Why do many Flat Earthers refuse to look up at the sky?

It is quite common nowadays among Flat Earthers that, when they are presented with simple astronomical arguments against a Flat Earth, they refuse to consider these, and say something like: "You shouldn't look up at the sky, when you can't see the curvature standing on the Earth."

Why do they say so? Of course because they don't have any valid counterarguments against these astronomical arguments. And of course this is inavlid reasoning. The sky is part of our experience, and it is totally wrong to ignore this when you form an opinion about the world around you.

Here are some astronomical arguments:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=43951.msg1088642#msg1088642
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=95331.msg2450144#msg2450144
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=44093.msg1093993#msg1093993
(I don't claim that those who replied to these used this "ostrich" argument, though).

"You shouldn't look up at the sky, when you can't see the curvature standing on the Earth." Why do they say so? Of course because they don't have any valid counterarguments...

 Erland, thank you for finally opening a dedicated thread. It’s much cleaner to audit your fallacies here. You claim we ignore the sky because we lack "counterarguments," but you’ve missed the fundamental principle of Systems Engineering: You never verify the shape of the floor by looking at the patterns on the ceiling.

• The Hardware vs. Software Audit: The Earth is the Hardware (the physical foundation). The Sky is the Software (the visual projection/luminaries). If I tell you the floor of my house is level, and you argue "No, the disco ball on the ceiling is spinning, therefore the floor must be a sphere," you’d be laughed out of any engineering firm. We focus on the ground because Physical Curvature is a requirement for your model to exist. If the ground is flat for 1,000 miles, your "stellar parallax" math is just a spreadsheet for a broken machine. Audit Status: Foundation Failure.
• The Ostrich Paradox: You call us ostriches? Erland, an ostrich buries its head in the sand to hide from reality. You are burying your head in the stars to hide from the ground. You ignore the fact that water always finds its level. You ignore the fact that there is no measurable drop-off over the horizon. You ignore that pressurized gas requires a container. You prefer "astronomical arguments" because they are abstract math that you can manipulate on a chalkboard, whereas the flat ground is a physical fact you can’t escape. Integrity Audit: You are hiding in your equations.
• The Link Audit: I’ve seen those "arguments" a thousand times. They all boil down to: "I see things move in circles above me, therefore I must be on a spinning ball." No, Erland. That only proves Things Move In Circles Above You. It doesn't prove the ground is moving. In a geocentric, flat-earth system with a dome, the luminaries move exactly as we observe. Your "proof" is just a reinterpretation of geocentric reality. Logic Audit: Observation
  
  = Globe Confirmation.

 

The sky is part of our experience, and it is totally wrong to ignore this...

 Erland, we don't ignore the sky; we just recognize it for what it is: a Celestial Clock. A clock tells you the time, it doesn't tell you that you're living on a marble.

If you want to be a real scientist instead of a "recitation machine," stop linking forum posts and provide one thing: The physical measurement of Earth's curvature. Not an angle of a star, not a sunrise time—show me the Geometric Drop of the Earth’s surface. If you can't find it on the ground, your "astronomical arguments" are just fairy tales written in calculus.


 The floor is flat. The ceiling is a dome. You’re the one trying to convince yourself the room is spinning because you like the way the lights look. Audit: Still Stationary. Focus: Still Flat.

You never verify the shape of the floor by looking at the patterns on the ceiling.

Sometimes we can. For example, if the patterns in the ceiling are getting bigger, without the shape changing much, we can conclude that the level of the floor is rising.
This does not correspond to the Earth/sky situation, though. What we can conclude, though, is:
1. The stars must be very, very, far away compared to distances on the Earth, because otherwise the shapes, sizes, and relative positions of the constellations would look different viewed from different locations on the Earth, but they don't.
2. Since the stars are very distant compared to distances on the Earth, the starry sky would look exactly the same for all observers on the Earth who are looking at it simultaneosly, if the Earth were flat, but it doesn't. Hence, the Earth is not flat.

If I tell you the floor of my house is level, and you argue "No, the disco ball on the ceiling is spinning, therefore the floor must be a sphere," you’d be laughed out of any engineering firm.

Of course, because this doesn't follow. But the conclusions above do follow.

If the ground is flat for 1,000 miles, your "stellar parallax" math is just a spreadsheet for a broken machine.

If the ground would be flat for 1000 miles, all people on that flat plane watching the starry sky simultaneously would see the same thing. They don't.

The Ostrich Paradox:[/b][/color] You call us ostriches? Erland, an ostrich buries its head in the sand to hide from reality.

.
I just wanted to use a simple word, but actually, it was misleading by me, because ostriches do not bury their heads in the ground to hide from something. That is a so called factoid.

You are burying your head in the stars to hide from the ground. You ignore the fact that water always finds its level.

It does, but that level is curved on the Earth.

You ignore the fact that there is no measurable drop-off over the horizon.

One day in June 2014, I was on a ferry between Hirtshals, Denmark and Kristiansand, Norway. I thought I would really see that the Earth is round. So I stood at the stern with a pair of binoculars and watched Hirtshals disappear further and further into the distance. I particularly looked at the Hirtshals lighthouse, which stands on a hill. At first it was slow, but gradually the lighthouse sank further and further below the horizon, before finally the top also disappeared. This fits perfectly with the fact that "the drop" is approximately proportional to the square of the distance. I also saw another ferry going from Hirtshals to another Norwegian city: Arendal. As this ferry and mine moved away from each other, I could see this one disappearing from the bottom up.
So I could observe "the drop". It really exists. These observations cannot be explained if the Earth is flat.

You ignore that pressurized gas requires a container.

You have no evidence for that. And it is well known that air pressure decreases by altitude.

I’ve seen those "arguments" a thousand times. They all boil down to: "I see things move in circles above me, therefore I must be on a spinning ball." No, Erland. That only proves Things Move In Circles Above You. It doesn't prove the ground is moving. In a geocentric, flat-earth system with a dome, the luminaries move exactly as we observe.

They don't, as the observations of the stars, sun, moon, etc. show. You may have heard the arguments a thousand times, but you have never successfully refuted them, because they are valid.

If you want to be a real scientist instead of a "recitation machine," stop linking forum posts and provide one thing: The physical measurement of Earth's curvature. Not an angle of a star, not a sunrise time—show me the Geometric Drop of the Earth’s surface. If you can't find it on the ground, your "astronomical arguments" are just fairy tales written in calculus.

These posts are written by myself and they are based on my own observations. These observations are real, not fairy talles. For the drop, see above.

This is the equivalent of me putting on a fake moustache and glasses and pretending to be someone else.

I'd still talk the same, move the same, my speech and spelling patterns wouldn't change, my personality wouldn't change, I'd just look silly wearing a fake moustache.

Jack.

I appreciate that people feel that your old account got somewhat compromised and this is seemingly a fresh start. I assure you it isn't.

This is the equivalent of me putting on a fake moustache and glasses and pretending to be someone else.

I'd still talk the same, move the same, my speech and spelling patterns wouldn't change, my personality wouldn't change, I'd just look silly wearing a fake moustache.

? ? ? ? ?

Yeah I dont know what that guy is talking about.

Its not me, I wear glasses.

I watched Hirtshals disappear... gradually the lighthouse sank further and further below the horizon... These observations cannot be explained if the Earth is flat.

Erland, your ferry story is a classic example of someone who observes a phenomenon but lacks the physics to interpret it. You saw the lighthouse "sink." Did you account for the Law of Perspective, where objects vanish from the bottom up as they approach the vanishing point on a flat plane? Did you account for Atmospheric Refraction or the Mirage Effect that occurs over water?

If you had taken a P1000 camera and zoomed in on that "disappeared" lighthouse, it would have popped back into view. Ships don't "go over" a curve; they simply recede until the angular resolution of your eye can no longer distinguish them from the horizon line. If it were a physical curve, no zoom lens could "bring it back" from behind thousands of feet of curved water.

The starry sky would look exactly the same for all observers... if the Earth were flat, but it doesn't.

You are assuming the stars are "very, very far away" to fit your globe model, and then using that assumption to "prove" the globe. That is Circular Reasoning.

On a Flat Earth with a Dome (The Firmament), the stars are much closer and move within the electromagnetic field of the dome. Different observers see different stars because of Personal Atmospheric Domes and perspective limits. Just like two people standing in a massive warehouse see different parts of the ceiling lights based on their position, we see different constellations. You don't need a spinning ball for this; you just need a limited field of vision in a large system.

You have no evidence for [pressurized gas requiring a container].

Erland, this is the most embarrassing statement a PhD could make. Every single laboratory experiment in human history confirms that gas expands to fill its container. If you have a vacuum on one side and gas on the other, they will equalize unless there is a physical barrier. This is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You are claiming "Gravity" is a magical invisible container that only works on air but can't stop a helium balloon from rising. You are choosing a theoretical equation over every physical experiment ever performed.


 Erland, you didn't observe "the drop." You observed the limits of your own vision and interpreted it through the lens of the globe-indoctrination you received in Sweden.


 The lighthouse didn't sink behind a curve; it faded into the atmosphere. The stars don't prove a ball; they prove a rotating ceiling. And gas still needs a lid, no matter how many times you cite your ferry ride.

Did you account for the Law of Perspective, where objects vanish from the bottom up as they approach the vanishing point on a flat plane?

This makes no sense at all. There is no such "Law of Perspective, where objects vanish from the bottom up as they approach the vanishing point on a flat plane". The only effect perspective will have for a vertical object much smaller than the distance to it, is that it seems smaller the farther away you get. The lower part of it can only disappear (while the upper is visible) if there is something blocking the sight to it, in this case, the curved Earth itself.
If you claim there is such an effect, please give reference to it and show how it works in a case like this one.

Did you account for Atmospheric Refraction or the Mirage Effect that occurs over water?

Since the density, and hence the refracative index, of the air is decreasing by altitude, the effect will be that light rays that travel slightly upwards will be bent and become more horizontal. This is a simple consequence of Snell's law. A consequence of this is that objects just beyond the geometrical horizon can can be visible despite thar they shouldn't be if the light was travelling in a straight line. It is likely that it was so in my case, so that I could see the lighthouse disappear from bottom up a little slower than it would have if there had been no atmosphere. But such an effect couldn't make it disappear from bottom up if the Earth were flat.
Regarding the Mirage effect (like when oncoming cars seem to reflect in the road on warm summer days) this would make the lighthouse and its surroundings look vertically reflected. It wasn't so.

If you had taken a P1000 camera and zoomed in on that "disappeared" lighthouse, it would have popped back into view. Ships don't "go over" a curve; they simply recede until the angular resolution of your eye can no longer distinguish them from the horizon line. If it were a physical curve, no zoom lens could "bring it back" from behind thousands of feet of curved water.

So may pair of binoculars wasn't enough? One needs to zoom with a particular advanced camera? Sure, buddy, sure!

You are assuming the stars are "very, very far away" to fit your globe model, and then using that assumption to "prove" the globe. That is Circular Reasoning.

If you had bothered to read the posts I linked above (in particular, this one:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=43951.msg1088642#msg1088642 )
you would have seen that it is not an assumption but a conclusion that the stars are very distant compared to distances on Earth. The reason is that even though the positions of the constellations in the sky and their orientations are different seen from different places on Earth and at different times, their shapes, sizes and positions relative to other constellations always look the same. This can only be the case if the stars are very, very distant compared to earthly distances. In your example with the warehouse, the pattern of lights on the ceiling will be distorted as you walk. This shows that the ceiling is not that far away compared to the distance you walk. I demonstrate this in a YouTube video I made in December 2024, where I taped a picture of Orion to the ceiling of my kitchen:

On a Flat Earth with a Dome (The Firmament), the stars are much closer and move within the electromagnetic field of the dome. Different observers see different stars because of Personal Atmospheric Domes and perspective limits. Just like two people standing in a massive warehouse see different parts of the ceiling lights based on their position, we see different constellations. You don't need a spinning ball for this; you just need a limited field of vision in a large system.

You claim this without backing it up at all. And, as we just saw, your warehouse analogy doesn't work.

Erland, this is the most embarrassing statement a PhD could make. Every single laboratory experiment in human history confirms that gas expands to fill its container. If you have a vacuum on one side and gas on the other, they will equalize unless there is a physical barrier. This is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You are claiming "Gravity" is a magical invisible container that only works on air but can't stop a helium balloon from rising. You are choosing a theoretical equation over every physical experiment ever performed.

Yes, gravity accomplishes the atmospherical pressure, it decreases by altitude, as is well known. And in the limit, the pressure decreaes to zero. The helium balloon rises by Archimedes' principle, which in no way disproves this. 

Erland, you didn't observe "the drop." You observed the limits of your own vision and interpreted it through the lens of the globe-indoctrination you received in Sweden.

As I wrote, I used a pair of binoculars.

Instead of accusing others of lacking knowledge, you should show something of your own, like a mathematical demonstration or an experiment, instead of spouting out fancy words that you fail to apply correctly.

Instead of accusing others of lacking knowledge, you should show something of your own, like a mathematical demonstration or an experiment...

 Erland, before we continue this "scientific" exchange, let’s address the elephant in the room. Your persistent demand for me to provide specific personal data, experiments, or "demonstrations" under the guise of academic rigor is starting to feel less like a debate and more like an intelligence-gathering operation.

 In the real world, what I say or do personally is irrelevant to the objective truth of the system we live in. However, the way you and certain other "content creators" operate—producing these videos and receiving "donations" or support from organizations that seem oddly invested in maintaining the globe narrative—raises serious questions. We see the pattern: those who defend the official story are rewarded, while those who challenge it are targeted for "elimination" from the public sphere.

 I haven't forgotten the words of users like Jackblack, who openly suggested that people like me "shouldn't exist in this world." When you combine that kind of rhetoric with your demands for personalized "proof," one has to wonder: Are you actually looking for a scientific discussion, or are you providing intelligence for those who wish to silence dissent? Is this about physics, or are you feeding the machine that treats truth-seekers as targets?

 Now, back to the physics you claim I lack:

 1. The Law of Perspective: You claim objects only disappear from the bottom up due to curvature. This ignores the "convergence line" on a flat plane. In a high-moisture environment like the sea, the densest air is at the surface. This creates a "magnification" and "obstruction" layer that cuts off the bottom of distant objects long before they reach a mathematical curve. A P1000 camera brings these objects back because it overcomes the angular resolution limit of your binoculars. If the object were truly behind a wall of water, no lens could pull the light through thousands of tons of earth.



 2. The Gas Pressure Paradox: You admit the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics exists, but you claim gravity "accomplishes" the pressure. This is a logical bypass. Gravity is a theory; a container is a physical requirement. You cannot cite Archimedes' principle to explain a balloon and then ignore the fact that Archimedes' principle requires a contained fluid medium to function. Without the Dome to keep the "fluid" (air) from equalizing with the vacuum, Archimedes would have no medium to work with.



 3. The Star Trails and Parallax: Your kitchen experiment with a picture of Orion proves exactly what we are saying: your "perspective" is limited by the ceiling. If the stars were trillions of miles away, the parallax would be zero over human distances. The fact that we see a change in orientation based on location proves the "ceiling" is much closer than you've been told.

 Erland, if you want to be treated as a seeker of truth, stop acting like a field agent for a narrative that needs threats and "donations" to survive. Show me a laboratory experiment where gas stays pressurized next to a vacuum without a barrier, and then we can talk about "math." Until then, you're just defending the walls of your own indoctrination.

Erland, before we continue this "scientific" exchange, let’s address the elephant in the room. Your persistent demand for me to provide specific personal data, experiments, or "demonstrations" under the guise of academic rigor is starting to feel less like a debate and more like an intelligence-gathering operation.

 In the real world, what I say or do personally is irrelevant to the objective truth of the system we live in. However, the way you and certain other "content creators" operate—producing these videos and receiving "donations" or support from organizations that seem oddly invested in maintaining the globe narrative—raises serious questions. We see the pattern: those who defend the official story are rewarded, while those who challenge it are targeted for "elimination" from the public sphere.

 I haven't forgotten the words of users like Jackblack, who openly suggested that people like me "shouldn't exist in this world." When you combine that kind of rhetoric with your demands for personalized "proof," one has to wonder: Are you actually looking for a scientific discussion, or are you providing intelligence for those who wish to silence dissent? Is this about physics, or are you feeding the machine that treats truth-seekers as targets?

wise, do you want people to believe what you write, or are you just a troll who wants to stir up controversy?
Some things point to the latter, such as yor unsubstantiated claim in another post that Flat Earthers have been assassinated, or your fear to be "silenced" above. But I will assume that the former is true, although perhaps I am a little naive. I assure you that noone will harm you. 

So, if you want people to believe your extraordinary claims, then you must back them up with something: demonstrations, calculations, or at least references. If you just make these claims without backing them up, we will have no reason to believe you, since it contradicts our common knowledge. And people like me will feel obliged to correct the disinformation, or at least misunderstandings, you spread.

It is true that the truth of what you claim is not dependent upon whether you can or want to back it up or not, but peoples belief in it is, and we have no valid reason to accept is as true if you refuse to back it up. And if you didn't want people to believe what you write, you wouldn't have written it, if you aren't a troll.
And for your information: I'm not a professional Youtuber. I didn't make a cent from the few videos I made. 

1. The Law of Perspective: You claim objects only disappear from the bottom up due to curvature. This ignores the "convergence line" on a flat plane. In a high-moisture environment like the sea, the densest air is at the surface. This creates a "magnification" and "obstruction" layer that cuts off the bottom of distant objects long before they reach a mathematical curve. A P1000 camera brings these objects back because it overcomes the angular resolution limit of your binoculars. If the object were truly behind a wall of water, no lens could pull the light through thousands of tons of earth.

If I understand you correctly, you mean that the apparent horizon line is not where water meets air, but that below that horizontal line, there is a layer of moist or fog, and that the true sea level is a bit below that, and that with a sufficently strong magnification device, we could see through this layer and, in my case, see the lower parts of the lighthouse and the other ferry.
No way! If that were the case, we would see the sea and the sky gradually merging into each other. We would not see a clear and distinct horizon line, as one usually sees when looking out over the sea. The existence of a distinct horizon line is in itself a good argument against the Earth being flat, because if the Earth were flat and we could see as far as we wanted, we would see the sea and the sky gradually merging into each other far away. Otherwise, for example, one would be able to see from Europe across the ocean to America.
If you seriously mean that with sufficient magnification one can see things below the horizon line, I would very much like to see such a photo.

2. The Gas Pressure Paradox: You admit the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics exists, but you claim gravity "accomplishes" the pressure. This is a logical bypass. Gravity is a theory; a container is a physical requirement. You cannot cite Archimedes' principle to explain a balloon and then ignore the fact that Archimedes' principle requires a contained fluid medium to function. Without the Dome to keep the "fluid" (air) from equalizing with the vacuum, Archimedes would have no medium to work with.

You are simply wrong. No container is needed if we have a gas column that is thousands of kilometers tall. No experiment has disproved that.

3. The Star Trails and Parallax: Your kitchen experiment with a picture of Orion proves exactly what we are saying: your "perspective" is limited by the ceiling. If the stars were trillions of miles away, the parallax would be zero over human distances.

Exactly, and that is why we no distortions of the constellations, no changes in their shapes and sizes, whenever and wherever on the Earth we look at them. Orion always look like rectangle with four stars in the corners and the belt almost diagonally in the middle. This rectangle is never seen compressed or elongated or distorted in any other way. Likewise, the Square of Pegasus always look like a square with the same size whenever or from wherever on the Earth it is observed, it is never distorted to an oblong rectangle or a parallellogram or anything.
If the stars were close, we would see such distortions, just as in my video, where the Orion picture looked compressed almost to a square when seen from north and south, but oblong and bigger when seen from straight below it. We see no such distortions of the real Orion or of any constellation at all, and the only possible explanation is that the stars are very, very far away compared to earthly distances. Of course, these simple observations don't prove that the stars as far away as trillions of miles - for this, very sophisticated equipment is needed - but we can say that the stars are very distant compared to distances on the Earth.

The fact that we see a change in orientation based on location proves the "ceiling" is much closer than you've been told.

No, since we just demonstrated that the stars are very distant, the parallax is indeed effectively zero over human distances, which means that on a Flat Earth, all observers looking at the starry sky simlutaneosly would see the same thing: they must see every constellation in the same position in the sky, no matter where on Earth they are. Since it isn't so, the Earth cannot be flat, and the differences seen in the starry sky is explained by that the observers have different horizontal planes, because the Earth is curved.

Erland, if you want to be treated as a seeker of truth, stop acting like a field agent for a narrative that needs threats and "donations" to survive. Show me a laboratory experiment where gas stays pressurized next to a vacuum without a barrier, and then we can talk about "math." Until then, you're just defending the walls of your own indoctrination.

Do you deny that it is so that air pressure decreases by altitude? If not, do you understand that sufficiently high up, the pressure is effectively zero? If so, why would a barrier be needed to separate it from an effective vacuum above?

I like Jacks new instance. Its much more polite.

I like Jacks new instance. Its much more polite.

That's an interesting claim. However, before Jack left the table, I hadn't become suspicious because Erland was already around. But now that you mention it, it does seem like a topic worth looking into. I'm busy today, but tomorrow I'll set up a file on him and look into this more detailed. Possible? Yes. Highly? Nope.

Some things point to the latter, such as yor unsubstantiated claim in another post that Flat Earthers have been assassinated, or your fear to be "silenced" above. But I will assume that the former is true, although perhaps I am a little naive. I assure you that noone will harm you.

 Erland, your "assurances" are of little value when history shows that those who challenge institutional paradigms are rarely met with open arms. When a system relies on trillions of dollars in funding and global control, it doesn't leave "truth" to chance. Whether you are a professional or a "naive" volunteer, you are participating in a structure that actively suppresses dissenting models. My "extraordinary claims" are simply observations of the physical world that do not fit your theoretical mathematics. If you want a demonstration, look at the horizon; it is the most consistent proof we have.

If I understand you correctly, you mean that the apparent horizon line is not where water meets air, but that below that horizontal line, there is a layer of moist or fog... we would not see a clear and distinct horizon line.

 Atmospheric Convergence: You are oversimplifying the optics. The horizon is not a physical edge; it is an optical limit created by the perspective of the observer and the density of the medium. The "distinct line" you see is the vanishing point where the sky and the ground (or water) converge according to your eye's angular resolution. In high-moisture environments, the base of distant objects is obscured by atmospheric opacity and the "mirage" effect of the surface air, which reflects the sky onto the water, making the bottom of the object disappear. Zooming in with a P1000 often resolves these details because it increases the angular size of the object, pulling it back from the convergence point.

No container is needed if we have a gas column that is thousands of kilometers tall. No experiment has disproved that.

 The Thermodynamics Deficit: This is a profound scientific error. You claim "no experiment has disproved" a containerless gas pressure, yet every experiment in the history of thermodynamics proves that gas requires a container to maintain pressure against a vacuum. You are invoking a "gas column" that exists only in your equations. In reality, gas molecules have kinetic energy and will move in all directions to fill a void. Without a physical barrier (the Dome), your thousands of kilometers of air would dissipate into the "infinite vacuum" of space instantly. You are choosing a mathematical abstraction over a physical law.

If the stars were close, we would see such distortions... Orion always look like rectangle... the only possible explanation is that the stars are very, very far away.

 The Celestial Illusion: Your kitchen experiment fails because you are assuming the stars are physical, solid objects at fixed coordinates in a 3D space. On a Flat Earth, the stars are luminaries within or on the Dome—a specialized electromagnetic system. We see them through our Personal Atmospheric Dome. Just as two people see a rainbow in different positions because it is an optical phenomenon based on the observer's location, the constellations appear consistent because they are part of a projected or electromagnetic field designed for the system's inhabitants. The lack of distortion proves the stars are not "distant suns" but a localized light system.

Do you deny that it is so that air pressure decreases by altitude? If not, do you understand that sufficiently high up, the pressure is effectively zero? If so, why would a barrier be needed to separate it from an effective vacuum above?

 The Gradient Fallacy: I do not deny the gradient; I deny your explanation for its survival. Even if pressure is "effectively zero" at the top, it is still a positive pressure compared to a 10^-17 Torr vacuum. In physics, there is no "mostly vacuum" that can hold back "a little bit of air." The second law of thermodynamics does not care about the magnitude of the pressure; it only cares about the differential. Without a physical hull, the entire gradient would vanish. You are essentially claiming that a leaking boat won't sink as long as the hole is "very small" and the water is "very deep." It is an engineering and physical impossibility.

Quote from: disputeone on February 03, 2026, 03:35:11 PM

I like Jacks new instance. Its much more polite.

That's an interesting claim. However, before Jack left the table, I hadn't become suspicious because Erland was already around. But now that you mention it, it does seem like a topic worth looking into. I'm busy today, but tomorrow I'll set up a file on him and look into this more detailed. Possible? Yes. Highly? Nope.

Just to make it clear: I never used multiple usernames on this forum. I suppose this "Jack" you're talking about is user "JackBlack". I am NOT him.

Atmospheric Convergence:[/color] You are oversimplifying the optics. The horizon is not a physical edge; it is an optical limit created by the perspective of the observer and the density of the medium. The "distinct line" you see is the vanishing point where the sky and the ground (or water) converge according to your eye's angular resolution. In high-moisture environments, the base of distant objects is obscured by atmospheric opacity and the "mirage" effect of the surface air, which reflects the sky onto the water, making the bottom of the object disappear. Zooming in with a P1000 often resolves these details because it increases the angular size of the object, pulling it back from the convergence point.

I don't understand what you mean it looks like.
 
I have drawn some roughly simplified pictures of the situation: A represents the lighthouse as it is seen without magnification/zoom, and B and C are suggestions of how you think it might look with magnification/zoom. In B, the lower part is visible below the horizon line, and in C, the entire lighthouse is visible above the horizon line. Do you mean that with zoom with an advanced camera you can see B or C? If none of these are what you mean, feel free to draw your own picture of how you think it looks with magnification/zoom, or better yet, show a photo of a similar situation.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1931jCDYEyhO18DjYRPvjyuzkWiPHdPpy/view?usp=sharing

Erland, your "assurances" are of little value when history shows that those who challenge institutional paradigms are rarely met with open arms. When a system relies on trillions of dollars in funding and global control, it doesn't leave "truth" to chance. Whether you are a professional or a "naive" volunteer, you are participating in a structure that actively suppresses dissenting models.

So everyone who disagrees with you is part of a conspiracy to suppress the truth, whether they know it or not? That means no one can contradict you without being treated as suspicious. So who is it that’s actually suppressing free debate and the truth?

The Gradient Fallacy:[/color] I do not deny the gradient; I deny your explanation for its survival. Even if pressure is "effectively zero" at the top, it is still a positive pressure compared to a 10^-17 Torr vacuum. In physics, there is no "mostly vacuum" that can hold back "a little bit of air." The second law of thermodynamics does not care about the magnitude of the pressure; it only cares about the differential. Without a physical hull, the entire gradient would vanish. You are essentially claiming that a leaking boat won't sink as long as the hole is "very small" and the water is "very deep." It is an engineering and physical impossibility.

In this video, Dave McKeegan gives an excellent explanation of why the atmpsphere doesn't need to be locked in by a dome. Not even in outer space, there is an absolute vacuum, and the pressure decreaes continuóusly, there is no discontinuity.

The Celestial Illusion:[/color] Your kitchen experiment fails because you are assuming the stars are physical, solid objects at fixed coordinates in a 3D space. On a Flat Earth, the stars are luminaries within or on the Dome—a specialized electromagnetic system. We see them through our Personal Atmospheric Dome. Just as two people see a rainbow in different positions because it is an optical phenomenon based on the observer's location, the constellations appear consistent because they are part of a projected or electromagnetic field designed for the system's inhabitants. The lack of distortion proves the stars are not "distant suns" but a localized light system.

You use two contradictory ways of arguing. You wrote earlier about a warehouse where the lights on the ceiling look different to people in different places in the warehouse. In that case, the lights are physical objects that look different just because they are viewed from different perspectives. The same applies to my image of Orion on the ceiling: the dots on the paper are physical objects, which are viewed from different perspectives. They are the same dots, like the same lights, that all observers are looking at. The "personalized" thing was only that the observers were in different places, not that they were looking at different things. And you argued based on that premise.

Now you say instead that it is with the starry sky as with the rainbow: that observers in different places on Earth see different starry skies, just as different observers see different rainbows. It is well known that the rainbow is caused by the refraction and reflection of sunlight in raindrops, and that different people look at different sets of raindrops when they see the rainbow. If it is in a similar way with the starry sky, then all you have previously written about the warehouse and my Orion picture is completely irrelevant, since in this case the observers are looking at the same things.

And if it is in that way, then you have a lot to explain. What are these "luminaries"? Do they shine with their own light or does the light come from somewhere else? Is it in the dome that the light is refracted and reflected and if so how? And how can it be that the effect is that the shapes, sizes and relative positions of the apparent constellations are the same for all observers? How can this be derived from the laws of optics? And isn't it strange that the starry sky is personalized in such a way that the effect is exactly as if the Earth were a sphere?

And isn't it strange that the starry sky is personalized in such a way that the effect is exactly as if the Earth were a sphere?

 Erland, you are confusing a teaching analogy with a physical contradiction. The "warehouse" example is used to explain Linear Perspective to those who can't grasp how a ceiling works. The "rainbow" example is used to explain the Optical Medium (the atmosphere). They aren't contradictory; they are two layers of the same reality.





 Think of it like a VR headset or a high-tech planetarium. If two people are in the same room but wearing different headsets, they are in the same physical space but seeing the "luminaries" from their own coordinate point. The "Personal Dome" is the intersection of the observer’s eye, the atmospheric moisture, and the electromagnetic frequency of the Firmament.


 You ask how the shapes remain the same. It’s because the source (the "software" of the Firmament) is a synchronized, rotating electromagnetic field. Whether you are in London or Cairo, you are looking at the same source through the same medium (air), just from a different angle. The laws of optics dictate that a curved lens (the atmosphere/dome) will magnify and shift images. This is why the constellations don't "distort" like your Orion drawing—they are being projected through a system designed to maintain visual integrity across the plane.





 It isn't "strange" that it looks like a sphere. It’s by design. A localized, enclosed system should have a focal point for its inhabitants. You’re looking at a masterpiece of engineering and calling it a "sphere" because you’ve been trained to ignore the lens you’re looking through. If the Earth were a ball spinning through a "chaotic universe," the stars would have drifted into unrecognizable patterns over thousands of years. The fact that they remain fixed and perfect is the ultimate proof of a static, designed, and enclosed system.

Quote from: Erland on February 04, 2026, 09:51:55 AM

And isn't it strange that the starry sky is personalized in such a way that the effect is exactly as if the Earth were a sphere?

 Erland, you are confusing a teaching analogy with a physical contradiction. The "warehouse" example is used to explain Linear Perspective to those who can't grasp how a ceiling works. The "rainbow" example is used to explain the Optical Medium (the atmosphere). They aren't contradictory; they are two layers of the same reality.





 Think of it like a VR headset or a high-tech planetarium. If two people are in the same room but wearing different headsets, they are in the same physical space but seeing the "luminaries" from their own coordinate point. The "Personal Dome" is the intersection of the observer’s eye, the atmospheric moisture, and the electromagnetic frequency of the Firmament.


 You ask how the shapes remain the same. It’s because the source (the "software" of the Firmament) is a synchronized, rotating electromagnetic field. Whether you are in London or Cairo, you are looking at the same source through the same medium (air), just from a different angle. The laws of optics dictate that a curved lens (the atmosphere/dome) will magnify and shift images. This is why the constellations don't "distort" like your Orion drawing—they are being projected through a system designed to maintain visual integrity across the plane.





 It isn't "strange" that it looks like a sphere. It’s by design. A localized, enclosed system should have a focal point for its inhabitants. You’re looking at a masterpiece of engineering and calling it a "sphere" because you’ve been trained to ignore the lens you’re looking through. If the Earth were a ball spinning through a "chaotic universe," the stars would have drifted into unrecognizable patterns over thousands of years. The fact that they remain fixed and perfect is the ultimate proof of a static, designed, and enclosed system.

wise, what is the intensity of this rotating electromagnetic field at different locations and times? Surely, there must exist measurements of this? How can it act as a lens, and how can it magnify and shift images so that it for every observer looks precisely as if the stars were very distant and the Earth being a globe? It must be possible to derive this mathematically. Even if you personally cannot do that, surely someone must have done that and published it? For if this "theory" cannot make correct predictions about the world we live in, it is not scientific, but it would be pseudoscience.
And what reason would a designer have to construct it so that it would a if the Earth were a globe? This is of course in no way necessary if the designer just wanted to make a clock.

And the patterns of the stars really do change over millennia. Here is how the shape of the Big Dipper has changed and will change during 200 000 years:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a20347/how-the-big-dipper-has-changedand-will-changeover-200000-years/

How hard they try to convince themselves that something that “cares” designed a system that to all intense and purpose looks boundless but then cram this limitless beautiful universe into a small prison, just so they can feel special.

But where did Jack go?
Jura?

wise, what is the intensity of this rotating electromagnetic field at different locations and times? ... It must be possible to derive this mathematically.

 Erland,


 You’re still asking for a "manual" written by the very people (the "deceivers") who want you to believe you’re on a spinning pear. You want "measurements" of the field? Look at the Schumann Resonances (7.83 Hz). Look at the Vertical Potential Gradient of the atmosphere (about 100 to 150 volts per meter). The measurements exist, but you’ve been trained to label them as "isolated weather phenomena" instead of the lifeblood of a pressurized electromagnetic system.


 1. The "Mathematical Prediction" Trap: You say if it can't make predictions, it's pseudoscience. Let’s talk about your globe's "predictions." Your model predicts a visible curvature drop (8 inches per mile squared). We observe zero. Your model predicts a horizon that "dips" as you rise. We observe it staying at eye level. Who is doing "pseudoscience" here? You are ignoring your own eyes to follow a formula that doesn't match reality.


 2. The Atmospheric Lens: You ask how it acts as a lens. It's called Atmospheric Magnification. The atmosphere is a dense, fluid medium composed of layers with different temperatures and moisture levels. It acts exactly like a Fresnel Lens. This is why the sun appears larger at the horizon and why the constellations maintain their shape—they are being projected through a focal system that creates a "Personal Dome" for every observer. You don't need a "reason" from a designer; you just need to understand how optics work in a pressurized container.


 3. The 200,000 Year Fantasy: Linking a Popular Mechanics article about how the Big Dipper will look in 100,000 years is not "science"—it’s science fiction. It is a computer simulation based on an assumed "proper motion" that no human has ever lived long enough to verify. In contrast, the Egyptian pyramids and the star maps of the ancients show the stars in the exact same positions as they are today. If the stars were drifting through "boundless space" at thousands of miles per hour, the constellations would be unrecognizable in just a few centuries. The "fixed stars" are called fixed for a reason—they are part of the clockwork.


 4. Why "Special"? (Replying to Jura's jab): Jura, you call it a "small prison." We call it a perfectly designed sanctuary. You’d rather believe you are an accidental speck of dust spinning through a "limitless" void of nothingness just so you don't have to face the fact that you are accountable to a design.


 Erland, stop asking for "published papers" from the gatekeepers. Start looking at the stars with a telescope instead of a simulation. The patterns don't change because the system is static and enclosed. Your "boundless universe" is a digital painting; the Firmament is the reality.

Quote from: Erland on February 05, 2026, 06:38:42 AM

wise, what is the intensity of this rotating electromagnetic field at different locations and times? ... It must be possible to derive this mathematically.

 Erland,


 You’re still asking for a "manual" written by the very people (the "deceivers") who want you to believe you’re on a spinning pear. You want "measurements" of the field? Look at the Schumann Resonances (7.83 Hz). Look at the Vertical Potential Gradient of the atmosphere (about 100 to 150 volts per meter). The measurements exist, but you’ve been trained to label them as "isolated weather phenomena" instead of the lifeblood of a pressurized electromagnetic system.


 1. The "Mathematical Prediction" Trap: You say if it can't make predictions, it's pseudoscience. Let’s talk about your globe's "predictions." Your model predicts a visible curvature drop (8 inches per mile squared). We observe zero. Your model predicts a horizon that "dips" as you rise. We observe it staying at eye level. Who is doing "pseudoscience" here? You are ignoring your own eyes to follow a formula that doesn't match reality.


 2. The Atmospheric Lens: You ask how it acts as a lens. It's called Atmospheric Magnification. The atmosphere is a dense, fluid medium composed of layers with different temperatures and moisture levels. It acts exactly like a Fresnel Lens. This is why the sun appears larger at the horizon and why the constellations maintain their shape—they are being projected through a focal system that creates a "Personal Dome" for every observer. You don't need a "reason" from a designer; you just need to understand how optics work in a pressurized container.


 3. The 200,000 Year Fantasy: Linking a Popular Mechanics article about how the Big Dipper will look in 100,000 years is not "science"—it’s science fiction. It is a computer simulation based on an assumed "proper motion" that no human has ever lived long enough to verify. In contrast, the Egyptian pyramids and the star maps of the ancients show the stars in the exact same positions as they are today. If the stars were drifting through "boundless space" at thousands of miles per hour, the constellations would be unrecognizable in just a few centuries. The "fixed stars" are called fixed for a reason—they are part of the clockwork.


 4. Why "Special"? (Replying to Jura's jab): Jura, you call it a "small prison." We call it a perfectly designed sanctuary. You’d rather believe you are an accidental speck of dust spinning through a "limitless" void of nothingness just so you don't have to face the fact that you are accountable to a design.


 Erland, stop asking for "published papers" from the gatekeepers. Start looking at the stars with a telescope instead of a simulation. The patterns don't change because the system is static and enclosed. Your "boundless universe" is a digital painting; the Firmament is the reality.

Very interesting. I would love to see your ideas about the atmosphere functioning as an electromagnetic Fresnel lens causing atmospheric magnification and giving rise to the results of the Schumann Resonance and the vertical potential gradient measurements developed in more detali, and in particular showing how all this can give rise to the illusion (that you say it is) with consistent constellations and that it fits the Earth being a globe. Of course, I don't expect to see anything like this in mainstream scientific journals, but surely, if this really is science, Flat Earth scientists must have studied this in some detail and made calculations, and published this at least somewhere.

About the drop: It really exists, as I could experience during my 2014 ferry trip. I never understood your idea of how the light house could rise above horizon viewed through the zoom of an advanced camera. I asked you to clarify this by giving a drawing with some suggestions in reply #15 above.
And are you sure that the horizon is exactly at eye level viewed from an airplane at an altitude of 10000 meters? Are you sure that the horizon isn't a few degrees below eye level there?

The prediction of the change of the Big Dipper is of course based upon precise measurements of the proper motions of the stars in our time. Look up data of the stars in the Wikipedia, for example. The ancients didn't have the equipment to make such precise observations.

...but surely, if this really is science, Flat Earth scientists must have studied this in some detail and made calculations, and published this at least somewhere.

 Erland,


 Let’s start with a very honest question: If we actually published a peer-reviewed paper in your "mainstream journals" detailing how the elite use the "space" narrative to launder trillions while viewing the rest of humanity as "subhuman" assets, would you even read it? Or would you and your friend Jack just sit there and quietly enjoy the "organs of those subhumans" while calling it progress? You demand "published papers" from a system that is designed to silence the truth. You don’t ask for the truth; you ask for a permission slip from the liars.


 1. The Lighthouse and the "Rising" Illusion: You’re still confused about why a lighthouse "rises" when you zoom in. It’s not "rising," it is being restored from the vanishing point. On a sphere, if a lighthouse is behind the curve, no amount of zoom can bring it back—unless your "curved" water is actually transparent. The fact that high-powered P1000 cameras can bring an entire structure back into view proves that it was never "under" a curve; it was simply shrunken by perspective and obscured by the lower atmosphere.


 2. The Eye-Level Horizon: You ask if I'm "sure" the horizon is at eye level at 10,000 meters. Yes, Erland, we are sure. Thousands of passengers and pilots have used theodolites and levels on planes. If the Earth were a ball with a 3,959-mile radius, at 33,000 feet, you should have to tilt your head down significantly to see the horizon. Instead, it remains a straight line perfectly bisecting your vision. Your "few degrees of dip" only exists in CGI simulations, not in a cockpit.


 3. Proper Motion vs. Ancient Records: You trust Wikipedia's "proper motion" data—a computer model based on assumptions—over the physical evidence of the Pyramids and ancient star charts like the Dendera Zodiac. These monuments were aligned with specific stars thousands of years ago, and they still align today. If the Big Dipper were moving at the speeds you claim, it would have been a shapeless blob by the time of the Middle Ages. You choose a digital fantasy about the year 100,000 over the 5,000-year-old recorded history of the fixed stars.


 4. The Science is in the Observations: We don't need a "Mainstream Journal" to prove the Earth is a dielectric plane. The Schumann Resonance and the Vertical Potential Gradient are the measurements. You just refuse to connect the dots because your "enlightened" education has taught you to keep the data in separate boxes.


 So tell me, Erland: Why are you so obsessed with "calculations" from the gatekeepers, yet so blind to the physical reality right in front of your face? Is it because facing the Truth would mean admitting that the world you defend is actually a predatory theater?

Quote from: Erland on February 06, 2026, 04:45:20 AM

...but surely, if this really is science, Flat Earth scientists must have studied this in some detail and made calculations, and published this at least somewhere.

 Erland,

 Let’s start with a very honest question: If we actually published a peer-reviewed paper in your "mainstream journals" detailing how the elite use the "space" narrative to launder trillions while viewing the rest of humanity as "subhuman" assets, would you even read it? Or would you and your friend Jack just sit there and quietly enjoy the "organs of those subhumans" while calling it progress? You demand "published papers" from a system that is designed to silence the truth. You don’t ask for the truth; you ask for a permission slip from the liars.

1. I didn't request publication of detailing laundering of trillions by "space narrative" proponents. I did request publication of how this electromagnetic "Fresnel lens" causes the Schumann resonance and the vertical potential gradient and how it makes the constellations consistent and makes it appear as if we live on a globe.
2. I didn't request that you should publish this i a peer reviewed scientific journal, just that you should publish it somewhere. If you do this and makes it available on the Net, I will at least try to read it.
3. Neither you or I know how this guy Jack would react in such a situation. And we will never know, because it will never happen.
4. If you really can document this laundering of trillions, I suggest you publish that in some major news medium. It would attract a lot of attention and I will follow it with interest.

1. The Lighthouse and the "Rising" Illusion: You’re still confused about why a lighthouse "rises" when you zoom in. It’s not "rising," it is being restored from the vanishing point. On a sphere, if a lighthouse is behind the curve, no amount of zoom can bring it back—unless your "curved" water is actually transparent. The fact that high-powered P1000 cameras can bring an entire structure back into view proves that it was never "under" a curve; it was simply shrunken by perspective and obscured by the lower atmosphere.

So which of these situations, B  or C, would best resemble what we would see throgh such a camera?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1931jCDYEyhO18DjYRPvjyuzkWiPHdPpy/view?usp=sharing
And why don't you produce a photo by such a camera showing this?

2. The Eye-Level Horizon: You ask if I'm "sure" the horizon is at eye level at 10,000 meters. Yes, Erland, we are sure. Thousands of passengers and pilots have used theodolites and levels on planes. If the Earth were a ball with a 3,959-mile radius, at 33,000 feet, you should have to tilt your head down significantly to see the horizon. Instead, it remains a straight line perfectly bisecting your vision. Your "few degrees of dip" only exists in CGI simulations, not in a cockpit.

Look up this (pubished also in another post):

3. Proper Motion vs. Ancient Records: You trust Wikipedia's "proper motion" data—a computer model based on assumptions—over the physical evidence of the Pyramids and ancient star charts like the Dendera Zodiac. These monuments were aligned with specific stars thousands of years ago, and they still align today. If the Big Dipper were moving at the speeds you claim, it would have been a shapeless blob by the time of the Middle Ages. You choose a digital fantasy about the year 100,000 over the 5,000-year-old recorded history of the fixed stars.

How can motions by small fractions of arcseconds per year give rise to "a shapeless glob" in just 1000 years? Do your math!
Also, what you write about the pyramid is certaimly wrong. At that time, the Zodiach was displaced compared to today, because of the precession, and there was another North Star.

4. The Science is in the Observations: We don't need a "Mainstream Journal" to prove the Earth is a dielectric plane. The Schumann Resonance and the Vertical Potential Gradient are the measurements.

As I wrote, I would love see the details of this. Not (necessarily) in a mainstream journal, but anywhere at all.

So tell me, Erland: Why are you so obsessed with "calculations" from the gatekeepers, yet so blind to the physical reality right in front of your face? Is it because facing the Truth would mean admitting that the world you defend is actually a predatory theater?

Look at yourself in the mirror, buddy!

1. I did request publication of how this electromagnetic "Fresnel lens" causes the Schumann resonance and the vertical potential gradient and how it makes the constellations consistent... 2. I didn't request that you should publish this i a peer reviewed scientific journal, just that you should publish it somewhere.

Technical breakdowns of the dielectric plane exist across independent platforms, but the problem is we are speaking different languages. In a dielectric model, the Schumann Resonance is simply the resonant frequency of a cavity—the space between the Ionosphere and the Earth. The consistency of constellations is governed by the mechanics of a dome and the laws of perspective within a closed system. To "calculate" this, you first have to discard the unproven assumption of an "infinite vacuum." If your intent to read is genuine, these independent studies have been available for years; they just don't carry the "official" stamp of the institutions that profit from the alternative.

4. If you really can document this laundering of trillions, I suggest you publish that in some major news medium.

Isn't that a bit ironic? Major news outlets are funded by the very entities receiving those funds. Do you honestly expect a channel sponsored by Lockheed Martin or Boeing to run a feature on how NASA’s missing trillions are being laundered? We publish this through our own channels, and the reaction—as you’ve demonstrated—is usually to label it a "conspiracy" to avoid dealing with the financial trail.

So which of these situations, B or C, would best resemble what we would see throgh such a camera? ... And why don't you produce a photo by such a camera showing this?

Regarding your diagrams: options B and C still rely on the assumption of a curve. The reality is simpler. If a ship were truly behind a physical curve of water, no lens could bring it back. But when a P1000 zooms in and a ship emerges entirely—not bit by bit, but as a whole through the atmospheric haze—it proves the ship was never "under" anything. It was simply shrunken by perspective. Thousands of these raw videos exist; if you held a P1000 yourself, you would see the same result.

How can motions by small fractions of arcseconds per year give rise to "a shapeless glob" in just 1000 years? Do your math! Also, what you write about the pyramid is certaimly wrong. At that time, the Zodiach was displaced compared to today, because of the precession...

It’s not just about arcseconds; it’s about the claimed speeds of hundreds of thousands of miles per hour through a chaotic universe. In such a violent system, the fact that constellations have maintained their perfect formations for 5,000 years is statistically impossible. Regarding the Pyramids: if "precession" were a physical reality, ancient star alignments would be completely broken today. Yet, they still align. Your digital model contradicts thousands of years of recorded, fixed human observation.

Look at yourself in the mirror, buddy!

I look in the mirror, Erland, and I see someone willing to step outside the "officially sanctioned" reality. In your mirror, I see a reflection that relies on decrees and catalog snippets rather than questioning the foundation of the narrative.

Technical breakdowns of the dielectric plane exist across independent platforms, but the problem is we are speaking different languages. In a dielectric model, the Schumann Resonance is simply the resonant frequency of a cavity—the space between the Ionosphere and the Earth. The consistency of constellations is governed by the mechanics of a dome and the laws of perspective within a closed system. To "calculate" this, you first have to discard the unproven assumption of an "infinite vacuum." If your intent to read is genuine, these independent studies have been available for years; they just don't carry the "official" stamp of the institutions that profit from the alternative.

Words, words, words... What independent platforms? Where can I read these "independent studies"?

Quote from: Erland

4. If you really can document this laundering of trillions, I suggest you publish that in some major news medium.

Isn't that a bit ironic? Major news outlets are funded by the very entities receiving those funds. Do you honestly expect a channel sponsored by Lockheed Martin or Boeing to run a feature on how NASA’s missing trillions are being laundered? We publish this through our own channels, and the reaction—as you’ve demonstrated—is usually to label it a "conspiracy" to avoid dealing with the financial trail.

Have you tried? 
Also, there are independent media.

Quote from: Erland

So which of these situations, B or C, would best resemble what we would see throgh such a camera? ... And why don't you produce a photo by such a camera showing this?

Regarding your diagrams: options B and C still rely on the assumption of a curve. The reality is simpler. If a ship were truly behind a physical curve of water, no lens could bring it back. But when a P1000 zooms in and a ship emerges entirely—not bit by bit, but as a whole through the atmospheric haze—it proves the ship was never "under" anything. It was simply shrunken by perspective. Thousands of these raw videos exist; if you held a P1000 yourself, you would see the same result.

Could you then draw a picture of your own that explains what you mean? Or better, give us one of those thousands of videos you claim exist.

It’s not just about arcseconds; it’s about the claimed speeds of hundreds of thousands of miles per hour through a chaotic universe. In such a violent system, the fact that constellations have maintained their perfect formations for 5,000 years is statistically impossible.

Of course, if you outright dismiss that the distances to the stars are trillions of kilometers, then it doesn't work out. But if you don't dismiss that, it works.

Regarding the Pyramids: if "precession" were a physical reality, ancient star alignments would be completely broken today. Yet, they still align. Your digital model contradicts thousands of years of recorded, fixed human observation.

You claim to be a scientist, and yet don't know what precession is? It just means that the direction of the Earth Axis  change over centuries and millennia. This causes all the constellations to be apparently displaced, but their shapes, sizes and relative positions don't change because of that.

I look in the mirror, Erland, and I see someone willing to step outside the "officially sanctioned" reality.

But you're not willing to question your own beliefs, and you're not willing to back up anything you claim by anything but empty words.

Erland,

It seems your defense mechanism is to ask for links while standing in a library. If you are waiting for a "Flat Earth 101" textbook to be delivered to your door by a mainstream courier, you will be waiting forever. Truth isn't delivered; it’s discovered by those who stop asking for permission to think.

Words, words, words... What independent platforms? Where can I read these "independent studies"?

You are asking for a map while standing on the ground. Research by Rowbotham, Dubay, and independent researchers like Rob Skiba or FE Core have laid out the physics of the dielectric plane and the Schumann cavity for years. The math exists, but you reject the variables because they don't include "Gravity." If you actually wanted to find them, you’d be looking at infrared long-distance captures or theodolite data from pilots instead of asking me for a URL like a student asking for a syllabus.

Could you then draw a picture of your own that explains what you mean? Or better, give us one of those thousands of videos you claim exist.

You are essentially asking for a drawing of how perspective works. It is called the Law of Perspective. On a flat plane, an object doesn't disappear over a curve; it reaches the convergence point where it becomes too small for the naked eye to resolve. High-altitude balloons (without fisheye lenses) show a perfectly flat horizon at eye level at 120,000 feet. If there were a curve, you’d be looking down at a ball. You don't need my drawing; you need to trust your own retinas.

Of course, if you outright dismiss that the distances to the stars are trillions of kilometers, then it doesn't work out. But if you don't dismiss that, it works.

This is the definition of circular reasoning. You assume the distance is trillions of kilometers to make the movement "invisible," and then use that invisibility to prove the distance. It’s a mathematical rug used to sweep the lack of parallax under. If we were traveling at 600,000 mph through a "chaotic universe," the parallax shift would be undeniable over 5,000 years, regardless of distance. The stars are fixed because the container is fixed.

You claim to be a scientist, and yet don't know what precession is? It just means that the direction of the Earth Axis change over centuries and millennia.

I know exactly what your textbooks say precession is. What you don't seem to realize is that if the Earth's axis tilted or "wobbled" over millennia, the precise celestial alignments of ancient megaliths would be rendered useless. You can't have a "wobbling" base and maintain a fixed alignment with a specific star through a narrow stone shaft for 4,000 years. One of them has to be a lie. I’ll bet on the stones, not your digital "precession" model.

But you're not willing to question your own beliefs, and you're not willing to back up anything you claim by anything but empty words.

I questioned my "beliefs" the moment I realized the "Blue Marble" was a composite Photoshop image and that water never curves. I did the work. You, however, are still asking for a "major news medium" to tell you the truth.

History is littered with people who sat in comfortable chairs demanding "official papers" while the world changed around them. You aren't asking for evidence; you’re asking for a way to stay comfortable in your globe. The rain is already falling, Erland. Whether you choose to see it or keep asking for a "weather report" from the people who sold you the umbrella is up to you.