Questions About the Flat Earth

Hi!
I have a question that I really would appreciate your thoughts on. Not being an expert in any way here so bare with me.

The atmosperic pressure is decreasing when the higher we are above the sea level. I think it is well documented that the air pressure is much less at the top of Mount Everest compared to the sea level for example. And that is also what Google will tell us.  

In other words, when the distance between the atoms in the air are further apart the air pressure is lower as I understand it.

So if we go much higher up still, is it not possible that we actually may reach a point were we have a vacuum or a near-vacuum even without a closed container? The videos I have seen is mostly talking about the need for a close container and how stupid the very idea is that the atmosphere can go from one state (non-vacuum) to another (vacuum) without a container so that is why have to question you guys!

Thanks, Mattias

Roban wrote: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.
+++

i too would love to know this

[hoping it’s chariots ]

that it is so predictable & mechanistic indicates a greater system at work…

calling on IFERS best(!)

actually, the sun is probably just trying to run from all the bullshit people are spouting; thus it continues(!) [jokes] “ack, it’s NASA!” ‍�

RileySlowWave wrote:

Roban wrote: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.
+++

i too would love to know this

[hoping it’s chariots ]

that it is so predictable & mechanistic indicates a greater system at work…

calling on IFERS best(!)

actually, the sun is probably just trying to run from all the bullshit people are spouting; thus it continues(!) [jokes] “ack, it’s NASA!” ‍

reiterating this question:

as the sun travels on its Capricorn-to-Cancer [& back] journey each year, is its relative speed &/or altitude changing(?) or is it it cruising somehow(?)

if there’s an explanatory video/article on this subject i’d love to see it

Roban wrote: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.
+++

Roban, it looks like it’s us & the crickets on this one…

i’ll apply some brainpower to the conundrum:

1) checking the measurement of duration of a “day” [a revolution of the sun] from very-north during Summer/Winter & very-south during the same…

using https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/norway/longyearbyen

Longyearbyen example:
December (2023) = Down all day — this favors the notion that its traveling at a steady rate(?) & is on its wider path elsewhere…

June (2023) = Up all day — well this is nice: indicates a location that can see the whole action — so we’ll assume the sun’s rate here is steady; so the time of day will be “infinite” for awhile

i suppose from here we could find the margins of the arctic circle & make plenty of calculations — the point where “infinity meets reality” [a paradox] in a sense: where 24 hr sun meets 23…

Dalvík example: [note Iceland is just-south of the Arctic Circle]
December (2023) = shortest day is solstice w/ 2:48:21 day-length [note the peculiar rates-of-change leading to/from this point:
12/18 = -1:50
12/19 = -1:24
12/20 = -0:57
12/21 = -0:30
12/22 = -0:02 (solstice)
12/23 = +0:25
12/24 = +0:52
12/25 = +1:19

June (2023) = 24 hr sun from 14th-29th
6/12 = +~14
6/13 = +~21
6/14 = +~19
interrupting: the data appears screwy for this location… using a time duration calculator gives the numbers i listed; the website differs or lacks

anyhow, i’ll try one more location near the Arctic Circle to test; w/ a keener eye toward the data accuracy

Nuuk [Greenland baby] example:
June (2023) = much better, midnight sun goes away [appropriate for a location S. of the line] longest day is solstice [21:10:00] so we can see we’re a bit south…
6/19 = +0:55 (checking: +2 actual*)
6/20 = +0:33 (check: +1 my math*)
6/21 = +0:10 solstice (check: 0*)
6/22 = -0:11 (check: 0*)
6/23 = -0:34 (check: -1*)
6/24 = -0:56 (check: -1*)

okay, i’m seeing data issues: input accuracy [would likely need to survey from multiple/many sites/sources to get an average or a feel] includes physical location data: we’d be best to grab a sample from locations around the A. Circle from as many “authorities” as possible lol — something reliable

holy cow what an essay(!)

plowing forth(!): even if this is instructive rather than definitive

let’s grab a location near the T. of Capricorn

Asunción example:
December (2023): longest day occurs on solstice
12/19 = +0:06 (check: 0*)
12/20 = +0:04 (check: 0*)
12/21 = +0:02 solstice (check: 0*)
12/22 = <1 (check: 0*)
12/23 = -0:02 (check: 0*)
12/24 = -0:04 (check: 0*)
12/25 = -0:06 (check: -1*)
12/26 = -0:08 (check: +1*)
12/27 = -0:11 (check: -1*)

okay, let’s call it there & ponder this:

the day-lengths are BARELY/incrementally moving around the winter solstice in Paraguay: comparing the rate of change per-day at Dalvík which i’ll stop & recheck: let’s put them side-by side(!!!)

Tropics Day-length Rate Comparison
December (2023) Dalvík vs Asunción
12/18 = D: -1:50 A: +0:08 (check: -1* +1*)
12/19 = D: -1:24 A: +0:06 (check: -3* 0*)
12/20 = D: -0:57 A: +0:04 (check: 0* 0*)
12/21 = D: -0:30 A: +0:02 (check: 0* 0*)
12/22 = D: -0:02 A: < 1s (check: -1* 0*)
12/23 = D: +0:25 A: -0:02 (check: +1* 0*)
12/24 = D: +0:52 A: -0:04 (check: +1* 0*)

well, a quick glance tells us the rate-of-change is “faster” or different when comparing locations near the Arctic circle & Tropic of Capricorn on same days (December, for instance)

i’ll reflect on this

[quote="RileySlowWave"][quote="RileySlowWave"]

Roban wrote: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.
+++

As already stated. The Sun ascends at 15 degrees per hour starting at the prime meridian. Each meridian is 30 degrees of right ascension and there are 12 for a total of 360 degrees. Those are the facts we know, regardless of the Sun's declination that is what we observe day after day. Stop trying to calculate in mph/kph and what not.

The title question is basically enough. I have seen several maps, and also read statements that they differ.  I have read that naval maps were used during WW2 that are similar to the Gleasom map being quite accurate.
What is the most accurate flat earth map?

The answer depends on the ability to accurately measure distances. Who knows about this? For example, can the exact distance between Rio de Janeiro and Johannesburg or Perth be determined? Or between any places on earth?
What methods are there?

EDIT: Meanwhile I found at least 2 categories in this forum that match my question: Mapping the Earth
Flat Earth Maps

In the second topic I couldn't find answers, and the first topic I'm studying at the moment.

Sorry if this has been asked. I have tried researching this question but always end up at the videos of the space station being fake from the perspective of it being filmed in a pool, use of green screens and the zero G aircraft flights (vomit comet). I was walking my dog the other night and saw a very bright light traverse the night sky. I did not know what it was and after some research it turns out that it is supposed to be the space station going over. Since that night I have watched it several more times according to the published schedule I found online for my area. In my research I have not found an explanation for what I am viewing from a flat earth viewpoint. Any alternative viewpoints that I can research would be greatly appreciated.

Thank You

RileySlowWave wrote:

Roban wrote: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.
+++

Roban, it looks like it’s us & the crickets on this one…

i’ll apply some brainpower to the conundrum:

1) checking the measurement of duration of a “day” [a revolution of the sun] from very-north during Summer/Winter & very-south during the same…

using https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/norway/longyearbyen

Longyearbyen example:
December (2023) = Down all day — this favors the notion that its traveling at a steady rate(?) & is on its wider path elsewhere…

June (2023) = Up all day — well this is nice: indicates a location that can see the whole action — so we’ll assume the sun’s rate here is steady; so the time of day will be “infinite” for awhile

i suppose from here we could find the margins of the arctic circle & make plenty of calculations — the point where “infinity meets reality” [a paradox] in a sense: where 24 hr sun meets 23…

Dalvík example: [note Iceland is just-south of the Arctic Circle]
December (2023) = shortest day is solstice w/ 2:48:21 day-length [note the peculiar rates-of-change leading to/from this point:
12/18 = -1:50
12/19 = -1:24
12/20 = -0:57
12/21 = -0:30
12/22 = -0:02 (solstice)
12/23 = +0:25
12/24 = +0:52
12/25 = +1:19

June (2023) = 24 hr sun from 14th-29th
6/12 = +~14
6/13 = +~21
6/14 = +~19
interrupting: the data appears screwy for this location… using a time duration calculator gives the numbers i listed; the website differs or lacks

anyhow, i’ll try one more location near the Arctic Circle to test; w/ a keener eye toward the data accuracy

Nuuk [Greenland baby] example:
June (2023) = much better, midnight sun goes away [appropriate for a location S. of the line] longest day is solstice [21:10:00] so we can see we’re a bit south…
6/19 = +0:55 (checking: +2 actual*)
6/20 = +0:33 (check: +1 my math*)
6/21 = +0:10 solstice (check: 0*)
6/22 = -0:11 (check: 0*)
6/23 = -0:34 (check: -1*)
6/24 = -0:56 (check: -1*)

okay, i’m seeing data issues: input accuracy [would likely need to survey from multiple/many sites/sources to get an average or a feel] includes physical location data: we’d be best to grab a sample from locations around the A. Circle from as many “authorities” as possible lol — something reliable

holy cow what an essay(!)

plowing forth(!): even if this is instructive rather than definitive

let’s grab a location near the T. of Capricorn

Asunción example:
December (2023): longest day occurs on solstice
12/19 = +0:06 (check: 0*)
12/20 = +0:04 (check: 0*)
12/21 = +0:02 solstice (check: 0*)
12/22 = <1 (check: 0*)
12/23 = -0:02 (check: 0*)
12/24 = -0:04 (check: 0*)
12/25 = -0:06 (check: -1*)
12/26 = -0:08 (check: +1*)
12/27 = -0:11 (check: -1*)

okay, let’s call it there & ponder this:

the day-lengths are BARELY/incrementally moving around the winter solstice in Paraguay: comparing the rate of change per-day at Dalvík which i’ll stop & recheck: let’s put them side-by side(!!!)

Tropics Day-length Rate Comparison
December (2023) Dalvík vs Asunción
12/18 = D: -1:50 A: +0:08 (check: -1* +1*)
12/19 = D: -1:24 A: +0:06 (check: -3* 0*)
12/20 = D: -0:57 A: +0:04 (check: 0* 0*)
12/21 = D: -0:30 A: +0:02 (check: 0* 0*)
12/22 = D: -0:02 A: < 1s (check: -1* 0*)
12/23 = D: +0:25 A: -0:02 (check: +1* 0*)
12/24 = D: +0:52 A: -0:04 (check: +1* 0*)

well, a quick glance tells us the rate-of-change is “faster” or different when comparing locations near the Arctic circle & Tropic of Capricorn on same days (December, for instance)

i’ll reflect on this

i come bearing gifts: https://www.flateartheducation.com/images/Daylight-length-rate-comparison.pdf

Hey, all. I came across this video which says the horizon drops with altitude. Can anyone explain what’s happening here? It will be much appreciated. And, I apologise if this question has been asked previously. https://youtu.be/XDn2Ako1_sE

Samar527 wrote:Hey guys, I came across this : (Link here. cant share with link my acc is too new, have to check original post for link)
Here he shows an experiment which "supposedly shows" that the horizon does not rise to eye level and falls with increase in altitude.
Can anybody help point out some errors in that experiment ?

One thing I have thought of is , even if I do assume the horizon does fall by the amount he is showing in those rigged screenshots, where he goes up to a height of 5600 ft, then at heights attained at the high altitude balloon footage, the horizon must not be visible at all! But we do see the horizon in such cases as shown in the videos we have in this subsection.

But I would have liked it if the horizon did not fall at all in his shown experiments. Should I assume that the experiment being performed is rigged ? Can anybody help give a more concrete argument ?

Heres a quoted post from this thread on the forum 'The International Flat Earth Research Society' on the subthread 'Horizon Rises to Eye Level'.
Cant link cause my accounts not 7 days old yet

If you scroll down on the first page theres people replying to this question someone posted similar to your question. Theres also more about horizon and eye level on that thread and on this forum. Eric Dubay has some videos on this too. I know theres youtube videos and posts about Reds Rhetoric's videos too online

Ill get some more forum links and videos and research together post it for you to check out if you'd like

Hello to all,
I came across a video today by Wolfie (a pro-globe propagandist that insiders know) who argued that the eötvös effect proves that we are on a rotating globe.
This intrigued me and I did my research on the subject. The very well known and widely publicised FlatEarth.ws site among the NASA version of the globe advocates has also talked about this subject and share Wolfie6020's video below: https://flatearth.ws/eotvos
I'll add this other video: https://youtu.be/73Ec-d2RbsI

So, as a geocentrist and a zetetician, I was looking to see if the flat earthers had an answer to this so-called proof of earth rotation. I came across a nice video from Phuket that gave me an answer that satisfied me by arguing that it is due to jet streams at different latitudes of the earth and I would add that the climate/ambient temperature also influences the gravity acceleration vector: depending on the ambient air of the more or less dense environment, the gravity/weight will vary by affecting the load of objects.
What I would like for the instruction of everyone on this wonderful site that has not yet addressed this subject, would be explanations on the forum (and in video if possible) of this effect. I have only found this video so far:
https://youtu.be/ssPFOBHv_V8

Here are the 2 videos that answer Phuket and Nathan on their claims:
https://youtu.be/VJ3ksl5nLSk

https://youtu.be/oLaZ9t214BA

The purpose of this new topic is to give a clear and proper answer to this effect which surely does not exist and which can be explained by various things as mentioned above. If there are any knowledgeable experts to debunk the answers of the pro-globe propagandists and make it clear to all interested people who come across this topic that there is no clear and undeniable scientific evidence for this other than the one allegedly provided by Wolfie over Australia (according to my research, no tests other than in Australia where there is a jet stream running west to east? Weird!) that would be great! Thanks in advance for your answers.

I would also like to know in bonus more and get some answers on this same site about the Allais effect: https://flatearth.ws/allais-effect

For my part, I think it has something to do with the electromagnetic influence of the sun and the moon on pendulums during eclipses. Can we really use this effect to debunk the Foucault pendulums, although there is other evidence against this pseudo-scientific proof ?

Science is aware that Allais debunked Foucaults pendulum as proof of earth rotation. I thought that nonsense had disappeared quietly.

Foucalts pendulum actually aligns with the movement of deep space i.e. the star field or the celestial dome.

Eotvos effect is just more of the same -assume the earth rotates, measure an effect produced by a change in direction and assume the change backs up the first assumption. It's horseshit. Circular arguments all around , the new scientific method.

The Allais effects occur whenever any two bodies beneath the dome align with earth , or our magnetic field may be more accurate. Including sun, moon ,planets and asteroids.
Look up the JRA effects if you wish . Initials of the three professors who progressed the work with pendulums.

I would be surprised if these topics are covered on here in depth .Once you realise that the whole caboodle is based on unproven assumption then these so called proofs become just pseudo-science

https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/2021/02/19/the-eotvos-effect/

This link states that the earth is spherical and spins. Typical mainstream rubbish treating theory as fact .

I've heard claimed over and over that the earth is revolving around the sun at 66,600 mph on an axial tilt of 66.6 degrees. Where is the source for this? I cant find it anywhere. Everything I've read says 67,000 mph and 23.5 degrees axial tilt.

Please help. I can't use this to redpill people unless I can explain why all google searches give different figures. I will just look like a gullible idiot.

Ryan wrote:I've heard claimed over and over that the earth is revolving around the sun at 66,600 mph on an axial tilt of 66.6 degrees. Where is the source for this? I cant find it anywhere. Everything I've read says 67,000 mph and 23.5 degrees axial tilt.

Please help. I can't use this to redpill people unless I can explain why all google searches give different figures. I will just look like a gullible idiot.

Something I posted over a year ago…

You know what I realized on my own FE calculations? The Pythagorean equation for calculating earth curvature drop has two variables in it...R squared and D squared...”R2D2”…Star Wars space fantasy from masonic Hollywood.

Also, the official dimensions of globe Earth plugged into the Pythagorean equation for curvature has some very curious Freemason 3-6-9/11 numerology...

At 3 miles, 6 ft curvature drop, at 30 miles, 600 ft drop, at 90 miles is the 1 mile curvature drop, at 300 miles is 11 mile drop...

Radius of the earth is also 3960 miles…
The “bulging equatorial radius” they make it to be 3963 miles…

Sun is 93M miles away…Venus 66M, Mercury 36M

Earth surface area is 196.9 million square miles…

At some stage long ago, these dimensions of the fictional globe must've been set on this masonic numerology.

Hi all,
my first post so here's a quick introduction. I 'woke up' during covid, so I started going down the proverbial 'rabbit holes', and I remember saying to myself - no way, I am not buying the flat earth stuff, that's just too much etc, and then I saw one of Eric's videos... took me a couple of months to come to grip with it... and so here I am "a 2-year old flatearther"

So as the title says, this bugs me a little, as I couldn't find this addressed online, and searched through the posts in this topic and the forum, as per forum rules, pretty sure it wasn't addressed before, if I 'm wrong I apologize.

Anyway this occurs to me as one of the stronger arguments that globe believers (especially ham radio enthusiasts) use as a proof of globe, according to them the maximum distance of short wave bands conforms to the 8 inches per mile square, therefore short radio waves cannot propagate due to the supposed curvature, (hence the repetitors), as opposed to long waves which bounce of the ionosphere which enables them to travel for hundreds of miles, that is can 'circumvent the globe'.

This seems like a sound argument and one that can be tried and reproduced easily, so I thought to ask the community, any ideas/tests on this ?

mattbrue wrote:Hi!
I have a question that I really would appreciate your thoughts on. Not being an expert in any way here so bare with me.

The atmosperic pressure is decreasing when the higher we are above the sea level. I think it is well documented that the air pressure is much less at the top of Mount Everest compared to the sea level for example. And that is also what Google will tell us.  

In other words, when the distance between the atoms in the air are further apart the air pressure is lower as I understand it.

So if we go much higher up still, is it not possible that we actually may reach a point were we have a vacuum or a near-vacuum even without a closed container? The videos I have seen is mostly talking about the need for a close container and how stupid the very idea is that the atmosphere can go from one state (non-vacuum) to another (vacuum) without a container so that is why have to question you guys!

Thanks, Mattias

Vacuum chamber experiments have been conducted demonstrating that you can’t have combustion or propulsion in a vacuum. We can’t believe everything we are taught and this would be no exception. We don’t know exactly what the nature of the sky is the higher we go. I’m thinking that the same way the heaviest objects settle at the lowest levels then the lightest gases would settle at the top.

I think common sense and logic combined with real life experiences, observations and physics would indicate there is only so far we can physically go down or up in this realm. It’s been demonstrated that there is limit to how far submarines can go until the pressure is to much and I believe the equal and opposite would apply to going upwards.  I think the proven fact that gases need to be pressurized and contained would indicate we most likely do live in an enclosed environment but I doubt we could ever make it high enough to verify what the nature of the enclosure is.

To me this also makes sense with buoyancy and density. If there is a creator this would make sense to keep his creation in their designated areas of creation.

Forest4theTreez wrote:

mattbrue wrote:Hi!
I have a question that I really would appreciate your thoughts on. Not being an expert in any way here so bare with me.

The atmosperic pressure is decreasing when the higher we are above the sea level. I think it is well documented that the air pressure is much less at the top of Mount Everest compared to the sea level for example. And that is also what Google will tell us.  

In other words, when the distance between the atoms in the air are further apart the air pressure is lower as I understand it.

So if we go much higher up still, is it not possible that we actually may reach a point were we have a vacuum or a near-vacuum even without a closed container? The videos I have seen is mostly talking about the need for a close container and how stupid the very idea is that the atmosphere can go from one state (non-vacuum) to another (vacuum) without a container so that is why have to question you guys!

Thanks, Mattias

Vacuum chamber experiments have been conducted demonstrating that you can’t have combustion or propulsion in a vacuum. We can’t believe everything we are taught and this would be no exception. We don’t know exactly what the nature of the sky is the higher we go. I’m thinking that the same way the heaviest objects settle at the lowest levels then the lightest gases would settle at the top.

I think common sense and logic combined with real life experiences, observations and physics would indicate there is only so far we can physically go down or up in this realm. It’s been demonstrated that there is limit to how far submarines can go and I believe the equal and opposite would apply to going upwards.

To me this also makes sense with buoyancy and density. If there is a creator this would make sense to keep his creation in their designated areas of creation.

hey, i like this notion about upper & lower limits — it reminded me of seeing a high-altitude balloon w/ cameras/monitors rising until barometric pressure drops to .07 then POP

would be curious to see balloons/crafts going higher than this (115,000 ft / 21.78 mi.) & contending w/ that thin-thin air [or whatever’s above aether-level, hahaha]

then like you said, below has its limits w/ massive pressure & molten hot-hot

we’s a stuck good thing there are responsible stewards to help humanity, rather than enslaving us to serfdom …

Ryan wrote:I've heard claimed over and over that the earth is revolving around the sun at 66,600 mph on an axial tilt of 66.6 degrees. Where is the source for this? I cant find it anywhere. Everything I've read says 67,000 mph and 23.5 degrees axial tilt.

Please help. I can't use this to redpill people unless I can explain why all google searches give different figures. I will just look like a gullible idiot.

It's a maths thing . Distance to the Sun = 93,000,000 miles . Times this by Pi to get the orbit length . Divide by the number of hours in the solar year - this year is 365.25 days. Your answer will be 66,600 mph.

I was just thinking about volcanos today as a few videos caught my attention on Twitter/X.

It’s obviously a silly, made up fact that earth has a spinning molten core which they tell us is the source of volcanic activity.
My question is if anyone has explored an alternative explanation that makes more sense?

I am also admittedly bad at researching questions like these and navigating through the propaganda and controlled opposition information out there. Any tips on that would be greatly appreciated as well . Thanks!

I think we need a new description of Atmosphere. Atmosplane anyone?

Hi, I am new to the forum. One thing that confuses me is light refraction.

Whichever zoom no curvature proof video I am watching, there is someone claiming that 8inches per square mile is incorrect measurement and has something to do with light refraction. To what degree can refraction play a role for supposed curvature?

If anyone could please clarify this issue, it would be greatly appreciated.

Hello I have a video by Larken Rose which I greatly respect due to his voluntarist content. He did a video 5 years ago in which he says that he watched to Eric's 200 Proofs and was unconvinced by the video. He then showed two proofs that for him proved that the Earth was Spherical. At 11:00 in the video He explains an experiment he did to see the shadow of three sticks on Earth in three different locations all 3000 miles apart in which he showed that the shadows worked like they were supposed to work on a spherical Earth and not on a flat Earth model, and then he pointed out a fallacy in the flat Earth model by showing that the sun wouldn't allow night time to be present (at 19:30 in the video).



How do you explain the two on a Flat Earth model?

pitagoras wrote:Hello I have a video by Larken Rose which I greatly respect due to his voluntarist content. He did a video 5 years ago in which he says that he watched to Eric's 200 Proofs and was unconvinced by the video. He then showed two proofs that for him proved that the Earth was Spherical. At 11:00 in the video He explains an experiment he did to see the shadow of three sticks on Earth in three different locations all 3000 miles apart in which he showed that the shadows worked like they were supposed to work on a spherical Earth and not on a flat Earth model, and then he pointed out a fallacy in the flat Earth model by showing that the sun wouldn't allow night time to be present (at 19:30 in the video).



How do you explain the two on a Flat Earth model?

Have you taken the time to watch Eric Dubay’s 200 proofs earth isn’t a spinning ball? If so what did you think? Explain to us what your source says was unconvincing about Eric video? Then please explain how water adheres to and doesn’t fly off of a spinning sphere. Saying it’s because of gravity is not a valid answer and proves nothing. You need to prove it to yourself and stop beLIEving everything you’re told by these pseudo “authority” figures and alleged experts. Conduct an experiment demonstrating water sticking to a spinning sphere to be physically possible and show the world how to replicate that experiment to prove to themselves. The physics of water alone prove earth isn’t a spinning sphere. What you can do and makes perfect sense would be to replicate our flat topographical stationary plane on a small scale and it works. Then prove the “THEORY” of gravity to be real. Then show us the curvature of earth, prove it exists on your own without a fisheye style GoPro lens or images or videos provided by third party. Then prove to us all via observations and experiments that earth is in motion. Do you feel any movement or motion? But you’ve been told we are spinning and orbiting the sun while the solar system chases the sun and the entire milky galaxy is blasting through an infinite universe at space ball style ludicrous speeds? Do you feel any of that? Or is someone telling you it’s all happening but your don’t sense it enough to convince you? It’s time to pause and think for yourself, trust your senses. It’s obvious we aren’t moving.

Then show us how a physically impossible gaseous environment can remain side by side with a alleged vacuum of space. Simply claiming gravity to be the reason and saying science and nasa said so will not be a valid answer. Explain to us how physically impossible combustion and propulsion takes place in this alleged vacuum of space. Then explain to us why landmarks, sky scapes, mountains and other objects can be seen from very long distances, saying it’s due to refraction is akin to using gravity to explain their heliocentric model deception. Refraction is a sad and pathetic bandaid attempt at keeping this blatantly obvious deception alive. The list goes on and on.

There is PLENTY of information within these forums that is more than sufficient to prove the spinning space ball earth and heliocentric model is a huge deception and crime against humanity. But you don’t have to believe it you can get yourself a high zoom camera, watch a ship disappear over the alleged curve of the earth with your naked eyes, then take your camera and zoom back onto the ship in full view from top to bottom.  Human vision isn’t unlimited and there is something called the law of perspective that dictates how we see the world. The horizon is horizontal, words have meanings.  There are very flat locations all over earth such as the Utah salt flats which is where land speed records are made. How many flat areas does it take to make a sphere? We can all agree a sphere has curves and if it’s a sphere we should easily be able to observe and prove it’s existence. Stop believing sketchy third party sad attempts at keeping this deception alive and think for yourself. Go out and try and find proof of the curvature yourself. Get the high zoom camera. It’s really that simple. The truth is simple.

I’m sure someone here will be able to address the topic you’ve brought up. If you really look at the model everything is simpler and makes more sense and just works better on a flat stationary earth with mountains and valleys. A compass and a sundial and seasons to name a few. The natural, physics and observable reality of water work perfectly on this model. Water flows from high elevations and unless contained in a lake will empty into the sea. It’s called sea level for a reason because water always finds and seeks its level and would also explain why the highest concentration of water is in the seas and also why elevations are based on their distances above sea level. The truth is simple and works and is realistic and doesn’t need defense. Lies are difficult and complex and complicated and make no sense and aren’t realistic and will always have to be defended by one lie to support the previous lie. The life of pathological lying psychopaths isn’t easy and is exactly why nasa has been exposed. Their mistakes have been discovered. When you look at how low budget and sloppy their attempts at fooling the world are and see how much tax payer money they defraud America for it’s embarrassing and infuriating. Maybe if people that still believe in the globe figured just that part out they’d snap out of the lifetime of indoctrination and brainwashing and media hypnotism. It’s a worldwide system of control and psychological manipulation and they get us when we’re just little kids. The deception is then reinforced by all forms of media our entire lives. They control all mainstream forms of information distribution, media, mainstream science and education systems. Control the information and control the minds and worldview. Psychological warfare.


Tip for the author of this thread;

the thumbnail of that video you provided is a major red flag and is all any of us have to see to know this is nothing more than another of the many YouTube algorithm pushed shill, misinformation and misrepresentation channels. No real flat earth knower thinks earth is a flat disc floating in space. And those clouds? What a joke. That’s how they keep the ignorant and gullible masses still thinking the truth of our earth is a joke and that the scientifically and physically impossible pseudoscientific sci-fi spinning space ball earth and heliocentric model is real.

If someone wants to attempt to debunk the flat earth model they MUST thoroughly research what it actually is, (the real version and not the misrepresentation shown in the thumbnail). They should know everything about the model and be aware of all the scientific evidence and physical observations. But once that’s actually done and you’re exposed to truthful and honest sources of information, unless you’re mentally challenged, you will inevitably become a flat earther. The term flat earther has been mocked and ridiculed and ran through the media wringer so now people still ignorant and unaware of the truth associate it with a tin foil hat nut job idea. It’s like the term conspiracy theorist. You’re being played for a fool, defending the perpetrators of the deceptions and laughing at us while sadly the joke is on you if you still beLIEve you’re a descendant of monkeys living in a spinning space ball in a vacuum hurdling at unimaginable speeds through an infinite universe. The very definition of infinite dictates those claiming it’s in fact infinite can never know for sure it’s infinite. It’s absolutely mind boggling what we were all made to beLIEve. Big bang happened 14 billion years ago you say? Nothing exploded and made everything you say? The sun is 93 million miles away and it’s radius is 650,500 km you say? Start looking at the details and start asking questions. Can you prove to yourself or verify any of those ridiculous claims to be true? Or are you just going to beLIEve it? That’s not how real science works but it is how they deceived us all. With sizes and distances and timeframes that are all beyond human comprehension and impossible to verify or observe with our own eyes and all going against physics. It’s pseudo science and science fiction. is it’s time to use your brain. Liberate your mind.

Us flat earthers know what the heliocentric model consists of and most likely more than the average globe beLIEver. We don’t misrepresent that model so why misrepresent ours? It’s obvious why.

We don’t have to beLIEve anything because we’ve done our research and we KNOW what’s really going on. Wake up buddy.

I found a video that explains the questions raised by Larken's video perfectly: