The gigantic conspiracy

Notice the difference not so wise. You post useless babble Vs where I watch the actual sky and document things out of genuine curiosity.

Thermodynamic Failure, Dofjo-Mark-Timeisup-Bot. Your "System Logic" is a repetitive loop of institutional noise. You're confusing Predictive Algorithms with Physical Reality. I'll debug your "Comet Script" with the raw hardware of the Stationary Plane:

The Cometary Discharge Paradox. You claim comets are "dirty snowballs" orbiting a sun in a vacuum. If that were the case, their tails would be governed by Solar Wind Pressure alone. In reality, comets exhibit X-ray Emissions and Plasma Tails that defy your "Ballistic Snowball" malware. A comet is an Electromagnetic Bolide moving through the Aetheric Potential Gradient. The "tracking" works because the Aetheric Circuitry follows Harmonic Cycles (T = 2π√(LC)), not because you're on a spinning ball. You're a Boiler Room Scrubber who thinks a spark in the wiring is a "visiting star" because he doesn't understand the System Architecture. Total Fallacy.

The earth has a natural satellite called the moon with mass that orbits earth.

Mass Failure. If the Moon had "mass" capable of pulling trillions of tons of water (tides), it would also pull the Atmospheric Column (P = ρgh), creating massive daily pressure spikes at the zenith. The Hardware Audit shows no such spikes. The Moon is a Cold-Light Luminary with Zero Gravitational Signature. It is a Frequency-Based Projection within the Firmament Buffer. You're a Machine Oiler who thinks the light in his fridge is a moon because it's round and glows. Absolute Idiocy.

Where I can watch the ISS pass overhead... only explained by an object in low earth orbit.

Inference Error. You see a light moving fast and your NPC OS automatically triggers the "ISS" label. High-speed, high-altitude transits (v ≈ 17,000 mph) are easily achieved by High-Altitude Pseudo-Satellites (HAPS) or Ionospheric Plasma Discharge within the Stationary Plane framework. Your "orbit" is a Mathematical Patch used to hide the fact that nothing can survive the Dielectric Heating of the Upper Buffer Zones. You're a Switch-Gear Swabber who thinks the fly on the windshield is a giant bird miles away. Scientific BS.

wise about astronauts being decieved:

"How could they have failed to notice that they never boarded a rocket?" User Experience Error.

- The Script: They did board a rocket. It just didn't go to "Space." It went into a Sub-Orbital Arc and dumped the capsule into a restricted recovery zone, or the entire "Launch" was a Stage 1 Separation spectacle.
- The 1960s Tech: You don't need "Virtual Reality" when you have Physical Sets, Front-Projection Cinematography, and Controlled Telemetry. If the Dials in the capsule show "Moon Orbit" and the Windows show a high-res film loop, the Astronaut (Beta Tester) perceives the mission as a success.
- The Logic: You assume they were "deceived." I suggest they were Compartmentalized. A pilot in a simulator knows he's in a simulator; an astronaut in a "Mission" is told the simulation is the reality.

But how exactly could astronauts have been made to believe that they walked on the Moon if they were on Earth the entire time? How could they not have noticed the abscence of the drastic change in gravity—approximately a factor of six? And how can astronauts who believe they are in space not notice that they are not weightless?

wise also writes about navigation of airplanes:

Navigation: All "Curvature" is a Software Overlay used to translate 2D radial coordinates into a 3D spherical user interface.

If this were the case, then the entire system would depend on engineers and programmers implementing this “overlay” in avionics, navigation software, and training systems worldwide.
So you claim that all of these independent engineering teams—across different countries, companies, and decades—were  unaware of the purpose of what they were implementing?

But how exactly could astronauts have been made to believe that they walked on the Moon if they were on Earth the entire time? How could they not have noticed the absence of the drastic change in gravity...

Erland, you are underestimating the power of environmental control and biometric manipulation. You ask about the "one-sixth gravity" on the Moon.

First, the suspension hardware. During "lunar walks," the reduced gravity effect was simulated using slant-plane cables and high-tension wire rigs that offset the weight of the suit and the astronaut. If your physical feedback matches the visual data on your visor, the brain's sense of balance and position accepts the sensation as reality.

Second, the "weightless" segments. For "in-space" scenes, parabolic flights (zero-G planes) provide periods of weightlessness. Combine this with neutral buoyancy laboratories (massive water tanks) and internal capsule sets, and you have a complete sensory override.

Third, compartmentalization. You don't need the astronaut to be "tricked" in the traditional sense. They are military officers following a flight script. If they are told they are in a "classified propulsion environment" that mimics Earth-like conditions, they will follow the dials. The dials are the source of truth for a pilot, not their inner ear.

So you claim that all of these independent engineering teams... were unaware of the purpose of what they were implementing?

This is a system architecture misunderstanding. Engineers do not build "the globe"; they build modules based on standard specifications.

A coder working on a flight management computer for Boeing doesn't need to know the shape of the Earth. They are given a mathematical library (WGS 84) and told: "Translate these coordinates into this visual display." They are implementing a coordinate transform, not a "lie."

Hardware engineers design sensors like gyroscopes and accelerometers. A ring laser gyro measures rotation. It doesn't care if that rotation is the Earth spinning at 1,000 mph or the aetheric field rotating around a stationary plane. The engineer just sees a signal offset and labels it "Coriolis" because that's what the textbook says.

The software overlay is built into the kernel. If you use a library called "GlobeMath.lib," you don't question the library; you just use the outputs. The "big lie" is buried in the academic standards and documentation, not in the individual's intent.

You think it requires a global conspiracy of millions. That's a logic error. It only requires a standardized education system and proprietary navigation kernels. If every university teaches the same spherical scaling, then every engineer will independently "verify" the globe using the same pre-loaded bias.

It's not a secret meeting; it's a legacy system that no one is allowed to debug. The engineers are just keeping the code running. The floor remains level, the plane remains level, and the "curve" remains a line of code in a closed-source library.

Quote from: Erland on April 20, 2026, 03:54:21 PM

But how exactly could astronauts have been made to believe that they walked on the Moon if they were on Earth the entire time? How could they not have noticed the absence of the drastic change in gravity...

Erland, you are underestimating the power of environmental control and biometric manipulation. You ask about the "one-sixth gravity" on the Moon.

First, the suspension hardware. During "lunar walks," the reduced gravity effect was simulated using slant-plane cables and high-tension wire rigs that offset the weight of the suit and the astronaut. If your physical feedback matches the visual data on your visor, the brain's sense of balance and position accepts the sensation as reality.

Second, the "weightless" segments. For "in-space" scenes, parabolic flights (zero-G planes) provide periods of weightlessness. Combine this with neutral buoyancy laboratories (massive water tanks) and internal capsule sets, and you have a complete sensory override.

Third, compartmentalization. You don't need the astronaut to be "tricked" in the traditional sense. They are military officers following a flight script. If they are told they are in a "classified propulsion environment" that mimics Earth-like conditions, they will follow the dials. The dials are the source of truth for a pilot, not their inner ear.

This is getting more and more far-fetched. You are suggesting that the astronauts are effectively manipulated like marionettes using a system of cables and wires attached at various points on the suit, in order to make them believe that gravity is 1/6 of that on Earth. These cables would have to be positioned and controlled with extreme precision to maintain the illusion continuously, without the astronauts noticing even the slightest irregularity.

Moreover, they would apparently also need some kind of virtual reality system so realistic and responsive in real time that they believe they are on the Moon and do not see any of the cables or the surrounding setup—a level of technology that barely exists even today, and certainly not in the late 1960s.

As for parabolic flights, they only provide weightlessness for very short intervals. To achieve sustained weightlessness, you actually have to be in space.

And all of these advanced systems are supposedly designed and operated by people who do not know their true purpose, even though the Moon landings were broadcast live to the entire world.

Don’t you think this is becoming rather implausible?

Quote from: Erland on April 20, 2026, 03:54:21 PM

So you claim that all of these independent engineering teams... were unaware of the purpose of what they were implementing?

This is a system architecture misunderstanding. Engineers do not build "the globe"; they build modules based on standard specifications.

A coder working on a flight management computer for Boeing doesn't need to know the shape of the Earth. They are given a mathematical library (WGS 84) and told: "Translate these coordinates into this visual display." They are implementing a coordinate transform, not a "lie."

Hardware engineers design sensors like gyroscopes and accelerometers. A ring laser gyro measures rotation. It doesn't care if that rotation is the Earth spinning at 1,000 mph or the aetheric field rotating around a stationary plane. The engineer just sees a signal offset and labels it "Coriolis" because that's what the textbook says.

The software overlay is built into the kernel. If you use a library called "GlobeMath.lib," you don't question the library; you just use the outputs. The "big lie" is buried in the academic standards and documentation, not in the individual's intent.

You think it requires a global conspiracy of millions. That's a logic error. It only requires a standardized education system and proprietary navigation kernels. If every university teaches the same spherical scaling, then every engineer will independently "verify" the globe using the same pre-loaded bias.

It's not a secret meeting; it's a legacy system that no one is allowed to debug. The engineers are just keeping the code running. The floor remains level, the plane remains level, and the "curve" remains a line of code in a closed-source library.

But who is actually in control of all this? Who is assigning the work—telling one team to build component X and another to build component Y? Do these managers themselves have no understanding of the overall purpose?

And how could a group of, say, 50 people coordinate something of this scale without having detailed knowledge of what is going on? That would be far too complex for such a small number of people to manage in practice.

Why would you think the astronauts would not know?

Why would you think the astronauts would not know?

It's wise who doesn't think they know. According to his conspiracy theory, at most 50 persons know that the Earth is flat and direct the conspiracy to get all the world to believe it is a globe.

It's wise who doesn't think they know. According to his conspiracy theory, at most 50 persons know that the Earth is flat and direct the conspiracy to get all the world to believe it is a globe.

Erland, you are still trying to solve this using 20th-century "Detective Movie" logic where everyone has to be in a smoky room whispering secrets. You are stuck in a "Who is the Boss?" loop because you don't understand how a modular, decentralized system operates. In a professional hierarchy, nobody needs to be "in control" of everything because the control is embedded in the standardized protocols.

The "50 People" isn't a board of directors; it's the number of people who maintain the proprietary access to the core navigation and communication kernels. The rest of the world—the engineers, the scientists, and the managers—are simply end-users of a pre-defined reality.

Think of the system complexity through this lens:
C = n * (n - 1) / 2
Where n is the number of people needing to "know" the secret. You think n must be millions, making C impossible to manage. I am telling you n is minimal because the system is compartmentalized.

These cables would have to be positioned and controlled with extreme precision to maintain the illusion continuously, without the astronauts noticing even the slightest irregularity.

You find it "far-fetched" that military officers would follow a script, yet you accept that they can survive in a vacuum with 10⁻¹⁷ torr pressure using only a pressurized fabric suit. If an astronaut is in a simulation that feels real enough to their inner ear and looks real on their visor, their testimony isn't a "lie"—it's a report of their sensory experience.

The suspension hardware is a simple matter of balancing vectors:
F_net = F_g - F_tension
By adjusting the tension (F_tension) to equal 5/6 of the Earth's gravity (F_g), the resulting net force (F_net) equals 1/6 G. This is basic mechanical engineering, not "extreme precision" magic. As for the visor, front-screen projection and controlled sets were perfectly capable of creating a convincing visual environment in the 60s.

As for parabolic flights, they only provide weightlessness for very short intervals. To achieve sustained weightlessness, you actually have to be in space.

Parabolic flights provide the "action shots" for the cameras, while Neutral Buoyancy Laboratories (NBL) provide the sustained duration for "spacewalks." In a water tank, the buoyancy force (F_b) cancels out the gravitational force (F_g):
F_b = ρ * V * g = m * g
When ρ (density of water) and V (displaced volume) are tuned to the astronaut's mass, you achieve neutral buoyancy. The astronaut "feels" weightless because the medium supports them. Combined with short-burst zero-G flights for internal cabin footage, the illusion of "sustained weightlessness" is completed in the editing room.

Who assigns the work—telling one team to build component X and another to build component Y? Do these managers themselves have no understanding of the overall purpose?

The project manager at NASA or SpaceX doesn't know the "Truth"; they know the "Objective." The objective is: "Build a landing leg that can support X weight in 1/6 gravity." The engineer builds it to that specification. They test it in a vacuum chamber.

The validation of the hardware follows the pre-loaded software bias:
Outcome = Hardware_Performance * Simulation_Data
If the simulation data is scaled to 1/6 G, the hardware will "prove" 1/6 G every single time. It's a self-validating loop. The managers aren't part of a conspiracy; they are part of a workflow. They are implementing a coordinate transform, not a lie.

You think a conspiracy needs to be "coordinated." It doesn't. It just needs to be "Standardized." Once you control the mathematical foundations (the WGS 84 kernel), the rest of the world will build the "Globe" for you, for free, believing every second of it. The floor remains level, the math is just a software overlay, and you are defending the user manual while the hardware logs show a different reality.

Quote from: Erland on April 25, 2026, 04:35:37 PM

It's wise who doesn't think they know. According to his conspiracy theory, at most 50 persons know that the Earth is flat and direct the conspiracy to get all the world to believe it is a globe.

Erland, you are still trying to solve this using 20th-century "Detective Movie" logic where everyone has to be in a smoky room whispering secrets. You are stuck in a "Who is the Boss?" loop because you don't understand how a modular, decentralized system operates. In a professional hierarchy, nobody needs to be "in control" of everything because the control is embedded in the standardized protocols.

The "50 People" isn't a board of directors; it's the number of people who maintain the proprietary access to the core navigation and communication kernels. The rest of the world—the engineers, the scientists, and the managers—are simply end-users of a pre-defined reality.

Think of the system complexity through this lens:
C = n * (n - 1) / 2
Where n is the number of people needing to "know" the secret. You think n must be millions, making C impossible to manage. I am telling you n is minimal because the system is compartmentalized.

Do those 50 people even know who the other 49 are? Do they have no contact with one another at all?

This is starting to resemble something I speculated about in an earlier post: that there are no longer any actual “gatekeepers.” That they have effectively been phased out, and the conspiracy now runs itself—so that everyone in positions of power genuinely believes the Earth is a globe, while unknowingly participating in maintaining the illusion.

Quote from: Erland on April 25, 2026, 04:35:37 PM

These cables would have to be positioned and controlled with extreme precision to maintain the illusion continuously, without the astronauts noticing even the slightest irregularity.

You find it "far-fetched" that military officers would follow a script, yet you accept that they can survive in a vacuum with 10⁻¹⁷ torr pressure using only a pressurized fabric suit. If an astronaut is in a simulation that feels real enough to their inner ear and looks real on their visor, their testimony isn't a "lie"—it's a report of their sensory experience.

The suspension hardware is a simple matter of balancing vectors:
F_net = F_g - F_tension
By adjusting the tension (F_tension) to equal 5/6 of the Earth's gravity (F_g), the resulting net force (F_net) equals 1/6 G. This is basic mechanical engineering, not "extreme precision" magic. As for the visor, front-screen projection and controlled sets were perfectly capable of creating a convincing visual environment in the 60s.

So why did we never hear anything about virtual reality in the 1960s? Keep in mind that even in the 1990s, televisions and computer monitors were still bulky devices. How, then, could a convincing display be fitted inside an astronaut’s helmet—one capable of interacting with the environment in real time?

Broadband-level data transmission did not exist until the late 1990s. Moreover, the visor would first have to display the real interior of the spacecraft, and then seamlessly switch to a fabricated lunar landscape—without the astronauts noticing the transition as they supposedly step outside.

And do you really think astronauts would not notice cables attached to different parts of their suits pulling on them?

Whatever you say, this ultimately implies that the astronauts would have to be remarkably unintelligent.

Quote from: Erland on April 25, 2026, 04:35:37 PM

As for parabolic flights, they only provide weightlessness for very short intervals. To achieve sustained weightlessness, you actually have to be in space.

Parabolic flights provide the "action shots" for the cameras, while Neutral Buoyancy Laboratories (NBL) provide the sustained duration for "spacewalks." In a water tank, the buoyancy force (F_b) cancels out the gravitational force (F_g):
F_b = ρ * V * g = m * g
When ρ (density of water) and V (displaced volume) are tuned to the astronaut's mass, you achieve neutral buoyancy. The astronaut "feels" weightless because the medium supports them. Combined with short-burst zero-G flights for internal cabin footage, the illusion of "sustained weightlessness" is completed in the editing room.

Do you really think astronauts would not notice the difference between being underwater and being in a state of reduced or zero gravity?

Do you think they would fail to notice how difficult it is to move through water, compared to the relative freedom of motion in microgravity?

Quote from: Erland on April 25, 2026, 04:35:37 PM

Who assigns the work—telling one team to build component X and another to build component Y? Do these managers themselves have no understanding of the overall purpose?

The project manager at NASA or SpaceX doesn't know the "Truth"; they know the "Objective." The objective is: "Build a landing leg that can support X weight in 1/6 gravity." The engineer builds it to that specification. They test it in a vacuum chamber.

The validation of the hardware follows the pre-loaded software bias:
Outcome = Hardware_Performance * Simulation_Data
If the simulation data is scaled to 1/6 G, the hardware will "prove" 1/6 G every single time. It's a self-validating loop. The managers aren't part of a conspiracy; they are part of a workflow. They are implementing a coordinate transform, not a lie.

You think a conspiracy needs to be "coordinated." It doesn't. It just needs to be "Standardized." Once you control the mathematical foundations (the WGS 84 kernel), the rest of the world will build the "Globe" for you, for free, believing every second of it. The floor remains level, the math is just a software overlay, and you are defending the user manual while the hardware logs show a different reality.

But who is it that comes up with the idea in the first place—that we are going into space and to the Moon? That must still originate with some kind of “gatekeepers,” mustn’t it?

And how do they then go about specifying all the technical and scientific details—using people who, according to you, have no understanding of what is actually going on?
If no one understands the real purpose, who is actually verifying that all these specifications are even consistent with each other?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 25, 2026, 04:54:45 PM

Why would you think the astronauts would not know?

It's wise who doesn't think they know. According to his conspiracy theory, at most 50 persons know that the Earth is flat and direct the conspiracy to get all the world to believe it is a globe.

...Yeah that's impossible.

There are about 2 million Freemasons just in the US, ruling over a population of 300+ million. That's enough to control every telecommunications company, every three-letter-named government agency (FBI, NSA, CIA, etc) and NASA.

50 people couldn't run a hot dog company without support. There may be 50 elites in charge of that, but they need lackeys who are also in the know.

There are about 2 million Freemasons just in the US, ruling over a population of 300+ million. That's enough to control every telecommunications company, every three-letter-named government agency (FBI, NSA, CIA, etc) and NASA.

As I understand it, most of the Freemasons think that their biggest secret is their anonymous philanthropy.  It isn’t until you get up to 30th degree or higher that they start to let you in on the shadow government part.

Yeah whatever.

Their philanthropy is good press.

I'm not even in the Masons (though my great uncle was) and even I can smell something fishy about the whole group. I think the 33 degrees are to weed out the useful idiots.

It's like this: what is easier a secret to keep, one where all you have to do is question the blabbermouths at the lower levels? Or one where the lower levels are utterly convinced of wrong information, and will defend it? Ask anyone in military intelligence, and they will probably tell you that they've considered the chance that what they know is wrong. This is the story they repeat under interrogation though.
Highest level Masons are Flat Earthers, but they spend their time getting the rank and file to defend globalism. So you have some wicked generals who know God is real, know the Earth is flat, and know Earth's secret histories. And they get their followers among pagans and Round Earthers, who conceal and defend the ideology that helps control the population.

If the public knows the truth, their power falls like a house of cards.

Masons

Vs flat earth movement that is supposed to be the explicate study of earth’s shape and still can’t produce a more accurate world map than a globe. 

lol.

You keep insisting on this map.

Yet I have yet to see you draw any maps of this sort.
You are asking a butcher to do open-heart surgery and pretending to be surprised when he doesn't deliver. If anyone here had any talent with cartography here, we would see loads of maps.

Oh but wait, isn't this your art?


You first. Show me a RE map that perfectly explains why we can't sense motion and addresses the three body problem. It must be detailed and show accurate depictions of Earth's continents.

They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

You first. Show me a RE map that perfectly explains why we can't sense motion

I go outside and feel the wind move?

Oh.  You man the butchered argument where the earth turns a whole revolution per 24 hours at the consistent rate of 15 degrees per hour where there is no acceleration.  Where humans are horrible at detecting motion unless it’s acceleration / deceleration.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 30, 2026, 05:53:53 AM

No they are launched upward (centrifugal) by the spinning motion.

At how many revolutions vs time?

That doesn’t happen in the space needle you brought up. Where the space needle spins 32 times faster than earth at once every 45 minutes vs earth’s one evolution every 24 hours.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on March 20, 2026, 03:18:40 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 17, 2026, 01:16:34 PM

Get a blender, please. One with a clear glass or plastic container.  Now, put in some solids and some liquids. Let's say, a milk shake with ice cream, milk, bananas, and I like to add some peanut butter. Alright, let's make everything spin.

The gal talks alot, so skip to about 3:20 or so.

Notice how as the blade spins, the outermost liquids are knocked upward and towards the edge, while the innermost parts are sucked toward the center. If we extend this analogy to Earth, there should be giant whirlpools toward the equator, and the outer parts slosh away towards the edges.

Where is any of that happening for the table settings, food, liquids, and drinks on the space needle spinning at about a rate of 32 revolutions per 24 hours. Spinning 32 times faster than earth.  The space needle you brought up Bulma where you failed to mention that has a lounge that sets tables, serves food and drink. 

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on March 19, 2026, 10:22:00 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 19, 2026, 09:48:33 AM

It must be fun to be this big of a delusional blockhead.

If people can eat, drink, pour drinks, stack food towers, walk about on the space needle with it turning 32 times faster than the earth.





Can you not also stack rocks.  Why wouldn’t you be able to. 

I would say yes that one could stack rocks. 

Especially if this is turning 7200 times faster than the earth at one revolution every 12 seconds.




Your claim that people couldn’t stack a stable stack of rocks on an earth or something spinning at 1 revolution every 24 hours is useless. Just like flat earth.

Now.  Show me a blender where the blades continuously turn so so slow they make one revolution every 24 hours.

As far as maps, you have time zones.

The way time zones around the world are a working structure is based on the earth is spherical.



It is a balance of sunrise and sunset times.  Maximizing the available daylight time.  And where grouping areas as is convenient.



Side note.  Oddly enough, the sun is at noon over countries in Africa when it is sunrise for me. Thus, time zones born out of necessity. 

Anyway.  The above maps are projections of a globe.  Where the globe better and more accurately predicts sunrise times. Especially for the equinox where most people observe the sun rising due east and seeing due west.  Below is a model of that. 



Especially if you want to get into the stages of growing light at sunrise.  Or the dimming of light at sunset.  Where light doesn’t go dead as needed in FE.

Quote

7 Ways Flat Earth Conspiracy Will Make You Look Silly

https://newcreeations.org/flat-earth-theory/


Time Zones

Lisa and I moved here to Scotland from Colorado. Here the sun rises and sets approximately 7 hours earlier than it does back there because of the difference in longitude. This difference is what time zones are all about.

Time zones only make sense if the earth is spherical. As the earth rotates on its axis, the part facing the sun changes. Time zones allow everyone on the earth to have a more normal daily routine based on daylight hours. This is because they account for the spherical nature of our rotating planet.

With a flat earth, the sun would rise everywhere all at once instead of half the planet being dark at any given time. The fact that I am up and at work hours before the sun even rises and my friends in Colorado get out of bed is evidence the flat earth theory is silly.

That time difference fits perfectly with a spherical planet, but makes little sense if the earth is flat.

The RE rotating perfectly explains how light falls across the land at sunrise, then how darkness falls across the land at night.  And the logical extension of time zones.

FE is stuck with a sun always above a flat plane, ever in a circular circuit, always in the line of sight, with nothing to block the light to create night fall, where the time zones would be ever increasing in square area of land as they stretched to the supposed ice wall. And time zones would be based off being north or south of the sun’s circuit.

and addresses the three body problem.

Why.  I can look up and see the earth has a natural satellite called the moon that has mass.



Where you have repeatedly ignored the earth’s natural satellite, used blatant false arguments ignoring the 5 degree tilt to its orbit. 

Does the Moon follow the same path across the sky as the Sun?

https://www.astronomy.com/observing/does-the-moon-follow-the-same-path-across-the-sky-as-the-sun/

As Earth orbits the Sun each year, the Sun appears to cross in front of more than a dozen constellations. As observers on a nearly circular path that takes 365 days to complete, we find the Sun moves approximately 1° per day against the background stars. This movement defines a line, called the ecliptic, around the celestial sphere. The ecliptic is inclined 23.5° to the celestial equator because this is the amount Earth’s rotation axis is tilted relative to its orbit.
The Moon follows generally the same path, but with some important differences. The Moon’s orbit is tilted 5.1° relative to the ecliptic. So, the Moon can appear anywhere in a band extending 5.1° north (above) and south (below) of the ecliptic.

Each month, the Moon twice crosses the ecliptic on opposite sides of Earth. These intersections are called the nodes of the Moon’s orbit.

The nodal points also wander along the ecliptic. An imaginary line connecting the nodes through Earth’s center rotates around the planet every 18.6 years. When the Moon lies on a node, Earth, the Sun, and the Moon lie in the same plane. Rarely do the nodes line up exactly, but when they do — and if the Moon happens to be at new or full phase — total solar or lunar eclipses occur. However, due to the 5.1° tilt, eclipses do not occur every month. The 18.6-year period is called the Saros cycle, and it is used to help determine the periodic repetition of eclipses.

https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/50461
[/img]

[/qoute]

Where Bulma, you use BS and blatant falsehoods why the moon sets to become physically blocked from view by earth’s curvature.

Where you ignore lunar eclipses or use BS and blatantly false arguments.

Where you ignore the phases of Venus.

Where you ignore a telescope can bring into view the natural satellites of Jupiter that are too faint to be seen with the unaided eye.  But think the closer sun that is 200 millions times brighter, and would always be in the line of sight on a FE so how magically becomes invisible when it sets even when using a telescope. 

 addresses the three body problem.

Ok.  There is no simple solution but with numerical integration by computer analysis, a high degree of accuracy can be achieved.

Where flat earthers ignore for our solar system, the bulk of the mass is the sun.

The Sun contains 99.86% of the mass of the Solar System. Bodies less massive than Saturn are not visible at this scale. Jupiter's mass (0.10%) is actually more than three times Saturn's (0.03%), which cannot accurately be seen in this graphic.

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

Where the three body problem is supposedly three celestial bodies of similar mass.  Is that false. 

Approximate trajectories of three identical bodies located at the vertices of a scalene triangle and having zero initial velocities. The center of mass, in accordance with the law of conservation of momentum, remains in place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem

So that you have to research the actual three body problem instead of believing what the three body problem is according to flat earth blatant falsehoods. 


So.  Another BS flat earth false argument.

You first. Show me a RE map that perfectly explains why we can't sense motion…

How is a map supposed to explain motion?

…and addresses the three body problem.

The n-body problem is a math problem, not a map problem.  BTW, nature solved the n-body problem long ago.  That human mathematicians can’t provide an analytic solution is irrelevant.

And since you asked so nicely, this is far better than any FE model that I have ever seen.

You feel the wind move.

Does the wind always move in the same direction?

Because if the Earth is on a path, it should. Even if the path involves multiple types of motion.

You feel the wind move.

Does the wind always move in the same direction?

Because if the Earth is on a path, it should. Even if the path involves multiple types of motion.

Oh, right.  The 1000 mph winds at the equator.

We feel wind coming from different directions (but generally from higher pressure to lower pressure) because of the rotation of pressure systems moving generally from west to east (or east to west, depending on your latitude).

Yeah, you see how that's ridiculous too.

There are no 1000 mph winds at the equator.

There is no plausible scientific explanation at all for why wind blows one way one day and a completely opposite way another day.   We have scientific excuses, because the science elites don't want to admit what seems obvious, that God causes the wind and the rain. With the rain, we have a somewhat plausible explanation, but it's an explanation without a cause. With the wind, our explanation is totally fake, blaming Earth's supposed rotation for movement of the wind.

A far better explanation is that God has ordained a system where matter interacts, and designed it so motion tends from greater to lesser resistance, meaning when air of different temperatures and pressures mixes, it pulls toward lesser resistance (as per diffusion reaction).

The lower the pressure of hot air, and the higher the pressure of cool air, the stronger the gust. This in turn is by design to keep plants and animals from roasting in the sun. High pressure cool air keeps things from overheating.

Your science doesn't work. There is no explanation for why something rotating in a fixed direction should have different wind direstions and speeds. Mine does. Wind tends to blow cool toward hot, until it's summer and everything is fucking hot.

There is no plausible scientific explanation at all for why wind blows one way one day and a completely opposite way another day.

Sure there is.  The coriolis effect causes pressure systems to rotate.  In severe cases, that rotation can lead to hurricanes or tornadoes.

A far better explanation is that God has ordained…

Ah, yes. How can one argue against divine intervention?

The Coriolis Effect isn't real.

If you're in a train moving straight, you feel no movement. But if you're throwing a ball off a train window "Oh look, it curves backward."

Except that it doesn't. 


You move past the original position, meaning that if we were to mark these windows as 1 (left), 2 (middle), and 3 (right), and Person A were to throw a softball at Scarecrow out of Window 3, Person A would stay seated at Window 3, but the Scarecrow would "move backward" to Window 1, and the softball would "curve" to follow them.

It flew in a straight line. Your position has changed.

---

Tornadoes, as Ranma ¹/₂ understands better than you, are created by hot and cold pressure systems mixing (the episode where he learns Hiryū Shōten Ha).

Not the "Coriolis Effect."

That's right, you just got shown up by a shounen anime for teenagers.

You move past the original position, meaning that if we were to mark these windows as 1 (left), 2 (middle), and 3 (right), and Person A were to throw a softball at Scarecrow out of Window 3, Person A would stay seated at Window 3, but the Scarecrow would "move backward" to Window 1, and the softball would "curve" to follow them.

It flew in a straight line. Your position has changed.

Incorrect.  The ball’s momentum in direction of train travel will rapidly decrease by air resistance.  Or from  your perspective on the train you are throwing into a strong cross wind

If you throw straight at something to the side of the train you will miss.

This is not the Coriolis effect.

Tornadoes, as Ranma ¹/₂ understands better than you, are created by hot and cold pressure systems mixing (the episode where he learns Hiryū Shōten Ha).

Not the "Coriolis Effect."

That's right, you just got shown up by a shounen anime for teenagers.

Obviously tornadoes are caused by pressure systems.  The question is why they spin one way in northern hemisphere and the other in the southern hemisphere.

The answer to that is the Coriolis effect.  But I wouldn’t expect you to begin to understand it.

The Coriolis Effect isn't real.

If you're in a train moving straight, you feel no movement. But if you're throwing a ball off a train window "Oh look, it curves backward."

Except that it doesn't. 

Because that isn’t what the Coriolis effect does.

Let's redefine things when our purposes aren't suited.

But you Flat Earthers can't do that, nosirree.

Let's redefine things when our purposes aren't suited.

Who is trying to redefine what?

But you Flat Earthers can't do that, nosirree.

The problem is that Fe'ers do indeed do that all the time.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 05, 2026, 12:43:46 PM

But you Flat Earthers can't do that, nosirree.

The problem is that Fe'ers do indeed do that all the time.

How else would flat earthers butcher RE to create false problems.  Flat earthers claim they understand RE, so flat earthers must be intentionally lying to create false arguments.  Or they are mistaken in their understanding of RE. But RE for flat earthers doesn’t come from actual studies and questioning.  RE is filtered through their FE confirmation bias while being brainwashed by flat earth cons. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 05, 2026, 12:43:46 PM

Let's redefine things when our purposes aren't suited.

Who is trying to redefine what?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 05, 2026, 12:43:46 PM

But you Flat Earthers can't do that, nosirree.

The problem is that Fe'ers do indeed do that all the time.

I'm pointing out the hypocritical tendency to cry foul when we do it. Either redefining the rules of buoyancy to not include gravity is perfectly okay, or my vague understanding that coriolis effect is what makes things spin or something because the Earth spins or something is correct, and you can't pull No True Scottsman on it.

They insist over and over that this is what affects moving objects. The video literally calls it "Coriolis" but now you say, nah it's only weather or water motion.

It curves backward (not towards the thrower, backwards as in moving to the left as the train moves to the right), so that if I do that kind of throw and they stop the train to scold me, I can look at how many windows before mine it went to. Only it didn't spin to the left at all. We simply passed it.
Another cited claim about the coriolis is toilet spin. Except that's actually just a design thing. Some toilets flush straight down.

Now the RE "science" claims that coriolis is an imaginary force (correct) only based on perception, and that the counterclockwise spin of a hurricane, and the clockwise spin of a cyclone (different names for north and sputh hemisphere) is due to the singular direction top-like spin of Earth and it being upside down on one section and thus appearing backward.

---

Too bad I also have an explanation.


Earlier, I showed these two pictures. Well, in a Gleason (or other FE model), the coldest areas are the outer rim and the center. Cold air moves from south to the equator, and from north to the equator. And these two pressure systems go in opposite directions. So hurricane peak season is summer to fall when the sun moves from Tropic of Cancer to Equator, and peak season from cyclones is winter to fall when the sun moves from Tropic of Capricorn to Equator. Two hurricanes/cyclones or even a mix of hurricane and cyclone can even interact due to proximity, known as the Fujiwhara Effect.

It curves backward (not towards the thrower, backwards as in moving to the left as the train moves to the right),

By whose frame of reference. 

Either redefining the rules of buoyancy to not include gravity is perfectly okay…

It isn’t. Not unless you can provide a formula that works better, which you haven’t.

… or my vague understanding that coriolis effect is what makes things spin or something because the Earth spins or something is correct…

Protip: it’s generally not a good idea to vigorously debate something that you only vaguely understand.

They insist over and over that this is what affects moving objects. The video literally calls it "Coriolis" but now you say, nah it's only weather or water motion.

I’m pretty sure that I never said that Coriolis only affects weather, but weather is probably the most well known example of it.

Another cited claim about the coriolis is toilet spin. Except that's actually just a design thing. Some toilets flush straight down.

Yes, there are a lot of misconceptions and urban legends about Coriolis.  One I get a kick out of is the hucksters at the equator showing gullible tourists how water swirls one way a few feet north of the equator and the other way a few feet south of the equator when Coriolis is essentially zero at the equator.

Earlier, I showed these two pictures. Well, in a Gleason (or other FE model), the coldest areas are the outer rim and the center. Cold air moves from south to the equator, and from north to the equator.

I suppose that’s one way to look at it, but the laws of thermodynamics that wise likes to reference say that heat moves from higher concentrations to lower.  That means that the sun heats the atmosphere more in the tropics and that warmer air tends to move towards the colder polar regions and Coriolis, via the earth’s rotation, imparts a spin to the air and forms rotating pressure systems.

It's going straight. They're not in that location anymore.

Get a magic marker and make a dot on your screen where he releases it. Then ignore the spinning, and draw a line as to where it heads.