How can the earth travel such vast distances around a sun module so very far away, and do it every 24 hrs?
You're trying to change the subject. I haven't suggested that the earth zips round the sun in 24 hours. You haven't been able to show any physical flat earth model that works, because nobody has constructed one.
. . . it lights up the part of the flat earth above which is positioned at any one time . . .
What blocks it from being seen at the same time from the rest of the flat earth?
I could do exactly what you have done if I had wanted to, posting up measurements and dimensions of the sun, the moon, the earth, and the planets and the stars etc, but what's the point?
The point is that nobody has ever done that for a flat earth model, not with dimensions that account for the moon's phases and various other easily observed phenomena.
Photographs and video footage exist that have been taken from earth which shows clouds in front of and behind the full moon in the sky!
Videos and photographs don't show distance. There's no way to tell from them whether a cloud is behind the moon or in front but unseen (due to the moon's brightness).
The size of the sun is comparable to the size of the moon when it is in the same part of the sky!
Previously, you referred to the same size, but now it's "comparable to". But those are apparent sizes. The moon looks just a few inches across when I try to measure it with a ruler.
I don't need no bullshit powers that be to tell me how to think and how to work things out!
Then make a simple flat earth physical model - use a light bulb instead of the sun and demonstrate how it can illuminate only a small part of the flat earth.
They are liars, and make a good living out of being liars!
Yet your ideas are "true" despite the fact that you can't provide any evidence for many of your ideas. You seem to have become convinced by the appearance of some clouds seen from a considerable distance and are then happy to assert things exist for which there is no direct evidence at all, such as a "dark sun" and the moon's cratered appearance being just a projected image of the underside of the earth.
So, you've checked it yourself have you?
Yes, I've checked predictions of eclipses, for example.
What a question, its double edged.
It's observable by anyone that the planets appear to move in relation to the stars in a way that's consistent with the theory that they are in orbit round the sun. The theories of flat-earthers can be maintained only by dismissing as lies all the evidence that conflicts with them. It's easy to counter anything you can't explain with "it's fake" or "it's all lies". Also, your theories have never been stated in detail, and have never been tested experimentally.
Trying to confuse yourself will not alter the fact that we live on a flat earth, whether you like it or not, or agree with it...
You're trying to change the subject. There's nothing to suggest that I'm trying to confuse myself. Asserting that something is a fact doesn't make it a fact. You've not provided any detailed evidence. When you come across an idea put forward by a flat-earther, how do you know whether it's valid or just invented without there being any evidence at all to support it? You stated you believe that no (artificial) satellites exist, so what is the object known as the ISS, if not a satellite?
What exactly are you referring to here? If I knew I would try to answer it!
That's a silly response, as I provided a link to your post that I was referring to.
. . . if you ask me a question I might be able to answer it properly, but I can't second guess what your on about!
Just click on the link to see where you posted what I referred to.
There are different levels of the earth's firmament
You hadn't mentioned that idea before. What is the evidence for it?
I was referring to the sun being higher up than another plane in the firmament.
Again, what evidence is there to support that?
Rather than suggest that I am somehow being misleading, why didn't you ask me to clarify what I was talking about, rather than try to make out that I don't know what I am talking about?
Because it's well-known that flat-earth theories have never been given in detail. They're all loaded with inadequately supported declarations of absurdity, and ideas that aren't backed by any evidence at all. I have asked you for specific things, but you've not provided them. Feel free to provide evidence for the existence of the "dark sun" that you mentioned, for example. Nobody else has.
If the sun is above, it's further from the earth than the moon, Well, it might be slightly larger, I can't tell you the exact sizes because hey guess what 'I ain't been up there with a tape measure!
Others have, but you've dismissed their evidence as lies. People have travelled right round the earth without having to double back or otherwise avoid its edge. There's no direct evidence that its edge exists, despite the earth being extensively explored and surveyed.
(No photographs from high altitude aircraft either?) Showing what?
Showing the shape of the earth, of course. That's what's being discussed.
I started taking a personal interest during my incarceration mid 1980's onward, when I had lots of free time to study and contemplate.
Okay, but when did you start to believe that the earth is flat, as distinct from just hearing or reading that some people think it is? If there are no satellites, what are Sky dishes pointing at so that people can watch television?
. . . as you earlier stated "I don't believe there are any satellites". There aren't any, and your point is?
There are, but you just dismiss the evidence as fake. You can see some of them quite easily with binoculars on a clear night, and the ISS is large enough for you to make out its shape.
. . . there are no satellites, and nobody or anything got through the radioactive Van Allen belt, it's all bunkem...
So how come Sky dishes work? Where did any space shuttle go to when it was alleged to have gone into orbit? Have you ever discussed your views with someone such as Major Peake, who claims to have been on board the ISS?
