Link to here: walter.bislins.ch/FED
This Flat Earth Dome Model is entirely based on the Heliocentric Model and Newton's Laws of Gravitation and Motion for all Calculations. It uses the in Reality Measured 3D Orbits, Constellations, Inclinations, Distances, Axial Tilts and Velocities, and the correct Sizes and Masses of Sun, Moon and Globe Earth to calculate all Observables. Because only the Heliocentric Model can provide all the Results we Observe in Reality.
The Results from the Calculations using the Heliocentric Model are then Projected onto the Flat Earth and the Dome. To optically connect a Flat Earth Observer with Celestial Objects on the Dome, visible from his position at the right Azimuth and Elevation, light had to be Bent in the shown, in Reality never observed ways. No known physics can bend light this way. This Model fails already for Observers at an Altitude and has many other flaws.
For the Globe Model however no Projections and no weird Light Bending is required to match all Observations for any Observer on Earth and in Space without any flaws, because in Reality the Earth is a Globe!
Please also read the Conclusion and the Purpose of the Model.
With the Flat Earth Dome Model I intended to show, that the geometric and physical aspects of celestial events and observations, in contrast to cyclic time events, can only be derived from the Heliocentric model. Further the model shows that the observations can only be explained by strong light bending.
The basic idea behind the model is: The Flat Earth is a projection of the 3D Globe onto a flat plane. What if we project 3D space with Sun, Moon, Planets and Stars onto the Flat Earth Dome in the same manner? What is the relation between the bodies on the dome and observers on the flat earth? How have I to bend the light from the objects on the dome to the observer to match observations?
Note that although the Dome itself may be 3D, it only represents a 2D surface. Of course applying the known physical laws of light propagation, on the Flat Earth we would see a completely different imgage of reality than we can observe. Sun, Moon and Stars on the Dome never go physically below the horizon. So you have to invent things like the Flat Earth Perspective, which does not work as needed either.
But if you assume light bending as shown in my model, it can really produce the images that we observe to a certain extent, if you don't look too close into it. Exceptions are Solar and Lunar eclipses for example. Although you can predict the dates of this events, like the ancient astronomers could by observing the sky, but you can not predict the locations on earth, where this events happen. They can only be seen on certain locations and times, which we can only predict using the Heliocentric model.
To explain the cause for the problems with celestial observations on the Flat Earth, I have to explain some aspects of the Heliocentric model.
The Heliocentric model consists roughly of three sets of properties: geometric and physical properties and cycles.
Geometric properties are for example: sizes, distances, inclinations of orbits, constellations of sun, earth and moon and the tilt of earth's axis. The geometry of the observations also depends on the location and orientation of the observer.
Physical properties are for example the heat distribution on earth from the sun that causes the seasons, solar winds that cause Auroras, the heat emission of the earth into space that is responsible for the mean temperature on earth, terrestrial and astronomical refraction due to a density gradient of the atmosphere that influences how much of obejcts are hidden behind the curvature of the earth and how much celestial objects and constellations are squeezed at the horizon and the variations in the gravitational acceleration and coriolis forces due to the ellipsoidal shape and rotation of the earth.
Cycles can be derived from the geometric properties of the Heliocentric model by applying the laws of physics, which results in the Keplerian parameters, or calculated to some extend from careful observations. So the dates of cyclic events can be predicted either from properties of the Heliocentric model, or from observations of previsous cyclic events, for both flat earth and globe.
But you can not calculate the geometric and physical properties of events and observations without knowing the geometry of the Heliocentric model and the physics of sun and earth. The Dome Model calculates the geometric properties of events from a rough Heliocentric model and projects the resulting geometric data onto the flat earth model. You can not derive this geometric data from the flat earth model itself, because the geometry of the flat earth model is completely different than the geometry of the Heliocentic model. Flat earth lacks the necessary third dimension of space and a physical model for sun, moon and earth.
This things can not be calculated from previous observations without applying the Heliocentric model:
Light-Bending: This Model shows how light rays from the Dome on the Flat Earth Model have to be bent to match the apparent size and positions of Sun, Moon and Star constellations and to produce the tracks, Star trails and Day-Night terminator as observed in reality for each time and location on earth. Only by bending the light rays as shown by this Model it is possible that Sun, Moon and Stars can go apparently down below the horizon, while they are still above the Flat Earth.
Sun/Moon tracks: During 24 hours the sky with the fixed Stars rotates about 1 degree more than 360 degrees. So in 365.25 days the star constellations at the same time are at the same place in the sky again. You can see this in the model by advancing DayOfYear step by step (place the cursor into the field and hit arrow Up or Down). The Dome grid will advance each day by about 1 degree.
If you advance the time by 24 hours steps, the Sun moves up and down between the Solstice lines during one year, causing the seasons. The Sun also moves left and right a bit so it traces a figure 8. This is caused by the tilt of the Globe earth axes against the Sun Ecliptic plane 23.44 degrees. You can see the tracks of Sun and Moon against the fixed star background (Dome Grid) by checking the options Sun track and Moon track. A desciption of the tracks is presented if you click the Eclipses button. These tracks correspond to what is observed in reality. The tracks are derived from the Heliocentric Model.
Retrograde Motion of Moon's track: The Sun track stays fixed on the Dome Grid. But the Moon track slowly rotates retrograde against the Dome Grid and rotates one full rotation in 6798 days. This is due to the precession of the Moon Orbit caused by the distant Sun. Currently the Moon Ecliptic is such that the track of the Moon extends the track of the Sun North/South about 5 degrees. In about 3400 days from now the track of the Moon lies inside the track of the Sun about 5 degrees. This observation has no explanation in the Flat Earth Model but follows from the Heliocentric Model.
Eclipses: The intersection points of Sun and Moon track are called Knots. There are 2 such Knots marked by a green dot. If Sun and Moon are exactly on opposite Knots, a Lunar Eclipse happens. If Sun and Moon are exactly on the same Knot, a Solar Eclipse happens (play Demo Eclipses from Step 6 on).
This Flat Earth Model can predict Solar and Lunar Eclipses. But it can not predict moons shadow on earth at Solar Eclipses or earths shadow on the Moon on Lunar Eclipses, because the required relative sizes and distances of Sun and Moon and the spherical shape of the earth are essential to compute the corresponding shadow paths. So the location on earth where the Solar Eclipses happen can not be derived from the Flat Earth Model.
Moon Phases and Orientation: The model shows the Moon Phases and the Orientation of the Moon with respect to the horizon at the location of the Observer. The apparent rotation of the Moon during the day is due to the fact, that the cameras up vector stays always perpendicular to the surface of the earth while following the path of the Moon. An Equatorial Mount for the camera or telescope does not produce such a rotation as it follows the Moon.
Equinox: This Model produces the correct apparent Sun positions at Equinox, so that the Sun raises at 6:00 AM due East and sets at 18:00 PM due West everywhere on earth.
Poles: This Model produces 24 hours day and night on the Northpole and Antarctica.
Heliocentric Model: In reality ovserved tracks of Sun, Moon and Stars (Star trails), the Equinox and Solstice Knots and the Day-Night terminator can not be derived from the Flat Earth Model itself. They have to be assumed without any cause or reason. This Model derives them using the Heliocentric Model. On the Heliocentric Model they are simply a consequence of Gravity in play and the angles between the orbital planes of Sun and Moon. You measure the positions of Sun and Moon on their Orbits at any time and all future and past positions can be calculated using Newtons universal law of motion and gravity.
Shapes on the Dome: The shape of Sun, Moon and star constellations on the Dome have to be distorted exactly like shapes of the real Globe world are distorted when mapped onto the Flat Earth. So the Sun and Moon on the Dome sould be squeezed circles, bent along a latitude line of the Dome. This distorted shapes get corrected by the bending of light as shown in the model, so the observer sees perfect spheres for Sun and Moon and the correct star constellation shapes.
All features of this Model are derived from the Heliocentric Model.
Distances: The biggest problem are distances on the flat earth. Only distances exactly north-south are correct. All other distances are wrong, especially south of the equator, eg. Australia is 2.5 times too wide on the flat earth. Only if we deform the flat earth until it is a globe we can get all distances right.
Celeatial Sphere: Sun and Moon trace specific paths on the celestial sphere. This paths have no cause on the Flat Earth model. The only explanation is, a creator has created it that way. But in the Heliocentric model all paths follow automatically from the law of universal gravity. You only have to measure the current positions, velocities, sizes and distances of Sun, Planets and Moons and you can calculate all past and future locations and how they appear from the earth or any other place by applying the law of gravity alone. You can predict the exact locations and times where solar eclipses can be seen (from the shadow that the Moon traces on earth).
Moon Phases and Field Rotation: The Moon phases and its apparent orientation for any observer on any place on earth, as shown in my model, can not be explained by the Flat Earth model. They have no relations to the flat earth sun too, so the moon has to have "its own light". My model can predict this observations for any place on earth by using the Heliocentric model.
The Day/Night terminator on the Flat Earth that matches reality has a very peculiar shape that changes over the course of a year. The shape depends somehow on the location of the sun. This shape can only be explained with the Heliocentric model by projecting the terminator from the Globe Earth with a tilted axis onto the Flat Earth. The shown light bending in my model would produce this terminator line correctly. But this light bending is not a thing that arises naturally, but is computed explicitly in a way to produce the real observations.
Missing the third Dimension: To have a Dome means, all heavenly bodies are located on or near the Dome. The real solar system is a 3D space with big objects very far away from each other orbiting each other. The Dome is a 2D projection of this 3D space, very similar to the 2D projection of the Globe Earth onto the Flat Earth plane. This produces inevitable distortions you have to correct somehow (by bending light). By loosing the third dimension you loose a lot of information to produce and predict real observations. So Flat Earther have to "make things up" to explain observations that follow automatically from the real 3D universe we live in.
Light-Bending: Atmospheric effects can never bend light as shown in the Dome Model. Even if such bending could be achieved by the atmosphere or something else, I cannot derive a density gradient to produce just the right bending to connect each location on the Dome to each location on the Flat Earth at the right way. The light bending due to atmospheric refraction on the Globe Model follows simple physical laws and can be predicted by measuring atmospheric properties.
There are no known physical laws that can bend light in a gas so much and in this exact fashion to produce the real observations as shown in this Model. There are an infinte number of possible lightray paths that could be choosen to model the light bending. The correct one would have the one that matches observations in any altitude too. This is not modeled correctly. So this Model chooses Bezier curves to model the light rays only for observers on sea level. The Bezier control points can be adjusted with the magenta slider. The smaller RayParam ist, the stronger the curve, the bigger RayParam, the smoother the curve.
It is not possible to create a light bending model that matches observations for any altitude. For instance, if you follow a light ray on the Globe Earth from the ground towards the sun, you travel in a straight line and see the sun always at a constant elevation angle if you don't change your orientation. On this Flate Earth model you would have to travel along a curved light ray and you would have to change your orientation and fly steeper and stepper to keep the sun at the same elevation angle as on ground. You would finally end upside down on the southern hemisphere. Does this happen in reality?
No South-Pole: The Southpole makes serius problems. There can be no Southpole Star, because on the Flat Earth Model this star has to be smeared around the whole border of the Flat Earth.
Light bending over Night-Shadow: To produce 24 hours Daylight on Antarctica the Sun rays have to be bent over a region of Night shadow to the observer.
Shadows of Eclipses: Although the Model could predict the date of Eclipses, the Shadows on Lunar and Solar Eclipses, and therefore the locations and times on earth, where they can be observed, can not be calculated with the Flat Earth Model, because to compute the shadows you need the full 3D positions and sizes of the objects. You can't compute them from flat projections. All projections onto planes or domes lose the third dimension.
Brightness and Heat from the Sun: Because the bending of the light as shown in this model preserves the size, orientation and location of star constellations, it also causes that the angular size of sun and moon match observations, if we ignore the small variations due to elliptical orbits. This would also produce the right heat distribution of the sun on the flat earth to cause seasons. But if the sun with enough power to heat the earth is inside or near the dome then the atmosphere near the sun would be as hot as the sun. This does not match the known temperature profile of the real atmosphere. The inverse square law will not work for the luminosity and heat distribution from a local sun. We would have to deny that the illumination and heat on the surface of the earth are caused by the sun or we would have to find new physical laws.
Some observations like the positions of Sun, Moon and Star Constellations as well as Sun/Moon-rise/set can be explained by a Flat Earth Model if we allow strong light bending in a specific way and restrict the observers to sea level. Even the date of Eclipses can be predicted from this model.
But observations as the southern celectial pole, Moon Phases and its Orientation and apparent Rotation as well as the track of the Shadow of the Moon on solar Eclipses can not be computed from the Flat Earth Model, because you need the correct sizes and orbits of Sun, Moon and Earth to compute this. The essential third dimension is lost if you assume a Dome over the Flat Earth, where Sun and Moon are close and small. Observations other than from sea level can not match reality.
There is no explanation or scientific model that can physically explain why and how light is bent as needed by this Flat Earth Model. It is not possible to derive a light bending model that works for any altitude.
Last but not least, the Flat Earth does not represent the real shapes and sizes of the continents. This can never be accomplished. A 3D sphere, as the Earth really is, can never have a similar surface as its flat projection. This is geometrically impossible. That's the reason why a sphere looks different than a plane in the first place, because their surfaces have different curvatures. They can never match globally. You can only make small flat map projections of the Globe surface that get not distorted too much to be usefull for finding local places. But you can never accurately measure real distances from any flat map projection. Global navigation has to, and always did, use spherical coordinate systems, like the current WGS84 model, used by GPS, aricraft navigation systems and google earth.
The Model implements a perfect circular Orbit of the Earth around the Sun and a perfect circular Orbit of the Moon around the Globe Earth. This results in a slight divergence of the dates of Equinox and Solstice from reality of a few days.
The Model chooses to match:
Azimuth and Elevation of Sun and Moon are also slightly inaccurate due to the use of circular orbits instead of elliptical orbits. This affects also the Moon Phases.
The Day-Night terminator is derived from the Heliocentric Model to match reality as follows:
The special shape of the Night-Shadow produced by the mapping of the Globe Night-Shadow onto the Flat Earth results automatically, if the light rays are bent as shown in this model.
The Moon Phases and their orientations with respect to the Horizon at the Observer can only be computed from the Heliocentric Model as follows:
The App can be called with some URL parameters to set a specific App State:
You can use the Save/Restore Panel with the Button Get App URL to get an URL from the current state of the App. Copy this URL into any Web-Form (e.g. YouTube comment) and by clicking the link this page is opened with the saved state from the URL.
Some parameters may be combined in one URL, eg. &demo=Intro&play=3&speed=3
The App changes the URL in the adressbar of the browser to reflect the current state of the App. You can copy the URL and post it in a comment. With the Back and Forward browser buttons you can jump from state to state.
Please do this with a geocentric model as the flat earther theory is inside the dome and if any flat earther tries to say that it is possible that the sun is outside the dome, they then flaw every attempt to prove its flat
It is not relevant for this model whether the sun is inside or outside of the dome. The dome shown in this model is simply a visual grid to show the locations of the sun and moon. You can imagine the real dome to be farther out if you wish. That does not change anything.
By the way: you can modify the height and size of the dome with the blue sliders.
Thank you for this splendid piece of work. I hope you will use it as the basis for some videos.
Your model should also force the correct elevation of Polaris by latitude. I tried to derive a vertical profile of refractive index that would mimic the observed relationship. I gave it a boundary condition that the refractive index should match that of air up to about 20000 metres. By having a varying refractive index above this height (in the region of 1.2) it is possible to get a match plus or minus 5 degrees. So far I have not been able to do better, and I suspect it may not be possible to do better with these boundary conditions but I have not yet proved this.
There is an amusing consequence of the bending. If this is due to refraction, all flat earth estimates of sun height must be wrong except those made at the equator, and all flat earth estimates of Polaris's height must be wrong except those made at the North pole. And those two "heights" of course exactly match the known radius of the earth.
The Earth has already been irrefutably proven to be flat and stationary. The smart phone in your pocket provides proof by itself. So any phenomena must be put in context of a flat, stationary Earth. Your theory of bending light is definitely an intriguing approach to take, and your animating model is much appreciated. Great start for a flat Earth model in motion using your theory!
Provide a setting to show how the light paths from one star would be bent in many directions at the same time, along a single Latitude line in the night time areas of the Earth, so we can see the three dimensional shape of all the curved lines together
Provide a setting to show how the light paths from the Sun would be bent in many directions at the same time, forming the daylight areas of the Earth, so we can see the three dimensional shape of all the curved lines together.
The 'celestial sphere' seems to be much too big. Allow the user to change the size and proportion of the 'celestial sphere'.
Magnetic field lines of force are all curved. Dielectric field lines of force are all curved. Light can be bent dramatically by electromagnetic fields. The Earth has field lines of force, including the lay lines.
The 'firmament is not a dome, but instead a volumetric field, the bottom of which is about 70 miles altitude above us.
The consideration of any atmospheric refraction of any light from above would be a 'last second' distortion that might be ignored for this particular model.
In your descriptions, consider leaving out any reference to the heliocentric model because it's irrelevant for this experiment.
It's possible the Sun is not a bright ball but instead an electromagnetic projection created by crossing field lines of force, so the Sun appears in a different, predictable spot in the sky depending on your location.
Thanks for taking the time to put this together. Really cool.
Jason: The Earth has already been irrefutably proven to be flat and stationary.
On the contrary. There is not a single observation that is not also a prediction of the globe model but uncountable observations that contradict the flat earth model. Not to speak of the technical achievements we have like airplanes navigating using GPS satellites and inertial reference units that depend on gravity, time and the rotation of the earth to function. Only to name some.
Jason: The 'celestial sphere' seems to be much too big. Allow the user to change the size and proportion of the 'celestial sphere'.
The size of the celectial spheres has no influence at all. It is a virtual image as it appears to the observer. I don't want to add too much features. But thanks for the suggestions. Maybe later...
Jason: Magnetic field lines of force are all curved. Dielectric field lines of force are all curved. Light can be bent dramatically by electromagnetic fields.
This is a wrong conclusion without any experimental support. In fact mainstream physics (Maxwells theory of EM) and all experiments tell us, that light is not bent by electric and magnetic fields. Try to bend a light ray with a strong magnet. In old TV tubes there are extremely strong electric fields, but light passes this fields unaffected. Light does not interact with itself either (except in very special circumstances we never experience on earth).
Before light gets influenced by any electric or magentic field, they have to be so strong, that their energies would destroy everthing that comes close to it. Atoms get smashed befor light is affected.
Jason: The 'firmament is not a dome, but instead a volumetric field, the bottom of which is about 70 miles altitude above us.
Evidence? Did you send ballons up there to check this hypothesis? We send rockets into space almost daily and never found a dome of any kind.
Jason: In your descriptions, consider leaving out any reference to the heliocentric model because it's irrelevant for this experiment.
It would suit you that way. Flat Earthers tend to deny things that do not fit their believe or imagination of reality.
The Heliocentric model is very relevant! One of the main purposes of this model is to show, that most celestial observations can only be explained with the Heliocentric model. Some aobservations are even impossible on a FE model, like the fact that solar eclipses are local phenomena, because the shadow of the moon produced by the distant sun crosses only a small parts of the earth. The Moon phases as shown in my model, matching the observations to a precision of some minutes, are computed from the Heliocentric model. I have no way to compute it from the FE model.
Jason: Thanks for taking the time to put this together. Really cool.
Thank's for that!
Wondering if it’s possible that the sun is the focal point of a light being magnified through said dome.
The MEMS gyroscope and MEMS accelerometer ignore all forces, including gravity. A lot of people who believe in the space balls model claim MEMS technology measures gravity, but when you ask them how that is possible, they change the subject every time. Get the sensor kinetics app, put your phone on a level table, drive 110km, put your phone on another level table, and see how much curvature you drove over. 0°. The Earth has no curvature. Everything must be put into the context of a flat, stationary Earth.
The 'ionosphere' is an invisible barrier about 70 miles altitude that nothing physical can get through. More than likely it is an electromagnetic barrier. Everything in our existence is electromagnetic.
The Sun and Moon are above that barrier, so we will never get to them. All we can do is surmise based on observations. If you can make your model a little more interactive per my previous suggestions, then we can begin to see the overall shape of the bending light and compare it to invisible electromagnetic field lines of force that we can see using simple instruments.
I'm not afraid of the results, and you shouldn't be either. I know you are the one putting time into this, so you are the gatekeeper when it comes to the information you are willing to explore.
1) Provide a setting to show how the light paths from one star would be bent in many directions at the same time, along a single Latitude line in the night time areas of the Earth, so we can see the three dimensional shape of all the curved lines together
2) Provide a setting to show how the light paths from the Sun would be bent in many directions at the same time, forming the daylight areas of the Earth, so we can see the three dimensional shape of all the curved lines together.
Jason: The MEMS gyroscope and MEMS accelerometer ignore all forces, including gravity.
Certainly not. How can anything ignore forces at all? How do you come to such claims? What is the purpose of a force measuring device that ignores all forces? Really?
Jason: A lot of people who believe in the space balls model claim MEMS technology measures gravity, but when you ask them how that is possible, they change the subject every time.
So then I try to explain it to you: Gravity is an acceleration, beacuse all objects in free fall are accelerated by the same rate of 9.81 m/s2 towards the center of the earth. How does a MEMS measure acceleration? It contains a testmass suspenden on springs. If you accelerate the MEMS case, the testmass want's to retain its state of inertia. So the accelerating MEMS has to exert a force to the mass m to accelerate it with it. This force can be measured by the MEMS somehow. From this force F the applied acceleration a can be calculated by a = F / m. So if you accelerate a MEMS horizontally, the force needed to push the mass to gain the same speed as the MEMS is proportional to the acceleration. By measuring this force you get the acceleration.
If the MEMS is laying on a table, its gravitational acceleration is prevented by the upward force the table exerts to the MEMS. But the testmass feels the gravitational acceleration too. It must be prevented from beeing pulled down by gravity by a force the MEMS is applying to the testmass. This force F = m · g is proportional to the gravitational acceleration g. So from the perspective of the MEMS, it looks like the MEMS is constantly accelerated upwards by the force the table exerts on the MEMS. The deeper underlying principle is the Equivalence principle of General Relativity.
So a MEMS does in fact measure the gravitational acceleration directly. But it shows it as an upward acceleration, because from the perspective of the MEMS it looks like the table is accelerating the MEMS upwards to compensate the downward gravitational acceleration. The net effect of the two accelerations is zero, so the MEMS stays where it is, but feels an upward acceleration due to gravity. Look at a full motion cockpit simulator. They imitate forward accelerations by tilting the simulator backward, so that part of the gravitational acceleration pulls you backwards and you have the illusion you get accelerated forward by the seat you are sitting in.
Jason: Get the sensor kinetics app, put your phone on a level table, drive 110km, put your phone on another level table, and see how much curvature you drove over. 0°.
Now that you know how a MEMS measures gravity, it sould be easy for you to recognise that you can put your phone anywhere on the globe onto a table and it would everwhere measure an acceleration exactly upward in the opposite direction of gravity, which always acts to the center of the Earth. So the angle between the local horizon and gravity measured by your phone is everywhere on the globe Earth the same 90°.
One might think, that the gyros in MEMS could measure the rotation of the earth or the change in your oriantation with respect to space when you travel. But the MEMS gyros are not mechanically rotating discs which are rigid in space. They can't measure absolut orientation. They measure angular speed. In pinciple you should be able to measure the angular rotation rate of the earth with MEMS gyros. The angular rotation rate of the earth is only 0.25 degrees per minute or 0.004167 degrees er second. The typical resolution of a MEMS is about 0.0038 degrees per second but the signal noise is even greater, about 0.014 degrees per second. So this sensors are not able to measure earth's rotation or absolute orientations even approximately. They are designed to measure high rotation rates of phones, which are in the range of at least some degrees per second. They can be initialized to measure a range of up to 2000 degrees per second. The smallest range is up to 125 degrees per second. Compare this with the needed at least 0.004 degrees per second. No chance! https://www.bosch-sensortec.com/
Conclusion: MEMS in your phone can't be used to detect earth's motion in any way. The are not stable and accurate enough.
Jason: The 'ionosphere' is an invisible barrier about 70 miles altitude that nothing physical can get through. More than likely it is an electromagnetic barrier. Everything in our existence is electromagnetic.
The Ionosphere is not a barrier except for some radio waves. The Ionosphere is a region of very, very diluted ionized gas. This is nothing that can stop anything solid. You can move through atmosphere thousands of times denser without being stopped.
Where did you get all this misinformations from? Flat Earth videos I guess. Tip: use https://en.wikipedia.org/
Jason: The Sun and Moon are above that barrier, so we will never get to them.
We were already on the moon and have currently probes on it and in its orbit. And this year starts a satellite that will fly-by near the sun like no satellite ever before, inside the orbit of mercury. The Parker Solar Probe: Our First Mission to Touch the Sun! from Deep Astronomy.
Json: All we can do is surmise based on observations.
No, we can not only observe from the earth, we know how physics work by observations and experiments. We figured out that physics works the same everywhere and we made use of this knowledge. So we could actively send probes first on balloons to the hight atmosphere then with rockets higher into space. So we know what outer space is, we don't have to guess any more. We know how to land on other moons and planets and did it many times already. The deniers do simply not understand how things looks like in space conditons. They look not the same as on earth! And from the lack of their understanding they conclude it can't be real, must be fake. I feel so sorry for this people because they have to deny the infinte beauty of outer space and call all liers that know about that.
Jason: If you can make your model a little more interactive per my previous suggestions, then we can begin to see the overall shape of the bending light
Jason, I already implemented your suggestions, see options RayTarget = FlatEarth and RaySource. Check out all Demos (click the buttons above the App), the new features are incorporated into the Demos.
Jason: ...and compare it to invisible electromagnetic field lines of force that we can see using simple instruments.
I have to dissapoint you. Light is not bent by electric or magnetic fields. Have you ever seen a lightray be influenced by an electric or magnetic field? The only things that can bend light are density changes or gradients in gas (very little), liquids or solids, and by very strong gravity (spacetime bending).
There are no known physical effects that can bend light in such peculiar ways, needed to make a flat earth model plausible at least a little bit.
I recommend you, study real physics - in courses, not Youtube Videos. It's the hard way but the only one that works. Get an understanding of how things work. We figured it out since centuries. The knowledge is all there. Recognize the real shape of the earth and the universe. Then you suddenly are able to go to the moon if you want. It is possible, real, and done already many times. At least you could see the lies the flat earth gurus tell you, making money from people who don't know anything and are gullible.
Hm... I am trying to see how equinox is working, but can't understand it properly. Does sun rays have different bending for any observer, for example due east from my position (45°N) and different bending, for example due south, and what happens during the day on equinox? I tried to adjust position of the observer on your model, but is not working, or I can't understand how to use this model of yours.
I really appreciate your effort to show mathematically imposibility of flat earth model, but I am curious about equinox case because if we calculate sun positions it comes out that every observer must have its own sun. As I understand this model - every observer must have it's own bending, which is - simplified - same thing...
Ivo: Does sun rays have different bending for any observer, for example due east from my position (45°N) and different bending, for example due south?
Yes indeed. The sun rays have to be different for each observer, depending on his location and time of day.
Ivo: and what happens during the day on equinox?
Equinox are the only 2 days of the year where the sun raises exactly due east and sets exactly due west for each observer on the earth. Every other day of the year the sun raises and sets on an slightly other direction. This is due to the fact that the earth axis is tilted with respect to the plane of earth's orbit around the sun. The axis of the earth points always to the same direction on the sky, Polaris.
On summer at the northern hemisphere the earth is in such a position on the orbit, that the tilt is towards sun. This causes that the terminator line (line of dawn) on the northern hemisphere reaches over the northpole, so the days on the northern hemisphere are longer than 12 hours and the sun raises and sets in a more northern direction than exactly east/west. 6 months later the earth is at the opposite position on the orbit, so that the northern part of the axis is tiltet away from the sun, producing winter on the northern hemisphere. It is the opposite on the southern hemisphere.
At Equinox the axes builds a right angle with the line earth-sun. The terminator line passes through the north and south pole. This causes that the day on every point of the earth is exactly 12 hours long and the sun raises exactly due east and sets due west everywhere.
See also Wikipedia: Equinox
Here is how the light rays of the sun are bent at a certain time to the observers on the Flat Earth:
To rotate the model use the red sliders. To change the time or date use the black sliders. To change the location of the observer use the green sliders. Click the buttons above the animation to watch some demos with explanations.
Jason, you are arguing with someone who is still naive enough to believe the moon landings were real, and doesn't know how wikipedia actually works; presumably he has never read orwell either, and still believes saddam had weapons of mass destruction..
you do however have some genuinely fascinating ideas regarding the upper barrier of our fixed plane, electromagnetism and the bending of light.
feel free to get in touch, or provide links to research/ ideas - firstname.lastname@example.org
@daznet, I know how Wikipedia works. It is self correcting. If you post BS it will be deleted within seconds. If you post something you can't back up, it will be deleted. Wikipedia does back up each fact with references to accepted, peer-reviewed and original sources.
Of course you have to deny Wikipedia and all facts, because it destroys your conspiracy believes. If you don't trust Wikipedia, why do you not research the original papers, reports, images, videos ect.? Can you back-up anything you tell at all? Youtube videos are not peer-reviewed and scientifically accepted sources of information. They may at best be used to illustrate something like graphics do in documents.
How do you know what I have read and what I believe about Saddam and what has this to do with the shape of the earth? No other arguments?
Concerning the Moon Landings and the Apollo missions: I will present you some facts you probably don't know exist. And then we will see whether you are indoctrinated enough to still believe what some conspiracy people did tell you on youtube from ignorance or whether you are able to read the overwhelming peer reviewed and confirmed facts presented.
The Apollo program is fully documented in great detail. We can find thousands of scans of raw images (pre-Photoshop, no CGI), hundreds of images of the earth, hundreds of videos and audio transmissions and their transcriptions, tens of thousands of pages of mission reports, science reports, technical debriefings, scientific results, sample cataloges, and many more on the National Space Science Data Center NSSDC (links below).
It is cheaper to go to and land on the moon than to fake all this.
Why would NASA produce and fake all this documents? To deceive people that are too lazy to read it anyway?
The rockets were built and tracked by astronomers to the moon and back all over the world. The Apollo missions brought back 2415 moon rock samples weighing 381 kg that were analyzed by thousands of scientists worldwide (more Infos here). This samples are very different than rock from earth and can not be faked, because it would take hundreds of years to imitate such rocks.
There are still the 5 Retroreflectors on the moon, 3 from Apollo missions. We direct lasers to the reflectors at least once a day since more than 48 years to measure the distance to the moon to better than cm accuracy. Between 1969 and 2017 there are reported 25,689 lunar laser ranging (LLR) measurements. You can find detailed infos about LLR and download the data from Paris Observatory Lunar Analysis Center. More Infos on Wikipedia Lunar Laser Ranging experiment.
There is currently China's lander Chang'e-3 on the moon and the images sent to earth from the surface look exactly like the images from the Apollo missions: no stars, no blast crater, same color and lighting. We have space probes orbiting the moon right now, eg. the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter LRO, that sent back images of the Apollo landing sites and we can even see the phaths of the astronauts that match exactly the reports.
LROC Featured Lunar Sites: Some of the most requested LROC images; from newly discovered lunar features to the closest images of the Apollo landing sites since the astronauts left:
Here are the links to the archive of the Apollo missions:
All mission reports, images, videos, audios, transcripts, science reports, sample cataloges, technical debriefings, biomedical results, scientific results and many, many more:
Preliminary Science Reports Apollo 11-17
The NSSDC Master Catalog is available for the queries pertaining to information about data that are archived at the NSSDC as well as for supplemental information:
Apollo 11 transcript whole flight
Fantastic job with this model. Keep up the fight for knowledge, Walter. It's astounding how people are refusing to accept even basic explanations of physics, or resort to conspiracism and accusations of "faking" of evidence when their model fails. The truth will win out eventually.
if the sun is the intersection of electromagnetic fields and not a ball.
this raises multiple questions:
what is the moon?
and how the moon can cause eclipses? (and planets passing between us and the sun)
what is the distance of the sun?
what are we observing with telescopes when we see the sun?
what are all these details which can see?
why its a perfect sphere?
why we dont see any electromagnetic artefacts around the sun?
whats the strengh of this electromagnetic field? and why we can measure/detect it?
whats generating this field?
for the level experiment…
get your phone with the level app.
put it on top of a ball
rotate the ball without moving the phone
did you see the level changing?
that's exactly what's the earth is doing, no matter where you are on the globe the down is ALWAYS pointing to the center of earth.
BTW, we just spent a week in Montreux, where there's a beautiful armillary sundial: https://imgur.com/
It would be nice if any flat-earth fan can explain how those work.
hello, I loved the work you did here.
I'm organizing the next experiment
would you helps us showing the results? Maybe programming an applet like the one you show in this article?
You can also steal the idea exposed in the link :)
Holy carp that's damn impressive. You really make the best models :)
I think there might be a way to get the southern celestial pole in there as well. Instead of a simple dome, use a dome with a hanging part at the center. It's ... difficult to put it in text, but a bit like a uvula in the mouth. The neck of this uvula is on the rotational axis. Make the neck 0 in size and place the southern celestial pole there. The rest of the uvula is then the celestial sphere. The center is the celestial equator and the lowest part the celestial north pole.
This arrangement allows you to have two parts of the sky on the rotational axis. I haven't checked it fully, but I think you should be able to make a mapping to the celestial sphere. Sure, it'll take even more ridiculous light bending, but since you need that anyway for the other stuff, you might as well go one step further, right?
And yes, I know that what I'm suggesting is utterly ludicrous and convoluted. But so is the rest of the flat earth model.
EDIT: alternatively, just lose the dome entirely and place a sphere anywhere on the rotational axis. This is literally the celestial sphere, only inverted. The bottom is the 'north pole' and the top maps to the 'south pole'. Since we're using unrealistic light-bending anyway, the specific geometry of the thing even doesn't matter.
1. Why did you choose to assume light bends through the dome when we do not know yet what the dome is made of, its actual size and shape, we don't know for sure size of sun and how its light works...remember flat earth is pretty new still and needs time to make more observations of our flat world to get a working model.
how can you still believe in the heliocentric model considering all its obvious flaws as well as all the fake nasa "evidence".
Tureco, are you serious? I am sure the heliocentric model is right, because it explains all observations and makes predictions that match reality.
All calculations I had to make to get this Flat Earth Dome model to conform with some observations are based on the heliocentric model, because it can't be derived from any imaginable flat earth model! The only way the flat earth model could at least partially explain some observations is by bending the light as seen in the model above. Read Problems with the Model.
Tureco: we don't know for sure size of sun and how its light works
Of course we know the size and distance of the sun. We have measured it in multiple ways and all kind of measurements get the same answers.
And we know exactly how light and other electromagentic waves work. Your smart phone is based on this knowledge: camera lenses, liquid cristal displays, radio transmitter and receivers. I know this, because I'm an electric engineer that has to apply this knowledge to build such devices.
We have technology to see the earth from space since more than 50 years, not only NASA by the way. We have non NASA satellites in space that send full scale color images of the earth in resultions up to 11000x11000 pixels every 10 minutes. And this images match the images from NASA perfectly. You can download the raw images for free. You can build your own receiver to receive their date and show it on your computer. The satellites are real and they are in space!
How to Receive Beautiful Images of the Earth Directly From Space | GOES-15,16,17 and Himawari 8 HRIT
The NASA Apollo program is fully documented in great detail. We can find thousands of scans of raw images (pre-Photoshop, no CGI), hundreds of images of the earth, hundreds of videos and audio transmissions and their transcriptions, tens of thousands of pages of mission reports, science reports, technical debriefings, scientific results, sample cataloges, and many more on the National Space Science Data Center NSSDC (links below).
Why would NASA produce and fake all this documents? To deceive people that are too lazy to read it anyway?
Today with the aid of satellites we can easily measure the size of the whole earth with cm accuracy! From where do you think we get the data for all maps we have to navigate around the world? We navigate around the globe with navigation systems that depend on gravity and the rotation of the earth to be able to find true north and the latitude without reference to the outside. The flat earth gyro experiments are a joke. You cannot measure the rotation of the earth with such toys. Look here how real gyros are built and compare:
Gyrocompass Theory and Operation - madden-maritime.com
Flat earth has no model yet. Why? It's not because it is still new. The flat earth idea is thousands of years old. They have access to the same technology but never got any model? Nothing that can be tested? Only so called experiments, that prove nothing, because we can not make any predictions without math models that could be verified. That's the reason why flat earther say they need no model.
Flat earth fails in every single aspect.
This article is very interesting, but immediately flawed! You are a shill, oh yes you are!
Orlando Ferguson's 'Square And Stationary Earth 1893, which I have to presume you are familiar with, would remedy your model's major concession - that of needing to stretch light in Antarctica.
It's because I know that you you are familiar with Ferguson's depiction, that I know that you are a shill. Only a shill would go to such laborious effort. Equally, if you're familiar with Ferguson's work, I say that only a moron would go to such laborious effort, without researching past efforts.
You have contributed, though. You have just confirmed to FETs that, the only thing holding back their theory, is dealing with sunlight at the poles. Thanks for the tip but, as I say, Ferguson has it covered (apparently).
No other model than the Heliocentric model with an orbiting rotating globe with an orbiting moon can accurately explain and predict all observations. You can bend the Heliocentirc model as much as you want to get some sort of almost working flat earth model, like this Flat Earth Dome model, but it never can explain all observations accurately. Only one geometry can do it: the Heliocentric model.
In regards to your comment,
"Gravity is an acceleration, beacuse all objects in free fall are accelerated by the same rate of 9.81 m/s2 towards the center of the earth. How does a MEMS measure acceleration?"
That's not true. 9.8ms is actually not consistently the same rate. It is NOT a constant force as the mainstream teaches us. They even admit this. It is only that rate in the lower part of the atmosphere. That's because it's due to air density rather than gravity.... as we ascend into the lesser density sky it actually becomes faster.
I've made a video on this. [(url) please see~nofollow]
@Karissa Best. I am an engineer and as such have to know about gravity, air resistence and buoyancy. You have mixed up everything:
Karissa: 9.8ms is actually not consistently the same rate. It is NOT a constant force as the mainstream teaches us. They even admit this.
Mainstream science does not teach that the gravitational acceleration is constant. It depends on the distance to the center of the earth, but in the atmosphere it can be treated as practically the same. It reduces only a fraction at altitudes of airplanes or on mountains. See below.
Karissa: It is only that rate in the lower part of the atmosphere. That's because it's due to air density rather than gravity.
Air density has no influence on gravity. But you are subject to both forces, gravity and buoyancy. The force of gravity acts to the center of the earth, the buoyant force acts in the opposite direction, because it is a consequence of gravity. The buoyant force is dependent on the density of the medium. The density of air decreases with altitude, so the buoyant force decreases with altitude too. Gravity also decreases with altitude.
So what is the net effect? The buoyant force of normal bodies (not helium balloons) compared with the force of gravity is negligible. For example the buoyant force of a man with a mass of 80 kg, which corresponds roughly to 80 litres = 0.08 m3 volume, is only:
The gravitational force on the other hand for this man is about 785 N. So buoyancy can be neglegted here. As you get higher the air density decreases very fast, while the gravitational acceleration decreases only slowly. So buoyancy gets even more neglegtable with altitude.
For a lifting helium balloon the buoyant force is greater than the force of gravity, because the mass of the helium of a certain volume is less than the mass of the displaced air of the same volume. But gravity is still acting on a helium balloon, because the mass of helium and the balloon with payload is not zero! But the net force of gravity and buoynacy is pointing up if buoyancy is greater than gravity, so the balloon raises.
The balance between buoyancy and gravity is the reason why a certain helium balloon can only reach a certain altitude, where the weight of the displaced thinner air is exactly the same as the weight of the whole ballon, inclusive helium, hull and payload.
So to calculate how much helium you need for a payload to reach a desired altitude, you have to calculate the force of gravity and the buoyant force for that altitude. From that you can calculate the volume of the balloon needed. So for such calculations you have to take into account gravity and buoyancy is also dependent on gravity.
Can you do such calculations without gravity? I guess not.
Karissa: as we ascend into the lesser density sky it [gravity?] actually becomes faster.
What? Makes no sense.
Below is how I calculate the forces. Note: you are always subject to all forces at the same time. So you have generally to take into account all forces, add them up and the resultant force tells you, how much you are accelerated. But in many cases some of the forces are neglegtable compared to the other forces or cancel each other. But nonetheless they are all there together with some contact forces, eg. from the ground. If you are standing on the ground, the gravitational force and the buoyant force are canceled by the force the ground is exerting on you, so your acceleration is zero.
The acceleration due to gravity is dependent on the distance to the center of the earth:
If you plug in the distance of the surface of the earth into the equation you get the well known acceleration at the surface of the earth:
At a distance of 6371 km from the surface of the earth you are double the distance from the center of the earth and the acceleration at that altitude is still 1/4 of that: g = 2.45 m/s2.
As long as you stay in the atmosphere until about 100 km the reduction of the gravitational acceleration is very small: g(100km) = 9.52 m/s2.
The air resistance on a free fall is dependent on the density of the air at the current altitude, the shape of the falling body and the current speed:
If the air resistance gets equal (but opposite) to the force of gravity Fg = m · g, where m is the mass of the falling object, you have reached terminal velocity. At terminal velocity the force of gravity and the air resistance force cancel each other so the net force is zero. Zero net force means there is no more acceleration, so your speed stays constant, hence terminal velocity.
Because the air resistence is dependent on the air density at the current altitude, the terminal velocity is also dependent on the altitude.
Because the air density at high altitude is less than at low altitude, you have to reach a higher velocity at high altitude to get a drag force equal to the gravitational force. So in high altitude the terminal velocity is much higher than at low altitude.
Buoyancy is a force too. It is equal to the weight of a volume of the medium which is displaced by an object in this medium:
Note that the gravitational acceleration plays a role here! Without gravity there is no buoyancy, as experiments in zero gravity show, where liquids with different densities to not separate anymore!
Gravity is unable to be proven (it doesn't exist is why),
You suggest density has nothing to do with the speed of acceleration, but it has EVERYTHING to do with it. How can the density of the air NOT affect how fast things fall through it.
You'll find if you exclude "gravity" out of everything.... that it suddenly makes so much more sense.
Karissa best: You suggest density has nothing to do with the speed of acceleration, but it has EVERYTHING to do with it. How can the density of the air NOT affect how fast things fall through it.
I said "Air density has no influence on gravity". Gravity is independent of density. BUT: falling things are slowed down by friction due to falling through a medium of a certain density. See Air Resistance (Drag).
You did not understand that there always are multiple forces acting on anything in the atmosphere at the same time: Gravity, Drag if the object moves through the medium, and Buoyancy, and if the object has contact with other things like the ground there are also contact forces. All forces together determine how an object is accelerated. From the acceleration we can calculate its trajectory.
Karissa best: Gravity is unable to be proven (it doesn't exist is why)
Wrong, Gravity is real. An engineer has to deal with it in many, many calculations. There are many devices that only function because of gravity. How do we know that it's gravity what causes their functioning?
How can we measure and observe the properties of gravity?
We can observe that all masses on earth are accelerated the same amount per time unit with g = 9.81 m/s2 on the surface of the earth, if we can neglegt the drag and buoyant force.
We can measure that gravity gets weaker with altitude exactly as predicted by Newtons theory of gravitation.
We can observe the orbits of planets and moons, due to gravity. This orbits can be computed with Newtons law of gravity.
We can observe the period of a pendulum which is only dependent on the length of the pendulum and gravity g.
We can measure the force of gravity with a scale. Because gravity is a force, it can be summed with other forces. Eg, on the spinning earth there is a latitude dependent centrifugal force acting perpendicular away from earth's axis of rotation. What we measure with a scale on any point on earth is the vector sum of gravity and the centrifugal force. That means a mass has different weight depending on the latitude. This is the reason why scales have to be calibrated for different latitudes. See my Earth Gravity Calculator.
We know exactly all properties of gravity. Its properties are the thing many devices are based on. No density or buoyancy can explain it. They are completely other things and have completely other math to be explained than gravity. You can't replace gravity with density/buoyancy/weight. It simply does not work in reality. I could prove it to you, but math and physics is certainly not in reach of your understanding.
All inertial navigation systems (based on gyroscopes) rely on gravity and the rotation of the earth to sense the directionn to true north and calculate the latidude without any reference to the outside. Their mounting platforms are mounted in gimbals and have to incorporate Schuler tuning, so they always are parallel to the surface of the earth. Like a pendulum, Schuler tuning is only dependent on gravity and the radius of the earth.
Check this out. Gyrocompass Theory and Operation - madden-maritime.com
You see, there are devices that rely on the fact that gravity exists and that the earth is a rotating globe. You can't simply deny it. No airplane or rocket could navigate without such devices. Fact!
There are many ways to measure gravity directly: Cavendish experiment (I personally executed this experiment in physics class to determine the gravitational constant G 35 years ago). This experiment is repeated uncountable times each year as part of physics lectures. Orbital periods depend on the gravity of the central body. You can measure gravity with a simple pendulum. The period of a pendulum depends on gravity and the length of the pendulum only. So if you know the length of a pendulum and the period you can compute gravity g. You can't calculate the desired path of any rocket or ballistic object without knowing exactly how gravity works.
Beside the Cavendish experiment we can measure the gravitational force that a mountain or hill exerts on something beside it. This was done e.g. with the Schiehallion experiment:
There are a bunch of methods to measure the gravitational constant G = 6.67 × 10−11 m3/kg/s2:
Properties of gravity predicted from General Relativity and confirmed by uncountable experiments are:
Newtons and Einstein's scientific theories of gravity are one of the most tested theories. They never failed in experiments accessable to us. Note: a scientific theory is not a guess or idea or hypothesis.
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Established scientific theories like Newtons and Einsteins theory of Gravitation, have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge. Source: Scientific theory on Wikipedia
If someone wants to replace the theory of gravity, he has to come up with a theory, that has the same power of prediction of what the current theory has and it must be simpler or explain things we currently can't explain yet.
One problem I've noticed with all the flat earth models is the sun and moon are shown as travelling in a circle above the sky. They actually travel in an arc across the sky with a different starting point in each season (example: directly east to west, southeast to southwest, exactly east to west, northeast to northwest and back to directly east to west. You can see this in the annual SkyWatch magazine.
All the observations over selestial sphere tell us that our earth is spherical - different rotation of it in nothern and southern hemispheres, corresponding of local coordinates and selestial ones and so on. Then, we can observe the bending of geoide not only from seashore (lowering of visible horizon), but in any place of earth with geodesical equipment. So, any possibility of Flat Earth can base exceptionally on these three elephants:
1elephant: there is Holographic Dome over this hypothetical Flat Earth, that is modelling spherical illusion. And there are no not only stars, but Sun and Moon too, as real physical objects. And this Dome could be a huge living organism, and it have grown itself, and nobody built it. And any conspiracy theory is not needed;
2elephant: our world map is wrong in high southern latitudes at least. But if we have Holographic Dome, we may suspect, that it cheats us sometimes. Our maps was made with close binding to selestial coordinates, esp. in Southern Ocean and in ocean at all. So, it could be possible,
3elephant: there is negative refraction in our atmosphere. In other words, light beams are bending upword, and making illusion than geoide is bending downword, and horizon go down. Physics tells us about positive refraction, but who knows?
And these three elephants are standing on the turtle with Socrates head, saying: I know that I know nothing, what really spacecraft and gps and many other things are
It would be great of you made a cosmocentric model
i wonder why flat earthers remains so retarded
I don't understand what your point is, Karissa Best. Gravity has been proven several times over. In addition, excluding gravity would result in floating, like we would experience in space.
Thanks wabis. I understand the flaws in flat earthers theories even clearer now.
Re gravity: it may also be instructive to look at how one can derive the basic form of Newton's law of gravitation from the observations.
In 2d, circular motion is given by
Note: this stuff is simply part of motion along a circular path. This has nothing to do with gravity (yet), this is what it means to move in a circle. In terms of forces, by definition
Kepler's laws provide an accurate description of planetary motion. They are essentially summaries of the observations. Simplifying things to circles, his third law states that the radius cubed is proportional to the period squared:
So, let's rewrite that so that it fits the formula for the centripetal force.
In other words, the pattern we see in planetary motion can be explained by a force that's inversely proportional to the distance squared between the planet and the sun. And, again, since
Now, technically it's not just simply
Putting all of this together, we get:
Again, all I've done here is distill the observed paths of planets into a formula of a force. And, oh hey, looks suspiciously like Newton's Law of gravity. Note that right now I've only looked at circles and magnitudes, but if you generalize it to vectors and ellipses, you'll find that the law of gravity correctly describes all of Kepler's laws (see its wikipedia page for details). It also correctly predicts that the falling acceleration on earth should decrease with altitude, the atmospheric pressure profile, buoyancy, period-vs-distance relation between the moons of the solar system, etc, etc.
So yes, a force of this form is required to accurately describe nature. We call this force "gravity". Flat earthers can whine about it all they like, but this is what the observations tell us.
I'am a Flat Earther.that was so good! i like your what you did ,can you add more dates ?
Is there a way to animate with the earth rotating and the day/night staying still?
reka: can you add more dates?
The slider DayOfYear is restricted but you can enter any number or date in any common format into the field. You can also write now into the fields Time and Day of Year. Or you can click the field and use the arrow Up and Down keys to change the values in increments. The increment size can be changed by pressing control (x10), alt (/10) and alt+control (/100) at the same time.
BM Furball: Is there a way to animate with the earth rotating and the day/night staying still?
Awesome stuff! Thoroughly enjoyed the comments section
Just a few questions (I may be a little "slow" here)
In your model, the "globe" around the observer ... is that where the bending of light happens? So that from the sun, light moves in a straight line until it hits this "sphere of light-bending"?
Way up north, where I live, there is currently no sun (above the horizon) ... in your model, is that because the light is bent down so that it hits the surface before it reaches our latitude?
Also, luckily the sun will appear again soon but only just above the horizon ... again, in your model, does the light get bent down and then get bent again in the "opposite" direction to give the appearance of a sun just above the horizon
Busa: n your model, the "globe" around the observer ... is that where the bending of light happens?
In reality it appears that we live inside an infinite sphere, called the celetial sphere, where all star constellations are fixed, but sun, moon and planets move slowly around in special paths. This sphere does not exist in reality but is often used as a reference to plot a coordinate system on it, so we can assign each star a fixed position in the sky. The whole sphere appears to rotate around an fixed axes. This is of course due to the rotation of the earth around this axis. The movement of the constellations on the flat earth dome would appear completely different, if light moves in straight lines.
My model bends light in such a way that stars fixed at a dome would appear on the celestial sphere as seen by any observer. It does not matter how and at which locations the light bends. What only matters is on what angles the light rays arrive at the observer, so the heavenly bodies appear to move on a celestial sphere around him, like it is observed in reality.
Busa: Way up north, where I live, there is currently no sun (above the horizon) ... in your model, is that because the light is bent down so that it hits the surface before it reaches our latitude?
Busa: does the light get bent down and then get bent again in the "opposite" direction to give the appearance of a sun just above the horizon
Look at this setting, it may clarify how the light rays bend at your location. Play with the black sliders to change the location of the shadow.
Ah ... thank you :)
I know this is probably a question that may take to much work to answer properly ... but here goes:
As I understand it you used data collected on a globe earth (i.e. reality) and used that to model how light would have to move an a flat earth in order to comply with observations ... however, how does your program draw these lines of light? Using bezier curves, splines, some kind of Fourier analysis/series ... or something else? Again, I totally get it if answering this is too much ;)
BTW ... Impressive work with the JS libraries!
Youtuber Flat_Earth_Awakening posted a video showing your animnation on his channel without crediting you, even when I explicitly questioned him.
DITRH copied it from him
(There is no need to publish this, but you can if you like.)
But, can your model also explain the bending of light rays in a manner such that mountain tops and aeroplanes are lit after the sun has set, and similarly clouds from underneath, tall buildings on the seafront have their base in shadow before their top floor at sunset and the other way around at sunrise, etc! Now that is a challenge for you to build into your model.
The idiot GlobeBusters promoted your model on their last show!
I'm fascinated by your model. A huge job. How long did it take you to make this wonderful model?
P.S. No Curve = The Earth is not a Globe.
Keith: But, can your model also explain the bending of light rays in a manner such that mountain tops and aeroplanes are lit after the sun has set, and similarly clouds from underneath, tall buildings on the seafront have their base in shadow before their top floor at sunset and the other way around at sunrise, etc! Now that is a challenge for you to build into your model.
Did not think about this yet. This seems to see an unsolvable problem too. The celectial sphere would rise to the top of a mountain and the light rays would have to go down and then bend up to the sun at the dome. If the sun for an observer at the ground has already set, the observer on the mountain should still see it. The light ray should exaclty bend in such a way that the sun appears to touch the flat earth at the distance where the globe predicts the horizon. But all other light rays between the observer and the apparent horizon must not be bent, because if they are bending too, then the scene at the ground would look distorted.
Just another reason why this model can not work. Thanks for the idea.
Rogério Centeno: How long did it take you to make this wonderful model?
I don't know, some weeks for this model alone? It depends on what you are counting. I can use many previously developed modules. If you would count all these modules, like the 3D graphics module, control panels, data storage, math modules and the wiki website implementation, it is years. It's a never ending thing. It grows with the ideas from others.
I have some rectification for the model.
In Muslim world we believe in flat earth and we have a full description how is the sky form.
there is seven sky's and there is a pure water sea between every sky and other.
so there is an optic illusion : an air filled dome in the pure water . it should be like half spherical lenses. it should be [(url) like this video~nofollow]
in Muslim world we can calculate an approximation of every dome's diameters by analyzing all the Prophet Muhammad's talk about the universe. I think it will be a successful attempt before the computer technology is gone. may be with those calculations we can make a 3d simulation and watch what will we have.
I found this model and I see that it is very close to what I believe , I am sarching for making 3D simulation to know how the sun and moon are far . so if there is any 3D interested engineer, we can demonstrate that there is a dome .
we will demonstrate also that there is no satellite in the sky.I know it is crazy but may be real. we must do calculation , experiences and 3d simulation to know the truth.
Iran can launch satellites. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Dubai, Morocco, Pakistan, Kazakhstan and Aserbaijan have (had) satellites in orbit.
"In Muslim world" satellites exist.
It is amazing what you have made here. Awesome.
I have been investigating the flat earth for a while, for a particular reason. The reason is that I did read the ancient books of Enoch, that are connected to the Bible. In this book Enoch describes the path of the sun and moon exactly as in your model, which is quite amazing, since the book is very old dated. I would recommend you to read the chapter, it should somehow amaze you how such old writings can match so detailed with your model. ([(url) www.sacred-texts.com~nofollow])
These ancient books of Enoch are believed to be from before the Great Flood. A common opinion is that the book is written in the language of understanding of the people from that time. But it is written so detailed, that I hardly believe it that it is
metaphorical language. It is like Bilel (45) describes it too: with 7 heavens, dome with water etc. So both Christian and Muslim ancient books write about the flat earth in the same way.
Since the Bible is important to me, I want to know how I should value these ancient Books of Enoch. This gives me a very strong drive to find a way for the FE to be possible.
That light is bended is from a spiritual perspective not so difficult. The Bible writes about the Evil One (Satan) as the ruler of the world, the carrier of the light, lord of the light, and great deceiver. Of course this is not a scientific way to explain, but for me not so hard to accept, since I accept that there are powers that are 'greater' than me. This is something that also becomes clear when you read the book of Enoch.
I really like the way you present all this. But also I like the decent way you communicate respectful with those difficult Flat Earthers. I see a lot of scientific people react very aggressive and frustrated toward FE people (which I often can understand). I hope that my comments explain what is underlying this flat-earth believe.
You don't need the heliocentric model to compute anything! Look at my model, which computes the planets and the stars without using the heliocentric model, whatsoever! link to my App
Ivo: You don't need the heliocentric model to compute anything.
So then predict the time, path and size of the moon's shadow of the next solar eclipse. Predict the exact location of the moon in the sky at lunar exclipses and how long they are seen and from where on earth in which direction. Predict the field rotation of the moon for any time and location on earth. Calculate the exact terminator line between night and day for each day of the year, time and location.
This calculations depend on the real 3D sizes, distances and constellations of sun, earth and moon and can not be derived from any 2D flat earth model or an algorithm other than one that implements the Heliocentic model.
From the flat earth model you can not even predict the azimuth of sun/moon rise/set correctly. You have to use a model like my Flat Earth Dome model, that calculates its backwards from the heliocentric model by bending the light in the direction they appear at the observer. This bending can not be explained by any known physical laws. Refraction is not an option, no known medium can bend light exactly the way as is shown in my App.
Walter, did you look at my model, at all? It calculates the positions of the planets and the stars within half a degree of the heliocentric model. I tested it for the years between 1000 and 3000. Of course, once you know the positions of the planets, you can predict anything you want. Put a date of a solar or lunar eclipse, and you will see how the Sun and the Moon align. Try a transit, too, if you want. Again, the calculations are totally different than the heliocentric model. So yes, they can be derived from a 2D flat earth model, indeed! It's all relative!
I am still working on the model, and I am working on the sun light and the azimuth local coordinates. I have them close to the heliocentric model, but we need reliable real world observational data. We can't rely on globalist sources. Everything is suspicious, including the maps, themselves.
Why isn't refraction an option? Actually, atmospheric refraction explains quite a lot. The light is bend with the formula x * x / 8000 in miles, which is the formula for the Earth's "curvature". Again, it's all relative!
Ivo, I tried but your model did not accept any date format I am familiar with and did not show anything but the map.
I know that you can calculate all cycles of the stars, planets, sun and moon without having to know their size and distance from the earth. You simply can carefully observe and measure their paths over long periods of time and derive specific cycles which are accurate enough for some decades. This was done before computer existed. But even here the Heliocentric model can do it better, because it also takes gravity between the planets into account.
But I deliberately choose special things I want you to calculate, because the things I ask you for are not simply repeating cycles but depend on the sizes, distances, inclinations of orbits, constellations of sun, earth and moon, the tilt of earth's axis and on the location of the observer on earth. This things can not be calculated from previous observations without applying the Heliocentric 3D model:
How about an explanation of Coronal mass ejection on the flat earth? They can not be predicted but we can observe them looking at the sun, measure their speeds (measuring the doppler shift) and observe the effects on the earth some time later, according to the speed of the ejection:
A Coronal mass ejection (CME) is a significant release of plasma and accompanying magnetic field from the solar corona. They often follow solar flares and are normally present during a solar prominence eruption. The plasma is released into the solar wind, and can be observed in coronagraph imagery.
When the ejection is directed towards Earth, solar energetic particles can cause particularly strong aurorae in large regions around Earth's magnetic poles. These are also known as the Northern Lights (aurora borealis) in the northern hemisphere, and the Southern Lights (aurora australis) in the southern hemisphere. Coronal mass ejections, can disrupt radio transmissions and cause damage to satellites and electrical transmission line facilities, resulting in potentially massive and long-lasting power outages.
Coronal mass ejections reach velocities from 20 to 3200 km/s with an average speed of 489 km/s, based on SOHO/LASCO measurements between 1996 and 2003. These speeds correspond to transit times from the Sun out to the Earth of about 13 hours to 86 days (extremes), with about 3.5 days as the average.
This is just another observation that confirms the sun is not small and local and can be used to estimate the distance and size of the sun, but I digress.
Now, you ask me to calculate something that you can't calculate yourself. I looked into your source code, you don't even use the Heliocentric model. Where do you calculate the Kepler's orbit? I don't see it anywhere. As a matter of fact, you have the solar eclipse of 8/21/2017 hard coded, so it works. Why don't you try another solar eclipse? How about the solar eclipse of July 2, 2019 16:55? It doesn't work any more now, does it?
To have the exact times of an eclipse and it's path, the calculations have to be ultra precise. My model comes very close, but it needs to be even more precise. The globalists make a lot of adjustments to their model in order to make it to work, which they call perturbations. The Moon has like 15 adjustments. Funny thing is, in order to calculate the adjustments, the globalists convert the Moon coordinates to latitude and longitude, adjust them, and then convert them back to 3D coordinates. It looks like they should have been latitude and longitude on the first place. The latitude and longitude just hide the 2D plane which they use to make the adjustments, that's all.
To show you how ridiculous the Heliocentric model is, let me ask you a simple question, why doesn't the Moon rotate around the Earth around the Equator, as any other satellite? Why does it rotate on the ecliptic plane?
Ivo: What do you mean, my model does not accept known date formats?
Your model does not accept any date format I know of. If I enter it in your format, it is converted into german format but above the input line it says "Local time: Invalid Date | Sidereal time: NaN:NaN:NaN". Probably it's an issue with country settings. I live in Switzerland. But I do believe you that your software, using Keplerian parameters, will predict events more or less accurate.
Ivo: Now, you ask me to calculate something that you can't calculate yourself.
Don't get me wrong. You don't have to actually calculate it for me. I certainly can do it, if I want.
My Points is: The Heliocentric model consists roughly of two sets of properties: geometric properties and cycles.
The geometric properties are for example: sizes, distances, inclinations of orbits, constellations of sun, earth and moon and the tilt of earth's axis. The geometry of the observations also depends on the location and orientation of the observer.
The cycles can be derived from the geometric properties of the Heliocentric model by applying the laws of physics, which results in the Keplerian parameters, or calculated to some extend from careful observations. So the dates of cyclic events can be predicted either from properties of the Heliocentric model, or from observations of previsous cyclic events, for both flat earth and globe.
But you can not calculate the geometric properties of events and observations without knowing the geometry of the Heliocentric model. My Dome Model calculates the geometric properties of events from a rough Heliocentric model and projects the resulting geometric data onto the flat earth model. You can not derive this geometric data from the flat earth model itself, because the geometry of the flat earth model is completely different than the geometry of the Heliocentic model. Flat earth lacks the necessary third dimension of space.
Ivo: I looked into your source code, you don't even use the Heliocentric model. Where do you calculate the Kepler's orbit? I don't see it anywhere. To have the exact times of an eclipse and it's path, the calculations have to be ultra precise.
You are right and I state it in the desciption that I simply use circular orbits in my rough Dome Model which match the real orbits only at a certain date range. I also intentionally did not calculate the shadow of the moon on solar eclipses, which I could derive from the Heliocentric model, but was too lazy to implement.
Using circular orbits instead of Keplerian orbits does not change anything but the exact time of events, which is not essential for what I want to show with the Dome model. I could implement the Keplerian orbits of the Heliocentric model to get more accuracy, no problem. But an approximation of the orbits does not change the geometrical properties of events and observations. And Flat Earther don't believe in the Heliocentric model anyway.
With the Dome Model I intended to show, that the geometric aspects of observations can only be derived from the Heliocentric model.
Ivo: Funny thing is, in order to calculate the adjustments, the globalists convert the Moon coordinates to latitude and longitude, adjust them, and then convert them back to 3D coordinates. It looks like they should have been latitude and longitude on the first place. The latitude and longitude just hide the 2D plane which they use to make the adjustments, that's all.
This has nothing to do with hiding something. Why do you smell a "globalist" conspiracy whenever you encounter something unknown or unexpected?
It is common practice in all science and engineering to use the coordinate systems that makes specific calculations as simple as possible. For example, as long as a perturbation lies in the same plane as the orbit of a body, it is simpler to make the calculations in this plane in polar 2D coordinates: longitude = angle and latitude = distance from the center. As soon as an influence does not lie in the orbital plane anymore, you have to use local 3D cylindrical, spherical or cartesian coordinates, or global cartesian coordinates to relate the motion to the whole solar system. Using cartesian 3D coordinates you can apply simple vector algebra for the calculations, which is also the prefered method for numerical simulations.
The choice of the coordinate system does not change the result of the calculations. You can convert back and forth between coordinate systems without changing the physical properties and locations of objects. This is something most people don't understand and confuse with projections, which changes the locations and correlations between objects, like distances and angles. Transformations between coordinate systems don't do that.
Ivo: To show you how ridiculous the Heliocentric model is, let me ask you a simple question, why doesn't the Moon rotate around the Earth around the Equator, as any other satellite? Why does it rotate on the ecliptic plane?
Except the satellites in geostationary orbit most satellites are not orbiting the earth around the equator. For example all GPS satellites, many earth observation satellites and the ISS have inclined orbits.
The moon does not orbit the earth on the ecliptic plane either. The ecliptic is the mean plane of the apparent path in the Earth's sky that the Sun follows over the course of one year. The Moon differs from most satellites of other planets in that its orbit is close to the ecliptic plane instead of that of its primary (in this case, Earth's) equatorial plane. The Moon's orbital plane is inclined by about 5.1° with respect to the ecliptic plane. (source Wikipedia).
Most planets do not rotate in the ecliptic plane and their spin axes is tilted more or less. Venus axis is tilted more than 90° so it rotates effectively in the other direction then all other planets. All the planets in the Solar System orbit the Sun in a anticlockwise direction as viewed from above Earth's north pole. Most planets also rotate on their axes in an anti-clockwise direction, but Venus rotates clockwise in retrograde rotation once every 243 Earth days—the slowest rotation of any planet. (source Wikipedia).
Why is moon's orbit inclined? I don't know. The hypothesis with the most evidence is that the moon is the result of a collision of a mars sized planet with the earth in the early days of formation of the solar system, which would also explain the tilt of the rotation axes of the earth and why the moons ecliptic lies not in the equatorial plane but more on the ecliptic of the sun. As the rotation axes of all planets are tilted and the orbital planes are different it is evidence that all the planets were being hit by planetoids, giant asteroids and comets which could have knocked each planet off its original axis and path. Many huge craters not only on the moons are evidence for this hypothesis.
I don't see what is ridiculous on this model. It is exactly what I expect for every solar system. It is all a simple consequence of very few fundamental laws of physics: natural symmetries (conservation laws), gravity and to some extend general relativity near the sun (perihelion precession of Mercury). If you understand this things, nothing is ridiculous any more in the Heliocentric model, on the contrary.
Well, in my model, which is almost complete btw, I don't calculate Kepler' orbit, at all. Or to be more exact, I get the same results for the Orbit position of a Planet using a totally different physical model and calculations. Kepler's second law is wrong for the simple reason that the central body is in the other focus, so it doesn't sweep equal areas. Why would it sweep equal areas - it makes no sense! The planet should slow down, when it gets closer to the central body, not speed up, as the globalists claim. This is ridiculous and contrary to any common sense and logic!
I, also, calculate everything using cartesian (X,Y,Z) coordinates only! At the very end I convert to latitude and longitude to match with the heliocentric model. There is no need to use any other coordinates since the Earth is a plane and the Z coordinate is the height in the sky. That's all that is needed. and as you can see I get the same results as the heliocentric model. Soon, I will write down how everything works. I figured out the daylight and the apparent positions. It's all due to the atmosphere!
Ivo: Kepler's second law is wrong for the simple reason that the central body is in the other focus, so it doesn't sweep equal areas. Why would it sweep equal areas - it makes no sense! The planet should slow down, when it gets closer to the central body, not speed up, as the globalists claim. This is ridiculous and contrary to any common sense and logic!
What the heck is wrong with you? Do you really think you are smarter than all astronomers? Have you ever measured the orbit of a planet? The universe gives a damn whether it's laws are common sense for you or not.
How can you claim Kepler's law is wrong when ALL observations confirm it? Kepler derived his laws from very precise observations done by Tycho Brahe.
We can observe on earth that a falling object gets accelerated towards the center of the earth by gravity. If you throw an object upwards it decelerates due to gravity. This is exactly the same with the sun and a planet or any orbiting object. If the object approaches the sun, it gets accelerated because it is attracted by the sun. If it turns around the sun and gets farther away, it decelerates due to suns gravity. That is common sense for me.
By the way, we can derive Kepler's laws from Newton's laws of motion, which really are the most basic laws of nature and would be a good starting point for you to study some basic physics. I mean real study, do the math and experiments, not only read about.
I have programmed a sun, earth, moon simulation (not to scale, because the screen is too small) that uses only Newton's laws of motion and law of universal gravitation and produces orbits confirming Kepler's laws. If you want to learn how the Heliocentric model and gravity work, see:
Gravity and how the Heliocentric Model works
Ivo: At the very end I convert to latitude and longitude to match with the heliocentric model.
What the hell has latitude and longitude to do with the Heliocentric model? No model requires a certain coordinate system. A coordinate system is simply a mathematical way to express locations. Is math somehow bound to a certain model?
Ivo, I appreciate your effort but please stop commenting here until you know what you are talking about. To debunk a theory you have to understand it in the first place.
Walter, my utmost respect for the work you have done here.
I see more and more that flat Earthers post videos on youtube showing your model.
There was one by Nathan Thompson today!
All the gullible FE commenters are in awe and some shout victory!
I really would love to be a fly on the wall when flat earth has to be announced worldwide and the so called smartest ppl in the room were fighting for the ball tooth and nail. You need to think in terms of ⚡️🧲 and plasma and aether. Things are so different to the theory’s that are taught as fact
Hahaha .... so flat earthers will happily believe in "light-bending" and totally abstract new pseudo-physics invented, to support the flat-earth theory, but not the real stuff, that's in front of their nose ?? How absurd is this ?
Each crazy theory, which comes up and helps explain this somehow, is taken for real, even if it's magic, i guess ?
The suns power is more then extreme - it doesn't "wear" off or "bend" - how should that happen, we aren't close to a black hole and if we would be, that would be our last moments of existence !
If the earth would be flat - you would never, ever see the a sunset or sunrise, because after those, the sun would have to go below this disk - but then it would be gone for all the people of this earth - doesn't matter if it's in the US or on the other side in Asia ... there would be night or day EVERYWHERE at the same time - yeah sure - light bending without extreme gravitational influence - that's even more rediculous then the flat earth theory. And if there would be such a extreme gravitational pull, we wouldn't be here no more and killed by it.
(DON'T DO THAT - DON'T LOOK INTO THE SUN, YOU WILL BE BLINDED FOR LIFE !!)
To learn about the extreme powerful sun, you just need to stare straight into it for a little bit of time ... don't look away, just stare into it, it you really are strong enough to do so (or even using telescopes or binoculars) - and that will be the last thing on earth you will be able to see with your own eyes - because your eyesight will be gone - you will damage your eyes irreparably !!!
The sun is not a torchlight, which wears off after a certain distance - or "bends" it's light particles ...
And where is suppose to be the famous "edge" of this flat disk ?? What happens there, if you reach it ??
If going by flat earth theory, then in EACH DIRECTION, doesn't matter where you are, you could walk, drive, fly holding the exact same direction, you HAVE TO REACH THIS EDGE eventually and it wouldn't take you long to do so, with our fast vehicles !
I can tell you what you will reach - at the end you will get to the same position that you started at - because you where moving along a ball, a sphere - on a ball or sphere going around there is NO END, you can move around and around - but on a flat disk that wouldn't be possible - a disk has a reachable EDGE and that would be the end of your journey ...!
Even nature shows you constantly, that everything has a form and mass - have you ever seen a flat apple, orange, banana or whatever (they are round or streched longer and round) ? Anything that is really flat, is human made, nature and the universe goes by other laws.
the efforts you put in your models are amazing and overwhelming!
As an engineer I'm much in favor to promote science and so I occasionally put a link to your "Flat Earth Dome Model" in a comment I wrote to a Youtube video. My intent was to show "we globalists" not simply push away any non-conformist thought and some – like you – even go into great efforts to put it into models by which such ideas can undergo more detailed scrutiny. And if such non-conformist thoughts do not match what we know and can observe in reality there's no point they be sustained.
Seeing Jos Leys – whom I admire too, for the beautiful animations he makes in his videos – comment here your model is picked up by flat earthers makes me feel a bit guilty for heaving promoted it. Especially reading in Jos' comment that even religious zealots have "discovered" it, like that Nathan Thompson. (Have you've seen that selfie-video in which he tore apart a children's book about rockets and space when still inside the shop, before finally paying for the shreds at the cash register?)
I'm now a bit mixed in my emotions how this will end: whether flat earth will point to your model in a similar vein as they do their usual quote mining (like that "it's photo-shopped, it … it … has to be photo-shopped" to "prove" all pictures of earth taken from space are "faked") i.e. promote your model as if you said "that's how light actually DOES bend" instead making clear you wanted to explain how light would NEED to bend. Or whether at least a few of them will really go INTO your model and understand you made it rather to show the IMPOSSIBILITY of a flat earth, not how a flat earth might work.
Anyway, viele Grüße aus Deutschland in die Schweiz,
There's another thief who used your model uncredited: Patrick Shanks
I think FEers using your model would be a very good thing if they had the honesty to properly credit the source.
It would be interesting to find out how much the dome is supposed to weigh... what is keeping it up...
A time-lapse camera pointed at the North Star will obtain the same spiral effect as a time-lapse camera pointed at the southern sky.
Two ships can circumnavigate, in opposite directions clear around the polar icecap and both ships observe the exact same sky.... if earth was flat... the sky would on opposite sides of the disc.
Flat earth is far from stationary... to explain gravitational force... Flat earth, of necessity, would have to maintain upward acceleration at the speed of a free falling object.
This begs the questions:
I appreciate differences of viewpoints. I don’t intend to hurt feelings.
I do consider this to be a fascinating puzzle.
All the best, Harv
Apparently the reality I observe varies from yours. The establishment has not lied about the shape of the plane(t). Because they admit the global model is a theory. A guess! There's no excuse in this day and age not to prove the Earth is a ball. The majority is not always right. And when they think everyone has to agree with them, they are dangerous. So, for humanities sake, I hope we did not make many like you.
There are a few fundamental misconceptions as regards the flat Earth. For example, gravity was conceived after the flat Earth model to explain how a ball holds oceans upon it but lets the dust fly around. Mass has weight. The surface is bigger. Flat Earth is stationary.
The equator is located in the center of the disk where a much smaller sun (similar to size and distance of the moon which has it's own light) rotates counter-clockwise above the equatorial region. It becomes a tighter rotation until the summer solstice then loosens until the winter solstice. This provides seasons and gives the appearance to the observer the sun rises as it comes into view, moves over until it leaves view and sets. Now, there is too much landscape that obstructs the view so it's dark and it's daytime someplace else.
The North Pole is in the middle. The South Pole is the outer edge. The most highly restricted area on the plane(t)! Still, even if you made it there, there are said to be two mile high ice walls that eventually block most forms of travel. It is a mystery how far until you reach the dome which has the disk encased. Like a snow globe. I like to call them snow domes! hahaha
Also, this viewpoint does not deny the possibility of other life forms such as, aliens. It would merely place their origin on Earth. Perhaps, sub terrestrials (who are a bunch of liars)?
Average American, did you not read all the paragraphs on this page? Or do you not understand what I wrote? It is geometrically impossible to explain all astronomical observations from any flat earth model, because it lacks the 3D realationships like the distance to sun and moon and the size of sun and moon and the shape and size of the globe earth to explain it. Most observations are not even possible on the flat earth model. All calculations I did to explain how certain observations could be explained some how are using the heliocentric model, because the flat earth can not explain it. Period. Please read the text on this page.
Average American: The establishment has not lied about the shape of the plane(t). Because they admit the global model is a theory.
The globe model is not a theory. It's a fact.
There's no excuse in this day and age not to know for sure that the Earth is a rotating globe.
Average American: Water outside the dome firmament holds the Earth in place.
You have no evidence or prove of a dome and water outside a dome. Nobody has ever seen or touched a dome despite the fact that we can travel as high as we want with our technology. You have to deny all images of the earth from space, all satellites and all technology that depends on the rotating globe like Gyrocompasses, Inertial Navigation Systems, Global Positioning Systems and Geodesy.
We know that there is no dome, because we have thousands of satellites in space, orbiting the earth, other planets and the sun. We can Receive Beautiful Images of the Earth Directly From Satellites in Space like the GOES-15,16,17 and Himawari 8 HRIT using self made receivers. You can learn How to Pull Images from Satellites in Orbit (NOAA 15,18,19 and METEOR M2) yourself. We can even use online tools to find out where the satellites momentarily are and see the bigger ones in space by naked eyes (eg. the ISS) or using binoculars or telescopes.
We know the earth is an orbiting planet because we have satellites visiting other planets and the sun eg. the Parker Solar Probe. We have Pictures of Earth by Planetary Spacecraft and they show the earth is a planet orbiting around the sun like all other planets.
Average American: gravity was conceived after the flat Earth model to explain how a ball holds oceans upon it but lets the dust fly around.
You have no sources for this claim.
We know that gravity exists because in virtually every construction, airplane, ship, submarine, high altitude balloons, satellite ect. all calculations have to take gravity into account.
We know that gravity exists because we measure gravity on earth all the time using Gravimeters up to 12 decimal places accuracy. From that we have derived the Earth Gravitational Model EGM96, which defines the mean sea level for every place on earth to cm accuracy and is the basis for all elevation measurements. GPS, Google Earth and all Navigations Systems, even in your smart phone use the EGM96 model to calculate elevations. See also Measuring Gravity with the GRACE satellites. General Relativity, which describes how gravity works, is one of the best tested scientific theories. It's predictions like gravity waves, black holes, time dilation, frame dragging ect. are confirmed in many ways. Not one single experiment or observation could falsify GR until now, see Tests of general relativity.
Gravity is not an invention. It's a description with mathematical models of observable facts. First there was observations, then the hypothesis, then the model which makes new predictions, and then the confirmations of new predictions in experiments and new observations. Now it is a Scientific theory. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny.
See also the following comments on this page: