The Sun, Moon, and Stars Prove the Flat Earth

Found another shill. Apparently a graduate of the Mark Sargent Academy of Aspiring Buffoons.

He published a book, The Earth is Flat? 167 Discussion Points Disproving the Global Earth (emphasis mine)

He also published a video titled, NOTE FROM THE AUTHOR: "The Earth Is Flat? 167 Discussion Points Disproving the Flat Earth" (emphasis mine)

I got the book from Scribd, uploaded January 28, 2017, in which he disproves "Global."

The YouTube video was uploaded February 3, 2017, in which he disproves "Flat."

He seems to be on the fence what it is he's trying to disprove; Global or Flat.

Both video and book have been in the public domain for at least the 6 months. Major typo? Or troll buffoonery?

Here's the link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEmnO3zUDZM

And lest he change the title of the video between now and the time you get there, here's a screen grab in which he's disproving "Flat" in the video, though disproving "Global" in the book.



Note that he pontificates that it is "infinite."

As an easter egg bonus, we have the serendipitous occasion that Mr. Edge's last name is synonymous with most folks innate proclivity to ridicule the "edge" of the flat earth. Serendipity, baby, serendipity!

"Bradon," pronounced bray, as in, braying donkey.

If interested you can read my comments to him under the video. I'm proud to say mine is the first comment and thumbs down some 6 months later

Edit: here's a link to the book on Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/document/337764844/The-Earth-is-Flat-167-Discussion-Points-Disproving-the-Global-Earth

The problem is to determine Mr. Edge’s assertion that, "Distance divided by time equals speed. The Sun always travels 1,037 mph with less than a 2% fluctuation throughout the year.”

He makes that claim in his book.

The sun travels from solstice to solstice, 24 degrees (rounded for simplicity’s sake) either side of the Equator. My major brain fart in the previous post, now deleted to hide my embarrassment   , had the sun moving 45N to 45S.

Therefore the sun, when at the equator during an equinox, is 90 degrees from the north center point, or stated in “global” parlance, 0 degrees latitude.

However, a flat earther’s point of reference would be 0 degrees at the north center point (the Center of the earth), with latitude lines stepping out 69 miles per line around that center point, if indeed each latitude line is correctly figured based on the pretended “globe” size of 24,901 miles.

24,901 divided by 360 = 69.16
Sixty nine miles between latitude lines.

24 degree N latitude line, 4,554 miles radius (66 lines x 69), times 2 = a diameter of 9,108 miles.
Equator line, 6,210 miles radius (90 lines x 69), times 2 = a diameter of 12,420 miles.
24 degree S latitude line, 7,866 miles radius (114 lines x 69), times 2 = a diameter of 15,732 miles.

Now we have diameter sizes of each circle; 24N latitude, 0/90 Equator, 24S latitude. Using the calculator at,

https://www.omnicalculator.com/math/circumference

We can convert the above diameters to circumference lengths and ascertain the rough speed of the sun at 24N/Equator/24S.

24 degree N latitude line circumference: 28,614 miles.
Equatorial latitude line circumference: 39,019 miles.
24 degree S latitude line circumference: 49,423 miles.

As Edge indicated, "distance divided by time equals speed.”

28,614 divided by 24 = 1,192 mph at 24 degrees N.
39,019 divided by 24 = 1,626 mph at the equator.
49,423 divided by 24 = 2,059 mph at 24 degrees S.

The sun is moving roughly 867 mph faster at 24 degrees south than he is at 24 degrees north, which is almost DOUBLE the speed, not a 2% difference.

An interesting extension to the above figures:

Quoting, BELOW THE CONVERGENCE: VOYAGES TOWARD ANTARCTICA 1699-1839. GURNEY, ALAN:

"The convergence is located approximately 800 miles off the coast of Antarctica en-circling the continent, a wandering oceanic dividing line between 50 [degrees] S and 60 [degrees] S latitude where the warmer waters of the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans meet the cooler waters from the South. Navigators recognize the convergence immediately by the presence of often freezing temperatures and associated winds and currents, salinity of water, fogs and mists, and other phenomena associated with Antarctica. During portions of the Second and Third Voyages, Captain James Cook sailed below the convergence in search of Terra Australis Incognita (1773-1774), achieving the first recorded crossing of the Antarctic Circle and the eventual circumnavigation of Antarctica." (emphasis mine)

As a funny side-note concerning the above quote, flat earther's know Cook didn't "circumnavigate Antarctica." He circumnavigated ("traveled all the way around") the known lands of earth while keeping the ice wall more or less in sight (I'm thinking the crow's nest wasn't a very popular place to be). He followed along the 360 degrees of the circumferential ice rim encircling the earth. He circumnavigated the earth!

They say the Devil can't tell the truth. Whatever he says just figure the opposite is the truth.

Using the same method as above, and at 60 degrees south latitude, Cook, if sailing persistently at that latitude, would have sailed roughly;

90 degrees Center of earth to Equator, plus 60 degrees south = 150 latitude lines.

150 latitude lines, times 69 = 10,350 miles radius, x 2 = 20,700 miles diameter.

Using the same calculator from above, we convert 20,700 miles diameter to 65,031 miles circumference.

Or, if he stayed at the more hospitable 50 degrees south latitude line, the computation would be,

140 latitude lines, times 69 = 9,660 miles radius, x 2 = 19,320 miles diameter.

Converting that 19,320 miles diameter to circumference equals roughly 60,696 miles circumference Cook traveled.

AN INTERESTING QUOTE FROM ERIC'S BOOK, THE FLAT EARTH CONSPIRACY:

In 1773 Captain Cook became the first modern explorer known to have breached the Antarctic Circle and reached the ice barrier. During three voyages, lasting three years and eight days, Captain Cook and crew sailed a total of 60,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline never once finding an inlet or path through or beyond the massive glacial wall! Captain Cook wrote: “The ice extended east and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height. It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the pole, or perhaps joins some land to which it has been fixed since creation.” (emphasis mine)

I was doodling last night to envision the differences between "flat" and "globe" when following hard after Truth (please don't laugh at my doodle), and also to confirm the numbers in my previous two posts. Here's what I came up with regarding latitude lines, and what should be the proper perspective of degrees of latitude projecting out from the Zero point (center), if all the earth would trash the silly "globe" myth.

For one thing it would alleviate the ridiculous "hemi"-sphere (two halves) misconception, and provide for continuous latitude lines beginning at zero and terminating at 180 (or does it terminate?).  

Cook, in the post immediately above, would have circumnavigated the earth, not the pretended south pole/Antarctica, and his course would have been at either 140 degrees, or 150 degrees, instead of the 50 and 60 degrees "South" as quoted above concerning his journey. Everything, everything, is "South" of zero/magnetic north pole (and I'll prove that with my compass no matter where I am on the earth, and the magnetic attraction remains).

Since we know there's no "South Pole," we also know there's no "South Magnetic Pole," Wikipedia's inane prattle notwithstanding (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole)

Note: it's okay to keep "Antarctica" in the lexicon, so long as we redefine it as the ice rim encircling the earth 360 degrees.



Summer solstice = 66 degrees (using the commonly referenced 23.5 degrees north, it would be 66.5)
Winter solstice = 114 degrees (using the commonly referenced 23.5 degrees south, it would be 113.5)

Movement of sun (north/south), computed both ways:

23.5 x 2 = 47 degrees
113.5 - 66.5 = 47 degrees

47 degrees latitude, times 69 miles per line = 3,243 miles

Serendipity! Looking at it from the side, the sun forms a SQUARE.

It's not a perfect square, but close. Hear me out.

1) On equinox the sun is at it zenith over the equator. John Quinlan states that "... the spot north or south of the Equator [45 degrees] from where the sun is observed at this angle [45 degrees] at noon is the spot that marks the EXACT DISTANCE TO THE EQUATOR AS THE SUN IS ABOVE THE EQUATOR.” (emphasis mine)

2) 45 degrees, times 69 miles per latitude, puts the sun at roughly 3,105 miles high.

3) It contracts/expands circumpolar movement between 66.5 and 113.5 (global parlance, 23.5N/23.5S) = 47 degrees = 3,243 miles.

Looking from the side, and using the horizontal plane as one side of the square, the sun fashions a square in it's movement north/south.

Another doodle (don't laugh):




What are the odds the Controllers have misstated slightly the numbers to avoid folks coming to the conclusion that a perfect square is formed in nature as the sun traverses north/south between the two solstices?

And is that happenstance, or Intelligent Design?! Darwinian crap, or Designer's sublime construction?!

It's only a 138 mile difference over some 3,000 miles, but what if those numbers have been fudged just a bit by the high priests of Psyence?!

And does this give "squaring the circle" new meaning? The sun circles overhead, while forming a square if it's distance between solstices is equal to it's distance above!

Quote from 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball (Proof 9): Engineer, W. Winckler was published in the Earth Review regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, stating, “As an engineer of many years standing, I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in school books. No engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind. I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals and the allowance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means this - that it is 8” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square the circle.”

Whether this means anything to anybody else, I find it quite fascinating the possibility the sun forms a circle from above and a square from the side!

I made another doodle. We all know the shadow is moving from the west coast to the east coast for today's total eclipse. We also know that that is just the opposite of what should occur under the globe model. Since the earth is spinning 27.3 times faster than the moon is orbiting it (in their imaginations), and the shadow is caused from the moon being in between sun and earth, the globe model demands that today's total eclipse move from EAST to WEST. It's not.

As a globetard says, "The earth [spins faster], because it only takes the earth 24 hours to spin one full circle but it takes the moon 27.3 days to spin in one whole circle.

However, today's eclipse DOES work on our flat earth, because, the sun is overtaking the moon and the shadow logically moves from the west coast to the east coast.



There's no doubt that the globetards have no logical response to this. Their imaginary model is incorrect.

They can get away with the lie that the sun rises in the east because of the earth's spin, as it comes around with the east facing the sun first, but now they're painted into a corner because the movement of the shadow of today's eclipse proves them all liars.

Forgive in my doodle I made the moon appear smaller than the sun. Old habits die hard.

More proof, Earth Not a Globe.

I came across this simple animation today. It seems to accurately reflect the globe model in that, as I count, the earth spins roughly 27 times to the one orbit of the moon.

As a point of reference to make the count, I used the bottom right corner. I assume that the software used was capable of plugging in the 27.3 figure to replicate the earth spinning 27.3 times faster than the moon orbits.



A higher resolution of the same can be found: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a004500/a004537/orbit_2017_420p30.mp4 (note "NASA" in the address)

Can someone explain to me where I am incorrect to assert that the only possible movement of the shadow in the total eclipse a couple of days ago, could only be east to west with earth's surface racing ahead of the moon like that?

With the eclipse shadow beginning on the coast of Oregon, how in the heck can globers claim that the shadow then progresses east on an earth sprinting away from the point of shadow inception?!

If my argument isn't valid, that this is empirical proof of the spinning-ball-sun-at-center lie, can somebody explain to me what I'm missing that would allow a glober to logically trump my reasoning?

Hello for the record I myself am not a flat earther and I don't wish to waste your time but I am very interested in seeing your persepective and have read a bit about how the sun would orbit earth and the moon which seems very plausible but I don't know where I could find information about the flat earth and how is it that no one would visit the edge or how could that be explained I know it seems like a childish question but these forums have a abundance of information about he physics about flat earth as well as geography and I wish to seek more information about that earth so please don't take this as me trying to debunks your explanations but I want to know more

Pablodiablo1 wrote:Hello for the record I myself am not a flat earther and I don't wish to waste your time but I am very interested in seeing your oersepective and have read a bit about how the sun would orbit earth and the moon which seems very plausible but I don't know where I could find information about the flat earth and how is it that no one would visit the edge or how could that be explained I know it seems like a childish question but these forums have a abundance of information about he physics about flat earth as well as geography and I wish to seek more information about that earth so please don't take this as me trying to debunks your explanations but I want to know more

Perhaps read the forum? There are many sections that cover many topics.

This video demonstrates how the Sun and Moon orbit above the flat Earth. "What REALLY intrigued me was how the sun literally speeds up and slows down depending on what path it is on during a particular point in the year."

by Rob Skiba

Schpankme wrote:This video demonstrates how the Sun and Moon orbit above the flat Earth. "What REALLY intrigued me was how the sun literally speeds up and slows down depending on what path it is on during a particular point in the year."

Agreed, Schpankme. Since the 24 hour clock is constant, but the sun travels larger/smaller circumferences in that same 24 hours, it can only be concluded the sun is variable speed. And that it keeps time with incredible accuracy (an understatement), screams Intelligent Design.

Unless it can be explained how a constant speed sun, moving at the smaller northern circumference, can get around the earth's plane in the same 24 hours at the larger southern circumference. More demonstrable facts in nature we zetetics relish!

Pablodiablo1 wrote:"...but I want to know more."

Here are my book recommendations, Pablodiablo1:

-Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe (Rowbotham)
-The Flat Earth Conspiracy (Dubay)
-200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball (Dubay)
-The Greatest Lie on Earth: Proof That Our World Is Not a Moving Globe (Hendrie, $3 at Google Books)
-Zetetic Cosmogony, or, Conclusive evidence that the world is not a rotating, revolving globe, but a stationary plane circle (Winship)
-Theoretical Astronomy Examined and Exposed (Carpenter)
-Kings Dethroned : a history of the evolution of astronomy from the time of the roman empire up to the present day; showing it to be an amazing series of blunders founded upon an error made in the second century B.C. (Hickson)

And it goes without saying, sponge up (and subscribe to) every video Eric has done!

Hello everyone,
I do enjoy your insights and now ask for help on this question. Does the moon appear upside down from say New York City compared to Sidney, Australia? [Northern vs Southern Hemisphere]

Hey O'Dubshulaney, welcome to the forum. The heliocentric model claims the Moon is right-side up in the Northern hemisphere and upside-down in the South to fit with their model, but this is a drastic over-simplification. In reality the Moon turns like a wheel one rotation per revolution so depending on where and when it is filmed from, you can capture the Moon at any/all inclinations 360 degrees as you can see here: http://ifers.123.st/t16-the-flat-moon-over-the-flat-earth#531 Peace

Some great footage in this video:


As usual, Schpankme beats me to the comments section by several hours!!

My question is when the sun is rising it gets bigger as it travels across the sky. So why does the moon get smaller as it rises and travels across the sky ?

PLANE - Add a T and spin it around and you get a PLANET.
NASA - Add a T and spin it around and you get SATAN.

Hi All... first post here thank you Eric for approving me.

I just came across this fascinating video with an artist's perspective on the lunar eclipse and how the behavior of light proves the moon cannot be a sphere



It takes 6-7 minutes before the deep content kicks in

Hi guys. Can someone who is reasonably good at math help me with this. My friend who lives in the middle of Sweden around Karlstad did a sun shadow experiment around May 15, 2018. He put a stick in the ground and said the shadow from the stick moved at a constant 15 degrees per hour the entire today. He said that this proves the earth is not flat because in a flat earth model trigonometry would state that the angular velocity of the sun would not be constant.

I posted this somewhere else and Eric said it's because my friend is using false assumptions to begin with. Which I agree and which I tried to explain to my friend. I said that we don't know what the sun is really or where it is or how it moves so your experiment proves nothing. My friend disagrees.

Can anyone give me any math to show why his math (using Trigonmetry and angular velocity) is wrong or why his math would work on a flat earth with our current best guess understanding of how the sun moves over the flat earth?

Why would he get a 15 degrees per hour constant shadow from the sun in our flat earth model circling above the flat and stationary earth? Can someone give me the math that shows according to our flat earth model why he would get 15 degrees constant shadow per hour and why the angular velocity according to Trigonometry would indeed be constant on a flat earth model?

Any help would be most appreciated. If you have the time to draw something on a piece of paper to further illustrate the angles and the mat I would be most appreciative.

When viewing the moon through a P900, elliptical craters can clearly be seen as you view closer to the perimeter. I have read theories that the moon may be a disc. How can it be a disc if the craters are elliptical ?

Phineas wrote:
When viewing the moon through a P900, elliptical craters can clearly be seen

Please provide some photos of these "elliptical craters".

Also, could you summarize as to where the light source is coming from to high light these "elliptical craters"?

" Please provide some photos of these "elliptical craters"."
Search " P900 Moon " on Youtube. I am totally on board with the idea that we are not on a spherical ball, I just would like to hear some theories on the elliptical craters that are clearly visible.