Questions About the Flat Earth

Hey yall. I consider myself a globe denier without a doubt, but every now and then I have things pointed out to me that I don't have an explanation for.

How can a sunrise light up the bottom of clouds if it is always above them?

I'm sure someone here has an explanation for this phenomena. My hunch is that it has to do with the laws of perspective, and is tied to the same reason why the sun disappears behind the sunset. The sun appears from our observation to sink into the horizon as if it's touching the ground, but does that also allow light to lip up under the clouds?

If I recall Rob Skiba (RIP) had a video of explaining this using the Flat Earth Model, if my memory serves me well, Kyle Adams also had a video explaining the same.

Mount Rainier's Shadow Proves the Globe?



There are several photographs of Washington's Mount Rainier at sunrise and sunset showing what appears to be clouds lit from underneath casting the mountain's shadow upwards. Globe believers often cite these photographs as proof that the Sun must be physically beneath the cloud cover to cause this effect, and that therefore the Earth is confirmed globular because in the flat Earth model the Sun never physically drops beneath the horizon. At first glance this may seem a reasonable assumption, but further investigation into the phenomenon reveals otherwise.

To begin with, there are endless examples of photos and videos showing ambient or reflected light illuminating surfaces from underneath and casting object's shadows upwards, even though the actual physical light source is far above both. A common example of this is midday sunlight shining through a window reflecting off the floor and casting shadows of the room's furniture onto the ceiling. In this case, the light source is far above both the furniture and house, yet the ceiling is being illuminated from underneath and the furniture shadows are being cast upwards. Therefore, this effect can and does happen regularly without the light source needing to physically drop below the object and surface in question.

In all of these photographs the top of the mountain is above the cloud line, so the shadow that globe believers assume must be the bottom portion of the mountain being cast upwards, could just as readily be the top portion of the mountain being cast downwards. It is only their confirmation bias deciding it must be the former as further observation shows it is definitively the latter. Video timelapses of such mountain sunrises and sunsets, unlike these cherry-picked photos, show that in reality the shadow is actually always atop the clouds from the moment it first appears until the last moment it fades away. There is no time during the shadow's daily existence in which it ever switches from casting downwards onto the tops of the clouds to casting upwards onto their bottoms as it must in the globe model. Furthermore, if the Sun was truly dropping below the height of the mountain at sunset and casting its shadow upwards, timelapse footage would have to show the shadow first begin projecting onto the furthest clouds near the horizon and then drawing back towards those nearest, but in reality what always happens is the shadow begins its projection at midday onto the nearest clouds and slowly extends its way out towards the horizon before disappearing at sunset. Likewise at sunrise the opposite happens and the shadow begins already fully extended to the horizon and slowly shrinks until disappearing at midday. Therefore, rather than being proof of the ball-Earth, these observations are actually completely inconsistent with the globe model and only possible on a plane Earth where the Sun is always physically above the clouds.

hi, i also had same question. but realized that if we see the clouds carefully, it's not be lighted from
downside, it's just lighted from diagonally upper side, almost from horizontal direction.
so, the dark parts are the edge which is the opposite side from the sun.
if the clouds are really lighted from downside, we cannot see any dark parts of clouds at all.
and you must have seen a sea of clouds. we can see it in a morning, before the sunrise,at top of a mountain. if the earth is round, it must be lighted from downside, and we cannot see any light among the clouds. but in reality, we can see shining beautiful sea of clowds which are lighted from upperside.
it's the sun, far from us, beyond the banishing point, we still cannot see, but it's far upper place than clowds.
god bless you, campeer

Some recent images I took of a sunset from an eighth floor restaurant.


And what it would look like on top of the clouds if we could view it as I am in this last picture of the sun doing the same thing but over the water viewed from above instead of the clouds viewed from below.

As above so below. Two views of the same phenomenon from different perspectives. The evident minor waviness in the water (bottom pic) and the clouds (top pics) prevents the sun's reflection from projecting over the unlevel surfaces any further.

Thanks everyone for the replies, they were extremely helpful. Glad I finally signed up, this forum is awesome.

Ryan wrote:

Hey yall. I consider myself a globe denier without a doubt, but every now and then I have things pointed out to me that I don't have an explanation for.

How can a sunrise light up the bottom of clouds if it is always above them?

I'm sure someone here has an explanation for this phenomena. My hunch is that it has to do with the laws of perspective, and is tied to the same reason why the sun disappears behind the sunset. The sun appears from our observation to sink into the horizon as if it's touching the ground, but does that also allow light to lip up under the clouds?

Well this stumped me too when I first discovered this problem. But after meditating on it the only things that were coming to mind were that the sun is far enough away above the clouds out of our perspective, there are breaks in the clouds that let light from above through, and the light rays reflect off of the ground, river or other body of water which in turn lights up the underside of the clouds. And due to the sun being a considerable distance away the light that we see illuminating the underside of the clouds have those red/orange/yellow hues due to the longer wavelengths of light. That was the best explanation I could come up with, I hope this makes sense

everyone in this topic except for eric and I are shills 100% guaranteed

Russian Blue Cat wrote:everyone in this topic except for eric and I are shills 100% guaranteed

Shills because we're trying to understand an observable phenomenon and give explanations for it? I think you need to go and look up the definition of the word shill and try to comprehend it before making false accusations with zero evidence. Shills for having a discussion, what a

Why do the constellations and stars change positions at different times of the year? Can that work on a flat earth?

Sidereal time is 23:56 per day compared to solar time of 24:00 which causes the stars to fall behind the Sun 4 minutes per day and is the cause of precession as well as seasonal constellations. The same stars are not visible all year round because it is not nighttime when those stars pass by for part of the year. This also makes it so, for example, the Big Dipper slowly changes its orientation over the year.

Admin wrote:Sidereal time is 23:56 per day compared to solar time of 24:00 which causes the stars to fall behind the Sun 4 minutes per day and is the cause of precession as well as seasonal constellations.  The same stars are not visible all year round because it is not nighttime when those stars pass by for part of the year.  This also makes it so, for example, the Big Dipper slowly changes its orientation over the year.

Oh okay that makes a lot more sense thanks a lot Eric!

(bitchute) Christopher Enoch - 'SEISMIC ACTIVITY PROVES FLAT EARTH TO BE A LIE'
Can't post links yet because account is too young. But you should be able to find it with the title.

Found a video on bitchute making a claim I haven't seen before. Are seismic readings taken across the globe controlled or is this guy just posting fake bs? Anyone know where we could get this data for ourselves? I can't seem to see the youtube video link on screen as it's too fuzzy.

Greenlight144000 wrote:Why do the constellations and stars change positions at different times of the year? Can that work on a flat earth?

The fact that they change back in an ordered cycle and can be used reliably for navigation proves we're not on a spinning, whirling bullet constantly changing our position in relation to the stars.

I find the 'fixed' nature of the stars one of the best openers to people new to the subject.

nowhereelsetogo wrote:

Greenlight144000 wrote:Why do the constellations and stars change positions at different times of the year? Can that work on a flat earth?

The fact that they change back in an ordered cycle and can be used reliably for navigation proves we're not on a spinning, whirling bullet constantly changing our position in relation to the stars.

I find the 'fixed' nature of the stars one of the best openers to people new to the subject.

I agree. The fixed nature of the stars was one of the many things that woke me up to the flat earth. The fact that no parallax has ever been observed in our life time or at any point in history convinced me to stop believing in foolishness.

I remember seeing a video of Sacha Stone feebly attempting to rubbish flat earth, saying something like "you can't convince me of that flat earth nonsense, because I have an astrophysicist friend who spent 2 years coming up with the mathematical equations to prove parallax, and tthese calculations can fill a whole book!"

I was crying with laughter at such absurdity

Hey, everyone. I've been researching flat earth for the past few months and I've been drawn towards it. However, there are certain questions that I have and haven't found any answers yet. I'm hoping to find answers to one of my questions here today. So, here it goes. There's approximately 17 hours of daylight in Punta Arenas, Chile during Summer in the Tropic of Capricorn. I mean how can there be daylight for such a long duration? How does this work on the flat earth model?

Hey yall. I consider myself a globe denier without a doubt, but every now and then I have things pointed out to me that I don't have an explanation for.

How can a sunrise light up the bottom of clouds if it is always above them?

I'm sure someone here has an explanation for this phenomena. My hunch is that it has to do with the laws of perspective, and is tied to the same reason why the sun disappears behind the sunset. The sun appears from our observation to sink into the horizon as if it's touching the ground, but does that also allow light to lip up under the clouds?

In 2015 I have observed the same thing in lower mainland near Vancouver BC Canada. The thing is you need to look at the map of the region. In my case there was a far remote lake and a river that the sun rays reflected off to cast the reflected light on the clouds from beneath. My friend observed also this happens beneath the car if the light of passing cars reflect off the surface of the asphalt at night especially when it is wet.

I don't know where to post this, but I think its important for new people in the flat earth community to know about.

Science cannot prove things but it can disprove things. However, Science can help you to lean towards an idea more than the others, pile up favors towards an idea that's the limits of science. In my book "What is Earth?" the complete Arabic Edition specially I discuss this subject in details explaining why it actually cannot from scientific perspective but also philosophical but in short the scientific methodology is based on continuous learning. Its based on that because science actually cannot absolutely prove theories otherwise if it would it wouldn't be continuously trying to learn about the subjects of the theory and if a subject can be proven its not anymore in the fields of the science. You wouldn't require to prove them at all...

In addition to that, whether we like it or not, but a complete knowledge of an event/experiment is not within human limited knowledge, its only God that can have such encompassing knowledge. In experiment you might have variety of variables you are not aware of, the inputs, what you see and what you don't see, your subconscious bias at the time of the experiment, the tools status from what we see of them and what we cannot observe with other tools to show us and the list goes on and on.

In reality, the globe model severely lacking acceptable tests by scientists of the scientific community let alone independent scientists and knowledge seekers. Those tests are not repeatable by the people. Thus the Globe model falls in the realm of philosophy rather than natural science realm.

I need some help in responding to two globe earthers.

So, there's this group on fb called Official Flat Earth and Globe discussion group. Someone posted the following image.


I replied: "Based on the image, the observer is in southern most part of Argentina. So, let's assume he's in Ushuaia, Argentina. These are the constellations he can observe during the night (see here https://ibb.co/3fBvg1F). Since no date/time was provided by OP I've used the current time and date.
And, the OP is pointing arrow towards the constellations above the Indian Ocean. So, the constellations observable by people living in Kanyakumari, which is the southernmost city of India, are these (see here https://ibb.co/4mtn9fR).
Since, the OP is claiming that the observer in southern part of Argentina can see constellations above the Indian Ocean this means that all constellations you see in the second image should appear in the first image as well. However, that’s not the case as you can see which makes the OP’s argument invalid."

1st globe earther called Mike said: "you are using what should be visible on the globe. Why would the person in Argentina see something different in the sky than the person living in Kanyakumari if they are looking at the same spot on the dome?"

Me: "Due to the planetarium dome of our Earth being so vast, the law of perspective doesn't allow you to see all the stars from any one vantage point (see here https://ibb.co/tZtnJgB). You can however see Polaris, Ursa Major/Minor and other Northern constellations from every point on Earth all the way to the Southern Tropic of Capricorn."

Mike: "speaking about “law of perspective”." then he shows this image.


Mike further said: "if you think you can see Polaris from the southern tropic, why is it so low on the horizon if it’s at the top of the dome?"

I didn't respond to both of his comments. This is where I need some help.

2nd globe earther called Michele commenting on my original comment: ""However, that’s not the case"
Exactly. Because Earth is a globe."

Me: "That’s not the case on the flat earth as well. The planetarium dome of our Earth is so vast that the law of perspective doesn't allow you to see all the stars from any one vantage point (see here https://ibb.co/tZtnJgB). You can however see Polaris, Ursa Major/Minor and other Northern constellations from every point on Earth. Here’s an interesting fact though. Ursa Major, very close to Polaris, can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude (the North Pole) all the way down to 30 degrees South latitude. The constellation Vulpecula can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude, all the way to 55 degrees South latitude. Taurus, Pisces and Leo can be seen from 90 degrees North all the way to 65 degrees South. Aquarius and Libra can be seen from 65 degrees North to 90 degrees South! The constellation Virgo is visible from 80 degrees North down to 80 degrees South, and Orion can be seen from 85 degrees North all the way to 75 degrees South latitude! An observer on a ball-Earth, regardless of any tilt or inclination, should not logically be able to see this far."

Michele: "perspective is only a technique to represent a 3d reality on a 2d surface. What we can or cannot see is mostly a matter of geometry, and, on some particular condition (objects very close to the horizon) of optical distorsions caused by the atmosphere. If the earth is flat there's no reason why we could not see Polaris from literally everywhere: as long as its light can reach our eyes, we can see it. But that's not what we observe in reality. Moreover if the stars movement where due to a rotation of a dome, we would see them moving on ellipses parallel to the ground. Again, this is not what we observe in reality: at the equator, for example, stars rise from east from below the horizon and set on the west going below the horizon. This is completely inconsistent with a rotating dome (we should not see stars rising or setting)."

I didn't respond to his comment afterwards either and I also need help here.

Why do you argue that some constellations can be seen from 80 and 90 degrees South ?

Those are imaginary globe coordinates . we are not allowed to travel beyond the imaginary globe 60S so how can we accept that drivel?

Michele must believe that the atmosphere is transparent . I can see some towers 16 miles away some days . Depends on how clear the air is . The atmosphere is opaque - it's why observatories are placed at altitude , and why we can't see Polaris from anywhere on earth.

The axis of revolution of the celestial dome - the correct scientific term - is tilted at 66.6 degrees with Polaris at the centre . Don't those globers know this?

This is what gives us the equinoxes so we are told - those two days of the year when globe earth is not tilted to or from the sun and rises due east sets due west all over earth i.e. rises 90E and sets 270W with close to equal day night periods. Any astrophysicist will tell you that.

Then look at timeanddate web site equinox data for Ushuaia in the South and Longyearben in the North for comparison of sunrise ,sunset and day/night length and you will see what a load of old cobblers -correct unscientific term - that actually is .

hey all, using this space to get/seek clarification on a few topics here:

1) the sun of course travels along a tighter circle as it heads northern: it seems like this would cause a change in speed or altitude [or some related attribute]; & more generally i would love to know the cause of the heavenly lights’ momentum/regularity

2) as just an observation, when watching timelapses of the stars/space, it’s clear/evident they’re moving as-if in a liquid [cosmic ocean] — just seems neat… a little whimsical; hardly totally linear

3) i’m sold that dinosaurs are fake, & even nuclear weapons… i’m sold that gravity is a farce; even that satellites*/orbits are hoaxery; i’m starting to comprehend that asteroids/meteorites are likely flimflam… still a bit curious about shooting stars, the nature of the stars/“planets”(!!!), & of course what’s below the oceans/beyond the walls

4) i see that the moon/sun may be a different mechanism than explains the tides; i’ve considered the idea of whirlpool/flows & think that’s neat: is there anything like an abyss below Ocean that’s “breathing?” & i would love to have clarified the regularity/cycle of these tides [& noting lakes/inletted bodies have little-if-any tidal effect]

that’s a good starting point

RileySlowWave wrote:hey all, using this space to get/seek clarification on a few topics here:

1) the sun of course travels along a tighter circle as it heads northern: it seems like this would cause a change in speed or altitude [or some related attribute]; & more generally i would love to know the cause of the heavenly lights’ momentum/regularity

2) as just an observation, when watching timelapses of the stars/space, it’s clear/evident they’re moving as-if in a liquid [cosmic ocean] — just seems neat… a little whimsical; hardly totally linear

3) i’m sold that dinosaurs are fake, & even nuclear weapons… i’m sold that gravity is a farce; even that satellites*/orbits are hoaxery; i’m starting to comprehend that asteroids/meteorites are likely flimflam… still a bit curious about shooting stars, the nature of the stars/“planets”(!!!), & of course what’s below the oceans/beyond the walls

4) i see that the moon/sun may be a different mechanism than explains the tides; i’ve considered the idea of whirlpool/flows & think that’s neat: is there anything like an abyss below Ocean that’s “breathing?” & i would love to have clarified the regularity/cycle of these tides [& noting lakes/inletted bodies have little-if-any tidal effect]

that’s a good starting point

Hello, I would like an attempt at answering your questions.

1) We don't calculate the suns speed in km or miles, it is done using degrees, 360 degrees being a full day. The heliocentric model also runs into this issue when they claim that the earth orbits the sun at a constant speed, which it wouldn't. It would fluctuate to speed and slow down depending on the position of it's orbit. So they should have went with measuring in degrees instead but they didn't.

2) I conclude with similar results to your observation as well

3) I am on the exact same page as you here, I have vivid memories of some of the "shooting stars" I witnessed as a child and looking back on it they could have easily been a type of ballistic rocket being fired.

4) Exploring the deepest parts of the ocean and whirlpools would be just as difficult as getting to the ice walls of Antarctica, hopefully one day when we can properly organize research teams without being heavily censored, demonetized and in the case of people like Mike Hughes, sabotaged and killed.

thanks for the reply: i’ll knock it back

1) it’s true the sun’s speed is ultimately calculated in “days;” so it’s kind of admitted here that the rate of travel for the sun appears [to a “linear” observer] to change at a predictable pace: as shown on calendars

it seems Tesla understood the mechanism suspending the celestial objects [Sol included]: paraphrasing it to be related to electromagnetism & the medium [“think in terms of energy, frequency, vibration… etc.”]; it sure seems like objects must be sitting at their density level; then the propulsion mechanism to keep them moving [& the stars] is in question

… it feels like people out there know this stuff lol 🫢

2) the stars moving is pretty wild: what on Earth are they spinning about(!???) — is it a vortex(??) like we’re in a celestial tube(??) uhhh

people want to know what the bottom of the oceans look like: is it a bathtub(?) is there a drain(??)

3) shooting stars: i’m willing to believe in them; although it’s hard to fathom their nature; other than man-made; maybe a celebration in Heaven hahaha

4) deepest ocean & whirlpools: water is pretty heavy that far down; bet it’s smashed… or hardy 🫣 gathered sediment made to dust

VERY curious what’s making the oceans move; other than wind… tides as lungs predictable of course; & appears to be related to only certain(??) masses of water; hardly if at all connected to others

it’d be nice if folks who really knew the nature of such & sort would just say it; outright; & let us conjecture based on it… lies over lies over lies

Putting this out here as I find it puzzling and don't yet have any great explanation / understanding.
So welcoming any insights / wisdom.

My question is that with a local sun circling around the Earth realm it would be traversing different diameter circles over the year, i.e. the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn. Assuming so, how is the difference in speed accounted for? It's my understanding, for example, that the circumference of the Tropic of Cancer is appx. 29,000 miles which means in 24 hours the Sun would need to be moving around 1,200 mph to make one complete revolution. The Tropic of Capricorn, on the other hand, has an appx. circumference of 49,000 miles which means the Sun would need to be moving a little over 2,000 mph in order to make one complete rotation in 24 hours. This translates into the Sun needing to move about 70% faster in the Winter than Summer. Admittedly, however, this doesn't make sense to me as that would mean the day would be 70% quicker / shorter, given the limits of human sight, yes?

Any thoughts on explaining / understanding / making sense of this would sure be appreciated.

Many thanks.
+++