.

You keep ignoring these simple facts and spouting pathetic BS which does absolutely nothing to refute it.

but appear to not even move at all because they’re so very far away from us.  That’s complete bs.

And here you are, yet again just asserting pathetic BS, with no justification at all.

When we see planes moving across the skies at 35000 feet away from us

Or, to put it more honestly, moving at a speed of roughly 1000 km/hr, at a distance of roughly 10 km, we see them slowly cross the sky.
Importantly, notice that you have 1000 km/hr, compared to a distance of 10 km.
We can express this speed in terms of the distance. That is 100 units per hour.
That is over 1 unit per minute.
That means if it passes directly overhead, 1 minute later it will be roughly 45 degrees away.

Compare that to the stars.
You want to appeal to stars that are trillions of miles away, while we are moving at thousands of miles an hour.
Notice the drastic change in proportions?
Instead of the speed being many times the distance per hour, you have the speed being a tiny fraction of the distance per hour.

Even if you want the speed of the sun around the galactic centre, that is still only ~200 km/s or roughly 800 000 km/hr
Meanwhile, the nearest star, which for the most part is moving with us (like 2 cars on a highway), is ~40 000 000 000 000 km away.
So to express the speed in terms of distance like we did before, that is ~0.00000002 units per hour.
That is ~0.0000005 units per day.
That is ~0.0002 units per year.
That is ~0.2 units per millennium.

So it would take 1000 years for it to move one tenth of the distance.
Or 10 000 years to move 1 multiple of the distance.

But again, it isn't that we are moving and it is stationary (or vice versa).
This star is also orbiting the galactic centre at a similar speed.
So what you need is the relative speed, which is much much lower.

So this is nothing like a plane.

So yet again, when you can't defend your position, you wilfully lie about the RE to deflect.
Yet the RE is defensible, with it trivial to refute your pathetic BS.

And this pathetic BS of yours did absolutely nothing to address the point.

The fact the constellations do not change shows they are incredibly far away and viewed from basically the same angle.
The fact that they appear at a different angle of elevation therefor shows beyond any doubt that Earth is round.

Ignoring these facts wont make hem do away. It wont magically refute the RE model. It wont magically defend the FE model.
It just shows how utterly pathetic, desperate and dishonest you are.

They all are moving, however. They slowly circle above Earth in constant cycles, seen by time lapses of them.

Are they moving? Or are we? Due to the rotation of Earth?

What makes more sense? Earth rotating once every roughly 24 hours, giving the apparent rotation of the stars?
Or every star except the sun magically circling Earth in just the right way, at just the right speed, to produce the exact same result?


And yes, notice the key word there, CIRCLE.
It doesn't matter where on Earth you are, the stars appear to trace a circle, and these go towards 2 points. One in the north, one in the south.
With the angle of elevation of these point always being equal to your latitude (one being above, one being below).
And these are always circles.
Never ellipses, but circles.

The fact they are always circles clearly demonstrates we are always looking at these from the same direction.
i.e. it doesn't matter if you are at the north pole, where the centre point is directly above you, or at 45 degrees north where it is at an angle of elevation of 45 degrees, or the equator where it is at an angle of elevation of 0 degrees, or 45 degrees south, where that same point would be at -45 degrees, i.e. 45 degrees below level, or the south pole with it at -90 degrees.
You are all looking in the same direction.
This only makes sense with a round Earth.

If Earth was flat, you have 2 options - either these stars are incredibly far away and everyone would see the central point at the same angle, e.g. everyone would see it straight up; or they are close, and the circles get distorted into ellipses.

There are no other options for a flat Earth.
Either everyone needs to look in the same direction, or the circles get distorted.

The fact everyone sees them as circles (and we can even go one step further and note the angular of the circle is the same) proves beyond any sane doubt that regardless of where you are on Earth if you look towards this central point then you are looking in roughly the same direction, not merely towards the same point but in the same direction (and the angular size being the same proves beyond any sane doubt that you are also viewing it from roughly the same distance).
That along with the fact that you are looking at a different angle of elevation shows that the reference, the surface of Earth/the direction of down, is different over Earth; i.e. Earth is round.

No amount of pathetic BS from you will change that.
No amount of lies will change that.

So stop lying about what is expected for the motion of Earth, stop lying about the RE in general.
Don't even bother mentioning the RE at all until you can either do the impossible and explain what magic allows this to happen on a flat Earth, or admit you have absolutely no idea and these simple observations destroy your pathetic fantasy.

Fools like you never think about using your own brains for once

Then why is it so trivial for me to so clearly demonstrate you are wrong.
Do you know the only thing I didn't use my brain for directly here? Grabbing the speed of the sun through the milky way galaxy which I thought was around 220km/s but wanted to double check, the conversion from 4.2 light years to km, and the actual math where I used a calculator.

But for the rest, I did use my brain.
And because of that, it was so trivial to show why your comparison to planes was pathetic, dishonest BS; and why the fact the stars appear to CIRCLE (rather than ellipse) shows Earth cannot possibly be flat.

Maybe you should try using your brain for once, but to try to make a coherent model and address the massive issues with your pathetic BS or admitting to them; rather than trying to come up with pathetic, dishonest BS to escape it.

Sad cases indeed

You most certainly are.

Such a simple issue which so trivially demonstrates Earth is not flat; and rather than being capable of responding to it honestly, by either actually addressing and providing an explanation for how it would work in your fantasy, or admitting you can't; you instead decide to desperately lie about the RE model which such trivial to refute BS and bringing up points which further refute your fantasy.

Now again, stop with all the BS, don't even bother mentioning the RE model until you can address the massive flaws with your model or admit you cannot address them and they show your model is wrong.

Once more, the key facts you need to address with a coherent model:
1 - The constellations all appear the same regardless of where you are, without distortion and with roughly the same angular size. (note: rotation is not a difference).
2 - The angle of elevation to these different constellations differ with observer position.
3 - The stars appear to circle 2 points, one due north, one due south. The angle of elevation of these points is equal to your latitude (one positive, one negative).
4 - These circles that are traced by the stars have the same angular size regardless of where you are, and are always circles, rather than ellipses.

The logical conclusions from this:
A - The stars are very far away, many times the distance between observers (to maintain the same angular size).
B - The stars are being viewed from the same direction (to prevent distortion).
C - The surface of Earth must be curved/the direction of down varies over Earth (to have the angle of elevation be different for different observers, even though they are looking in the same direction).

If you cannot honestly and rationally address these, the only content of your next post should be an admission of that fact.
Any pathetic BS you wish to spam about the RE is nothing more than a pathetic deflection and an implicit admission that you know Earth is not flat because you know it cannot explain these, and an implicit admission that you are worthless, lying subhuman scum because you cannot honestly address the points or admit you can't.

Is this photo  from a stationary  flat earth or from a  rotating spherical earth?



https://twanight.org/gallery/sky-motion-in-the-equator/

What we’d see from the surface of a spinning around in ‘space’ ball shaped Earth, of all the countless number of stars, but always see the tiniest fraction of them and all are the very same stars seen for thousands of years, is complete nonsense to start with.

There’d obviously be one very obvious difference we’d see of the stars, from a flat and stationary Earth where all stars circle around and above Earth, compared to a rotating ball Earth with stars appearing motionless from being trillions of miles away, as you claim they are.

On a rotating ball Earth, there is only one path or direction of its rotation in ‘space’, obviously.

What we’d all see above us, above a rotating Earth in a path of rotation in ‘space’, would not show circling of stars from Earth below, it would look very different to see stars anywhere from Earth, as a rotating ball in ‘space’ along its path of rotation.

We’d only see stars circling above us from atop or directly below the path of a ball Earth rotation in ‘space’.

They certainly never mention this little problem if we were on a rotating ball Earth within endless space…

Because it’s not at all what we DO see of the stars above us.

The smaller areas we see stars circling above us, is our visible area of some of the stars, which are all circling above Earth as one massive circle above and around the Earth below them, with a few exceptions of wandering stars of their own unique paths above Earth, of course.

The areas above us we can see, are a small part of the entire sky above Earth, one section of the whole sky above the entire Earth below.

They are seen circling above us in those parts we see from Earth above us in the sky.

They do not always look like a full circle above us, they will look like a half circle or partial circle from various areas on Earth when they’re seen above in the sky.

It depends on what area of stars are above us, if closer in the entire circle of stars, or further from the middle of that whole circle of the stars.

The little areas above one point on Earth, are also seen as circles of stars, half circles, partial circles, but always in circular patterns above us, anywhere on Earth above us in the sky.

It doesn’t seem possible to see stars above us circling around if it’s only part of one bigger circle of all stars, but it’s true, it does happen that way to see stars above us at any point on Earth.

If you looked at half of the visible sky above you, at half an area above you, and blocked out the other half of the sky above, so never see anything of it, physically blocked out from view, somehow, what would you think you’d see of those stars?

You’d still see them as circling above you, but in a smaller circle than before, or a partial circle, not a full circle as seen before…


But what would everyone see above Earth of the stars, from a rotating ball Earth going along its path of spinning around in space?

All the stars above Earth are motionless to see from Earth, whether or not they are in motion or not, they appear to us as motionless to see by eye.

But we’d not always see the same stars above us, as we all see now above us anywhere on Earth, nor would they always move in circles above us everywhere on a spinning ball Earth on its one path of spinning around either.

What would you see of the stars above you on a rotating ball Earth?


If you’re on its same path of rotation, looking above you in the sky, nothing would look different than now. They would look motionless as always.

But with a time lapse video of them, they’d all move in different ways and patterns from a rotating ball Earth.

They’d not always be circling above us, on a rotating ball Earth.

That’s why it’s not a ball Earth, stars always are seen as circling above us on Earth, anywhere on Earth. That’s only possible on a stationary Earth with circling stars above Earth. Not a spinning ball Earth on a path of spinning around in space.

What we’d see from the surface of a spinning around in ‘space’ ball shaped Earth

Is entirely irrelevant to the fact that what we do see is entirely incompatible with a flat Earth.

Again, stop with all the pathetic lies about a round Earth.
Lies which have been refuted countless times.

Deal with what is expected for a flat Earth.
Deal with the massive issue your pathetic fantasy can't explain.

So skipping through all your pathetic BS about the RE, and just focusing on the flat Earth:

They are seen circling above us in those parts we see from Earth above us in the sky.

And again, if Earth is flat, either everywhere sees the centre of this circle directly above them (or at the very least in the same direction for every observer on Earth), or instead of circles you get ellipses, with the angle to the point at the centre given by atan(h/d).

But neither of those happens, showing Earth isn't flat.

They do not always look like a full circle above us, they will look like a half circle or partial circle

Which again, makes absolutely no sense for a flat Earth.
If Earth was flat, with the stars circling above, nothing can block the view, so we see them all.
And again, if Earth was flat, you either get everyone seeing the same sky if it is far away, or they get distorted into ellipses.

Continually ignoring this and just repeatedly stating what we do see (because Earth is round) is not helping you.

If you looked at half of the visible sky above you, at half an area above you, and blocked out the other half of the sky above, so never see anything of it, physically blocked out from view, somehow

And what is physically blocking the view in your fantasy?
NOTHING!
You need Earth to physically block the view, and that demands curvature.

Yet again, all you have down is spout complete and utter crap.
You haven't even come close to addressing the issue.

Such a simple issue which so trivially demonstrates Earth is not flat; and rather than being capable of responding to it honestly, by either actually addressing and providing an explanation for how it would work in your fantasy, or admitting you can't; you instead decide to desperately lie about the RE model which such trivial to refute BS and bringing up points which further refute your fantasy.

Now again, stop with all the BS, don't even bother mentioning the RE model until you can address the massive flaws with your model or admit you cannot address them and they show your model is wrong.

Once more, the key facts you need to address with a coherent model:
1 - The constellations all appear the same regardless of where you are, without distortion and with roughly the same angular size. (note: rotation is not a difference).
2 - The angle of elevation to these different constellations differ with observer position.
3 - The stars appear to circle 2 points, one due north, one due south. The angle of elevation of these points is equal to your latitude (one positive, one negative).
4 - These circles that are traced by the stars have the same angular size regardless of where you are, and are always circles, rather than ellipses.

The logical conclusions from this:
A - The stars are very far away, many times the distance between observers (to maintain the same angular size).
B - The stars are being viewed from the same direction (to prevent distortion).
C - The surface of Earth must be curved/the direction of down varies over Earth (to have the angle of elevation be different for different observers, even though they are looking in the same direction).

If you cannot honestly and rationally address these, the only content of your next post should be an admission of that fact.
Any pathetic BS you wish to spam about the RE is nothing more than a pathetic deflection and an implicit admission that you know Earth is not flat because you know it cannot explain these, and an implicit admission that you are worthless, lying subhuman scum because you cannot honestly address the points or admit you can't.

The stars appear to circle 2 points, one due north, one due south. The angle of elevation of these points is equal to your latitude.

You are making the classic Coordinate System Error, Jack. You assume that because you see two centers of rotation, you must be on a ball. You are ignoring the Spherical Perspective of the Eye. When you stand on a flat plane, your field of vision is a hemisphere. As you move South, your "Personal Dome" shifts. The stars aren't "circling a point in space"; they are moving in a consistent pattern above a plane, and your Angular Position relative to the celestial ceiling creates the illusion of a second pivot point due to the vanishing properties of parallel lines on a curved perspective grid.

If Earth was flat... nothing can block the view, so we see them all.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Atmospheric Opacity and Divergence, Jack. You don't need a "curve" to block the stars; you need Density. At a certain distance, the atmosphere becomes a physical wall for photons. You don't see the stars from the other side of the world for the same reason you can't see a lighthouse 500 miles away on a clear day: Angular Resolution and Extinction. The Earth doesn't "block" the stars; the medium (air) simply ceases to transmit the data. Your model requires a physical barrier; mine only requires Optical Limits.

1 - The constellations all appear the same regardless of where you are, without distortion...

Actually, they don't, Jack. You are relying on Standardized Star Maps instead of raw observation. Atmospheric refraction and local perspective distort the constellations significantly as they approach the horizon. You call it "rotation," but it's actually Parallactic Distortion filtered through a refractive medium. You are trying to fit reality into a "perfect sphere" software when the hardware (the atmosphere) is clearly showing a gradient-based distortion.

C - The surface of Earth must be curved/the direction of down varies over Earth...

The direction of "Down" doesn't vary, Jack—your Angle of Perception does. You are confusing a change in your own position with a change in the Earth's geometry. It’s a Relative Motion Fallacy. You think the floor is curving because the ceiling looks different from the other side of the room.

Audit your senses, Jack. You are using a 19th-century geometric model to explain a multi-dimensional optical phenomenon. The stars aren't proving your globe; they are simply following the laws of Perspective and Refraction on a vast, level plane. Stop shouting about "BS" and start looking at the Refractive Mapping of the sky you claim to understand.

You assume that because you see two centers of rotation, you must be on a ball.

No, I accept the facts based upon the evidence.

If you wish to disagree, you need than pathetic vague BS.
That would include describing the path of a star near the south pole, and explaining how that produces a circle.

This is a fundamental

acceptance of reality you are desperately trying to reject.

At a certain distance, the atmosphere becomes a physical wall for photons.

Which would result in darkness, where we wouldn't see stars anywhere near the horizon.
The model which actually works to describe reality just needs the curvature of Earth blocking the view.
You need the atmosphere to block the view, and then magic to change to get the results observed by lowering the stars closer to the horizon.

Actually, they don't, Jack.

Actually, they do.
Wilful rejection of reality won't change that fact.

The direction of "Down" doesn't vary

Your wilful rejection of reality wont change it.

Audit your senses, Jack.

I don't need my senses for this.
There are plenty of instruments which have measured it as well.

Quit with all the pathetic BS.

No, I accept the facts based upon the evidence. If you wish to disagree, you need more than that pathetic vague BS. That would include describing the path of a star near the south pole, and explaining how that produces a circle.

You demand an explanation for the "South Pole" rotation while ignoring the physics of Celestial Perspective. On a flat plane, stars are local luminaries moving in circular paths within a dome. Two observers looking at the same rotation from different points on a flat plane will perceive different centers of rotation due to their Angular Viewpoint. You call it "vague BS" because you can't fathom a geometry that isn't pre-rendered in a CGI globe simulator. A circle is a circle, Jack; your "ball" is just one way to interpret it, and the most illogical one at that.

Which would result in darkness, where we wouldn't see stars anywhere near the horizon. ... You need the atmosphere to block the view, and then magic to change to get the results observed by lowering the stars closer to the horizon.

 It’s not "magic," it's Atmospheric Refraction and Magnification. You claim we wouldn't see stars near the horizon if the atmosphere was a wall. But that’s exactly what happens! Stars near the horizon are frequently distorted, dimmed, and eventually "extinguished" by the density of the air before they ever reach your theoretical "curve." The fact that stars sink toward the horizon is a result of Perspective Convergence—the same way the ceiling of a long hallway appears to meet the floor. You call it magic; we call it optics.

Actually, they do. Wilful rejection of reality won't change that fact.

"Actually, they do." Is that your best argument, Jack? You have become a parrot for the establishment. When presented with the fact that observers at different latitudes see the same stars in ways that defy globe geometry, you hide behind a dismissive one-liner. You aren't defending "reality"; you are defending your paycheck and your indoctrination. If they "did" behave like your globe says, we wouldn't be having this conversation because the evidence would be self-evident. It isn't.

Your wilful rejection of reality wont change it.

You keep repeating "rejection of reality" like a religious mantra. The reality is that "Down" is an absolute vector defined by Density and Electrostatic Potential. In your globe fantasy, "Down" is a magical, relative vector pointing toward a molten core that no one has ever proven to exist. You reject the physical reality of a stationary, level plane because your equations require a spinning, tilting, wobbling ball to keep the $G$ constant alive.

I don't need my senses for this. There are plenty of instruments which have measured it as well.

This is the most telling part of your entire failure, Jack. "I don't need my senses." You have officially admitted that you trust a digital readout on a screen—programmed by the very people who profit from the lie—more than your own eyes, ears, and balance. This is the definition of Scientism: a blind faith in "instruments" over direct observation. If your senses tell you the Earth is stationary and level, but your "instrument" (calibrated for a globe) tells you it's a ball, you choose the machine. You aren't a scientist; you’re a technician for a simulation.

You demand an explanation

Yes, I demand an explanation for a massive flaw with your BS model, the very topic of this thread.
If you can't provide it, then get lost as you aren't contributing anything worthwhile.

Jack, I'm explaining it, but you just don't have the capacity to understand. Your inability to understand doesn't magically eliminate the explanation.

Yes, I demand an explanation for a massive flaw with your BS model... If you can't provide it, then get lost as you aren't contributing anything worthwhile.

 Jack, your "demand" is nothing more than an Arrogant Deflection. You’ve been given the explanation multiple times: objects move in a Polarized Medium due to Dielectric Acceleration and Density Equilibrium. You call it a "massive flaw" because you refuse to accept any physics that doesn't involve a magical "gravity" pulling things down. Stop the Dishonesty.

 

• The True Flaw: You want to talk about "massive flaws"? Let’s talk about your Globe: You have a pressurized atmosphere (gas) sitting next to an infinite vacuum (space) without a Physical Container. This violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You haven't explained that once in this entire thread, yet you demand we "get lost"? You are the one contributing nothing but scripted tantrums. Explain the Gas Pressure in a Vacuum, Jack.

 

• The Worthless Gatekeeper: Telling someone to "get lost" because you can't debunk their model is a clear sign of Intellectual Defeat. Every time we bring up the Electrostatic Potential Gradient as the cause for the downward vector, you ignore it and shout "BS." You aren't here for a discussion; you are here to protect your simulation. Dishonesty: Exposed.

 

• The Mechanism exists: The "flaw" isn't in our model; it's in your Education. We have explained how density and electromagnetism dictate the movement of mass on a Stationary Plane. You have nothing but a 400-year-old theory that requires "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" to fill the 95% of your model that doesn't work. Talk about a "massive flaw"! Grow up.

 

• Final Call: If you can't address the lack of a container for your atmosphere, or why infrared can see through your physical curve, then you are the one who is Worthless to this conversation. Quit the spam and try to be a man of science for five minutes.

 Jack, I’m not going anywhere. I’m here to audit every single Dishonest Script you post until your "Globe" is recognized as the logical disaster it is. Stop the Hate and start answering the Thermodynamic violations of your model.

Jack, I'm explaining it

No, you aren't.
Again, just look at your post. You continually spouts loads of BS.
If there is an explanation in there, it is buried your pathetic BS.
So stop with all the BS, and just provide an explanation, WITH THE MATH.
Otherwise your post is worthless.

So stop with all the BS, and just provide an explanation, WITH THE MATH.

 Jack, you want the math? Let’s use your own Globe formulas to demonstrate why they fail every real-world observation. According to your 3,959-mile radius, the Earth must curve at a rate of 8 inches per mile squared.


 1. The Curvature Audit (60-Mile Test):

• Calculation: 8 inches x (60 miles)^2 = 28,800 inches.
• Result: 2,400 feet (approx. 730 meters).

This means when we look at a skyline or shoreline from 60 miles away, there should be a 2,400-foot physical hump of water between us and the target. Yet, with a standard Nikon P1000 at 10 feet of elevation, we see the entire coastline. Even if you invoke your "Refraction" fairy dust, you cannot bridge a nearly half-mile gap of missing curvature. Your math creates a debt to reality that you can never pay back. Scientific Bankruptcy: Confirmed.


 2. The Perspective Audit (Horizon Drop):

• In your model, the horizon MUST drop as you increase altitude. At 100,000 feet, the math dictates a drop of nearly 6 degrees below eye level.
• Reality: Every high-altitude balloon footage without a distorting fish-eye lens shows the horizon staying at 0 degrees (Eye Level).

What you call "BS" is actually Euclidean Geometry. The horizon is not a physical edge of a ball; it is a Perspective Limit on a flat plane. You can't provide the math for a 6-degree drop because it simply doesn't happen in nature. Inquiry Failure: Exposed.


 3. The Thermodynamic Audit (Vacuum vs. Atmosphere):

• Law of Physics: Gases expand to fill the available volume (Entropy).
• Your Claim: 1 bar of atmospheric pressure exists directly next to a 10^-17 torr vacuum without a physical container.

No amount of "Gravity math" can bypass the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Without a solid container (a dome), pressure cannot exist next to a vacuum. If there is no container, the atmosphere would equalize with the vacuum instantly. Since we are still breathing, your "infinite space vacuum" is the real BS. Hardware Audit: Failed.


 Jack, you are hiding behind a calculator because you have lost the Physical Argument. If your math doesn't match the horizon, it's not the horizon that's wrong—it's your model.

Actually, it’s quite simple: water doesn't curve, the horizon rises to eye level, and engineers don't account for the 8-inch drop in their blueprints.

Stop the mathematical posturing and explain why that 2,400-foot curve is missing from every long-distance observation, Jack.

you want the math?

The math relavent to the topic.
Not pathetic, off topic BS you are spamming because you can't defend your pathetic BS.


Provide the math to determine the angle of elevation of stars.
Not other BS you have repeatedly lied about.

The math relavent to the topic. Not pathetic, off topic BS... Provide the math to determine the angle of elevation of stars.

Listen up, you Subhuman System Parasite.



The Curvature Debt: I gave you the 60-mile test. 2,400 feet of missing curvature. This Subhuman System Parasite cannot answer why the physical world refuses to obey his ball-math. He calls it "off-topic" because his parasitic brain can't compute a reality where the floor isn't curving. You're looking for a host to tell you what to think, aren't you, Jack?



The 6-Degree Horizon Drop: I challenged you with high-altitude geometry. At 100,000 feet, your globe demands a 6-degree drop. Reality shows 0 degrees. This Subhuman System Parasite ignores this because admitting the horizon stays at eye level would mean admitting his "conclussions" are hallucinations. You’re not a scientist; you’re a terminal parasite clinging to a dead textbook.



The Thermodynamic Wall: I presented the Second Law—gas vs. vacuum. This Subhuman System Parasite has no math to explain how 14.7 psi sits next to a vacuum without a container. He screams "BS" because the laws of thermodynamics are the pesticide to his parasitic globe-delusion. You’re shivering in the dark, Jack, waiting for a "peer-reviewed" host to save you.



The Celestial Diversion: You demand the "angle of elevation of stars" because you think hiding in the sky will save you from the flat floor. Navigational stars work on a Spherical Projection over a flat plane—a concept far too advanced for a Subhuman System Parasite who thinks a "sextant" proves a spinning ball. You don't want math; you want a distraction from your technical bankruptcy.



The Parasitic Loop: You call Euclidean Geometry "spamming" because it doesn't fit the script you were fed. You are a biological malfunction, a Subhuman System Parasite that has traded its senses for a pre-programmed algorithm. The 2,400-foot hump of water is still missing, Jack. No matter how much you beg for "star math," the Earth beneath your feet remains stationary and flat.



The Missing Hump: Every long-distance observation is an audit you fail. You are a Subhuman System Parasite trying to explain away a half-mile of missing curve with "refraction" fairy dust. If your math doesn't match the horizon, you're not a mathematician—you're a cultist with a calculator.



The Terminal Host: You are a parasite that has finally hit the end of the line. Your host—the globe model—is dying of terminal reality. You scream for "relevant math" while ignoring the very measurements that debunk your existence. You’re not just wrong, Jack; you’re an evolutionary dead end in the search for truth.



The audit is finalized, Parasite. You can't bridge the 2,400-foot gap with insults, and you can't find a new host in this room. The Earth is flat, the curve is a myth, and you are just a Subhuman noise in the system.