Recent Posts

Flat Earth Community / Whats your opinion on the Earth?
« Last post by Jessica on Today at 02:45:40 PM »
This is very important. My son believes the earth is flat!!!
Flat Earth Community / I need help!!!
« Last post by Jessica on Today at 02:18:46 PM »
My son is starting to go against my knowledge of the flat earth. He is trying to prove me wrong, but we would fall off the earth if it was round. How do I get my son to believe the truth? The government can try to hide the truth all they want, but I know what is right!!! 8)
Flat Earth Theory / The Flat Earth
« Last post by Jessica on Today at 02:09:15 PM »
Okay, so I was wondering through my son's instagram, and I saw he posted false information about the earth being round. He clearly doesn't know that the government is trying to hide the truth from us. Everyone, I need you to like this so we can prove the round earther's wrong!!! >o<
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Earth's Oval Orbit defies Science!
« Last post by junker on Today at 01:37:40 PM »
This is not a FEM topic...

Flat Earth Theory / Re: multiverse: distance to the sun is 6360km
« Last post by zorbakim on Today at 12:43:43 PM »
The principles of sundials are the same everywhere in the world.
It was used on flat ground.

My multiverse principle is simple.
Everyone has the same celestial sphere.
The celestial Spheres revolve around the North Pole from the east to the west.
The North Star moves at a constant rate with distance along the longitude.
All celestial bodies are holograms.
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Earth's Oval Orbit defies Science!
« Last post by stack on Today at 10:31:44 AM »
A system with 80% water, will and have to obey all the rules of physics and hydro/fluid dynamics

If as claimed, earth is orbiting the sun, and if the orbit was a perfect circle, my discussion would be easily discarded and maybe obsolete, or at least hard to prove

But with an Oval orbit, things change drastically, especially when the acclaimed path is about to change direction at the farthest points

Water despite of the acclaimed gravity, should and must obey the laws of physics such as inertia and momentum, so at the farthest points of the acclaimed orbit, water should drastically shift on the earth to the outer side of the orbit as the earth makes its return towards the sun. Centripetal and centrifugal forces cannot be just acting on the surface of earth, if it was a globe, but they should be workable on the orbital level, hence the shift of all fluids massiv as oceans and seas should be very noticeable same as tides are.

At the farthest points of the orbit (yellow arrows indicated in the picture) and when earth is supposedly changing its direction, why is never any shift in the water bodies on earth?

Thanks for reading

Interesting point, however, "Earth's orbit has an eccentricity of less than 0.02, which means that it is very close to being circular. That is why the difference between the Earth's distance from the Sun at perihelion and aphelion is very little – less than 5 million km...While it is true that Earth does have a perihelion, or point at which it is closest to the sun, and an aphelion, its farthest point from the Sun, the difference between these distances is too minimal to have any significant impact on the Earth's seasons and climate."

Presumably tides as well.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: multiverse: distance to the sun is 6360km
« Last post by JCM on Today at 09:28:16 AM »
Measuring the Sun’s height above the Earth in this method gives vastly different heights depending on where you are in the world as well as the time of the year.  So, either the method is extremely flawed, or the Sun is physically in different places to different people. Which is it? 

This also ignores the bigger issues of a near sun/moon system in that it has no explanation for worldwide observance of the moon phases which don’t change significantly in one day while a near moon/sun system would orbit the entire Earth in that day producing different phases very quickly.  How would a near moon/sun system produce the phases we can see? 

As for the multiverse based on individuals, not on physical universes, can you explain that more please?

With regard to sun dials, there are many different kinds and they look quite different for different tasks as well as needing to be set up differently for different latitudes and season to accurately tell time...  Now, why would sun dials be different on different latitudes if the Earth were flat? What are they being lined up against? The surface of the Earth? or another angle?

For more information on sun dials this is a very good site you should read through...

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of Western Horizon at Sunrise
« Last post by inquisitive on Today at 09:04:34 AM »
The answer for the perspective explanation is that when you increase your altitude you are broadening your perspective lines, can see further, and it will take longer for the sun to set into your horizon. That part of the sky is seeing the sunset slightly higher, since that part of the sky is higher in altitude.

The explanation for EAT is that the sun's ray's are barely missing the earth and are hitting the red area of the horizon.
But on a flat earth with the sun always at 3.000 up from the surface of the earth, how does it get close to the horizon? Because there is no red areas unless the sun is near the horizon.

For that part of the sky the sun is near the horizon.

I am not sure what you are asking, exactly. The explanations would either be setting by perspective or EAT. For perspective the idea that the perspective lines would approach each other for infinity without meeting is disputed.
Disputed by who? You continue to misuse the word perspective.
On a flat earth, it can't be illusory because the physical phenomena is real. The light from the sun must somehow actually be grazing the earth at a low angle. That's why EAT makes more sense than "perspective" if the earth is flat.

As we've seen over and over again, the Sun has to be physically lower to produce the effects such as this, uplit clouds, rising shadow on Everest from a lower peak, etc.

If you think about what the objects you are looking at are seeing in those examples, all make sense.

Atmosphere, clouds, mountains, all reflect light to the observer.

Here again I refer you back to Bobby's OP that shows the shadowed San Diego county by the San Diego Mountains at sunrise. The west slope of the mountains and the entire landscape is in twilight all the way to the coast but the ocean at the horizon is illuminate by the sunlight. At some point the tops of the high rises at San Diego harbor will lite up while the rest of the landscape will be shadowed by the Laguna and Cuyamaca mountains until the sun rises over the top of those mountains. To the east of those mountains lies Imperial Valley and it's lite up entirely. This can only happen if the sun is below the elevation of the mountains at sunrise.
Down town San Diego is 55.3 miles from Laguna peak. Laguna peak is  6,382 feet in elevation. This phenomena can be seen on a clear day as well as with some clouds in the sky and/or poor air quality and conditions. Does not matter.     
Flat Earth Theory / Re: multiverse: distance to the sun is 6360km
« Last post by zorbakim on Today at 08:43:57 AM »
We know where the sun is vertically above.
namely, 2 equinox and 2 solstice.
As you know the distance to the area and the angle of the sun,
you can easily get it by using Pythagorean theorem.
Then, the distance to the sun is almost the same as the Earth's radius.