[EasyGoing1]

Let me start out by saying that I have encountered people throughout my life who believe wholeheartedly in the Flat Earth model/theory - who have been impressively kind, professional and in no way "preachy" or accusationary and I do appreciate those kinds of people - in any context. Though the majority of my experiences with people who adhere to the Flat Earth model,  tend to be ... not so open-minded... and generally entrenched in a reality where the mass majority of the population and those who are "in the know" are actively participating in a coverup that is global in scope and that the coverup is singularly focused on keeping the truth from society that the Earth is indeed flat and not a sphere.

I consider myself an open-minded skeptic. I am by no means a person who agrees with the government or any group in power for that matter as a displacement of default. I follow the evidence. And just to give you some perspective on how I understand things, I will tell you that I have seen enough evidence (by means of a well-done documentary entitled, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" - which is a series of 7 different "episodes" in that documentary that were done back in the 1980s where they did an amazing job of presenting overwhelming evidence that Oswald did NOT kill or even shoot Kennedy but it even roots out the actual killers and it does it with undeniable evidence and clarity.

I also do not believe that the Twin Towers attacks are what our government says they were. Those buildings would never have come down the way they did - (not to mention the third building some 8 hours after the Twin Towers) - where such collapses only happen by controlled demolition and not a single person could convince me otherwise without showing me using real buildings. It is clear to me that the Patriot Act was the sole reason why our government slaughtered some of its own people and blamed "terrorism" - where the Patriot Act has taken away our constitutional rights to illegal search and invasion of privacy by our government - sold to the public as a necessity for safety ... it was complete bullshit and any critical thinker would come to the same conclusion.

Of course, there are many more areas where our government lies to us ... denies us a voice and denies us a choice in who leads in our government ... and that paradigm is only getting worse.

That being said, I will also confess that I am equally critical of any evidence that I examine in the context of an extraordinary claim. So this evaluation is NOT personal against anyone who believes in the Flat Earth theory ... and what I am going to say here is the objective truth. And I promise that none of you will object to what I am saying in as much as these things being a lie that I speak ... you won't be able to accuse me of lying because I will not be saying any lies...

So let's get to it ...

The other day, I spent several hours (hours because I first had to move the data off the drive) installing Windows 11 on an external hard drive so that I could boot my MacBook Pro into a native install of Windows and I only did this for one reason... so that I could download and use the Flat Earth simulator that is on Steam for a cost of roughly $3.00. I felt that since people in this movement have gone to such an extreme to prove their theory as being true, then it is certainly worth my time, effort and few dollars to look at it and look at it with a critical eye as I would any such simulator.

After getting it installed and launched, I quickly clicked on the sun icon and listened to the narrator explain that the sun is roughly 33 miles in diameter and that it resides roughly 30,000 miles above the earth. Also, that it shines down on the Earth in a somewhat conical pattern of light where darkness surrounds that light shining down and this of course explains how some of the planet is in light and some of it in darkness.

Of course, it also discussed other things, such as the Antarctic treaty and the ice wall that no one is allowed to go near because of said treaty ... and some other data was of course included in the simulator, making it thorough and comprehensive, simple and understandable.

... And here is where my critical thinking kicks in when looking at this model. Please do not take these remarks as being remarks against what you believe is true ... but please take these remarks as they literally are, which are merely statements of objective truth and some statements rooted in logical deduction.

The first immediate problem that I had with this model of the flat earth, is that the sun only shines downward in a conical pattern, yet it is clearly stated that the sun is a sphere and would therefore be - based on common knowledge - shining in all directions. I heard no explanation as to how light that is emitting from a spherical source (in all directions), only manages to generate light directly underneath it with a conical restrictor placed on the projected light pattern. That was never explained and to my knowledge has never been explained, or more importantly, it has never been demonstrated with a real physical model of the phenomena.

The second issue I have, is concerning the distances ... if we assume that it is correct that the sun is roughly 30,000 miles above the earth ... and if we take the known distance of the Earth at the equator, which is roughly 29,000 miles then ... when we say that at the farthest two points that can ever exist on the planet, which is 29,000 miles apart ... then at one of those points, you have the sun which is 30,000 miles in the sky ... it becomes apparent that to an observer that is on the other side of the planet - 29,000 miles away ...  they would always be able to see the sun in the sky. I even made a simple right triangle to illustrate (drawn to scale using pixel measurements).

That drawing would be accurate to scale with the angles correct where the sun is at one side of the planet and a person at the other. Which brings me to

The third problem with this model and perhaps the only one that truly matters ...

You and I can go outside every single day of the year and if we go outside early enough, we can literally watch the sun rise up from below the horizon ... then at the end of the day, we can literally watch it drop down below the horizon.

No flat earth model claiming to demonstrate the mechanics between the sun and the Earth shows the sun rising or setting from any vantage point on the earth and in fact only shows the sun sitting at a high enough position in the sky that it can literally be seen from any point on the planet 24 hours a day. But that is NOT what you and I see every day with our own two eyes.

And so this leads me to this statement:

No flat earth model, that claims to demonstrate the relationship between the sun and the Earth, has ever shown how the sun can appear to be rising from beneath the horizon in the morning, then setting below the horizon in the evening - from any vantage point on the Earth.

But to even complicate the problem a little further, I will point out that in certain areas of Canada, Alaska, Russia the Netherlands etc. there are months in the year when the sun never sets at all and there are times in the year when it never rises at all ... while the sun sits stagnant in the sky for those people, at the exact same time in the day, that same sun is rising and setting for people elsewhere on the planet.

This is a well-known fact and it occurs for a few months out of the year two times a year. And the only physical model that can easily demonstrate why it happens, is the spherical model of the Earth. In fact it is so easy to understand and see, that any 1st grader can comprehend it.

This begs the questions...

Why is it not rational for a person to understand the reality of how our planet works using a model that can actually demonstrate exactly how it works and that can demonstrate what we all see every day with our own two eyes?

What is rational about investing ones understanding of reality into a model that cannot show us what we all see every day with our own eyes? Wouldn't the acceptance of such a model be a literal act of dishonesty?

....

HOWEVER, a very simple model - using a light bulb and a spherical object ... will immediately demonstrate not only how the sun can be lighting one region of the planet for 24 hours a day for weeks at a time while simultaneously rising and setting for the rest of the planet, and the model is so simple, any 1st grader can look at it and understand it and even confirm that the spherical model does indeed coincide with what we ALL SEE every single day with our own two eyes. The flat earth model does NOT show us what we all observe with our own two eyes while the spherical model absolutely does.

The flat earth model does not explain how the sun only shines down on the planet like a spotlight instead of lighting up the planet in its entirety.

Every flat earth model is an animation or a computer simulation. They intentionally make it dark around the light that they draw emitting from the sun but common sense says that a sphere light source emits light in all directions. So the areas of darkness that are drawn into the "models" are merely artistic liberties taken with no actual accounting of real physics ... and it is MY CONTENTION that there has never been a PHYSICAL flat earth model created - using an actual light bulb as the light source - because creating a physical model of the flat earth would immediately show everyone that the model cannot work because light emitting from a sphere does emit light in all directions and the darkness that we all experience on the planet would be impossible to demonstrate using a scaled down physical model.

That is not true with a spherical model, where it can very easily be shown how half the Earth is dark while the other half light. and it also clearly shows how the sun appears to us to rise up from below the horizon and set below the horizon and it also clearly shows how the sun can be up for weeks at a time while simultaneously rising and setting every 24 hours for the rest of the planet.  The flat earth model - which does not exist in physical form - cannot show any of those phenomena which is a daily experience for all of us.

And for me personally, this is the end of the line where the debate has any teeth. Because if a theory cannot be demonstrated with a simple model, then that theory has no ability to bite down into the fabric of our reality and it must therefore be abandoned in favor of the model that actually does demonstrate what we all can see with our own two eyes.

Occam's razor is the problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements. It is also known as the principle of parsimony or the law of parsimony. Attributed to William of Ockham, a 14th-century English philosopher and theologian, it is frequently cited as,  "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", which translates as "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity".

Although Occam never used these exact words. Popularly, the principle is sometimes paraphrased as:

The simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation - which is the explanation requiring the least number of assumptions.

NOW, no doubt many of you will get angry with me for speaking the truth ... and you will insult me and call me names and tell me I'm stupid ... but after you have thrown your childish temper tantrum, you will still be unable to show me a model of the Earth being flat where that model demonstrates the phenomena that we all see every day with our own two eyes. You might even try to convince me that the sun would appear to be setting and rising even while it remains 30,000 miles above the surface of the Earth. But you should not even waste your time saying such nonsense much less should you ever waste your time believing it ... because it's simply not possible and if you believe that it is, then the onus is on you to demonstrate it working using a physical model so that we can all see clearly exactly how it works.

It then remains irrational and illogical to believe in a theory where the theory itself - in its own presentation - fails to demonstrate how the mechanics of our planet actually work. And it remains my opinion that anyone who continues to believe in a theory whose model disproves the theory as being possible - are simply people who are entrenched in cognitive dissonance and even worse ... deliberate dishonesty with an intention to deceive those of us who can see and accept the truth.

The conspiracy theories ... the NASA CGI photo claims etc. etc. are completely irrelevant because they can only have relevance AFTER a physical model of your theory can demonstrate the phenomena that we all see every day with our own two eyes.

If anything I have said here is false ... or a lie ... please quote my words in your response before you accuse me of being deceitful or of lying and specifically explain why my words that you have quoted are a lie - and adherence to either universal common sense or - even better - hard evidence would go far in support of your accusation.

The only thing I have done here, is I have applied critical thinking and honest healthy skepticism to a stated theory as to how our planet works where that theory has been given teeth in the form of a published simulation model that was designed to prove to the world that the earth is indeed flat. Where you can all plainly see now, the serious problems with the model in that the model does not demonstrate what we all see with our own two eyes ... every day and every night.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I do appreciate that.

Sincerely,

Mike Sims

[Tom Bishop]

No flat earth model, that claims to demonstrate the relationship between the sun and the Earth, has ever shown how the sun can appear to be rising from beneath the horizon in the morning, then setting below the horizon in the evening - from any vantage point on the Earth.

Did you look at the tfes.org models before you posted a complaint on the tfes.org website?  - https://wiki.tfes.org/Sunrise_and_Sunset

[Action80]

Are you sure you have the correct numbers? I never encountered any FE claim stating the sun was 30,000 miles above the earth. I also have no idea how you arrived at 29,000 mile base.

[Tom Bishop]

Getting the celestial model to work was one of the first things we looked at when we started looking into FE with our group. Not sure why someone would choose to consult a video game on Steam instead of the Flat Earth Society.

We are far beyond these base questions, have gone on to complete a survey of astronomy under a FE mindset, and are now on the stage of wondering why there are so many geometric and physical anomalies in the supposedly truer RE that seem to favor the FE conception of the cosmos.

[Omnivore]

No flat earth model, that claims to demonstrate the relationship between the sun and the Earth, has ever shown how the sun can appear to be rising from beneath the horizon in the morning, then setting below the horizon in the evening - from any vantage point on the Earth.

Did you look at the tfes.org models before you posted a complaint on the tfes.org website?  - https://wiki.tfes.org/Sunrise_and_Sunset

I haven't been through every last link--but I don't think electromagnetic acceleration is a thing and if you don't know the height of the sun, I don't think you can use the "perspective" suggestion for how it sets.

[existoid]

No flat earth model, that claims to demonstrate the relationship between the sun and the Earth, has ever shown how the sun can appear to be rising from beneath the horizon in the morning, then setting below the horizon in the evening - from any vantage point on the Earth.

Did you look at the tfes.org models before you posted a complaint on the tfes.org website?  - https://wiki.tfes.org/Sunrise_and_Sunset

I haven't been through every last link--but I don't think electromagnetic acceleration is a thing and if you don't know the height of the sun, I don't think you can use the "perspective" suggestion for how it sets.

My understanding, having been around the community for a few years now (mostly lurking) is that "Electromagnetic Acceleration" is vital for a flat earth model. As such, several loooong threads have sprung up about it over the years.

The challenge from the flat earthers is that they have claimed a formula describes this phenomenon, but it requires a "Bishop's Constant," which is not yet discovered. (Meaning, they don't actually have a formula). But because this is so necessary, threads debating EA usually just get locked after a while.

My suggestion: read over the wiki carefully regarding EA, as that is THE FLAT EARTH ANSWER to your original post.  And then if you think EA doesn't work, explain why. 

[RonJ]

The thing that Rowbotham asserts in ENAG is that the level of a body of water was parallel to a specified line of sight over 6 miles.  The assumption was then made that the line of sight was flat because light travels in straight lines.  Since the level of the water was parallel to the line of sight over the specified 6 miles the whole earth had to be flat.

Later Parsifal came up with an equation that asserts that light is bendy and can’t define a straight line.  This assertion was used to explain other observable phenomenon like the fact that it’s dark at night.  Of course, the equation is incomplete so must stay undefined until a value of the Bishop Constant is found. 

If Parsifal’s equation is valid then Rowbotham proved with his Bedford Canal experiment that the earth really isn’t flat but must be curved the same way light is. 
If Rowbotham was correct, then there’s some serious problems in FET like why it gets dark at night.

[Pete Svarrior]

If Parsifal’s equation is valid then Rowbotham proved with his Bedford Canal experiment that the earth really isn’t flat but must be curved the same way light is.
If Rowbotham was correct, then there’s some serious problems in FET like why it gets dark at night.

Alternatively: RE'ers' obsession with a book from 150 years ago is baffling, and upholding ENAG as religious dogma is silly buggers.

What is it with the RE zealots and the approach of "Aha! Someone else said a thing. You must take responsibility for it, despite having no relation to them!", anyway? You'd be very unhappy (rightly so) if someone else treated you that way.

Just imagine I demanded that you explain every single wrong thing a RE'er said here before I take you seriously. Now, imagine we extended that to go back hundreds of years - even to the ancient times before RonJs walked the earth! Yeah... it sounds dumb, because it is.

[RonJ]

When someone new comes onto this forum and asks ‘what does the flat earth theory say about ‘this’ the usual reply is a link to the Wiki.  Hopefully that person would thoroughly read the Wiki and then would certainly come across ENAG and the Bedford Canal experiment.  I am glad that you agree that upholding ENAG as religious dogma is silly and perhaps it’s only in the Wiki as an example of the silly things people believed in long ago. 


I certainly have no obsession with that book myself but only used it as a contrast to EA. That was part of my assessment of the evidence of the flat earth model. 


Perhaps you don’t wish to take any responsibility for much of the contents of ENAG yourself.  I wouldn't blame you.  It would be a difficult job to explain every single wrong thing that was published in it. 

[Pete Svarrior]

and perhaps it’s only in the Wiki as an example of the silly things people believed in long ago. 

If you only wish to muse about the fact that you still don't understand how the Wiki works after you've had it explained to you so many times, please take it out of the upper. This thread derailment ends here.