The ” 90 degrees triangle on a sphere” myth

   One of the “proofs” that Earth is a globe, and not flat, that Globe Cult believers like to use in order to debunk Flat Earth is this : “You can have a triangle with three 90 degrees angles on a sphere. On a flat surface, you cannot”.

   And they use this as a proof :

Sphere triangle 1

   Now, first reaction is to agree that yes, you can have a triangle with three 90 degrees angles on a sphere, and most people, if not all, do not see the obvious in the above image.

   And the obvious is : that is NOT a triangle.

   A triangle is a 2-dimensional shaped figure. A sphere is a 3-dimensional shaped figure. In the image above, what you see is a SPHERICAL TRIANGLE. Since it is a SPHERICAL triangle, hence, a 3-dimensional shaped figure, it cannot be reproduced on 2-dimensional surface.

   Does the image above PROVES that Earth is a sphere? No, it does not. It is a drawing.

   First, it is not a triangle. A triangle have straight lines, a spherical triangle have arc shaped lines.The “You cannot draw a three 90 degrees triangle on a flat Earth” mantra is faulty, because the same is true for a sphere : ” You cannot draw a three 90 degrees triangle on a sphere”. You can draw a SPHERICAL triangle (which is NOT a triangle) on a sphere.

   Can I draw a three 90 degrees shape, that looks like a triangle, on the AE map?

   Sure I can :

FE 90 degrees triangle small angles

   Is the above figure a triangle? No, it is not. It is a shape that looks like a triangle? Yes, it is. Does it have three 90 degrees angles? Yes. Does it proves that the Earth is flat?

   NO, IT DOES NOT. But neither is the first image. Neither of the two images have triangles. The first image have a spherical triangle, with the three sides arc shaped, and three 90 degrees angles.The second one have two straight sides, one arc shaped side, and three 90 degrees angles.

   Geometrically speaking, the second image is closer to a triangle that the first image is.Both have three 90 degrees angles, but the second one have two straight sides and one arc shaped side, while the first one have all three sides arc shaped. Neither is a triangle.


   Whenever a Globe Cult believer brings up this :

Sphere triangle 1as a “proof” of the Globe Earth, explain to him that this is NOT A TRIANGLE, because a triangle is always, ALWAYS, a 2-dimensional figure, and a triangle will ALWAYS have the sum of its angles equal to 180 degrees. 

   Any OTHER drawing, object, figure, that is not 2-dimensional and doesn’t have the sum of its angles EXACTLY 180 degrees, it is NOT a triangle.


   The only way to actually PROVE that the Earth is a sphere, is to travel 10,000 km along the Equator (eastward of westward, doesn’t matter), turn 90 degrees North, travel 10,000 km to the North Pole, turn 90 degrees South, and travel 10,000 km back to the Equator.

   Until the above is not proved, with solid scientific proofs, the Earth cannot be proved to be a sphere.

   Drawing a three 90 degrees shape on a sphere is not a proof that the Earth is a globe, the same way that drawing a three 90 degrees shape on AE map is not proof that our world is flat.


Flat Earth Education.



Flat Earth – the impossibility of gravity, part III

   In my previous articles, dedicated to gravity, I tried to prove, why gravity, as explained by mainstream science, it’s an impossibility, using the velocities of Earth in space (part I) and the atmospheric pressure (part II).

   This 3rd part will have no math, only common sense.I will use the mainstream science explanation of the tides, and prove, why gravity, as explained by the mainstream science, it’s an impossibility.

   The tides, according to mainstream science, are caused by the gravitational force between the Moon and the Earth, and between the Sun and the Earth.Basically, the gravitational forces of the Moon and the Sun are moving the oceans on Earth.Applied math to mass of the Earth, Moon and the Sun, and the distance between them, is perfect.Well, it is perfect because the values of those masses and distances are predetermined beforehand (without any measuring whatsoever), and math will always be perfect.

   Now, since I said that this part will have no math, I will ask some simple questions to all globe religious believers out there.

   First one is : “Is the gravitational force of the Moon and the Sun moving the oceans, hence, causing the tides?”.The answer will be always “Yes”. 

   The second one is : “Is there anything on Earth that is lighter than water?”.The answer, again, will be always “Yes”.

   I think you see where I am going with this.The 3rd question could be “Why the Moon and the Sun gravitational force doesn’t move everything on Earth, that is lighter than water?”. But the 3rd question is not the above one. It is the one bellow.

   Third question : “Is air lighter than water?”.The answer will always be “Yes”.

   I choose these first 3 questions, because the globe believers can only answer with “Yes”.

   So, here comes the 4th question to the globe believers : “If the Moon and the Sun gravitational force is moving the oceans, why it doesn’t also move the atmosphere?”

   The Socratic method is well-known in psychology.It is basically a series of questions that will lead to a single answer, that is also the truth.My 4th question is actually a trick question, because according to the mainstream science…we have atmospheric tides.The explanation is convoluted and filled with contradictions and physical impossibilities.Basically, the Sun is heating up the atmosphere, and this causes the Moon atmospheric tides to have zero impact, as opposite to ocean tides, where the Moon have the primary influence.

   It is easy to say that the Sun heats up the atmosphere, while in the same time “forgetting” to say that it is also heating up the water.When looking at the water tides and atmospheric tides separately, the explanations (in the small minds of globe believers) are logical : the Moon can cause oceanic tides, but because of the Sun, it doesn’t also causing atmospheric tides.

   However, if you look at the “big picture”, there is a big ass problem : the Sun is unable to overtake the Moon, in the case of water tides, but is able to nullify the Moon, in the case of atmospheric tides, by simply heating up the atmosphere.But this is not all.The Sun, according to science, because is heating up the atmosphere, also causes our atmosphere to expand in outer space, since air is basically a bunch of gases, and gases expand or contract, depending on the temperature.

   The answer to the 4th question being “But the Sun is actually move the atmosphere”, the 5th question is : “Why is that we still have an atmosphere, if the Sun is causing it to expand in the outer space?”.

   Before answering this question, we first HAVE TO PROVE that Earth’s atmosphere is expanding in the outer space.The problem is that we cannot practically prove it.So, we have to try to prove it theoretically.And the only way to do it is using science.Real science.The same science that kills the globe every minute, every day.

   A gas expands or contracts, when temperature is rising or dropping.Our atmosphere, being basically a gas, will also expand and contract.So far, so good.When our atmosphere expands, according the mainstream science, due to the Sun heating it up, it expands, also according to mainstream science, in the outer space.The only way for Earth’s gravity to be able to keep the atmosphere continuously leaking into the outer space, is if the temperature in outer space is lower than the temperature of the atmosphere, so the gases will contract.

   But…it is not.It is actually much, much higher, according to, again, mainstream science.According to mainstream science, when all is put in the equation, we should not have an atmosphere.

   If the Earth’s gravity is unable to stop the expansion of the atmosphere in the outer space, when the difference in temperature is, at most, 50-60 degrees Celsius, how is it able to stop it leaking in the outer space, when the air will be heated, by the Sun’s radiation, above 1200 degrees Celsius?

   For those not understanding my question, I will explain some basics, regarding temperatures and gravity, again, according to the mainstream science.What keeps our atmosphere leaking into space, is that Earth’s gravity overtakes the molecular energy present at certain temperatures.The gas atoms that are forming our atmosphere, are stuck together, because the temperature is not high enough to force them escape the gravitational force of Earth.

   A simple example will be boiling water.Water is a liquid, but when its temperature reaches a certain value, the water molecules at the surface, if not contained, will break into hydrogen and oxygen atoms, which are gases.The H2O (water) is a molecule, but at a certain temperature (and over) it will break off into atoms, which become gases, that are lighter, hence, the gravity will be weaker than when the oxygen and hydrogen were bound together, as a water molecule.

   Temperature variations can make a solid become a liquid, and a liquid become a gas.In certain conditions, we can make a solid become a gas, but this transition is not present in natural conditions, only in artificial conditions.

   But our atmosphere is already a gas.When expanding into outer space, the atoms that are forming this gas, under the influence of Sun’s radiation, will keep expanding, because the gravity is mathematically unable to overtake the expansion rate forced by the immense temperatures present in outer space.

   When you look at the “big picture”, where, according to mainstream science, the Sun is forcing the atmosphere to expand, in the outer space, at 50-60 degrees Celsius temperature difference, and gravity is unable to counter this small difference, while the temperatures in outer space go beyond 1200 degrees Celsius, it becomes clear that gravity cannot stop the 1200 degree Celsius heated gas to leak into outer space.

   The answer is actually much simple : Our atmosphere is not expanding and contracting.Practically, we cannot prove it, and theoretically, we can only prove that Earth cannot have an atmosphere, if that atmosphere expands into the outer space.

   If you are boiling water in a sealed container, there will be no loss.Our atmosphere is contained in a sealed environment, otherwise, it will not be able to exist.Unless we shit on Thermodynamics.And Chemistry.And other sciences.

   There is no gravity.I don’t know what causes the tides, but I am 100% sure that if the Moon and the Sun are causing BOTH the ocean tides, and atmospheric tides, our atmosphere cannot exist, because every experiment proves that at certain temperatures, Earth’s gravity cannot stop the overheated gas atoms in our atmosphere leaking continuously into the outer space.


Flat Earth Education.

An excellent explanation of the August 21st 2017 solar eclipse (and more)

   The video bellow belongs to Flat Earth 101 (the Indonesian Flat Earth community official YT channel).It confirms, with solid scientific data and really simple math, that the eclipse path direction can only go from East to West, if the world is a globe spinning in space, and West to East, if the world is flat and immovable.


The link is from Globebusters YT channel, and I used their link simply because they also agreed with the path being wrong.

   I wrote A LOT, before and after the eclipse, why the path cannot work on the globe model, limiting as much as possible the math that supported my claims, going against Jeran (from jeranism) and Mike Helmick, who supported the possibility that the eclipse going from West to East works on a globe model

   These are my previous articles on the eclipse :


   I didn’t needed a confirmation that my arguments were correct, but I needed a video extensive enough, that explains why eclipses cannot work on the globe, heliocentric model.

   And for that, I thank Flat Earth 101 and the Indonesian FE community.


Flat Earth Education.

The rambling of an astrophysicist : dr.Dan Bacheldor

Hid name should be Dan Batshitcrazy. The man is completely detached from reality.Watch this 8 min and 54 sec video, just make sure you don’t have anything breakable around :


The first sentence is a complete lie : “I’m an astrophysicist, which means I study the physics of the Universe”. Actually, he is not lying, he actually BELIEVES that he studies something that it’s impossible to study.

   “The physics of the Universe”…really ? Can’t he be more full of itself ? And full of shit?Nope, it’s impossible.This is the main reason these people need to just disappear from history.But before that, they need to disappear from books and schools.How could you EVER debate Flat Earth with someone who is CONVINCED he is studying the fucking Universe?

   Right after he talks about the “gravitational waves that we can detect”, without even reading what his peers wrote about those gravitational waves.And what his peers, from physics departments of major Universities and physics societies wrote is that those gravitational waves, allegedly detected this year, were nothing back background NOISE.But I guess LYING is the way to go against flat earth, because TRUTH clearly is not acceptable.

   I won’t go further and analyze each of the phrases this excuse of a human being is saying, because everything he said in the video is a lie, or a half truth, or a mixed truths and lies or plain simple science-fiction propaganda-like bullshit.

   And now we have the confirmation of WHY no “scientist” wants to debate flat earthers : their science-fiction lying BS propaganda vs our simple, logical, common sense truth will be suicidal.


Flat Earth Education.

Flat Earth : Stars size, distance and luminosity – Case in point : Sun vs Polaris

   According to science, namely astronomy and astrophysics disciplines, stars are suns, that have various sizes, composition, luminosity and are situated at relative distances from Earth.

   Now, except the parallax method (which is correct when applied to “earthly” things), which measures distances between celestial bodies (stars, planets, moons, asteroids, etc.) in space, when talking about size, composition and luminosity, we enter in a completely made up, borderline sci-fi, “scientific” methods and principles conglomerate that define the mentioned  quality of stars.

   To better understand why they are made up and borderline sci-fi, just look at what science say about our Sun.They know its size, composition and luminosity, while nobody, ever, sent a probe to the Sun (to actually see its composition), nobody have anything to compare Sun’s size with (those telling us that they measured Sun size and distance using the parallax with Venus, just ask them how they measured the size of Venus and the distance between Earth and Venus and Venus to Sun).As for luminosity, there are plenty of experiments that actually are true about Sun’s luminosity.

   But, since I want to talk about Sun and Polaris only, I will assume that everything that science tell us about Sun and Polaris is true.

   I will start with mentioning that the composition of the Sun and Polaris do not matter here, all I want to compare are the size and luminosity.

   Polaris luminosity is 2,200 times bigger than our Sun, and Polaris diameter is 30 times bigger.As you can see, the luminosity of a star is not proportional with the size of such star.Polaris, with a 30 times bigger diameter than our Sun, is does not have a 30 times bigger luminosity, but 2,200 times bigger.

   Another thing I want to mention, is Sun’s apparent size, the Sun as we see it, without human eyes.Ofc, looking at the Sun with the naked eye, the image will be highly distorted and a bit painful for the eye, so, in order to determine the apparent Sun’s size, we will use the Moon apparent size, since it is 400 times smaller but 400 times closer than the Sun, not to mention that we can look at the Moon without any visual issues.

   We all can appreciate the apparent size of the Moon, seen from down here, with our eyes.When it is a full moon, the Moon’s apparent size is basically the size of a basketball, so, the apparent size of the Sun is also basically the size of a basketball, see with our eyes.

   I have to remind “human eyes” often, because this is what we are talking about : comparing Sun and Polaris size and luminosity exclusively using our eyes, simply because we can see both of them and a lot of other stars, just using our own eyes.

   The distance between Earth to the Sun is, using light speed, aprox. 8 light minutes, and between Earth and Polaris, is aprox. 434 light years, which means that Polaris is situated at a distance 28,513,800 times further away from Earth than the Sun is.

   Now, how far the Sun should be from Earth, in order to be seen like any star we see in the night time?Not very far, it will be actually damn close.If the Sun have the apparent size of a basketball, at 8 light minutes away, it will be a dot in the sky at a distance not bigger than 100 times away from Earth.A basketball is like 18 inches in diameter.100 times smaller is 0.18 inches, or roughly 4.5 millimeters.

   100 times further away is 800 light minutes, which is 13.3 light hours.If we double this distance, we will have a Sun with the apparent size of 2.2 milimeters, situated at a distance of 26.6 light hours away.That is just a little more than one day light.

   Polaris have a luminosity 2,200 bigger than the Sun.If we replace Sun with Polaris, in our little experiment, at a distance of 26.6 light hours away from us (bit more than one day light), Polaris apparent size would be 30 times bigger, so aprox. 6.6 cemtimeters (2.6 inches).In order to see Polaris with the apparent size of the Sun, when the Sun is 2.2 millimeters, we will have to move Polaris 30 times x 26.6 light hours further, which is almost 800 light hours.That distance is only 33.3 light days away from Earth, and Polaris will be a dot.

   However, Polaris is not 33.3 light days away from us (where it will be a dot), it is 434 light years away from us (and it is still a dot), which is 4,757 times further.

   I am sorry globetards, but if Polaris would be 33.3 light days away from us, and it will be a dot, how can it be STILL a dot, when it is (434 light years) 4,757 TIMES further away?

   I am sure some globetards will say “luminosity” and “brightness”, to prove me wrong in my assumptions.Well, Polaris luminosity is 2,200 times than our Sun.I can do the same assumption based on luminosity : imagine moving Polaris 2,200 times closer to us.Well, IT WILL STILL BE A DOT, because 2,200 times closer is 72 light days away.Polaris will be a dot at 33.3 light days away, 72 light days away or 434 light YEARS away.It will be a dot, and nothing more.A dot CANNOT produce daylight, no matter how bright it is.It’s a DOT.

   The problem is that Polaris (or ANY other star) CANNOT be a dot in the sky, if it is what science say it is : a sun.If I see Polaris as a dot, 33.3 light days away, I cannot see it, AT ALL, at 434 light years away.No star in NASA database will be visible with the naked eye.Not even one.

   If you have the time, do the math for any star you want, using only size, distance and luminosity.

   Anything else is bullshit.Brightness is a term invented to give credibility to the fact that we can see stars with the naked eye.That brightness have no scientific base.There is no experiment that could prove the brightness of a star.Sure, you can compare a GIVEN value of brightness of a star, and extrapolate from there to all of the stars, but the problem is that brightness have NOTHING to do with luminosity, hence, the brightness cannot, ever, be scientifically proven based on determine values, but only on GIVEN values.

   If a globetard still insists that a star can be seen because it is bright, point him to the inverse square law.I did not go into this, because a lot of people hate math, and because it will completely destroy the theory that stars are suns.Polaris, with 2,200 times Sun’s luminosity, when the inverse square law is applied, cannot be seen with the naked eye, simply because it doesn’t emit a quantity of light big enough to reach Earth.It is barely enough to reach an observer situated not even 1 light year away from Polaris.

   Same is with Sun size and distance from us : it is based on GIVEN values, not determined values.The “scientists” GAVE values to Venus (size, distance to us and to Sun), based on nothing, but imagination.

   If I say that Venus is twice as big but twice as far from us and from the Sun, the Sun will have EXACTLY the same size and distance from us, as they say it is now.Also, if I say that Venus is half the size, but half the distance, the Sun will have EXACTLY the same size and distance from us, as they say it is now.

   Stars are not suns.Stars are very small and very close to us.The Sun is not a star.Polaris is not a sun.


Flat Earth Education.


Cassini : The fake crash of a fake probe in the fake space

   It should be no surprise that NASA decided to fake crash their fake Cassini space probe.The flat earth community dismantled every last CGI NASA came up with, including those they said were sent by the Cassini “space” probe orbiting Saturn.

   If it weren’t for us, flat earthers, Cassini would orbit, without any problems, Saturn forever.But NASA knows that their end is near.So, they did what they do best : destroy everything that could be used to prove their hoaxes and lies.

   Moon landings missions telemetry data? Lost. Moon landing missions tech ? Destroyed.August eclipse live stream from ISS? “Technical difficulties”.

   It won’t make any difference anyway, because flat earth community is growing with or without NASA’s fake crap around.We know that nobody ever went to the Moon, telemetry data or not, we know that there is no ISS up there, eclipse live streaming or not, and we know that there is no Cassini orbiting Saturn, crashed or not.

   Now, we should expect, in the next two, maybe three years, the Mars rover to break down and ISS to be dismantled.They will have to do it, because every crap that allegedly come from ISS and the rover are fake as crap, and easy to prove (because we have access to the required tech) as being fake.It is better (for a short-term) for NASA to just remove their fake ISS and fake rover on Mars, instead being ripped apart every time they make public more CGI crap.

   We might not even witness the impeding fake break down of the Mars rover and fake dismantling of the fake ISS, because flat earth is almost at critical mass.Flat Earth might be accepted and acknowledged as truth before NASA fakes the death of their fakes.

   I will end up this article by posting two images : one being a “real” photo took by Cassini, the other being an artist impression.To be honest…I don’t see any difference, except the background in the artist impression being blue and having star lights, instead black and empty, and Saturn being yellowish instead grayish.The rings however, are basically the same, just viewed from a different angle.

cassini 1

cassini 2


Stay flat, and stay tuned.


Flat Earth Education.


Flat Earth – Where are all the satellites?

Well, the short answer would be : “They are all tethered to balloons, flying 10-12 miles up”.

   But here is the thing…most globetards will say that satellites are in space, orbiting the spinning globe Earth.Even if you argue, with scientific facts, that satellites cannot, ever, survive in space for maybe 24-48 hours, they will come up with extremely idiotic explanations why the satellites don’t melt.

   I tried, countless times, to explain the globe heads I had the “pleasure” to debate with, why the satellites will basically stop working in a very short time, and they will either fall back to Earth, be lost in space, or just simply melt.For a globe head, the thermodynamics laws do no exists, Newton’s laws of motions somehow do no apply to satellites, and chemistry have no place when talking about the elements and alloys used to build satellites.

   They know , for sure, that satellites exists, and they even say that we can SEE THEM flying over, during night-time.

   This is what I want to talk about.Not physics, not chemistry, not math.Just common sense.So, the globetards will argue to death, that they SEE satellites during night-time.

   Let’s see if what they see are satellites.First, we need to see how many artificial satellites are up there.Any reliable source, from NASA, to JPL, to prestigious University sites, and space dedicated sites, come up with basically the same numbers.

   And the numbers are…we launched about 8,000 artificial satellites in history, and now, there are close to 4,000 ACTIVE satellites.So far so good.How many of those 4,000 satellites fly in low orbit, according to those sources?Roughly half of the active satellites fly in low orbit, so, about 2,000 satellites.

   Out of those 2,000 satellites, roughly 1,000 should be visible with the naked eye.Now, since a satellite in low orbit travels at about 17,000 miles per hour, during, let’s say, a 8 hour-long nigh-time, it will orbit the Earth about 3 times.

   So, we have about 1,000 satellites in low orbit that are visible with the naked eye, and travel roughly 3 times around the Earth during a 8 hour-long night-time.That is 3,000 light dots in 8 hours…which basically means 375 per hour.

   Houston, we have a problem…375 dots of light per hour is roughly 6 per minute, or 1 every 10 seconds.The night sky should be a fantastic spectacle, with lights crossing the sky every 10 seconds.But, that never, ever, EVER, happened.

   If a globetard, after reading this, still believes that those 2-3 dots of lights he sees, in AN ENTIRE NIGHT, are satellites…my question is : “Where are the rest of the light dots, up to 3,000?”

   I have seen those dots of light, lots of times, since I was a 10-year-old, but I never seen more than 3, and most of the nights, I have seen 2 of those light dots.I was 100% SURE that they were satellites…until 2015, when I became a flat earther.

   I have no idea what those 2-3 light dots are, but now I am 100% SURE they are NOT satellites.

   If anyone can explain this paradox, where we have 1,000 naked-eye visible satellites, circling the Earth 3 times in a 8 hour night, why do we see 2-3 of them during one night, when we should see ONE EVERY 10 SECONDS?

   The night sky should be, EVERY NIGHT, more spectacular that any meteor shower.But, it is not.


Flat Earth Education.


Flat Earth – If you believe that the Earth is a spinning globe…

…you also MUST believe that the entire Universe, before the Big Bang, was contained in a billionth of a proton space, that exploded and created everything instantly, and 13.8 billion years later, the Universe keeps expanding, you also MUST believe in gravity, and if you believe that gravity exists, you also MUST believe in repulsive gravity (if you just heard about this repulsive gravity, yeah, according to science, it’s a real thing).

   …you also MUST believe in black holes, dark matter, tachyons, gravitational lensing (again, if you just heard about this, yeah, the science say it’s a real thing), supernovas, star collisions, zero is infinite, and infinite is zero, quarks, you also MUST believe that everything is still, but in the same time moves at incredible speeds, you MUST also believe in false vacuum, flat Universe and spatial inflation.

   …and you also MUST believe that the Universe will expand forever, but will eventually stops, but only when time reaches infinity.Now, if you think what I said makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE, you are right.It makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE, but according to science…what I said is, again, true.

   So, since you MUST believe in everything I said if you believe in the spinning globe Earth (there is a lot more crap, but I will stick to some), can I ask you a question, dead globe believer :

   DO YOU HAVE ANY FUCKING PROOF OF ANYTHING I JUST SAID ?  Do you have any proof of gravity, gravity lensing, repulsive gravity, tachyons, dark matter, Big Bang, supernovas, star collisions? Oh, you DON’T HAVE ANY PROOF?

   Well, than guess what : you ALSO don’t have any proof of the fucking spinning globe !


Flat Earth Education.



The August eclipse for dummies

For most people, the Moon orbital speed of 2,290 mph and the Earth’s spin of 1,037 mph is enough to accept that the path of the eclipse in August will travel eastwards.

   Funny enough, this is also what NASA “scientists” and other “scientists” outside NASA also say.For them, we are so dumb, that there is no point for them to actually say more.And there is a very good reason NOT to say more, because the more they would say, the clearer would be that the August eclipse path cannot, ever, go eastwards, but westwards.

   To keep this explanation as simple as possible, we need to know the basics.And those are that the Sun rays are parallel, the Moon blocks the Sun rays, and those that are in the totality path, the Moon will fully block the parallel Sun rays.

   In order for a total solar eclipse to take place, on Earth, the angle between the Sun, the Moon and the Moon’s shadow totality must be ZERO.Basically, during totality, the Sun, the Moon and the Moon’s shadow on Earth are on a perfect straight line.The slightest deviation from a straight line will result in a partial solar eclipse.

   In other words, there must be a straight line between a point on Earth surface, the Moon and the Sun, as long as the totality lasts.Imagine a line between Salem, OR, the Moon and the Sun, and another line between Charleston, SC, the Moon and the Sun.

   Because the Moon MUST be part of both these lines, in order to have the totality in Salem and Charleston, the Moon MUST travel, in its orbit around the Earth, a distance that is proportionally equal to the distance between Salem and Charleston, and that distance can be calculated.

   Both Salem and Charleston are on a sphere, right? If this is true, we can calculate the angle between these two cities.The distance between Salem and Charleston, by air, is roughly 2,430 miles.The Earth’s circumference is 24,901 miles.The duration of the eclipse between Salem and Charleston is roughly 83 minutes.In 83 minutes, Charleston will spin, with the Earth, with a speed of roughly 780 mph (or 13 miles per minute).During those 83 minutes, Charleston position will be about 1,000 miles East from where it was when the eclipse hit Salem.

   In order for the Moon to eclipse both Salem and Charleston, when the Sun rays are parallel, it will have to travel, in orbit, a distance proportionally equal to the distance between Salem and Charleston (2,430 miles) plus roughly 1,000 miles to compensate for Earth’s spin, which is roughly 3,400 miles.

   Since the Earth’s circumference is 24,901 miles, the angle formed by a line between Earth’s center and Salem, when the eclipse hits Salem, and a line between Earth’s center and Charleston, when the eclipse hits Charleston, will have to be equal to the angle formed by a line between Earth’s center, Salem and Moon’s center, when the eclipse hits Salem, and a line between Earth’s center, Charleston and Moon’s center, when the eclipse hits Charleston. 

   3,400 miles, the distance between Salem and Charleston, during 83 minutes Earth’s spin, represents roughly 13.6% of the Earth’s circumference, which is also a 13.6% of a 360 degree circle, which is roughly 49 degrees.The Moon must also complete a 49 degrees on its orbit, in order for the eclipse to go eastwards and to travel between Salem and Charleston, for roughly 83 minutes.

   It cannot be other way.The Sun rays are parallel, and the Moon must totally block the Sun for this August eclipse to work on the spinning globe Earth.

   But here is the problem : the Moon completes a 49 degree arc on its orbit in roughly 87 hours…while the duration of totality between Salem and Charleston is roughly 83 minutes.

   All the values I used are not the exact values, but they are very close approximations.It really doesn’t matter, because the discrepancies between the eclipse and the heliocentric model are IMMENSE.We are talking about the Moon traveling 83 minutes during the eclipse over U.S. versus the Moon traveling in orbit for 87 hours for this eclipse to work.

   In the heliocentric model the Sun rays are parallel, the Moon must totally block the Sun during the August eclipse and the Earth is spinning.The totality cannot work unless the angle between the Sun, the Moon and the eclipsed points on Earth is ZERO.And this means that the Moon must travel, during the 83 minutes eclipse duration between Salem and Charleston, a distance on its orbit equivalent to 87 hours.

   I can be off by 1% in my calculations, but it doesn’t matter.If it’s 83 minutes and 86 hours, or 87 minutes and 85 hours, it really doesn’t matter.

   The difference is too big.Like 60 times bigger.

   The upcoming total solar eclipse on 21st, this month, does not work on the heliocentric model.When you take into consideration everything, not only the Moon’s orbital speed and Earth’s spin speed, solar eclipses go against reality.


Flat Earth Education.

Flat Earth best proof ?

It is quite hard, if not impossible, to just come up with one proof, and use it to prove that our world is flat.One needs more than one proof to prove something that complex.If you can prove that a rock is solid simply by throwing it in the water, without the need to use other evidence of its solidity, with Flat Earth, there is no way to just use one, single evidence.

   What ultimately “transformed” me from being a sci-fi / space travel / time travel / globe Earth guy to being a flat earther was the “simple” scientific proof that water surface of large bodies of water is flat and level.Water is probably the best, and probably the single one Flat Earth proof that cannot be countered by science.The science only enforces this simple fact that large bodies of water will always have a flat and level surface.

   I can scientifically prove all day long that satellites cannot survive in space more than 10-12 hours, I can scientifically prove all day long that planes should fly westwards in half the time it takes to fly eastwards, I can scientifically prove all day long that there is no measurable curvature on Earth, or other three dozens things, not a single one of them is a proof of a flat world.Even combining all of them, still do not prove that we live on a flat motionless plane.However, all of the above prove the impossibility of a spinning globe in space.

   But water, as proof, is entirely different.Not only does prove that the spinning globe is impossible, but proves that we live on a flat plane.As you can see, for me, nothing else is a solid proof of a Flat Earth.Everything else point to the impossibility of a spinning globe, but they are definitely not proofs of a flat plane.

   I only want to talk about oceans, not lakes, not small ponds, not a bathtub.To date, we do not have a map of the world that is perfect.All of them have imperfections.However, one thing that all world maps have in common is that the land surface is smaller than the oceans surface.Basically, we have one single ocean, and a bunch of land masses, called continents.

   All the oceans on Earth are interconnected.The Pacific is connected with the Atlantic, the Indian and the Arctic.I can just use the term “the Ocean” for all those oceans combined, for simplicity.I do not know for sure how much of our world is the Ocean, but according to all the maps, it is more than all the continents combined.It might very well be 70%, which is what everyone agrees with.

   Now, we have two contradictions.The globe model implies that the Ocean is curved around the Earth, because of gravity.The flat model implies that the Ocean is flat and level.How can we scientifically prove which one is the correct one?

   A photo from space would be great for the globe, but sadly, we do not have any.Without a solid photographic evidence, the globe can only rely on a theory, called gravity.Gravity, if proven to be real, will absolutely prove that we live on a globe.The debate is over if gravity can be proven real.Any sane person, until gravity is proven, cannot accept the globe Earth.But that doesn’t mean it should accept the flat world.

   So, since we have no photo of a globe or a flat Earth, we have to use science to prove which is true : is the Ocean flat or it is part of a sphere?

   But before that, can we use the footage took by people all over the world, in hundreds of different places, at different times, distances, conditions, all shot over water, that show things that we should never be able to see on a globe? Well, yes.If there were just a couple of videos, I would dismiss them, simply because a couple of videos cannot be considered as proof.Now, what about the videos that show that water curves?Oh well, we only have a couple of them.I know of three only, two of them being debunked asap as being fake as shit, while the 3rd one, by Cody’s Lab, because was a legit video, can be used to prove either the curvature either the vanishing point and perception.

   Here is the thing with YouTube and other video sites : you cannot use the videos as proofs of anything, BUT you can always analyze them.If there were as many videos showing the curvature over water, as there are videos that show no curvature over water, there will be a scientific explanation why a those videos show no curvature.There have been over 3 years since Flat Earth resurfaced, and in over 3 years, we have hundreds of videos showing no curvature over water, and a handful of fake videos showing a curvature over water.But we are not talking only about last 3 years or so.The Earth is a globe since…always, right? Where are the MILLIONS of photos and videos that show the CURVATURE over water? Seriously, we have only a handful of them?

   For most people, this should be enough to prove that water surface is flat.And it is flat everywhere.But from a scientific point of view, it is not enough.

   It all comes down to experimentation.On one hand, there should be an experiment proving that water surface is curved by gravity, on the other hand, there should be at least one experiment proving the water surface is flat.

   We have millions of boats.We have lasers.We have water.There should be experiments with lasers, over water surfaces, that prove either the water surface curves, or not.Well, there are some experiments, and all of them prove a flat water surface.But still, there are only a handful of experiments, and even if all prove the flatness of water surface, those experiments are not over the surface of the Ocean.

   Why haven’t we done a laser experiment over oceans? Flat Earthers do not have the money power to do such an experiment.It is quite costly.We talk about renting a ship big enough to be stable and a laser powerful enough to hit 30-40 miles away.However, A LOT of organizations have the money and have the possibility.Why haven’t they done such an experiment?

   There is another experiment that can be done, and much cheaper, but still out of reach of flat earthers, except a crowd fund.This experiment will be to build a very long glass container, something like half a mile long, fill it with sea water, and see if there is a curvature over the surface of that sea water.The container only needs to be like 1 foot wide and 1 foot tall, even less.

   To date, all experiments done, proved that water surface, when in a container, and at rest, it always flat and level.The laser experiments proved the exact same thing.Hundreds of videos visually proved the exact same thing.Where are the experiments that prove that water surface, when contained and at rest, is convex?There are none.Where are the laser experiments? There are none.Where is the footage? There are a handful, and almost all of them are faked.

   But gravity…No shit, gravity? This is ALL you can trow at us? It might be enough for dummies, but it is not enough for flat earthers.If you say that gravity bends the Ocean surface, without proving it, you are talking out of your ass.And even if by a miracle I would accept this theory, just for the sake of debating a theory, I would ask a globetard this : “If gravity can hold the oceans stuck to a ball spinning 1,000 miles per hour, why the fuck we have waves over oceans?”

   No, really, there should be NO WAVES over the oceans, or very small waves, like half a foot tall, during hurricanes.If gravity is real, and if gravity can HOLD the oceans to a ball spinning 1,000 miles per hour, how the fuck a 20 mph wind can create 3-4 feet tall waves?

   I have already shown that gravity does not exists, using air pressure data.Ocean waves also show that gravity does not exists.When are you globetards going to wake the fuck up and smell the roses?

   It is 2017, for fuck sake.We should have tech that manipulate gravity, we should have anti-gravity tech, we should even have warp engines, or at least engines and rockets able to go tremendous speeds.Newton “discovered” gravity in 1687 ! The electricity was “discovered” in 1759, for fuck sake.We can manipulate and create electricity today to the point where a 10-year-old can fucking do it.

   Where is the bloody gravity tech? 

   But, I am a nice guy (well, I am not) and I won’t ask you globers for gravitational tech, because it is impossible, and asking the impossible it’s kinda rude.No, I am not going to ask you that, I am only going to ask you one simple thing only : prove me, prove us, prove everyone, using simple laser experiments, or just a long glass container, that oceans water surface is convex.

   Please do this, and flat earthers will no longer exists.If you cannot do this, everyone will be a flat earther, because, you see, science MUST be proven, and not told.I don’t give a flying fuck on Einstein, Newton, Cavendish and other “scientists” and their theories wrote on paper, as long as all the experiments to date, and all the video evidence PROVE that water surface, when contained and at rest is fucking flat and level.

   Newton’s Laws of Motions, Newton’s Theory of Gravity, Einstein’s Theories of Relativity don’t worth the paper they are wrote on, as long as the water is scientifically proven to be flat and level, hence, proving, without a doubt, that our world, 70% being water, is flat.

   There is no debate whether our world is flat or a spinning globe.That debate is over. What is going on today between flat earthers and globetards is nothing but flat earthers trying to open globetards eyes and minds, not by using propaganda, lies and religious bullshit, but by using scientific proofs.


Flat Earth Education.