This blog is for nonprofit, educational purposes - media is incorporated for educational purposes as outlined in § 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act.

Thursday, January 10, 2019

Essential Elements of the Globe Model

I created this to establish a baseline of the Globe/Heliocentric model for discussions.

When Flat Earthers make assertions that disagree with this model they are being dishonest.

  • Earth is roughly an oblate spheroid described in the WGS-84 Reference Model having:
    ellipsoidal flattening (f) = 1/298.257223560
    equatorial radius (a) = 6378137 m
    polar radius (b) = a - a f
  • Earth distance from the Sun varies from
    147095000 km at Perihelion and
    152100000 km at Aphelion    
  • Earth mass is 5.97237×10²⁴ kg giving a surface acceleration of 9.807 m/s²
  • Earth rotates once per 23h 56m 4.100s (sidereal day, 23.934472 hr)
    Over a year, the average solar noon-to-noon time is 24h (synodic day)    
  • Earth obits the Sun every 365.25635535 days, and makes 365.25635535 (+1) sidereal rotations  
  • Moon radius is approximately 1740 km and the distance from Earth varies from 356,500 km at perigee and 406,700 km at apogee    
  • Sun radius is 696,342 km (±65 km) with a mass of 1.9885×10³⁰ kg (330,000x Earth)    
  • Earth's Obliquity (axial tilt relative to the ecliptic, or orbital, plane) varies slightly over time, as of 2019-01-01 it is ~23.4368°
  • Since Gravity is proportional to mass and is a mutual attraction of ALL mass it does not "emanate" from the center of anything but rather we can treat rigid objects as a single mass in the simple case.

    From this principle, "down" *MEANS* closer to the center of the Earth.

    Someone on the other side of the Earth is not "upside down".

    Level is an equipotential of gravity.
  • Refraction exists, and is pretty well understood, but accurately measuring the atmosphere over tens or hundreds of miles is not feasible.  Under common field conditions, for shorter distances you can approximate the effect of refraction by assuming an Earth Radius of 15% larger than normal.  This is a very simplistic assumption but is a good approximate when nothing else can be known.

    The problem for most long-range optical observations is that refraction can create a duct through which you can see substantial distances right over land or (more commonly) water.  I'm sorry but this is just a FACT.  The good news is that such views are usually highly distorted so we can identify when this is happening.  However, the more common failure is harder to detect and that is cases of substantial looming which can cause distant objects to appear somewhat higher than normal.  The setting sun is very commonly raised by about 34 arc minutes [see], meaning the sun has actually fully set when you see the lower limb reach your horizon.  Flat Earthers need to either scientifically PROVE that this is false or stop lying about it. An easy way to observe this effect is to use a equatorial tracking mount with reasonably high-power optics (and a proper solar filter) follows the sun from about 2 hours before sunset. The tracking will be very accurate at first (and all day) and it will get slightly ahead of the Sun near sunset as the refraction increases and raises the Sun's apparent position. Measuring this shift is one way to measure the Refraction along that line-of-sight.

    The best way to avoid the worst variations of Refraction is to get up higher.

    Walter Bislin's Refraction Simulation

You don't win an argument when you create a strawman of the Model -- you LIE.

You can get the current axial tilt from

And in "meme" form for sharing (minus the big Refraction Discussion)

Monday, December 31, 2018

Moon Seen From Detroit and Sydney- Proof of Flat Earth?

The Claim

The full image:

And time of Sydney observation was clarified as 7:52 am:

So, let's see what we can learn about the Globe observation for 31-Aug-2018 07:52 AM Detroit time (11:52 UTC, 09:52 PM Sydney).

The Globe Model 

First let's check the Moon Light World Map, this shows the moon would NOT have risen yet in Sydney.  Moonrise would be at 22:00 hours in Sydney so FreeThoughts182 clearly has the time wrong.  I'll bet it's closer to 8:52am.

Next we will check Stellarium, the astronomical calculation software, showing just after moonrise at 22:05.  Which confirms this.  And yes, I absolutely trust this over the word of a Flat Earther who cannot produce any evidence of their claim.  I do NOT think he is lying but I do think he is mistaken about the time or maybe the date.

But the important question here is "can Sydney and Detroit both see the moon at the same time given the Globe model" -- not what exact time did this occur.  That question is best answered by using Celestia (a 4D model of the solar system, and more, that allows us to view this from any viewpoint) to view the planetary arrangement.

Lacking exact coordinates (which we don't really need to confirm the broad claim) I'm going to use 42.3314° N, 83.0458° W for Detroit and 33.8688° S, 151.2093° E for Sydney.  I'm also going to show 8:52 am (12:52 UTC) (Julian 2458362.03670).

First, set the date and time:

And then we Select the "Moon" and hit 'g' to Goto that object.

Next Select the "Earth" and hit 'c' to center that in our view.

Finally, use ',' (comma) and '.' (period) to zoom in so we can see the Earth clearly.

We can see both Sydney and Detroit from the Moon.

and an hour later the Moon would be significantly in the sky for both locations.

So yes, both Sydney and Detroit SHOULD be able to see the Moon in the sky at the same time.

In fact, on a Globe with an atmosphere that bends light about a half-degree and a sufficiently distant Moon, like ours, there are no two locations on Earth that couldn't see the Moon at the same time under the right conditions -- of course, antipodes will both see it very close to the horizon.  But Sydney and Detroit aren't even close to antipodal.

With better evidence of the two locations and timestamped images we could do a better job predicting what both persons would see down to the exact phase of the moon, the azimuth and altitude where it appears in the sky, etc.

And one last view showing where the Sun appears in the sky and just how far away from the Earth it is even though we only see a crescent Earth, that slight angle plus a great distance means the angle is fairly large (about 32 degrees).

Friday, August 3, 2018

Hard Geometric Proof Earth Is A Globe: The Angle Of Polaris

The Simplest proof the Earth is a Globe is how the angle of Polaris changes with Latitude.

Fact #1 each degree of Latitude is the same distance -- 60 Nautical Miles (there is actually a *tiny* shift due to Earth being oblate by just 1 part in 300).  Therefore 45° is halfway from the Equator to the North Pole and 90° is all the way to the North Pole. Sailors for HUNDREDS of years have known this, this is the very definition of Nautical Mile (1 minute of Latitude and there are 60 in a full degree).

Fact #2 each 60 Nautical Miles you go -- that is, for each 1° of Latitude -- the angle of Polaris over your horizon also changes 1 degree.

Fact #3 the SLOPE of a right-angle triangle is given by RISE/RUN and the SLOPE tells you the angle (angle = arctan(slope)).

Therefore -- on a flat Earth, the angle of Polaris should be found by using the simple rule of a SLOPE of a line -- that is: RISE/RUN with the right-angle at the North Pole.

So, if the SLOPE of Polaris at 45° Latitude is 1:1 (which is what 45° *means*) then at 0° Latitude (the Equator) which Is twice as FAR from the North Pole then the SLPOE should be 1:2 *IF AND ONLY IF THE GROUND IS FLAT* -- a SLOPE of 1:2 is an Angle of 26.57° -- but in reality the Angle of Polaris over the horizon is near 0° or a SLOPE of close to 1:infinity.

This exact SAME pattern holds for the Equinox Sun -- the angle of the Equinox Sun (when the Sun is directly over the Equator) equals your Latitude.

This exact SAME pattern holds for viewing a Rising or Setting Equinox Sun but in Degrees of Longitude along the Equator.  It does NOT follow the expected Flat pattern *at all, ever*.

To excuse such a HUGE, MASSIVE failures -- Flat Earther's start making up ever increasing levels of histrionically complete and utter nonsense.  Millions upon Millions of people are all "IN" in the conspiracy. NASA hacks your digital cameras to "fake" images of planets. The Moon is a hologram.  Everyone is a liar. Everyone is suspect. It is a dangerous delusion.

If you look into the in-fighting in the Flat Earth movement you'll see this coming to life.  It won't be long until it comes to violence because half of them think the other half are "Shills", paid by NASA to make Flat Earth look dumb (as if that's needed).

What you will see Flat Earther's do is hand wave and pretend like this is explained by some magical version of 'Perspective' but Perspective IS the fact that the angles change with distance. There isn't some additional perspective effect.

You can easily see that the angular size of the sailboat is smaller for the more distant observer without histrionically throwing out made-up excuses.  We know EXACTLY how this works because every 3D video game is based on it.

NOTHING in perspective causes the angles to change MORE than the angles are expected to change -- which I explained above.  The angle of Polaris at the Equator DUE TO PERSPECTIVE should be the aforementioned 26.57° -- Flat Earth has failed.

Thursday, July 19, 2018

Flat Busted: Exalt Microwave Link over 235 kilometers PROVES Flat Earth

First of all, this claim is ENTIRELY based on an unsubstantiated press release (A) (B) put out by a defunct company.

There is NO documentary evidence of this presented and not even any verifiable information about the locations of the towers, their elevations above sea-level, or ANY other information that would allow us to verify any claims made about this.

However, what we CAN find... If you go the archive of the now defunct Exalt web page:

The two towers merely needed to be about 1000m over sea-level and they could easily transmit over that distance.  There are absolutely such locations in that area (claimed to be Beirut to Cyprus, but over the Mediterranean is agreed).

And even though microwaves are FAIRLY line-of-sight that doesn't mean they aren't affected by refraction -- they most certainly are.
microwave refractive index varies strongly with atmospheric humidity
[citation]   [and another]

The line of sight is bent by atmospheric refraction -- even for microwaves.

But so what?  I agree with their OWN SOURCE that says the towers would need to be very high. The general applicability of this holds true even if the company tried to a set a communications distance record by finding a specific location suited to placing the towers on mountains on both sides.

Even still -- show me the VERIFIABLE location of these towers on both ends or don't claim it's proof -- I don't want unsupportable claims -- I want evidence.

Of course, making such a claim without any evidence is Standard Operation Procedure for Flat Earthers...

Tuesday, July 10, 2018

Saturn, Jupiter, and Moon from my Telescope

I have a modest telescope, the Meade LX70 750mm focal length f/5, 6" Newtonian and the NexImage Color Burst CCD.

A Barlow lens changes the effective focal length of your telescope -- so 2x means it's 1500mm effective focal length and 3x means 2250mm effective focal length.

I personally recorded these observations, shown above I am imaging Jupiter on 2018-06-06, shown below.

Saturn 2017-08-08 - stacked, 2x Barlow

Jupiter 2018-04-15 - 3 image, 15 minute time lapse showing it rotating, 3x Barlow

Jupiter 2018-06-06 - Red Spot, 3x Barlow

The differences in the color of Jupiter is just the white balance settings -- I didn't really do any image editing or cleanup beyond stacking the images and I bumped up the brightness on Io so you can see it, otherwise it is too dark in my capture.

Here is a video of the moon I recorded using my iPhone (which isn't the greatest optical quality).

Monday, June 25, 2018

FECORE's Laser Farce

The largest and most glaring error in the 'FECORE Laser Level Experiments' is FECORE’s calculation for refraction is an absolute joke — several miles of atmosphere cannot be treated as a single interface to which you apply Snell’s Law. You have to integrate Snell’s Law over the entire distance as a continuous function of changes in air density, composition, pressure, and temperature. This kind of gross negligence disqualifies this as a valid 'experiment' right off the bat.

They also ignore diffraction effects (scattering of the beam along the surface of the water) and try to count ‘I can see the laser’ as equal to ‘laser has gone in a straight line’.  This is another grossly negligent aspect of this test that completely disqualifies it as a valid 'experiment'.

Another thing I immediately noticed is that you can see, in numerous of the images they posted, that the laser light is being reflected down from layers in the atmosphere back onto the water surface. You can see this as very bright blue spots on the water well below where the laser is.

Flat or Globe that is thoroughly disqualifying.

There isn't even any point in checking their 'experiment' any further.

At heart I think they try to do a valid experiment but these are such gross errors I find it difficult to sustain this good will.

Lasers are simply not a good way to run this test.

Sandor was told many times on the Metabunk thread to do the experiment the way Wallace did it -- setup very carefully measured rods at at least three points well over the water (at least 10 feet or so) and observe them with a telescope in both directions.  This method is almost refraction proof -- refraction can skew the results in either direction but won't align all three points without some extremely rare atmospheric conditions.

Diagram Wallace Used For Bedford Level Experiment

Of course, we all know that this will show the Earth is curved and they'll just deny it... Again...

Sorry but Flat Earth adherents aren't logical, reasonable, or honest -- even if they think they mean to be honest their beliefs get in their way.

What everyone agreed they saw in the telescope.

Sunday, June 24, 2018


My thought on ‘evidence’ — the most important thing when sharing photos, scientific papers, measurements, and other materials is that the Methodology used is also made available.

If someone rejects the accompanying artifact(s) then they need to have a very good reason where they can either show an inconsistency in the material artifacts with reality or they need to put forth a good faith attempt to replicate the results and show some error that way.

There should also be some provenance provided — if you’re sharing someone else’s images or data and you don’t know anything about it, that can be a cause for it to be rejected. This is not saying that, say, rejecting all NASA images as ‘fake’ is valid reasoning.