https://www.flerf.info/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=WashcarsoFlerf Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-04-27T18:19:41ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.44.0https://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Celestial_Theodolite&diff=7202Celestial Theodolite2026-04-27T15:34:22Z<p>Washcarso: /* Method */</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Celestial Theodolite (CT)''' is a proposed method for testing Earth's curvature by recording the time that a star is [[Wikipedia:Occultation|occulted]] by a terrestrial object (typically a mountain peak) of known distance and known relative [[Wikipedia:Elevation|elevation]].<ref>https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept</ref> The method was created by [[Mike Heffron]]. Flerfs claim that the CT produces data that is consistent with a flat Earth and not a globe. Flerfs [[Space Audits]] and [[Shane St. Pierre]] are notable proponents of CT.<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
In the original method described by Heffron in [https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept ''Beyond the Null Hypothesis''], an observer is to measure the time a star is occulted by a distant mountain peak. The location of the observer and mountain peak is known.<br />
<br />
The "predicted" [[Wikipedia:Horizontal coordinate system|altitude angle]] of the star in [[Wikipedia:Stellarium (software)|Stellarium]] at the time of occultation is then compared with the calculated elevation angle of the mountain peak assuming a flat Earth. The only data that is actually collected is the time of occultation . This is because if flerfs used an [[Wikipedia:Theodolite|actual theodolite]] to measure the angle of elevation to the mountain peak, it would immediately confirm the globe<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oY-4NSRbOs</ref>.<br />
<br />
Flerfs get excited when the "prediction" for the star's altitude angle is close to the flat Earth calculation for the mountain peak's angle of elevation. In reality, the method and predictions and highly flawed.<br />
<br />
The method eloquently summarised by [https://www.youtube.com/@roohif Roohif]:<br />
<blockquote><br />
Basically they record the time that a star is occluded behind a mountain, perform some fuckery in Stellarium to get an angle, then they compare that angle to the raw, flat Earth [[Wikipedia:Trigonometry|trig]].<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Calculating the FE elevation angle ===<br />
Once a mountain peak and observer location is selected, the [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]] (which uses spherical geometry) is used to compute the distance between the the two locations. The elevation angle to the mountain peak assuming flat Earth can then be calculated using:<br />
<br />
<math>\theta=\arctan\frac{\Delta h}{d} </math><br />
<br />
Where &Delta;h is the difference in elevation between the observer and peak, and d is the horizontal distance between the observer and mountain. It's important to note that in this step, the horizontal distance is assumed to be flat despite having obtained this value under the assumption that earth is spherical.<br />
<br />
=== Timing the occultation of a star ===<br />
The observer then waits for a star to disappear behind the mountain peak, then notes the exact time of the occultation. That's it for this step. No angles are measured whatsoever, which is ironic given the method has ''theodolite'' in the name.<br />
<br />
=== Finding the predicted altitude angle of the star ===<br />
The "predicted" [[Wikipedia:Horizontal coordinate system|altitude angle]] of the star at the time of occultation is computed in Stellarium. <br />
<br />
Flerf proponents of CT do not set the observer location in Stellarium to the actual observer location; they set it to the location of the mountain peak. They justify this by pointing out that on a flat Earth, the geometric altitude angle of the star at the observer location would be the same at the mountain peak at the time of occultation. While this is true in theory, there are two issues with this:<br />
* the geometric angle is different from the [[Wikipedia:Apparent place|apparent angle]] - flerfs are ignoring the effects of atmospheric refraction,<br />
* Stellarium doesn't f*cking use flat Earth to predict star angles - the position of the star will obviously be different at the mountain peak.<br />
<br />
In addition, flerf proponents of CT insist on toggling off Stellarium's atmosphere simulation, which subsequently removes the effects of refraction. While they don't outright deny the presence of refraction, they seem to think it doesn't affect the time of occultation, believing the occultation will always occur when the geometric angles of the star and peak coincide with each other.<br />
<br />
Flerf proponents of CT don't realise that the occultation actually occurs when the ''apparent'' angle of the star coincides with the ''apparent'' angle of the mountain peak. This happens ''after'' the geometric angles coincide. The reason for this is that atmospheric refraction raises the apparent position of both, but raises the star more since it's light travels through more atmosphere. This is an example of how flerfs [[Flerfraction|misunderstand refraction]].<br />
<br />
== List of globe Earth assumptions ==<br />
The CT method as proposed by flerfs uses several globe Earth assumptions and calculations, including:<br />
*The distance between the observer and the mountain (see: [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]])<br />
*The predicted altitude angle of the star<br />
*The amount of astronomical refraction<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE</ref><br />
*Stellarium being accurate whatsoever, given it uses globe earth to make predictions<br />
This list is a confirmation of the First [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== Notable Debunks ==<br />
=== Roohif ===<br />
Roohif has a [currently] 4-part series on YouTube exposing the many problems with CT:<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suv8-z6PiMs DEBATE: @jeranism vs @Witsit - The Celestial Theodolite]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfUXZKi3gPY The Fudge Factor for the Celestial Theodolite (feat. @space_audits and @shanestpierre )]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hucqWe3XQF8 Celestial Theodolite: Why are you using the globe, dawg?]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE& Astronomical / Celestial Refraction (as applied to the Celestial Theodolite)]<br />
<br />
=== Astronomy Live ===<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/@Astronomy_Live Astronomy Live] conducted his own measurements with a slightly revised method: using planes and weather balloons instead of mountain peaks. He found that the [[Wikipedia:Observational error|error]] yielded by the CT's flat Earth prediction increases as the &Delta; height and distance values for the mountain peak increase.<br />
* He presented his method and data analysis in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e21-tkyLA7I&t=1248s a debate] with [[Space Audits|Alan]].<br />
* His data is available in a [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1_61QpmeP_R5OE9leF3whrwvMKIYxeBKE Google Drive folder] and on [https://github.com/LinzeeOfLorien/CTRayTracer GitHub].<br />
<br />
== References ==</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Celestial_Theodolite&diff=7201Celestial Theodolite2026-04-27T15:26:38Z<p>Washcarso: /* Finding the predicted altitude angle of the star */</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Celestial Theodolite (CT)''' is a proposed method for testing Earth's curvature by recording the time that a star is [[Wikipedia:Occultation|occulted]] by a terrestrial object (typically a mountain peak) of known distance and known relative [[Wikipedia:Elevation|elevation]].<ref>https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept</ref> The method was created by [[Mike Heffron]]. Flerfs claim that the CT produces data that is consistent with a flat Earth and not a globe. Flerfs [[Space Audits]] and [[Shane St. Pierre]] are notable proponents of CT.<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
In the original method described by Heffron in [https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept ''Beyond the Null Hypothesis''], an observer is to measure the time a star is occulted by a distant mountain peak. The location of the observer and mountain peak is known.<br />
<br />
The "predicted" [[Wikipedia:Horizontal coordinate system|altitude angle]] of the star in [[Wikipedia:Stellarium (software)|Stellarium]] at the time of occultation is then compared with the calculated elevation angle of the mountain peak assuming a flat Earth. The only data that is actually collected is the time of occultation . This is because if flerfs used an [[Wikipedia:Theodolite|actual theodolite]] to measure the angle of elevation to the mountain peak, it would immediately confirm the globe<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oY-4NSRbOs</ref>.<br />
<br />
Flerfs get excited when the flat Earth "prediction" for the star's altitude angle is close to the flat Earth calculation for the mountain peak's angle of elevation. In reality, the method and predictions and highly flawed.<br />
<br />
The method eloquently summarised by [https://www.youtube.com/@roohif Roohif]:<br />
<blockquote><br />
Basically they record the time that a star is occluded behind a mountain, perform some fuckery in Stellarium to get an angle, then they compare that angle to the raw, flat Earth [[Wikipedia:Trigonometry|trig]].<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Calculating the FE elevation angle ===<br />
Once a mountain peak and observer location is selected, the [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]] (which uses spherical geometry) is used to compute the distance between the the two locations. The elevation angle to the mountain peak assuming flat Earth can then be calculated using:<br />
<br />
<math>\theta=\arctan\frac{\Delta h}{d} </math><br />
<br />
Where &Delta;h is the difference in elevation between the observer and peak, and d is the horizontal distance between the observer and mountain. It's important to note that in this step, the horizontal distance is assumed to be flat despite having obtained this value under the assumption that earth is spherical.<br />
<br />
=== Timing the occultation of a star ===<br />
The observer then waits for a star to disappear behind the mountain peak, then notes the exact time of the occultation. That's it for this step. No angles are measured whatsoever, which is ironic given the method has ''theodolite'' in the name.<br />
<br />
=== Finding the predicted altitude angle of the star ===<br />
The "predicted" [[Wikipedia:Horizontal coordinate system|altitude angle]] of the star at the time of occultation is computed in Stellarium. <br />
<br />
Flerf proponents of CT do not set the observer location in Stellarium to the actual observer location; they set it to the location of the mountain peak. They justify this by pointing out that on a flat Earth, the geometric altitude angle of the star at the observer location would be the same at the mountain peak at the time of occultation. While this is true in theory, there are two issues with this:<br />
* the geometric angle is different from the [[Wikipedia:Apparent place|apparent angle]] - flerfs are ignoring the effects of atmospheric refraction,<br />
* Stellarium doesn't f*cking use flat Earth to predict star angles - the position of the star will obviously be different at the mountain peak.<br />
<br />
In addition, flerf proponents of CT insist on toggling off Stellarium's atmosphere simulation, which subsequently removes the effects of refraction. While they don't outright deny the presence of refraction, they seem to think it doesn't affect the time of occultation, believing the occultation will always occur when the geometric angles of the star and peak coincide with each other.<br />
<br />
Flerf proponents of CT don't realise that the occultation actually occurs when the ''apparent'' angle of the star coincides with the ''apparent'' angle of the mountain peak. This happens ''after'' the geometric angles coincide. The reason for this is that atmospheric refraction raises the apparent position of both, but raises the star more since it's light travels through more atmosphere. This is an example of how flerfs [[Flerfraction|misunderstand refraction]].<br />
<br />
== List of globe Earth assumptions ==<br />
The CT method as proposed by flerfs uses several globe Earth assumptions and calculations, including:<br />
*The distance between the observer and the mountain (see: [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]])<br />
*The predicted altitude angle of the star<br />
*The amount of astronomical refraction<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE</ref><br />
*Stellarium being accurate whatsoever, given it uses globe earth to make predictions<br />
This list is a confirmation of the First [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== Notable Debunks ==<br />
=== Roohif ===<br />
Roohif has a [currently] 4-part series on YouTube exposing the many problems with CT:<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suv8-z6PiMs DEBATE: @jeranism vs @Witsit - The Celestial Theodolite]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfUXZKi3gPY The Fudge Factor for the Celestial Theodolite (feat. @space_audits and @shanestpierre )]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hucqWe3XQF8 Celestial Theodolite: Why are you using the globe, dawg?]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE& Astronomical / Celestial Refraction (as applied to the Celestial Theodolite)]<br />
<br />
=== Astronomy Live ===<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/@Astronomy_Live Astronomy Live] conducted his own measurements with a slightly revised method: using planes and weather balloons instead of mountain peaks. He found that the [[Wikipedia:Observational error|error]] yielded by the CT's flat Earth prediction increases as the &Delta; height and distance values for the mountain peak increase.<br />
* He presented his method and data analysis in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e21-tkyLA7I&t=1248s a debate] with [[Space Audits|Alan]].<br />
* His data is available in a [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1_61QpmeP_R5OE9leF3whrwvMKIYxeBKE Google Drive folder] and on [https://github.com/LinzeeOfLorien/CTRayTracer GitHub].<br />
<br />
== References ==</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Celestial_Theodolite&diff=7200Celestial Theodolite2026-04-27T15:06:27Z<p>Washcarso: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Celestial Theodolite (CT)''' is a proposed method for testing Earth's curvature by recording the time that a star is [[Wikipedia:Occultation|occulted]] by a terrestrial object (typically a mountain peak) of known distance and known relative [[Wikipedia:Elevation|elevation]].<ref>https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept</ref> The method was created by [[Mike Heffron]]. Flerfs claim that the CT produces data that is consistent with a flat Earth and not a globe. Flerfs [[Space Audits]] and [[Shane St. Pierre]] are notable proponents of CT.<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
In the original method described by Heffron in [https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept ''Beyond the Null Hypothesis''], an observer is to measure the time a star is occulted by a distant mountain peak. The location of the observer and mountain peak is known.<br />
<br />
The "predicted" [[Wikipedia:Horizontal coordinate system|altitude angle]] of the star in [[Wikipedia:Stellarium (software)|Stellarium]] at the time of occultation is then compared with the calculated elevation angle of the mountain peak assuming a flat Earth. The only data that is actually collected is the time of occultation . This is because if flerfs used an [[Wikipedia:Theodolite|actual theodolite]] to measure the angle of elevation to the mountain peak, it would immediately confirm the globe<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oY-4NSRbOs</ref>.<br />
<br />
Flerfs get excited when the flat Earth "prediction" for the star's altitude angle is close to the flat Earth calculation for the mountain peak's angle of elevation. In reality, the method and predictions and highly flawed.<br />
<br />
The method eloquently summarised by [https://www.youtube.com/@roohif Roohif]:<br />
<blockquote><br />
Basically they record the time that a star is occluded behind a mountain, perform some fuckery in Stellarium to get an angle, then they compare that angle to the raw, flat Earth [[Wikipedia:Trigonometry|trig]].<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Calculating the FE elevation angle ===<br />
Once a mountain peak and observer location is selected, the [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]] (which uses spherical geometry) is used to compute the distance between the the two locations. The elevation angle to the mountain peak assuming flat Earth can then be calculated using:<br />
<br />
<math>\theta=\arctan\frac{\Delta h}{d} </math><br />
<br />
Where &Delta;h is the difference in elevation between the observer and peak, and d is the horizontal distance between the observer and mountain. It's important to note that in this step, the horizontal distance is assumed to be flat despite having obtained this value under the assumption that earth is spherical.<br />
<br />
=== Timing the occultation of a star ===<br />
The observer then waits for a star to disappear behind the mountain peak, then notes the exact time of the occultation. That's it for this step. No angles are measured whatsoever, which is ironic given the method has ''theodolite'' in the name.<br />
<br />
=== Finding the predicted altitude angle of the star ===<br />
The "predicted" [[Wikipedia:Horizontal coordinate system|altitude angle]] of the star at the time of occultation is computed in Stellarium. <br />
<br />
Flerf proponents of CT do not set the observer location in Stellarium to the actual observer location; they set it to the location of the mountain peak. They justify this by pointing out that on a flat Earth, the geometric altitude angle of the star at the observer location would be the same at the mountain peak at the time of occultation. While this is true in theory, there are two issues with this:<br />
* the geometric angle is different from the [[Wikipedia:Apparent place|apparent angle]] - flerfs are ignoring the effects of atmospheric refraction<br />
* Stellarium doesn't f*cking use flat Earth to predict star angles - the position of the star will obviously be different at the mountain peak<br />
<br />
Flerf proponents of CT insist on toggling off Stellarium's atmosphere simulation, which subsequently removes the effects of refraction.<br />
<br />
Flerf proponents of CT don't realise that the occultation actually occurs when the apparent angle of the star coincides with the apparent angle of the mountain peak. Both are subject to atmospheric refraction, and in fact, the star is refracted much more due to it's light travelling further through the atmosphere. Flerfs seem to think that the occultation will always occur when the geometric angles coincide with each other, even when accounting for refraction. This is patently false, and it shows how flerfs [[Flerfraction|misunderstand refraction]].<br />
<br />
== List of globe Earth assumptions ==<br />
The CT method as proposed by flerfs uses several globe Earth assumptions and calculations, including:<br />
*The distance between the observer and the mountain (see: [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]])<br />
*The predicted altitude angle of the star<br />
*The amount of astronomical refraction<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE</ref><br />
*Stellarium being accurate whatsoever, given it uses globe earth to make predictions<br />
This list is a confirmation of the First [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== Notable Debunks ==<br />
=== Roohif ===<br />
Roohif has a [currently] 4-part series on YouTube exposing the many problems with CT:<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suv8-z6PiMs DEBATE: @jeranism vs @Witsit - The Celestial Theodolite]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfUXZKi3gPY The Fudge Factor for the Celestial Theodolite (feat. @space_audits and @shanestpierre )]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hucqWe3XQF8 Celestial Theodolite: Why are you using the globe, dawg?]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE& Astronomical / Celestial Refraction (as applied to the Celestial Theodolite)]<br />
<br />
=== Astronomy Live ===<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/@Astronomy_Live Astronomy Live] conducted his own measurements with a slightly revised method: using planes and weather balloons instead of mountain peaks. He found that the [[Wikipedia:Observational error|error]] yielded by the CT's flat Earth prediction increases as the &Delta; height and distance values for the mountain peak increase.<br />
* He presented his method and data analysis in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e21-tkyLA7I&t=1248s a debate] with [[Space Audits|Alan]].<br />
* His data is available in a [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1_61QpmeP_R5OE9leF3whrwvMKIYxeBKE Google Drive folder] and on [https://github.com/LinzeeOfLorien/CTRayTracer GitHub].<br />
<br />
== References ==</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Celestial_Theodolite&diff=7199Celestial Theodolite2026-04-27T14:49:39Z<p>Washcarso: /* references */</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Celestial Theodolite (CT)''' is a proposed method for testing Earth's curvature by recording the time that a star is [[Wikipedia:Occultation|occulted]] by a terrestrial object (typically a mountain peak) of known distance and known relative [[Wikipedia:Elevation|elevation]].<ref>https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept</ref> The method was created by [[Mike Heffron]]. Flerfs claim that the CT produces data that is consistent with a flat Earth and not a globe. Flerfs [[Space Audits]] and [[Shane St. Pierre]] are notable proponents of CT.<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
In the original method described by Heffron in [https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept ''Beyond the Null Hypothesis''], an observer is to measure the time a star is occulted by a distant mountain peak. The location of the observer and mountain peak is known.<br />
<br />
The "predicted" [[Wikipedia:Horizontal coordinate system|altitude angle]] of the star in [[Wikipedia:Stellarium (software)|Stellarium]] at the time of occultation is then compared with the calculated elevation angle of the mountain peak assuming a flat Earth. The only data that is actually collected is the time of occultation . This is because if flerfs used an [[Wikipedia:Theodolite|actual theodolite]] to measure the angle of elevation to the mountain peak, it would immediately confirm the globe<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oY-4NSRbOs</ref>.<br />
<br />
Flerfs get excited when the flat Earth "prediction" for the star's altitude angle is close to the flat Earth calculation for the mountain peak's angle of elevation. In reality, the method and predictions and highly flawed.<br />
<br />
The method eloquently summarised by [https://www.youtube.com/@roohif Roohif]:<br />
<blockquote><br />
Basically they record the time that a star is occluded behind a mountain, perform some fuckery in Stellarium to get an angle, then they compare that angle to the raw, flat Earth [[Wikipedia:Trigonometry|trig]].<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Calculating the FE elevation angle ===<br />
Once a mountain peak and observer location is selected, the [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]] (which uses spherical geometry) is used to compute the distance between the the two locations. The elevation angle to the mountain peak assuming flat Earth can then be calculated using:<br />
<br />
<math>\theta=\arctan\frac{\Delta h}{d} </math><br />
<br />
Where &Delta;h is the difference in elevation between the observer and peak, and d is the horizontal distance between the observer and mountain. It's important to note that in this step, the horizontal distance is assumed to be flat despite having obtained this value under the assumption that earth is spherical.<br />
<br />
=== Timing the occultation of a star ===<br />
The observer then waits for a star to disappear behind the mountain peak, then notes the exact time of the occultation. That's it for this step. This is ''all'' the data that needs to be collected for CT.<br />
<br />
=== Finding the predicted altitude angle of the star ===<br />
The "predicted" [[Wikipedia:Horizontal coordinate system|altitude angle]] of the star at the time of occultation is computed in Stellarium. Flerf proponents of CT do not set the observer location in Stellarium to the actual observer location; they set it to the location of the mountain peak. They claim that this is because on flat Earth, the geometric altitude angle of the star at the observer location is the same as it is at the mountain peak at the time of occultation. While this is true in theory, there are two issues with this:<br />
* the geometric angle is different from the [[Wikipedia:Apparent place|apparent angle]] - flerfs are ignoring the effects of atmospheric refraction<br />
* Stellarium doesn't f*cking use flat Earth to predict star angles - the position of the star will obviously be different at the mountain peak<br />
<br />
Flerf proponents of CT don't realise that the occultation actually occurs when the apparent angle of the star coincides with the apparent angle of the mountain peak. Both are subject to atmospheric refraction, and in fact, the star is refracted much more due to it's light travelling further through the atmosphere. Flerfs seem to think that the occultation will always occur when the geometric angles coincide with each other, even when accounting for refraction. This is patently false, and it shows how flerfs [[Flerfraction|misunderstand refraction]].<br />
<br />
== List of globe Earth assumptions ==<br />
The CT method as proposed by flerfs uses several globe Earth assumptions and calculations, including:<br />
*The distance between the observer and the mountain (see: [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]])<br />
*The predicted altitude angle of the star<br />
*The amount of astronomical refraction<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE</ref><br />
*Stellarium being accurate whatsoever, given it uses globe earth to make predictions<br />
This list is a confirmation of the First [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== Notable Debunks ==<br />
=== Roohif ===<br />
Roohif has a [currently] 4-part series on YouTube exposing the many problems with CT:<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suv8-z6PiMs DEBATE: @jeranism vs @Witsit - The Celestial Theodolite]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfUXZKi3gPY The Fudge Factor for the Celestial Theodolite (feat. @space_audits and @shanestpierre )]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hucqWe3XQF8 Celestial Theodolite: Why are you using the globe, dawg?]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE& Astronomical / Celestial Refraction (as applied to the Celestial Theodolite)]<br />
<br />
=== Astronomy Live ===<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/@Astronomy_Live Astronomy Live] conducted his own measurements with a slightly revised method: using planes and weather balloons instead of mountain peaks. He found that the [[Wikipedia:Observational error|error]] yielded by the CT's flat Earth prediction increases as the &Delta; height and distance values for the mountain peak increase.<br />
* He presented his method and data analysis in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e21-tkyLA7I&t=1248s a debate] with [[Space Audits|Alan]].<br />
* His data is available in a [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1_61QpmeP_R5OE9leF3whrwvMKIYxeBKE Google Drive folder] and on [https://github.com/LinzeeOfLorien/CTRayTracer GitHub].<br />
<br />
== References ==</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Celestial_Theodolite&diff=7198Celestial Theodolite2026-04-27T14:48:15Z<p>Washcarso: /* Notable Debunks */ astronomy live</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Celestial Theodolite (CT)''' is a proposed method for testing Earth's curvature by recording the time that a star is [[Wikipedia:Occultation|occulted]] by a terrestrial object (typically a mountain peak) of known distance and known relative [[Wikipedia:Elevation|elevation]].<ref>https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept</ref> The method was created by [[Mike Heffron]]. Flerfs claim that the CT produces data that is consistent with a flat Earth and not a globe. Flerfs [[Space Audits]] and [[Shane St. Pierre]] are notable proponents of CT.<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
In the original method described by Heffron in [https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept ''Beyond the Null Hypothesis''], an observer is to measure the time a star is occulted by a distant mountain peak. The location of the observer and mountain peak is known.<br />
<br />
The "predicted" [[Wikipedia:Horizontal coordinate system|altitude angle]] of the star in [[Wikipedia:Stellarium (software)|Stellarium]] at the time of occultation is then compared with the calculated elevation angle of the mountain peak assuming a flat Earth. The only data that is actually collected is the time of occultation . This is because if flerfs used an [[Wikipedia:Theodolite|actual theodolite]] to measure the angle of elevation to the mountain peak, it would immediately confirm the globe<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oY-4NSRbOs</ref>.<br />
<br />
Flerfs get excited when the flat Earth "prediction" for the star's altitude angle is close to the flat Earth calculation for the mountain peak's angle of elevation. In reality, the method and predictions and highly flawed.<br />
<br />
The method eloquently summarised by [https://www.youtube.com/@roohif Roohif]:<br />
<blockquote><br />
Basically they record the time that a star is occluded behind a mountain, perform some fuckery in Stellarium to get an angle, then they compare that angle to the raw, flat Earth [[Wikipedia:Trigonometry|trig]].<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Calculating the FE elevation angle ===<br />
Once a mountain peak and observer location is selected, the [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]] (which uses spherical geometry) is used to compute the distance between the the two locations. The elevation angle to the mountain peak assuming flat Earth can then be calculated using:<br />
<br />
<math>\theta=\arctan\frac{\Delta h}{d} </math><br />
<br />
Where &Delta;h is the difference in elevation between the observer and peak, and d is the horizontal distance between the observer and mountain. It's important to note that in this step, the horizontal distance is assumed to be flat despite having obtained this value under the assumption that earth is spherical.<br />
<br />
=== Timing the occultation of a star ===<br />
The observer then waits for a star to disappear behind the mountain peak, then notes the exact time of the occultation. That's it for this step. This is ''all'' the data that needs to be collected for CT.<br />
<br />
=== Finding the predicted altitude angle of the star ===<br />
The "predicted" [[Wikipedia:Horizontal coordinate system|altitude angle]] of the star at the time of occultation is computed in Stellarium. Flerf proponents of CT do not set the observer location in Stellarium to the actual observer location; they set it to the location of the mountain peak. They claim that this is because on flat Earth, the geometric altitude angle of the star at the observer location is the same as it is at the mountain peak at the time of occultation. While this is true in theory, there are two issues with this:<br />
* the geometric angle is different from the [[Wikipedia:Apparent place|apparent angle]] - flerfs are ignoring the effects of atmospheric refraction<br />
* Stellarium doesn't f*cking use flat Earth to predict star angles - the position of the star will obviously be different at the mountain peak<br />
<br />
Flerf proponents of CT don't realise that the occultation actually occurs when the apparent angle of the star coincides with the apparent angle of the mountain peak. Both are subject to atmospheric refraction, and in fact, the star is refracted much more due to it's light travelling further through the atmosphere. Flerfs seem to think that the occultation will always occur when the geometric angles coincide with each other, even when accounting for refraction. This is patently false, and it shows how flerfs [[Flerfraction|misunderstand refraction]].<br />
<br />
== List of globe Earth assumptions ==<br />
The CT method as proposed by flerfs uses several globe Earth assumptions and calculations, including:<br />
*The distance between the observer and the mountain (see: [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]])<br />
*The predicted altitude angle of the star<br />
*The amount of astronomical refraction<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE</ref><br />
*Stellarium being accurate whatsoever, given it uses globe earth to make predictions<br />
This list is a confirmation of the First [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== Notable Debunks ==<br />
=== Roohif ===<br />
Roohif has a [currently] 4-part series on YouTube exposing the many problems with CT:<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suv8-z6PiMs DEBATE: @jeranism vs @Witsit - The Celestial Theodolite]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfUXZKi3gPY The Fudge Factor for the Celestial Theodolite (feat. @space_audits and @shanestpierre )]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hucqWe3XQF8 Celestial Theodolite: Why are you using the globe, dawg?]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE& Astronomical / Celestial Refraction (as applied to the Celestial Theodolite)]<br />
<br />
=== Astronomy Live ===<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/@Astronomy_Live Astronomy Live] conducted his own measurements with a slightly revised method: using planes and weather balloons instead of mountain peaks. He found that the [[Wikipedia:Observational error|error]] yielded by the CT's flat Earth prediction increases as the &Delta; height and distance values for the mountain peak increase.<br />
* He presented his method and data analysis in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e21-tkyLA7I&t=1248s a debate] with [[Space Audits|Alan]].<br />
* His data is available in a [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1_61QpmeP_R5OE9leF3whrwvMKIYxeBKE Google Drive folder] and on [https://github.com/LinzeeOfLorien/CTRayTracer GitHub].<br />
<br />
== references ==</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Kaleb_Davis&diff=7197Kaleb Davis2026-04-27T12:52:35Z<p>Washcarso: /* Other Info */ linked the satire article</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Infobox|realName=Kaleb Davis|image=File:Kcdindustry.jpg|alias=Kcdindustry, kkkaleb, mein flerf|platform=[https://www.tiktok.com TikTok]|antisemite=Yes|religiflerf=Yes|drinksUrine=Yes}}<br />
<br />
== Known Accounts ==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Platform !! Account<br />
|-<br />
| [https://www.tiktok.com TikTok] || [https://www.tiktok.com/@kaleb.fe <code>@kaleb.fe</code>]<br />
|-<br />
| [https://x.com X] || [https://x.com/KalebTheSocrat Kaleb The Socrat]<br />
|-<br />
| [https://www.youtube.com/ YouTube] || [https://www.youtube.com/@Kcdindustry Kcdindustry]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Antisemitic Views ==<br />
Kaleb has espoused antisemitic rhetoric in the past. Some quite disturbing. However, he posted a retraction and apology for this:<br />
https://x.com/kalebthesocrat/status/1859450812914860225<br />
<br />
He got into a heated argument with severely evil anti-semite [[Dustin Nemos]] in an X space:<br />
https://x.com/kalebthesocrat/status/1859997650625720637<br />
<br />
== Other Info ==<br />
* Famously used a [https://ncse.ngo/gravity-its-only-theory satire article] as "evidence" that gravity is only a theory, then kept on doubling down on it<br />
* Known for never blinking <br />
<br />
[[Category:Religiflerfs]]<br />
[[Category:Flerfzis]]<br />
[[Category:TikTok flerfs]]</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Celestial_theodolite&diff=7196Celestial theodolite2026-04-27T12:15:27Z<p>Washcarso: Washcarso moved page Celestial theodolite to Celestial Theodolite: "Theodolite" should be capitalised since its a proper noun (as its the name of the method and not referring to a generic theodolite)</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[Celestial Theodolite]]</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Celestial_Theodolite&diff=7195Celestial Theodolite2026-04-27T12:15:27Z<p>Washcarso: Washcarso moved page Celestial theodolite to Celestial Theodolite: "Theodolite" should be capitalised since its a proper noun (as its the name of the method and not referring to a generic theodolite)</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Celestial Theodolite (CT)''' is a proposed method for testing Earth's curvature by recording the time that a star is [[Wikipedia:Occultation|occulted]] by a terrestrial object (typically a mountain peak) of known distance and known relative [[Wikipedia:Elevation|elevation]].<ref>https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept</ref> The method was created by [[Mike Heffron]]. Flerfs claim that the CT produces data that is consistent with a flat Earth and not a globe. Flerfs [[Space Audits]] and [[Shane St. Pierre]] are notable proponents of CT.<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
In the original method described by Heffron in [https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept ''Beyond the Null Hypothesis''], an observer is to measure the time a star is occulted by a distant mountain peak. The location of the observer and mountain peak is known.<br />
<br />
The "predicted" [[Wikipedia:Horizontal coordinate system|altitude angle]] of the star in [[Wikipedia:Stellarium (software)|Stellarium]] at the time of occultation is then compared with the calculated elevation angle of the mountain peak assuming a flat Earth. The only data that is actually collected is the time of occultation . This is because if flerfs used an [[Wikipedia:Theodolite|actual theodolite]] to measure the angle of elevation to the mountain peak, it would immediately confirm the globe<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oY-4NSRbOs</ref>.<br />
<br />
Flerfs get excited when the flat Earth "prediction" for the star's altitude angle is close to the flat Earth calculation for the mountain peak's angle of elevation. In reality, the method and predictions and highly flawed.<br />
<br />
The method eloquently summarised by [https://www.youtube.com/@roohif Roohif]:<br />
<blockquote><br />
Basically they record the time that a star is occluded behind a mountain, perform some fuckery in Stellarium to get an angle, then they compare that angle to the raw, flat Earth [[Wikipedia:Trigonometry|trig]].<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Calculating the FE elevation angle ===<br />
Once a mountain peak and observer location is selected, the [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]] (which uses spherical geometry) is used to compute the distance between the the two locations. The elevation angle to the mountain peak assuming flat Earth can then be calculated using:<br />
<br />
<math>\theta=\arctan\frac{\Delta h}{d} </math><br />
<br />
Where &Delta;h is the difference in elevation between the observer and peak, and d is the horizontal distance between the observer and mountain. It's important to note that in this step, the horizontal distance is assumed to be flat despite having obtained this value under the assumption that earth is spherical.<br />
<br />
=== Timing the occultation of a star ===<br />
The observer then waits for a star to disappear behind the mountain peak, then notes the exact time of the occultation. That's it for this step. This is ''all'' the data that needs to be collected for CT.<br />
<br />
=== Finding the predicted altitude angle of the star ===<br />
The "predicted" [[Wikipedia:Horizontal coordinate system|altitude angle]] of the star at the time of occultation is computed in Stellarium. Flerf proponents of CT do not set the observer location in Stellarium to the actual observer location; they set it to the location of the mountain peak. They claim that this is because on flat Earth, the geometric altitude angle of the star at the observer location is the same as it is at the mountain peak at the time of occultation. While this is true in theory, there are two issues with this:<br />
* the geometric angle is different from the [[Wikipedia:Apparent place|apparent angle]] - flerfs are ignoring the effects of atmospheric refraction<br />
* Stellarium doesn't f*cking use flat Earth to predict star angles - the position of the star will obviously be different at the mountain peak<br />
<br />
Flerf proponents of CT don't realise that the occultation actually occurs when the apparent angle of the star coincides with the apparent angle of the mountain peak. Both are subject to atmospheric refraction, and in fact, the star is refracted much more due to it's light travelling further through the atmosphere. Flerfs seem to think that the occultation will always occur when the geometric angles coincide with each other, even when accounting for refraction. This is patently false, and it shows how flerfs [[Flerfraction|misunderstand refraction]].<br />
<br />
== List of globe Earth assumptions ==<br />
The CT method as proposed by flerfs uses several globe Earth assumptions and calculations, including:<br />
*The distance between the observer and the mountain (see: [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]])<br />
*The predicted altitude angle of the star<br />
*The amount of astronomical refraction<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE</ref><br />
*Stellarium being accurate whatsoever, given it uses globe earth to make predictions<br />
This list is a confirmation of the First [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== Notable Debunks ==<br />
=== Roohif ===<br />
Roohif has a [currently] 4-part series on YouTube exposing the many problems with CT:<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suv8-z6PiMs DEBATE: @jeranism vs @Witsit - The Celestial Theodolite]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfUXZKi3gPY The Fudge Factor for the Celestial Theodolite (feat. @space_audits and @shanestpierre )]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hucqWe3XQF8 Celestial Theodolite: Why are you using the globe, dawg?]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE& Astronomical / Celestial Refraction (as applied to the Celestial Theodolite)]<br />
<br />
== references ==</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Celestial_Theodolite&diff=7194Celestial Theodolite2026-04-27T12:12:38Z<p>Washcarso: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Celestial Theodolite (CT)''' is a proposed method for testing Earth's curvature by recording the time that a star is [[Wikipedia:Occultation|occulted]] by a terrestrial object (typically a mountain peak) of known distance and known relative [[Wikipedia:Elevation|elevation]].<ref>https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept</ref> The method was created by [[Mike Heffron]]. Flerfs claim that the CT produces data that is consistent with a flat Earth and not a globe. Flerfs [[Space Audits]] and [[Shane St. Pierre]] are notable proponents of CT.<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
In the original method described by Heffron in [https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept ''Beyond the Null Hypothesis''], an observer is to measure the time a star is occulted by a distant mountain peak. The location of the observer and mountain peak is known.<br />
<br />
The "predicted" [[Wikipedia:Horizontal coordinate system|altitude angle]] of the star in [[Wikipedia:Stellarium (software)|Stellarium]] at the time of occultation is then compared with the calculated elevation angle of the mountain peak assuming a flat Earth. The only data that is actually collected is the time of occultation . This is because if flerfs used an [[Wikipedia:Theodolite|actual theodolite]] to measure the angle of elevation to the mountain peak, it would immediately confirm the globe<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oY-4NSRbOs</ref>.<br />
<br />
Flerfs get excited when the flat Earth "prediction" for the star's altitude angle is close to the flat Earth calculation for the mountain peak's angle of elevation. In reality, the method and predictions and highly flawed.<br />
<br />
The method eloquently summarised by [https://www.youtube.com/@roohif Roohif]:<br />
<blockquote><br />
Basically they record the time that a star is occluded behind a mountain, perform some fuckery in Stellarium to get an angle, then they compare that angle to the raw, flat Earth [[Wikipedia:Trigonometry|trig]].<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Calculating the FE elevation angle ===<br />
Once a mountain peak and observer location is selected, the [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]] (which uses spherical geometry) is used to compute the distance between the the two locations. The elevation angle to the mountain peak assuming flat Earth can then be calculated using:<br />
<br />
<math>\theta=\arctan\frac{\Delta h}{d} </math><br />
<br />
Where &Delta;h is the difference in elevation between the observer and peak, and d is the horizontal distance between the observer and mountain. It's important to note that in this step, the horizontal distance is assumed to be flat despite having obtained this value under the assumption that earth is spherical.<br />
<br />
=== Timing the occultation of a star ===<br />
The observer then waits for a star to disappear behind the mountain peak, then notes the exact time of the occultation. That's it for this step. This is ''all'' the data that needs to be collected for CT.<br />
<br />
=== Finding the predicted altitude angle of the star ===<br />
The "predicted" [[Wikipedia:Horizontal coordinate system|altitude angle]] of the star at the time of occultation is computed in Stellarium. Flerf proponents of CT do not set the observer location in Stellarium to the actual observer location; they set it to the location of the mountain peak. They claim that this is because on flat Earth, the geometric altitude angle of the star at the observer location is the same as it is at the mountain peak at the time of occultation. While this is true in theory, there are two issues with this:<br />
* the geometric angle is different from the [[Wikipedia:Apparent place|apparent angle]] - flerfs are ignoring the effects of atmospheric refraction<br />
* Stellarium doesn't f*cking use flat Earth to predict star angles - the position of the star will obviously be different at the mountain peak<br />
<br />
Flerf proponents of CT don't realise that the occultation actually occurs when the apparent angle of the star coincides with the apparent angle of the mountain peak. Both are subject to atmospheric refraction, and in fact, the star is refracted much more due to it's light travelling further through the atmosphere. Flerfs seem to think that the occultation will always occur when the geometric angles coincide with each other, even when accounting for refraction. This is patently false, and it shows how flerfs [[Flerfraction|misunderstand refraction]].<br />
<br />
== List of globe Earth assumptions ==<br />
The CT method as proposed by flerfs uses several globe Earth assumptions and calculations, including:<br />
*The distance between the observer and the mountain (see: [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]])<br />
*The predicted altitude angle of the star<br />
*The amount of astronomical refraction<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE</ref><br />
*Stellarium being accurate whatsoever, given it uses globe earth to make predictions<br />
This list is a confirmation of the First [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== Notable Debunks ==<br />
=== Roohif ===<br />
Roohif has a [currently] 4-part series on YouTube exposing the many problems with CT:<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suv8-z6PiMs DEBATE: @jeranism vs @Witsit - The Celestial Theodolite]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfUXZKi3gPY The Fudge Factor for the Celestial Theodolite (feat. @space_audits and @shanestpierre )]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hucqWe3XQF8 Celestial Theodolite: Why are you using the globe, dawg?]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE& Astronomical / Celestial Refraction (as applied to the Celestial Theodolite)]<br />
<br />
== references ==</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Celestial_Theodolite&diff=7193Celestial Theodolite2026-04-27T12:11:07Z<p>Washcarso: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''celestial theodolite (CT)''' is a proposed method for testing Earth's curvature by recording the time that a star is [[Wikipedia:Occultation|occulted]] by a terrestrial object (typically a mountain peak) of known distance and known relative [[Wikipedia:Elevation|elevation]].<ref>https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept</ref> The method was created by [[Mike Heffron]]. Flerfs claim that the CT produces data that is consistent with a flat Earth and not a globe. Flerfs [[Space Audits]] and [[Shane St. Pierre]] are notable proponents of CT.<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
In the original method described by Heffron in [https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept ''Beyond the Null Hypothesis''], an observer is to measure the time a star is occulted by a distant mountain peak. The location of the observer and mountain peak is known.<br />
<br />
The "predicted" [[Wikipedia:Horizontal coordinate system|altitude angle]] of the star in [[Wikipedia:Stellarium (software)|Stellarium]] at the time of occultation is then compared with the calculated elevation angle of the mountain peak assuming a flat Earth. The only data that is actually collected is the time of occultation . This is because if flerfs used an [[Wikipedia:Theodolite|actual theodolite]] to measure the angle of elevation to the mountain peak, it would immediately confirm the globe<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oY-4NSRbOs</ref>.<br />
<br />
Flerfs get excited when the flat Earth "prediction" for the star's altitude angle is close to the flat Earth calculation for the mountain peak's angle of elevation. In reality, the method and predictions and highly flawed.<br />
<br />
The method eloquently summarised by [https://www.youtube.com/@roohif Roohif]:<br />
<blockquote><br />
Basically they record the time that a star is occluded behind a mountain, perform some fuckery in Stellarium to get an angle, then they compare that angle to the raw, flat Earth [[Wikipedia:Trigonometry|trig]].<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Calculating the FE elevation angle ===<br />
Once a mountain peak and observer location is selected, the [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]] (which uses spherical geometry) is used to compute the distance between the the two locations. The elevation angle to the mountain peak assuming flat Earth can then be calculated using:<br />
<br />
<math>\theta=\arctan\frac{\Delta h}{d} </math><br />
<br />
Where &Delta;h is the difference in elevation between the observer and peak, and d is the horizontal distance between the observer and mountain. It's important to note that in this step, the horizontal distance is assumed to be flat despite having obtained this value under the assumption that earth is spherical.<br />
<br />
=== Timing the occultation of a star ===<br />
The observer then waits for a star to disappear behind the mountain peak, then notes the exact time of the occultation. That's it for this step. This is ''all'' the data that needs to be collected for CT.<br />
<br />
=== Finding the predicted altitude angle of the star ===<br />
The "predicted" [[Wikipedia:Horizontal coordinate system|altitude angle]] of the star at the time of occultation is computed in Stellarium. Flerf proponents of CT do not set the observer location in Stellarium to the actual observer location; they set it to the location of the mountain peak. They claim that this is because on flat Earth, the geometric altitude angle of the star at the observer location is the same as it is at the mountain peak at the time of occultation. While this is true in theory, there are two issues with this:<br />
* the geometric angle is different from the [[Wikipedia:Apparent place|apparent angle]] - flerfs are ignoring the effects of atmospheric refraction<br />
* Stellarium doesn't f*cking use flat Earth to predict star angles - the position of the star will obviously be different at the mountain peak<br />
<br />
Flerf proponents of CT don't realise that the occultation actually occurs when the apparent angle of the star coincides with the apparent angle of the mountain peak. Both are subject to atmospheric refraction, and in fact, the star is refracted much more due to it's light travelling further through the atmosphere. Flerfs seem to think that the occultation will always occur when the geometric angles coincide with each other, even when accounting for refraction. This is patently false, and it shows how flerfs [[Flerfraction|misunderstand refraction]].<br />
<br />
== List of globe Earth assumptions ==<br />
The CT method as proposed by flerfs uses several globe Earth assumptions and calculations, including:<br />
*The distance between the observer and the mountain (see: [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]])<br />
*The predicted altitude angle of the star<br />
*The amount of astronomical refraction<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE</ref><br />
*Stellarium being accurate whatsoever, given it uses globe earth to make predictions<br />
This list is a confirmation of the First [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== Notable Debunks ==<br />
=== Roohif ===<br />
Roohif has a [currently] 4-part series on YouTube exposing the many problems with CT:<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suv8-z6PiMs DEBATE: @jeranism vs @Witsit - The Celestial Theodolite]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfUXZKi3gPY The Fudge Factor for the Celestial Theodolite (feat. @space_audits and @shanestpierre )]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hucqWe3XQF8 Celestial Theodolite: Why are you using the globe, dawg?]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE& Astronomical / Celestial Refraction (as applied to the Celestial Theodolite)]<br />
<br />
== references ==</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Celestial_Theodolite&diff=7192Celestial Theodolite2026-04-27T12:02:30Z<p>Washcarso: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''celestial theodolite (CT)''' is a proposed method for testing Earth's curvature by recording the time that a star is [[Wikipedia:Occultation|occulted]] by a terrestrial object (typically a mountain peak) of known distance and known relative [[Wikipedia:Elevation|elevation]].<ref>https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept</ref> The method was created by [[Mike Heffron]]. Flerfs claim that the CT produces data that is consistent with a flat Earth and not a globe. Flerfs [[Space Audits]] and [[Shane St. Pierre]] are notable proponents of CT.<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
In the original method described by Heffron in [https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept ''Beyond the Null Hypothesis''], an observer is to measure the time a star is occulted by a distant mountain peak. The location of the observer and mountain peak is known.<br />
<br />
The "predicted" [[Wikipedia:Horizontal coordinate system|altitude angle]] angle of the star in [[Wikipedia:Stellarium (software)|Stellarium]] is then compared with the calculated elevation angle of the mountain peak assuming a flat Earth. The only data that is actually collected is the time of occlusion . This is because if flerfs used an [[Wikipedia:Theodolite|actual theodolite]] to measure the elevation angle of the mountain peak, it would immediately confirm the globe<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oY-4NSRbOs</ref>.<br />
<br />
The method eloquently summarised by [https://www.youtube.com/@roohif Roohif]:<br />
<blockquote><br />
Basically they record the time that a star is occluded behind a mountain, perform some fuckery in Stellarium to get an angle, then they compare that angle to the raw, flat Earth [[Wikipedia:Trigonometry|trig]].<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Calculating the FE elevation angle ===<br />
Once a mountain peak and observer location is selected, the [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]] (which uses spherical geometry) is used to compute the distance between the the two locations. The elevation angle to the mountain peak assuming flat Earth can then be calculated using:<br />
<br />
<math>\theta=\arctan\frac{\Delta h}{d} </math><br />
<br />
Where &Delta;h is the difference in elevation between the observer and peak, and d is the horizontal distance between the observer and mountain. It's important to note that in this step, the horizontal distance is assumed to be flat despite having obtained this value under the assumption that earth is spherical.<br />
<br />
=== Timing the occultation of a star ===<br />
The observer then waits for a star to disappear behind the mountain peak, then notes the exact time of the occultation. That's it for this step. This is ''all'' the data that needs to be collected for CT.<br />
<br />
=== Finding the predicted altitude angle of the star ===<br />
The "predicted" [[Wikipedia:Horizontal coordinate system|altitude angle]] of the star at the time of occultation is computed in Stellarium. Flerf proponents of CT do not set the observer location in Stellarium to the actual observer location; they set it to the location of the mountain peak. They claim that this is because on flat Earth, the geometric altitude angle of the star at the observer location is the same as it is at the mountain peak at the time of occultation. While this is true in theory, there are two issues with this:<br />
* the geometric angle is different from the [[Wikipedia:Apparent place|apparent angle]] - flerfs are ignoring the effects of atmospheric refraction<br />
* Stellarium doesn't f*cking use flat Earth to predict star angles - the position of the star will obviously be different at the mountain peak<br />
<br />
Flerf proponents of CT don't realise that the occultation actually occurs when the apparent angle of the star coincides with the apparent angle of the mountain peak. Both are subject to atmospheric refraction, and in fact, the star is refracted much more due to it's light travelling further through the atmosphere. Flerfs seem to think that the occultation will always occur when the geometric angles coincide with each other, even when accounting for refraction. This is patently false, and it shows how flerfs [[Flerfraction|misunderstand refraction]].<br />
<br />
== List of globe Earth assumptions ==<br />
The CT method as proposed by flerfs uses several globe Earth assumptions and calculations, including:<br />
*The distance between the observer and the mountain (see: [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]])<br />
*The predicted altitude angle of the star<br />
*The amount of astronomical refraction<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE</ref><br />
*Stellarium being accurate whatsoever, given it uses globe earth to make predictions<br />
This list is a confirmation of the First [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== Notable Debunks ==<br />
=== Roohif ===<br />
Roohif has a [currently] 4-part series on YouTube exposing the many problems with CT:<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suv8-z6PiMs DEBATE: @jeranism vs @Witsit - The Celestial Theodolite]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfUXZKi3gPY The Fudge Factor for the Celestial Theodolite (feat. @space_audits and @shanestpierre )]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hucqWe3XQF8 Celestial Theodolite: Why are you using the globe, dawg?]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE& Astronomical / Celestial Refraction (as applied to the Celestial Theodolite)]<br />
<br />
== references ==</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Celestial_Theodolite&diff=7191Celestial Theodolite2026-04-27T11:15:46Z<p>Washcarso: /* Method */</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''celestial theodolite (CT)''' is a proposed method for testing Earth's curvature by recording the time that a star is [[Wikipedia:Occultation|occulted]] by a terrestrial object (typically a mountain peak) of known distance and known relative [[Wikipedia:Elevation|elevation]].<ref>https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept</ref> The method was created by [[Mike Heffron]]. Flerfs claim that the CT produces data that is consistent with a flat Earth and not a globe. Flerfs [[Space Audits]] and [[Shane St. Pierre]] are notable proponents of CT.<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
The CT method ultimately compares the "predicted" elevation angle of the star in [[Wikipedia:Stellarium (software)|Stellarium]] with the calculated elevation angle of the mountain peak assuming a flat Earth. The only data that is actually collected is the time of occlusion . This is because if flerfs used an [[Wikipedia:Theodolite|actual theodolite]] to measure the elevation angle of the mountain peak, it would immediately confirm the globe<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oY-4NSRbOs</ref>.<br />
<br />
The method eloquently summarised by [https://www.youtube.com/@roohif Roohif]:<br />
<blockquote><br />
Basically they record the time that a star is occluded behind a mountain, perform some fuckery in Stellarium to get an angle, then they compare that angle to the raw, flat Earth [[Wikipedia:Trigonometry|trig]].<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Calculating the FE elevation angle ===<br />
Once a mountain peak and observer location is selected, the [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]] (which uses spherical geometry) is used to compute the distance between the the two locations. The elevation angle to the mountain peak assuming flat Earth can then be calculated using:<br />
<br />
<math>\theta=\arctan\frac{\Delta h}{d} </math><br />
<br />
Where &Delta;h is the difference in elevation between the observer and peak, and d is the horizontal distance between the observer and mountain. It's important to note that in this step, the horizontal distance is assumed to be flat despite having obtained this value under the assumption that earth is spherical.<br />
<br />
=== Timing the occultation of a star ===<br />
The observer then waits for a star to disappear behind the mountain peak, then notes the exact time of the occultation. That's it for this step. This is ''all'' the data that needs to be collected for CT.<br />
<br />
=== Finding the predicted altitude angle of the star ===<br />
The "predicted" [[Wikipedia:Horizontal coordinate system|altitude angle]] of the star at the time of occultation is computed in Stellarium. Flerf proponents of CT do not set the observer location in Stellarium to the actual observer location; they set it to the location of the mountain peak. They claim that this is because on flat Earth, the geometric altitude angle of the star at the observer location is the same as it is at the mountain peak at the time of occultation. While this is true in theory, there are two issues with this:<br />
* the geometric angle is different from the [[Wikipedia:Apparent place|apparent angle]] - flerfs are ignoring the effects of atmospheric refraction<br />
* Stellarium doesn't f*cking use flat Earth to predict star angles - the position of the star will obviously be different at the mountain peak<br />
<br />
Flerf proponents of CT don't realise that the occultation actually occurs when the apparent angle of the star coincides with the apparent angle of the mountain peak. Both are subject to atmospheric refraction, and in fact, the star is refracted much more due to it's light travelling further through the atmosphere. Flerfs seem to think that the occultation will always occur when the geometric angles coincide with each other, even when accounting for refraction. This is patently false, and it shows how flerfs [[Flerfraction|misunderstand refraction]].<br />
<br />
== List of globe Earth assumptions ==<br />
The CT method as proposed by flerfs uses several globe Earth assumptions and calculations, including:<br />
*The distance between the observer and the mountain (see: [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]])<br />
*The predicted altitude angle of the star<br />
*The amount of astronomical refraction<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE</ref><br />
*Stellarium being accurate whatsoever, given it uses globe earth to make predictions<br />
This list is a confirmation of the First [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== Notable Debunks ==<br />
=== Roohif ===<br />
Roohif has a [currently] 4-part series on YouTube exposing the many problems with CT:<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suv8-z6PiMs DEBATE: @jeranism vs @Witsit - The Celestial Theodolite]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfUXZKi3gPY The Fudge Factor for the Celestial Theodolite (feat. @space_audits and @shanestpierre )]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hucqWe3XQF8 Celestial Theodolite: Why are you using the globe, dawg?]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE& Astronomical / Celestial Refraction (as applied to the Celestial Theodolite)]<br />
<br />
== references ==</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=User:Washcarso&diff=7190User:Washcarso2026-04-27T09:29:48Z<p>Washcarso: Created page with "I edit Flerfipedia"</p>
<hr />
<div>I edit Flerfipedia</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Celestial_Theodolite&diff=7189Celestial Theodolite2026-04-27T08:29:11Z<p>Washcarso: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''celestial theodolite (CT)''' is a proposed method for testing Earth's curvature by recording the time that a star is [[Wikipedia:Occultation|occulted]] by a terrestrial object (typically a mountain peak) of known distance and known relative [[Wikipedia:Elevation|elevation]].<ref>https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept</ref> The method was created by [[Mike Heffron]]. Flerfs claim that the CT produces data that is consistent with a flat Earth and not a globe. Flerfs [[Space Audits]] and [[Shane St. Pierre]] are notable proponents of CT.<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
The CT method ultimately compares the "predicted" elevation angle of the star in [[Wikipedia:Stellarium|Stellarium]] with the calculated elevation angle of the mountain peak assuming a flat Earth. The only data that is actually collected is the time of occlusion . This is because if flerfs used an [[Wikipedia:Theodolite|actual theodolite]] to measure the elevation angle of the mountain peak, it would immediately confirm the globe<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oY-4NSRbOs</ref>.<br />
<br />
The method eloquently summarised by [https://www.youtube.com/@roohif Roohif]:<br />
<blockquote><br />
Basically they record the time that a star is occluded behind a mountain, perform some fuckery in Stellarium to get an angle, then they compare that angle to the raw, flat Earth [[Wikipedia:Trigonometry|trig]].<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Calculating the FE elevation angle ===<br />
Once a mountain peak and observer location is selected, the [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]] (which uses spherical geometry) is used to compute the distance between the the two locations. The elevation angle to the mountain peak assuming flat Earth can then be calculated using:<br />
<br />
<math>\theta=\arctan\frac{\Delta h}{d} </math><br />
<br />
Where &Delta;h is the difference in elevation between the observer and peak, and d is the horizontal distance between the observer and mountain. It's important to note that in this step, the horizontal distance is assumed to be flat despite having obtained this value under the assumption that earth is spherical.<br />
<br />
=== Timing the occultation of a star ===<br />
The observer then waits for a star to disappear behind the mountain peak, then notes the exact time of the occultation. That's it for this step. This is ''all'' the data that needs to be collected for CT.<br />
<br />
=== Finding the predicted altitude angle of the star ===<br />
The "predicted" [[Wikipedia:Horizontal coordinate system|altitude angle]] of the star at the time of occultation is computed in Stellarium. Flerf proponents of CT do not set the observer location in Stellarium to the actual observer location; they set it to the location of the mountain peak. They claim that this is because on flat Earth, the geometric altitude angle of the star at the observer location is the same as it is at the mountain peak at the time of occultation. While this is true in theory, there are two issues with this:<br />
* the geometric angle is different from the [[Wikipedia:Apparent place|apparent angle]] - flerfs are ignoring the effects of atmospheric refraction<br />
* Stellarium doesn't f*cking use flat Earth to predict star angles - the position of the star will obviously be different at the mountain peak<br />
<br />
Flerf proponents of CT don't realise that the occultation actually occurs when the apparent angle of the star coincides with the apparent angle of the mountain peak. Both are subject to atmospheric refraction, and in fact, the star is refracted much more due to it's light travelling further through the atmosphere. Flerfs seem to think that the occultation will always occur when the geometric angles coincide with each other, even when accounting for refraction. This is patently false, and it shows how flerfs [[Flerfraction|misunderstand refraction]].<br />
<br />
== List of globe Earth assumptions ==<br />
The CT method as proposed by flerfs uses several globe Earth assumptions and calculations, including:<br />
*The distance between the observer and the mountain (see: [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]])<br />
*The predicted altitude angle of the star<br />
*The amount of astronomical refraction<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE</ref><br />
*Stellarium being accurate whatsoever, given it uses globe earth to make predictions<br />
This list is a confirmation of the First [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== Notable Debunks ==<br />
=== Roohif ===<br />
Roohif has a [currently] 4-part series on YouTube exposing the many problems with CT:<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suv8-z6PiMs DEBATE: @jeranism vs @Witsit - The Celestial Theodolite]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfUXZKi3gPY The Fudge Factor for the Celestial Theodolite (feat. @space_audits and @shanestpierre )]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hucqWe3XQF8 Celestial Theodolite: Why are you using the globe, dawg?]<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE& Astronomical / Celestial Refraction (as applied to the Celestial Theodolite)]<br />
<br />
== references ==</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Celestial_Theodolite&diff=7180Celestial Theodolite2026-04-27T06:03:46Z<p>Washcarso: /* Finding the predicted altitude angle of the star */</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''celestial theodolite (CT)''' is a proposed method for verifying Earth's curvature by recording the time that a star is [[Wikipedia:Occultation|occulted]] by a terrestrial object (typically a mountain peak) of known distance and known relative [[Wikipedia:Elevation|elevation]].<ref>https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept</ref> The method was created by [[Mike Heffron]]. Flerfs claim that the CT method produces data that is consistent with a flat Earth and not a globe. Flerfs [[Space Audits]] and [[Shane St. Pierre]] are notable proponents of CT.<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
The CT method ultimately compares the "predicted" elevation angle of the star in [[Wikipedia:Stellarium|Stellarium]] with the calculated elevation angle of the mountain peak assuming a flat Earth. The only data that is actually collected is the time of occlusion . This is because if flerfs used an [[Wikipedia:Theodolite|actual theodolite]] to measure the elevation angle of the mountain peak, it would immediately confirm the globe<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oY-4NSRbOs</ref>.<br />
<br />
The method eloquently summarised by [https://www.youtube.com/@roohif Roohif]:<br />
<blockquote><br />
Basically they record the time that a star is occluded behind a mountain, perform some fuckery in Stellarium to get an angle, then they compare that angle to the raw, flat Earth [[Wikipedia:Trigonometry|trig]].<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Calculating the FE elevation angle ===<br />
Once a mountain peak and observer location is selected, the [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]] (which uses spherical geometry) is used to compute the distance between the the two locations. The elevation angle to the mountain peak assuming flat Earth can then be calculated using:<br />
<br />
<math>\theta=\arctan\frac{\Delta h}{d} </math><br />
<br />
Where &Delta;h is the difference in elevation between the observer and peak, and d is the horizontal distance between the observer and mountain. It's important to note that in this step, the horizontal distance is assumed to be flat despite having obtained this value under the assumption that earth is spherical.<br />
<br />
=== Timing the occultation of a star ===<br />
The observer then waits for a star to disappear behind the mountain peak, then notes the exact time of the occultation. That's it for this step. This is ''all'' the data that needs to be collected for CT.<br />
<br />
=== Finding the predicted altitude angle of the star ===<br />
The "predicted" [[Wikipedia:Horizontal coordinate system|altitude angle]] of the star at the time of occultation is computed in Stellarium. Flerf proponents of CT do not set the observer location in Stellarium to the actual observer location; they set it to the location of the mountain peak. They claim that this is because on flat Earth, the geometric altitude angle of the star at the observer location is the same as it is at the mountain peak at the time of occultation. While this is true in theory, there are two issues with this:<br />
* the geometric angle is different from the [[Wikipedia:Apparent place|apparent angle]] - flerfs are ignoring the effects of atmospheric refraction<br />
* Stellarium doesn't f*cking use flat Earth to predict star angles - the position of the star will obviously be different at the mountain peak<br />
<br />
Flerf proponents of CT don't realise that the occultation actually occurs when the apparent angle of the star coincides with the apparent angle of the mountain peak. Both are subject to atmospheric refraction, and in fact, the star is refracted much more due to it's light travelling further through the atmosphere. Flerfs seem to think that the occultation will always occur when the geometric angles coincide with each other, even when accounting for refraction. This is patently false, and it shows how flerfs [[Flerfraction|misunderstand refraction]].<br />
<br />
== List of globe Earth assumptions ==<br />
The CT method as proposed by flerfs uses several globe Earth assumptions and calculations, including:<br />
*The distance between the observer and the mountain (see: [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]])<br />
*The predicted altitude angle of the star<br />
*The amount of astronomical refraction<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE</ref><br />
*Stellarium being accurate whatsoever, given it uses globe earth to make predictions<br />
This list is a confirmation of the First [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== references ==</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Celestial_Theodolite&diff=7176Celestial Theodolite2026-04-27T05:58:45Z<p>Washcarso: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''celestial theodolite (CT)''' is a proposed method for verifying Earth's curvature by recording the time that a star is [[Wikipedia:Occultation|occulted]] by a terrestrial object (typically a mountain peak) of known distance and known relative [[Wikipedia:Elevation|elevation]].<ref>https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept</ref> The method was created by [[Mike Heffron]]. Flerfs claim that the CT method produces data that is consistent with a flat Earth and not a globe. Flerfs [[Space Audits]] and [[Shane St. Pierre]] are notable proponents of CT.<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
The CT method ultimately compares the "predicted" elevation angle of the star in [[Wikipedia:Stellarium|Stellarium]] with the calculated elevation angle of the mountain peak assuming a flat Earth. The only data that is actually collected is the time of occlusion . This is because if flerfs used an [[Wikipedia:Theodolite|actual theodolite]] to measure the elevation angle of the mountain peak, it would immediately confirm the globe<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oY-4NSRbOs</ref>.<br />
<br />
The method eloquently summarised by [https://www.youtube.com/@roohif Roohif]:<br />
<blockquote><br />
Basically they record the time that a star is occluded behind a mountain, perform some fuckery in Stellarium to get an angle, then they compare that angle to the raw, flat Earth [[Wikipedia:Trigonometry|trig]].<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Calculating the FE elevation angle ===<br />
Once a mountain peak and observer location is selected, the [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]] (which uses spherical geometry) is used to compute the distance between the the two locations. The elevation angle to the mountain peak assuming flat Earth can then be calculated using:<br />
<br />
<math>\theta=\arctan\frac{\Delta h}{d} </math><br />
<br />
Where &Delta;h is the difference in elevation between the observer and peak, and d is the horizontal distance between the observer and mountain. It's important to note that in this step, the horizontal distance is assumed to be flat despite having obtained this value under the assumption that earth is spherical.<br />
<br />
=== Timing the occultation of a star ===<br />
The observer then waits for a star to disappear behind the mountain peak, then notes the exact time of the occultation. That's it for this step. This is ''all'' the data that needs to be collected for CT.<br />
<br />
=== Finding the predicted altitude angle of the star ===<br />
The "predicted" [[Wikipedia:Horizontal coordinate system|altitude angle]] of the star at the time of occultation is computed in Stellarium. Flerf proponents of CT do not set the observer location in Stellarium to the actual observer location; they set it to the location of the mountain peak. They claim that this is because on flat Earth, the geometric altitude angle of the star at the observer location is the same as it is at the mountain peak at the time of occultation. While this is true in theory, there are two issues with this:<br />
* the geometric angle is different from the [[Wikipedia:Apparent place|apparent angle]] - flerfs are ignoring the effects of atmospheric refraction<br />
* Stellarium doesn't f*cking use flat Earth to predict star angles - the position of the star will obviously be different at the mountain peak<br />
<br />
Flerf proponents of CT don't realise that the occultation occurs when the apparent angle of the star coincides with the apparent angle of the mountain peak. Both are subject to atmospheric refraction, and in fact, the star is refracted much more due to it's light travelling further through the atmosphere.<br />
<br />
== List of globe Earth assumptions ==<br />
The CT method as proposed by flerfs uses several globe Earth assumptions and calculations, including:<br />
*The distance between the observer and the mountain (see: [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]])<br />
*The predicted altitude angle of the star<br />
*The amount of astronomical refraction<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE</ref><br />
*Stellarium being accurate whatsoever, given it uses globe earth to make predictions<br />
This list is a confirmation of the First [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== references ==</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Celestial_Theodolite&diff=7172Celestial Theodolite2026-04-27T05:43:25Z<p>Washcarso: /* Calculating the FE elevation angle */</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''celestial theodolite (CT)''' is a proposed method for verifying Earth's curvature by recording the time that a star is [[Wikipedia:Occultation|occulted]] by a terrestrial object (typically a mountain peak) of known distance and known relative [[Wikipedia:Elevation|elevation]].<ref>https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept</ref> The method was created by [[Mike Heffron]]. Flerfs claim that the CT method produces data that is consistent with a flat Earth and not a globe. Flerfs [[Space Audits]] and [[Shane St. Pierre]] are notable proponents of CT.<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
The CT method ultimately compares the "predicted" elevation angle of the star in Stellarium with the calculated elevation angle of the mountain peak assuming a flat Earth. The only data that is actually collected is the time of occlusion . This is because if flerfs used an [[Wikipedia:Theodolite|actual theodolite]] to measure the elevation angle of the mountain peak, it would immediately confirm the globe.<br />
<br />
As described by [https://www.youtube.com/@roohif roohif]:<br />
<blockquote><br />
Basically they record the time that a star is occluded behind a mountain, perform some fuckery in [[Wikipedia:Stellarium|Stellarium]] to get an angle, then they compare that angle to the raw, flat Earth [[Wikipedia:Trigonometry|trig]].<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Calculating the FE elevation angle ===<br />
Once a mountain peak and observer location is selected, the [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]] (which uses spherical geometry) is used to compute the distance between the the two locations. The elevation angle to the mountain peak assuming flat Earth can then be calculated using:<br />
<br />
<math>\theta=\arctan\frac{\Delta h}{d} </math><br />
<br />
Where &Delta;h is the difference in elevation between the observer and peak, and d is the horizontal distance between the observer and mountain. It's important to note that in this step, the horizontal distance is assumed to be flat despite having obtained this value under the assumption that earth is spherical.<br />
<br />
=== Timing the occultation of a star ===<br />
The observer then waits for a star to disappear behind the mountain peak, then notes the exact time of the occultation. That's it for this step. This is ''all'' the data that needs to be collected for CT.<br />
<br />
=== Finding the predicted altitude angle of the star ===<br />
The "predicted" [[Wikipedia:Horizontal coordinate system|altitude angle]] of the star at the time of occultation is computed in Stellarium. Flerf proponents of CT do not set the observer location in Stellarium to the actual observer location; they set it to the location of the mountain peak. They claim that this is because on flat Earth, the geometric altitude angle of the star at the observer location is the same as it is at the mountain peak at the time of occultation. While this is true in theory, there are two issues with this:<br />
* the geometric angle is different from the [[Wikipedia:Apparent place|apparent angle]] - flerfs are ignoring the effects of atmospheric refraction<br />
* Stellarium doesn't f*cking use flat Earth to predict star angles - the position of the star will obviously be different at the mountain peak<br />
<br />
== List of globe earth assumptions ==<br />
The CT method as proposed by flerfs uses several globe earth assumptions and calculations, including:<br />
*The distance between the observer and the mountain (see: [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]])<br />
*The predicted altitude angle of the star<br />
*The amount of astronomical refraction<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE</ref><br />
*Stellarium being accurate whatsoever, given it uses globe earth to make predictions<br />
This list is a confirmation of the First [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== references ==</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Celestial_Theodolite&diff=7171Celestial Theodolite2026-04-27T05:42:24Z<p>Washcarso: /* Finding the predicted altitude angle of the star */</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''celestial theodolite (CT)''' is a proposed method for verifying Earth's curvature by recording the time that a star is [[Wikipedia:Occultation|occulted]] by a terrestrial object (typically a mountain peak) of known distance and known relative [[Wikipedia:Elevation|elevation]].<ref>https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept</ref> The method was created by [[Mike Heffron]]. Flerfs claim that the CT method produces data that is consistent with a flat Earth and not a globe. Flerfs [[Space Audits]] and [[Shane St. Pierre]] are notable proponents of CT.<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
The CT method ultimately compares the "predicted" elevation angle of the star in Stellarium with the calculated elevation angle of the mountain peak assuming a flat Earth. The only data that is actually collected is the time of occlusion . This is because if flerfs used an [[Wikipedia:Theodolite|actual theodolite]] to measure the elevation angle of the mountain peak, it would immediately confirm the globe.<br />
<br />
As described by [https://www.youtube.com/@roohif roohif]:<br />
<blockquote><br />
Basically they record the time that a star is occluded behind a mountain, perform some fuckery in [[Wikipedia:Stellarium|Stellarium]] to get an angle, then they compare that angle to the raw, flat Earth [[Wikipedia:Trigonometry|trig]].<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Calculating the FE elevation angle ===<br />
Once a mountain peak and observer location is selected, the [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]] (which uses spherical geometry) is used to compute the distance between the the two locations. The elevation angle assuming flat Earth can then be calculated using:<br />
<br />
<math>\theta=\arctan\frac{\Delta h}{d} </math><br />
<br />
Where &Delta;h is the difference in elevation between the observer and peak, and d is the horizontal distance between the observer and mountain. It's important to note that in this step, the horizontal distance is assumed to be flat despite having obtained this value under the assumption that earth is spherical.<br />
<br />
=== Timing the occultation of a star ===<br />
The observer then waits for a star to disappear behind the mountain peak, then notes the exact time of the occultation. That's it for this step. This is ''all'' the data that needs to be collected for CT.<br />
<br />
=== Finding the predicted altitude angle of the star ===<br />
The "predicted" [[Wikipedia:Horizontal coordinate system|altitude angle]] of the star at the time of occultation is computed in Stellarium. Flerf proponents of CT do not set the observer location in Stellarium to the actual observer location; they set it to the location of the mountain peak. They claim that this is because on flat Earth, the geometric altitude angle of the star at the observer location is the same as it is at the mountain peak at the time of occultation. While this is true in theory, there are two issues with this:<br />
* the geometric angle is different from the [[Wikipedia:Apparent place|apparent angle]] - flerfs are ignoring the effects of atmospheric refraction<br />
* Stellarium doesn't f*cking use flat Earth to predict star angles - the position of the star will obviously be different at the mountain peak<br />
<br />
== List of globe earth assumptions ==<br />
The CT method as proposed by flerfs uses several globe earth assumptions and calculations, including:<br />
*The distance between the observer and the mountain (see: [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]])<br />
*The predicted altitude angle of the star<br />
*The amount of astronomical refraction<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE</ref><br />
*Stellarium being accurate whatsoever, given it uses globe earth to make predictions<br />
This list is a confirmation of the First [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== references ==</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Celestial_Theodolite&diff=7170Celestial Theodolite2026-04-27T05:37:20Z<p>Washcarso: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''celestial theodolite (CT)''' is a proposed method for verifying Earth's curvature by recording the time that a star is [[Wikipedia:Occultation|occulted]] by a terrestrial object (typically a mountain peak) of known distance and known relative [[Wikipedia:Elevation|elevation]].<ref>https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept</ref> The method was created by [[Mike Heffron]]. Flerfs claim that the CT method produces data that is consistent with a flat Earth and not a globe. Flerfs [[Space Audits]] and [[Shane St. Pierre]] are notable proponents of CT.<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
The CT method ultimately compares the "predicted" elevation angle of the star in Stellarium with the calculated elevation angle of the mountain peak assuming a flat Earth. The only data that is actually collected is the time of occlusion . This is because if flerfs used an [[Wikipedia:Theodolite|actual theodolite]] to measure the elevation angle of the mountain peak, it would immediately confirm the globe.<br />
<br />
As described by [https://www.youtube.com/@roohif roohif]:<br />
<blockquote><br />
Basically they record the time that a star is occluded behind a mountain, perform some fuckery in [[Wikipedia:Stellarium|Stellarium]] to get an angle, then they compare that angle to the raw, flat Earth [[Wikipedia:Trigonometry|trig]].<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Calculating the FE elevation angle ===<br />
Once a mountain peak and observer location is selected, the [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]] (which uses spherical geometry) is used to compute the distance between the the two locations. The elevation angle assuming flat Earth can then be calculated using:<br />
<br />
<math>\theta=\arctan\frac{\Delta h}{d} </math><br />
<br />
Where &Delta;h is the difference in elevation between the observer and peak, and d is the horizontal distance between the observer and mountain. It's important to note that in this step, the horizontal distance is assumed to be flat despite having obtained this value under the assumption that earth is spherical.<br />
<br />
=== Timing the occultation of a star ===<br />
The observer then waits for a star to disappear behind the mountain peak, then notes the exact time of the occultation. That's it for this step. This is ''all'' the data that needs to be collected for CT.<br />
<br />
=== Finding the predicted altitude angle of the star ===<br />
The "predicted" [[Wikipedia:Horizontal coordinate system|altitude angle]] of the star at the time of occultation is computed in Stellarium. Flerf proponents of CT do not set the observer location in Stellarium to the actual observer location, they set it to the location of the mountain peak. They claim that this is because on flat Earth, the geometric altitude angle of the star at the observer location is the same as that at the mountain peak at the time of occultation. While this is true in theory there are two issues with this:<br />
1. flerfs are ignoring the effects of atmospheric refraction<br />
2. Stellarium doesn't f*cking use flat Earth to predict star angles<br />
<br />
== List of globe earth assumptions ==<br />
The CT method as proposed by flerfs uses several globe earth assumptions and calculations, including:<br />
*The distance between the observer and the mountain (see: [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]])<br />
*The predicted altitude angle of the star<br />
*The amount of astronomical refraction<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE</ref><br />
*Stellarium being accurate whatsoever, given it uses globe earth to make predictions<br />
This list is a confirmation of the First [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== references ==</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Flerfraction&diff=7168Flerfraction2026-04-27T04:35:44Z<p>Washcarso: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Atmospheric refraction - sunset and sunrise.png|thumb|Atmospheric refraction raises the apparent position of astronomical objects near the horizon, as well as causing a slight vertical compression]]<br />
'''Atmospheric Refraction''' is the bending of light within [[Wikipedia:Atmosphere of Earth|Earth's atmosphere]] due to variations in air density.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction</ref><br />
Flerfs generally have no clue how atmospheric refraction actually works, so they use it ('''flerfraction''') to explain phenomena which are impossible on a flat Earth, such as:<br />
*sunsets/rises and moonsets/rises<br />
*why stars can't be seen from particular locations (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Polaris|Polaris]] from the southern hemisphere)<br />
*why objects beyond the horizon are obstructed<br />
*why the [https://mctoon.net/horizon-does-not-rise-to-eye-level/ horizon appears below eye level]<br />
*the existence of the south [[Wikipedia:Celestial pole|celestial pole]]<br />
*why the sun and moon do not change in angular size<br />
*[[Star Trails|star trails]] always being perfectly circular<br />
<br />
Not all flerfs use flerfraction to explain the above phenomena; those who don't generally invoke [[Flerfspective|flerfspective]].<br />
<br />
Flerfs often deny the presence of refraction when presenting observations of "missing curvature", while simultaneously using it to explain observations that are impossible on flat Earth. This is an example of the Third [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== Atmospheric "Magnification" ==<br />
[[File:Karen Nyberg water bubble.jpeg|thumb|A spherical water bubble causes astronaut [[Wikipedia:Karen Nyberg|Karen Nyberg]]'s face to appear upside-down]]<br />
Many flerfs claim the atmosphere can magnify things like a [[Wikipedia:Magnifying glass|magnifying glass]].<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tflhWwoqWAw&t=460s</ref> This is partly because they think the term "'''atmospheric lensing'''" (which generally means the same thing as '''atmospheric refraction''') literally means the atmosphere acts like a [[Wikipedia:Lens#Construction of simple lenses#Types of simple lenses|bioconvex lens]]. Flerfs use this to explain why objects can appear obstructed by the horizon.<br />
<br />
In reality, there is no mechanism by which the atmosphere can act this way. Because gravity causes air pressure (which is [[Ideal Gas Law|closely correlated to air density]]) to change as a function of height<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure#mechanism</ref>, objects can only appear to be compressed (or stretched in [https://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirsims/loom/loom.html#towering rare cases]) in the vertical direction. Some flerfs propose the mechanism for atmospheric "magnification" is water droplets in the air. While a singular water droplet can act like a lens, flerfs don't realise that a collection of many water droplets does not equal one big lens. There is also the issue that a round water droplet causes the refracted image to appear upside-down.<br />
<br />
== Walter Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model ==<br />
[[File:WalterBislin dome model absurd starlight bending.png|thumb|Walter Bislin's model showing the impossible paths light would have to take.]]<br />
Flerfs have [[Plagiarism of Walter Bislin's model|plagiarised Walter Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model]], claiming it is a working model of flat Earth. In reality, the simulation shows how light would need to bend in impossible ways for flat Earth to make any sense. <br />
Flerfs that subscribe to this model believe the light bending is made possible due to '''flerfraction''' and/or some firmament-related magic.<br />
<br />
== Useful Resources ==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Resource !! Author !! Notes<br />
|-<br />
| [https://stellarium.org/ Stellarium] ||See [https://stellarium.org/ ''developers''] ||Astronomy software which factors in standard atmospheric refraction when calculating the apparent position of astronomical objects.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Simulation+of+Atmospheric+Refraction Simulation of Atmospheric Refraction] || Walter Bislin || Comprehensive calculator for terrestrial refraction. Shows a visual comparison between globe Earth and flat Earth predictions.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator Advanced Earth Curvature Calculator] || Walter Bislin || Comprehensive calculator for earth curvature, with the option to factor in atmospheric refraction.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://www.metabunk.org/refraction/ Metabunk Refraction Simulator] || [[Wikipedia:Mick West|Mick West]] || See how temperature profile affects refraction in the atmosphere.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== references ==<br />
<references/></div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Flerfraction&diff=7167Flerfraction2026-04-27T04:29:32Z<p>Washcarso: /* Atmospheric "Magnification" */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Atmospheric refraction - sunset and sunrise.png|thumb|Atmospheric refraction raises the apparent position of astronomical objects near the horizon, as well as causing a slight vertical compression]]<br />
'''Atmospheric Refraction''' is the bending of light within [[Wikipedia:Atmosphere of Earth|Earth's atmosphere]] due to variations in air density.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction</ref><br />
Flerfs generally have no clue how atmospheric refraction actually works, so they use it ('''flerfraction''') to explain phenomena which are actually impossible on a flat Earth, such as:<br />
*sunsets/rises and moonsets/rises<br />
*why stars can't be seen from particular locations (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Polaris|Polaris]] from the southern hemisphere)<br />
*why objects beyond the horizon are obstructed<br />
*why the [https://mctoon.net/horizon-does-not-rise-to-eye-level/ horizon appears below eye level]<br />
*the existence of the south [[Wikipedia:Celestial pole|celestial pole]]<br />
*why the sun and moon do not change in angular size<br />
*[[Star Trails|star trails]] always being perfectly circular<br />
<br />
Not all flerfs use flerfraction to explain the above phenomena; those who don't generally invoke [[Flerfspective|flerfspective]].<br />
<br />
Flerfs often deny the presence of refraction when presenting observations of "missing curvature", while simultaneously using it to explain observations that are impossible on flat Earth. This is an example of the Third [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== Atmospheric "Magnification" ==<br />
[[File:Karen Nyberg water bubble.jpeg|thumb|A spherical water bubble causes astronaut [[Wikipedia:Karen Nyberg|Karen Nyberg]]'s face to appear upside-down]]<br />
Many flerfs claim the atmosphere can magnify things like a [[Wikipedia:Magnifying glass|magnifying glass]].<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tflhWwoqWAw&t=460s</ref> This is partly because they think the term "'''atmospheric lensing'''" (which generally means the same thing as '''atmospheric refraction''') literally means the atmosphere acts like a [[Wikipedia:Lens#Construction of simple lenses#Types of simple lenses|bioconvex lens]]. Flerfs use this to explain why objects can appear obstructed by the horizon.<br />
<br />
In reality, there is no mechanism by which the atmosphere can act this way. Because gravity causes air pressure (which is [[Ideal Gas Law|closely correlated to air density]]) to change as a function of height<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure#mechanism</ref>, objects can only appear to be compressed (or stretched in [https://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirsims/loom/loom.html#towering rare cases]) in the vertical direction. Some flerfs propose the mechanism for atmospheric "magnification" is water droplets in the air. While a singular water droplet can act like a lens, flerfs don't realise that a collection of many water droplets does not equal one big lens. There is also the issue that a round water droplet causes the refracted image to appear upside-down.<br />
<br />
== Walter Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model ==<br />
[[File:WalterBislin dome model absurd starlight bending.png|thumb|Walter Bislin's model showing the impossible paths light would have to take.]]<br />
Flerfs have [[Plagiarism of Walter Bislin's model|plagiarised Walter Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model]], claiming it is a working model of flat Earth. In reality, the simulation shows how light would need to bend in impossible ways for flat Earth to make any sense. <br />
Flerfs that subscribe to this model believe the light bending is made possible due to '''flerfraction''' and/or some firmament-related magic.<br />
<br />
== Useful Resources ==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Resource !! Author !! Notes<br />
|-<br />
| [https://stellarium.org/ Stellarium] ||See [https://stellarium.org/ ''developers''] ||Astronomy software which factors in standard atmospheric refraction when calculating the apparent position of astronomical objects.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Simulation+of+Atmospheric+Refraction Simulation of Atmospheric Refraction] || Walter Bislin || Comprehensive calculator for terrestrial refraction. Shows a visual comparison between globe Earth and flat Earth predictions.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator Advanced Earth Curvature Calculator] || Walter Bislin || Comprehensive calculator for earth curvature, with the option to factor in atmospheric refraction.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://www.metabunk.org/refraction/ Metabunk Refraction Simulator] || [[Wikipedia:Mick West|Mick West]] || See how temperature profile affects refraction in the atmosphere.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== references ==<br />
<references/></div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Flerfraction&diff=7166Flerfraction2026-04-27T04:28:55Z<p>Washcarso: /* Atmospheric "Magnification" */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Atmospheric refraction - sunset and sunrise.png|thumb|Atmospheric refraction raises the apparent position of astronomical objects near the horizon, as well as causing a slight vertical compression]]<br />
'''Atmospheric Refraction''' is the bending of light within [[Wikipedia:Atmosphere of Earth|Earth's atmosphere]] due to variations in air density.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction</ref><br />
Flerfs generally have no clue how atmospheric refraction actually works, so they use it ('''flerfraction''') to explain phenomena which are actually impossible on a flat Earth, such as:<br />
*sunsets/rises and moonsets/rises<br />
*why stars can't be seen from particular locations (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Polaris|Polaris]] from the southern hemisphere)<br />
*why objects beyond the horizon are obstructed<br />
*why the [https://mctoon.net/horizon-does-not-rise-to-eye-level/ horizon appears below eye level]<br />
*the existence of the south [[Wikipedia:Celestial pole|celestial pole]]<br />
*why the sun and moon do not change in angular size<br />
*[[Star Trails|star trails]] always being perfectly circular<br />
<br />
Not all flerfs use flerfraction to explain the above phenomena; those who don't generally invoke [[Flerfspective|flerfspective]].<br />
<br />
Flerfs often deny the presence of refraction when presenting observations of "missing curvature", while simultaneously using it to explain observations that are impossible on flat Earth. This is an example of the Third [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== Atmospheric "Magnification" ==<br />
Many flerfs claim the atmosphere can magnify things like a [[Wikipedia:Magnifying glass|magnifying glass]].<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tflhWwoqWAw&t=460s</ref> This is partly because they think the term "'''atmospheric lensing'''" (which generally means the same thing as '''atmospheric refraction''') literally means the atmosphere acts like a [[Wikipedia:Lens#Construction of simple lenses#Types of simple lenses|bioconvex lens]]. Flerfs use this to explain why objects can appear obstructed by the horizon.<br />
[[File:Karen Nyberg water bubble.jpeg|thumb|A spherical water bubble causes astronaut [[Wikipedia:Karen Nyberg|Karen Nyberg]]'s face to appear upside-down]]<br />
<br />
In reality, there is no mechanism by which the atmosphere can act this way. Because gravity causes air pressure (which is [[Ideal Gas Law|closely correlated to air density]]) to change as a function of height<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure#mechanism</ref>, objects can only appear to be compressed (or stretched in [https://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirsims/loom/loom.html#towering rare cases]) in the vertical direction. Some flerfs propose the mechanism for atmospheric "magnification" is water droplets in the air. While a singular water droplet can act like a lens, flerfs don't realise that a collection of many water droplets does not equal one big lens. There is also the issue that a round water droplet causes the refracted image to appear upside-down.<br />
<br />
== Walter Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model ==<br />
[[File:WalterBislin dome model absurd starlight bending.png|thumb|Walter Bislin's model showing the impossible paths light would have to take.]]<br />
Flerfs have [[Plagiarism of Walter Bislin's model|plagiarised Walter Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model]], claiming it is a working model of flat Earth. In reality, the simulation shows how light would need to bend in impossible ways for flat Earth to make any sense. <br />
Flerfs that subscribe to this model believe the light bending is made possible due to '''flerfraction''' and/or some firmament-related magic.<br />
<br />
== Useful Resources ==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Resource !! Author !! Notes<br />
|-<br />
| [https://stellarium.org/ Stellarium] ||See [https://stellarium.org/ ''developers''] ||Astronomy software which factors in standard atmospheric refraction when calculating the apparent position of astronomical objects.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Simulation+of+Atmospheric+Refraction Simulation of Atmospheric Refraction] || Walter Bislin || Comprehensive calculator for terrestrial refraction. Shows a visual comparison between globe Earth and flat Earth predictions.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator Advanced Earth Curvature Calculator] || Walter Bislin || Comprehensive calculator for earth curvature, with the option to factor in atmospheric refraction.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://www.metabunk.org/refraction/ Metabunk Refraction Simulator] || [[Wikipedia:Mick West|Mick West]] || See how temperature profile affects refraction in the atmosphere.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== references ==<br />
<references/></div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=File:Karen_Nyberg_water_bubble.jpeg&diff=7163File:Karen Nyberg water bubble.jpeg2026-04-27T04:26:28Z<p>Washcarso: From Wikimedia Commons: NASA astronaut Karen Nyberg watches a water bubble float freely between her and the camera, showing her image refracted in the droplet, Feb. 7, 2018.</p>
<hr />
<div>== Summary ==<br />
From Wikimedia Commons: NASA astronaut Karen Nyberg watches a water bubble float freely between her and the camera, showing her image refracted in the droplet, Feb. 7, 2018.</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Flerfraction&diff=7158Flerfraction2026-04-27T04:24:46Z<p>Washcarso: /* Atmospheric "Magnification" */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Atmospheric refraction - sunset and sunrise.png|thumb|Atmospheric refraction raises the apparent position of astronomical objects near the horizon, as well as causing a slight vertical compression]]<br />
'''Atmospheric Refraction''' is the bending of light within [[Wikipedia:Atmosphere of Earth|Earth's atmosphere]] due to variations in air density.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction</ref><br />
Flerfs generally have no clue how atmospheric refraction actually works, so they use it ('''flerfraction''') to explain phenomena which are actually impossible on a flat Earth, such as:<br />
*sunsets/rises and moonsets/rises<br />
*why stars can't be seen from particular locations (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Polaris|Polaris]] from the southern hemisphere)<br />
*why objects beyond the horizon are obstructed<br />
*why the [https://mctoon.net/horizon-does-not-rise-to-eye-level/ horizon appears below eye level]<br />
*the existence of the south [[Wikipedia:Celestial pole|celestial pole]]<br />
*why the sun and moon do not change in angular size<br />
*[[Star Trails|star trails]] always being perfectly circular<br />
<br />
Not all flerfs use flerfraction to explain the above phenomena; those who don't generally invoke [[Flerfspective|flerfspective]].<br />
<br />
Flerfs often deny the presence of refraction when presenting observations of "missing curvature", while simultaneously using it to explain observations that are impossible on flat Earth. This is an example of the Third [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== Atmospheric "Magnification" ==<br />
Many flerfs claim the atmosphere can magnify things like a [[Wikipedia:Magnifying glass|magnifying glass]].<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tflhWwoqWAw&t=460s</ref> This is partly because they think the term "'''atmospheric lensing'''" (which generally means the same thing as '''atmospheric refraction''') literally means the atmosphere acts like a [[Wikipedia:Lens#Construction of simple lenses#Types of simple lenses|bioconvex lens]]. Flerfs use this to explain why objects can appear obstructed by the horizon.<br />
<br />
In reality, there is no mechanism by which the atmosphere can act this way. Because gravity causes air pressure (which is [[Ideal Gas Law|closely correlated to air density]]) to change as a function of height<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure#mechanism</ref>, objects can only appear to be compressed (or stretched in [https://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirsims/loom/loom.html#towering rare cases]) in the vertical direction. Some flerfs propose the mechanism for atmospheric "magnification" is water droplets in the air. While a singular water droplet can act like a lens, flerfs don't realise that a collection of many water droplets does not equal one big lens. There is also the issue that a round water droplet causes the refracted image to appear upside-down.<br />
<br />
== Walter Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model ==<br />
[[File:WalterBislin dome model absurd starlight bending.png|thumb|Walter Bislin's model showing the impossible paths light would have to take.]]<br />
Flerfs have [[Plagiarism of Walter Bislin's model|plagiarised Walter Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model]], claiming it is a working model of flat Earth. In reality, the simulation shows how light would need to bend in impossible ways for flat Earth to make any sense. <br />
Flerfs that subscribe to this model believe the light bending is made possible due to '''flerfraction''' and/or some firmament-related magic.<br />
<br />
== Useful Resources ==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Resource !! Author !! Notes<br />
|-<br />
| [https://stellarium.org/ Stellarium] ||See [https://stellarium.org/ ''developers''] ||Astronomy software which factors in standard atmospheric refraction when calculating the apparent position of astronomical objects.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Simulation+of+Atmospheric+Refraction Simulation of Atmospheric Refraction] || Walter Bislin || Comprehensive calculator for terrestrial refraction. Shows a visual comparison between globe Earth and flat Earth predictions.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator Advanced Earth Curvature Calculator] || Walter Bislin || Comprehensive calculator for earth curvature, with the option to factor in atmospheric refraction.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://www.metabunk.org/refraction/ Metabunk Refraction Simulator] || [[Wikipedia:Mick West|Mick West]] || See how temperature profile affects refraction in the atmosphere.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== references ==<br />
<references/></div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Flerfraction&diff=7156Flerfraction2026-04-27T04:18:25Z<p>Washcarso: /* Atmospheric "Magnification" */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Atmospheric refraction - sunset and sunrise.png|thumb|Atmospheric refraction raises the apparent position of astronomical objects near the horizon, as well as causing a slight vertical compression]]<br />
'''Atmospheric Refraction''' is the bending of light within [[Wikipedia:Atmosphere of Earth|Earth's atmosphere]] due to variations in air density.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction</ref><br />
Flerfs generally have no clue how atmospheric refraction actually works, so they use it ('''flerfraction''') to explain phenomena which are actually impossible on a flat Earth, such as:<br />
*sunsets/rises and moonsets/rises<br />
*why stars can't be seen from particular locations (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Polaris|Polaris]] from the southern hemisphere)<br />
*why objects beyond the horizon are obstructed<br />
*why the [https://mctoon.net/horizon-does-not-rise-to-eye-level/ horizon appears below eye level]<br />
*the existence of the south [[Wikipedia:Celestial pole|celestial pole]]<br />
*why the sun and moon do not change in angular size<br />
*[[Star Trails|star trails]] always being perfectly circular<br />
<br />
Not all flerfs use flerfraction to explain the above phenomena; those who don't generally invoke [[Flerfspective|flerfspective]].<br />
<br />
Flerfs often deny the presence of refraction when presenting observations of "missing curvature", while simultaneously using it to explain observations that are impossible on flat Earth. This is an example of the Third [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== Atmospheric "Magnification" ==<br />
Many flerfs claim the atmosphere can magnify things like a [[Wikipedia:Magnifying glass|magnifying glass]].<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tflhWwoqWAw&t=460s</ref> This is partly because they think the term "'''atmospheric lensing'''" (which generally means the same thing as '''atmospheric refraction''') literally means the atmosphere acts like a [[Wikipedia:Lens#Construction of simple lenses#Types of simple lenses|bioconvex lens]]. Flerfs use this to explain why objects can appear obstructed by the horizon.<br />
<br />
In reality, there is no mechanism by which the atmosphere can act this way. Because gravity causes air pressure (which is [[Ideal Gas Law|closely correlated to air density]]) to change as a function of height<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure#mechanism</ref>, objects can only appear to be compressed (or stretched in [https://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirsims/loom/loom.html#towering rare cases]) in the vertical direction. Some flerfs propose the mechanism for atmospheric "magnification" is water droplets in the air. While a singular water droplet can act like a lens, flerfs don't realise that a collection of many water droplets does not equal one big lens.<br />
<br />
== Walter Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model ==<br />
[[File:WalterBislin dome model absurd starlight bending.png|thumb|Walter Bislin's model showing the impossible paths light would have to take.]]<br />
Flerfs have [[Plagiarism of Walter Bislin's model|plagiarised Walter Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model]], claiming it is a working model of flat Earth. In reality, the simulation shows how light would need to bend in impossible ways for flat Earth to make any sense. <br />
Flerfs that subscribe to this model believe the light bending is made possible due to '''flerfraction''' and/or some firmament-related magic.<br />
<br />
== Useful Resources ==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Resource !! Author !! Notes<br />
|-<br />
| [https://stellarium.org/ Stellarium] ||See [https://stellarium.org/ ''developers''] ||Astronomy software which factors in standard atmospheric refraction when calculating the apparent position of astronomical objects.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Simulation+of+Atmospheric+Refraction Simulation of Atmospheric Refraction] || Walter Bislin || Comprehensive calculator for terrestrial refraction. Shows a visual comparison between globe Earth and flat Earth predictions.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator Advanced Earth Curvature Calculator] || Walter Bislin || Comprehensive calculator for earth curvature, with the option to factor in atmospheric refraction.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://www.metabunk.org/refraction/ Metabunk Refraction Simulator] || [[Wikipedia:Mick West|Mick West]] || See how temperature profile affects refraction in the atmosphere.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== references ==<br />
<references/></div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Flerfraction&diff=7155Flerfraction2026-04-27T04:09:11Z<p>Washcarso: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Atmospheric refraction - sunset and sunrise.png|thumb|Atmospheric refraction raises the apparent position of astronomical objects near the horizon, as well as causing a slight vertical compression]]<br />
'''Atmospheric Refraction''' is the bending of light within [[Wikipedia:Atmosphere of Earth|Earth's atmosphere]] due to variations in air density.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction</ref><br />
Flerfs generally have no clue how atmospheric refraction actually works, so they use it ('''flerfraction''') to explain phenomena which are actually impossible on a flat Earth, such as:<br />
*sunsets/rises and moonsets/rises<br />
*why stars can't be seen from particular locations (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Polaris|Polaris]] from the southern hemisphere)<br />
*why objects beyond the horizon are obstructed<br />
*why the [https://mctoon.net/horizon-does-not-rise-to-eye-level/ horizon appears below eye level]<br />
*the existence of the south [[Wikipedia:Celestial pole|celestial pole]]<br />
*why the sun and moon do not change in angular size<br />
*[[Star Trails|star trails]] always being perfectly circular<br />
<br />
Not all flerfs use flerfraction to explain the above phenomena; those who don't generally invoke [[Flerfspective|flerfspective]].<br />
<br />
Flerfs often deny the presence of refraction when presenting observations of "missing curvature", while simultaneously using it to explain observations that are impossible on flat Earth. This is an example of the Third [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== Atmospheric "Magnification" ==<br />
Many flerfs claim the atmosphere can magnify things like a [[Wikipedia:Magnifying glass|magnifying glass]].<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tflhWwoqWAw&t=460s</ref> This is partly because they think the term "'''atmospheric lensing'''" (which generally means the same thing as '''atmospheric refraction''') literally means the atmosphere acts like a [[Wikipedia:Lens#Construction of simple lenses#Types of simple lenses|bioconvex lens]]. Flerfs use this to explain why objects can appear obstructed by the horizon.<br />
<br />
In reality, there is no mechanism by which the atmosphere can act this way. Because gravity causes air density to change as a function of height, objects can only appear to be compressed (or stretched in [https://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirsims/loom/loom.html#towering rare cases]) in the vertical direction. Some flerfs propose the mechanism for atmospheric "magnification" is water droplets in the air. While a singular water droplet can act like a lens, flerfs don't realise that a collection of many water droplets does not equal one big lens.<br />
<br />
== Walter Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model ==<br />
[[File:WalterBislin dome model absurd starlight bending.png|thumb|Walter Bislin's model showing the impossible paths light would have to take.]]<br />
Flerfs have [[Plagiarism of Walter Bislin's model|plagiarised Walter Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model]], claiming it is a working model of flat Earth. In reality, the simulation shows how light would need to bend in impossible ways for flat Earth to make any sense. <br />
Flerfs that subscribe to this model believe the light bending is made possible due to '''flerfraction''' and/or some firmament-related magic.<br />
<br />
== Useful Resources ==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Resource !! Author !! Notes<br />
|-<br />
| [https://stellarium.org/ Stellarium] ||See [https://stellarium.org/ ''developers''] ||Astronomy software which factors in standard atmospheric refraction when calculating the apparent position of astronomical objects.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Simulation+of+Atmospheric+Refraction Simulation of Atmospheric Refraction] || Walter Bislin || Comprehensive calculator for terrestrial refraction. Shows a visual comparison between globe Earth and flat Earth predictions.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator Advanced Earth Curvature Calculator] || Walter Bislin || Comprehensive calculator for earth curvature, with the option to factor in atmospheric refraction.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://www.metabunk.org/refraction/ Metabunk Refraction Simulator] || [[Wikipedia:Mick West|Mick West]] || See how temperature profile affects refraction in the atmosphere.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== references ==<br />
<references/></div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Flerfraction&diff=7154Flerfraction2026-04-27T04:07:28Z<p>Washcarso: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Atmospheric refraction - sunset and sunrise.png|thumb|Atmospheric refraction raises the apparent position of astronomical objects near the horizon, as well as causing a slight vertical compression]]<br />
'''Atmospheric Refraction''' is the bending of light within [[Wikipedia:Atmosphere of Earth|Earth's atmosphere]] due to variations in air density.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction</ref><br />
Flerfs generally have no clue how atmospheric refraction actually works, so they use it ('''flerfraction''') to explain phenomena which are actually impossible on a flat Earth, such as:<br />
*sunsets/rises and moonsets/rises<br />
*why stars can't be seen from particular locations (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Polaris|Polaris]] from the southern hemisphere)<br />
*why objects beyond the horizon are obstructed<br />
*why the [https://mctoon.net/horizon-does-not-rise-to-eye-level/ horizon appears below eye level]<br />
*the existence of the south [[Wikipedia:Celestial pole|celestial pole]]<br />
*why the sun and moon do not change in angular size<br />
*[[Star Trails|star trails]] always being perfectly circular<br />
<br />
Not all flerfs use flerfraction to explain the above phenomena; those who don't generally invoke [[Flerfspective|flerfspective]].<br />
<br />
Flerfs often deny the presence of refraction when presenting observations of "missing curvature", while simultaneously using it to explain observations that are impossible on flat Earth. This is an example of the Third [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== Atmospheric "Magnification" ==<br />
Many flerfs claim the atmosphere can magnify things like a [[Wikipedia:Magnifying glass|magnifying glass]].<ref>https://https://youtu.be/tflhWwoqWAw?t=7m40s</ref> This is partly because they think the term "'''atmospheric lensing'''" (which generally means the same thing as '''atmospheric refraction''') literally means the atmosphere acts like a [[Wikipedia:Lens#Construction of simple lenses#Types of simple lenses|bioconvex lens]]. Flerfs use this to explain why objects can appear obstructed by the horizon.<br />
<br />
In reality, there is no mechanism by which the atmosphere can act this way. Because gravity causes air density to change as a function of height, objects can only appear to be compressed (or stretched in [https://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirsims/loom/loom.html#towering rare cases]) in the vertical direction. Some flerfs propose the mechanism for atmospheric "magnification" is water droplets in the air. While a singular water droplet can act like a lens, flerfs don't realise that a collection of many water droplets does not equal one big lens.<br />
<br />
== Walter Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model ==<br />
[[File:WalterBislin dome model absurd starlight bending.png|thumb|Walter Bislin's model showing the impossible paths light would have to take.]]<br />
Flerfs have [[Plagiarism of Walter Bislin's model|plagiarised Walter Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model]], claiming it is a working model of flat Earth. In reality, the simulation shows how light would need to bend in impossible ways for flat Earth to make any sense. <br />
Flerfs that subscribe to this model believe the light bending is made possible due to '''flerfraction''' and/or some firmament-related magic.<br />
<br />
== Useful Resources ==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Resource !! Author !! Notes<br />
|-<br />
| [https://stellarium.org/ Stellarium] ||See [https://stellarium.org/ ''developers''] ||Astronomy software which factors in standard atmospheric refraction when calculating the apparent position of astronomical objects.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Simulation+of+Atmospheric+Refraction Simulation of Atmospheric Refraction] || Walter Bislin || Comprehensive calculator for terrestrial refraction. Shows a visual comparison between globe Earth and flat Earth predictions.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator Advanced Earth Curvature Calculator] || Walter Bislin || Comprehensive calculator for earth curvature, with the option to factor in atmospheric refraction.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://www.metabunk.org/refraction/ Metabunk Refraction Simulator] || [[Wikipedia:Mick West|Mick West]] || See how temperature profile affects refraction in the atmosphere.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== references ==<br />
<references/></div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Flerfraction&diff=7153Flerfraction2026-04-27T04:04:42Z<p>Washcarso: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Atmospheric refraction - sunset and sunrise.png|thumb|Atmospheric refraction raises the apparent position of astronomical objects near the horizon, as well as causing a slight vertical compression]]<br />
'''Atmospheric Refraction''' is the bending of light within [[Wikipedia:Atmosphere of Earth|Earth's atmosphere]] due to variations in air density.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction</ref><br />
Flerfs generally have no clue how atmospheric refraction actually works, so they use it ('''flerfraction''') to explain phenomena which are actually impossible on a flat Earth, such as:<br />
*sunsets/rises and moonsets/rises<br />
*why stars can't be seen from particular locations (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Polaris|Polaris]] from the southern hemisphere)<br />
*why objects beyond the horizon are obstructed<br />
*why the [https://mctoon.net/horizon-does-not-rise-to-eye-level/ horizon appears below eye level]<br />
*the existence of the south [[Wikipedia:Celestial pole|celestial pole]]<br />
*why the sun and moon do not change in angular size<br />
*[[Star Trails|star trails]] always being perfectly circular<br />
<br />
Not all flerfs use flerfraction to explain the above phenomena; those who don't generally invoke [[Flerfspective|flerfspective]].<br />
<br />
Flerfs often deny the presence of refraction when presenting observations of "missing curvature", while simultaneously using it to explain observations that are impossible on flat Earth. This is an example of the Third [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== Atmospheric "Magnification" ==<br />
Many flerfs claim the atmosphere can magnify things like a [[Wikipedia:Magnifying glass|magnifying glass]].<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmUD4VH19Lk</ref> This is partly because they think the term "'''atmospheric lensing'''" (which generally means the same thing as '''atmospheric refraction''') literally means the atmosphere acts like a [[Wikipedia:Lens#Construction of simple lenses#Types of simple lenses|bioconvex lens]]. Flerfs use this to explain why objects can appear obstructed by the horizon.<br />
<br />
In reality, there is no mechanism by which the atmosphere can act this way. Because gravity causes air density to change as a function of height, objects can only appear to be compressed (or stretched in [https://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirsims/loom/loom.html#towering rare cases]) in the vertical direction. Some flerfs propose the mechanism for atmospheric "magnification" is water droplets in the air. While a singular water droplet can act like a lens, flerfs don't realise that a collection of many water droplets does not equal one big lens.<br />
<br />
== Walter Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model ==<br />
[[File:WalterBislin dome model absurd starlight bending.png|thumb|Walter Bislin's model showing the impossible paths light would have to take.]]<br />
Flerfs have [[Plagiarism of Walter Bislin's model|plagiarised Walter Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model]], claiming it is a working model of flat Earth. In reality, the simulation shows how light would need to bend in impossible ways for flat Earth to make any sense. <br />
Flerfs that subscribe to this model believe the light bending is made possible due to '''flerfraction''' and/or some firmament-related magic.<br />
<br />
== Useful Resources ==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Resource !! Author !! Notes<br />
|-<br />
| [https://stellarium.org/ Stellarium] ||See [https://stellarium.org/ ''developers''] ||Astronomy software which factors in standard atmospheric refraction when calculating the apparent position of astronomical objects.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Simulation+of+Atmospheric+Refraction Simulation of Atmospheric Refraction] || Walter Bislin || Comprehensive calculator for terrestrial refraction. Shows a visual comparison between globe Earth and flat Earth predictions.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator Advanced Earth Curvature Calculator] || Walter Bislin || Comprehensive calculator for earth curvature, with the option to factor in atmospheric refraction.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://www.metabunk.org/refraction/ Metabunk Refraction Simulator] || [[Wikipedia:Mick West|Mick West]] || See how temperature profile affects refraction in the atmosphere.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== references ==<br />
<references/></div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Flerfraction&diff=7152Flerfraction2026-04-27T04:02:39Z<p>Washcarso: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Atmospheric refraction - sunset and sunrise.png|thumb|Atmospheric refraction generally raises the apparent position of astronomical objects near the horizon, as well as causing a slight vertical compression]]<br />
'''Atmospheric Refraction''' is the bending of light within [[Wikipedia:Atmosphere of Earth|Earth's atmosphere]] due to variations in air density.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction</ref><br />
Flerfs generally have no clue how atmospheric refraction actually works, so they use it ('''flerfraction''') to explain phenomena which are actually impossible on a flat Earth, such as:<br />
*sunsets/rises and moonsets/rises<br />
*why stars can't be seen from particular locations (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Polaris|Polaris]] from the southern hemisphere)<br />
*why objects beyond the horizon are obstructed<br />
*why the [https://mctoon.net/horizon-does-not-rise-to-eye-level/ horizon appears below eye level]<br />
*the existence of the south [[Wikipedia:Celestial pole|celestial pole]]<br />
*why the sun and moon do not change in angular size<br />
*[[Star Trails|star trails]] always being perfectly circular<br />
<br />
Not all flerfs use flerfraction to explain the above phenomena; those who don't generally invoke [[Flerfspective|flerfspective]].<br />
<br />
Flerfs often deny the presence of refraction when presenting observations of "missing curvature", while simultaneously using it to explain observations that are impossible on flat Earth. This is an example of the Third [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== Atmospheric "Magnification" ==<br />
Many flerfs claim the atmosphere can magnify things like a [[Wikipedia:Magnifying glass|magnifying glass]].<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmUD4VH19Lk</ref> This is partly because they think the term "'''atmospheric lensing'''" (which generally means the same thing as '''atmospheric refraction''') literally means the atmosphere acts like a [[Wikipedia:Lens#Construction of simple lenses#Types of simple lenses|bioconvex lens]]. Flerfs use this to explain why objects can appear obstructed by the horizon.<br />
<br />
In reality, there is no mechanism by which the atmosphere can act this way. Because gravity causes air density to change as a function of height, objects can only appear to be compressed (or stretched in [https://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirsims/loom/loom.html#towering rare cases]) in the vertical direction. Some flerfs propose the mechanism for atmospheric "magnification" is water droplets in the air. While a singular water droplet can act like a lens, flerfs don't realise that a collection of many water droplets does not equal one big lens.<br />
<br />
== Walter Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model ==<br />
[[File:WalterBislin dome model absurd starlight bending.png|thumb|Walter Bislin's model showing the impossible paths light would have to take.]]<br />
Flerfs have [[Plagiarism of Walter Bislin's model|plagiarised Walter Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model]], claiming it is a working model of flat Earth. In reality, the simulation shows how light would need to bend in impossible ways for flat Earth to make any sense. <br />
Flerfs that subscribe to this model believe the light bending is made possible due to '''flerfraction''' and/or some firmament-related magic.<br />
<br />
== Useful Resources ==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Resource !! Author !! Notes<br />
|-<br />
| [https://stellarium.org/ Stellarium] ||See [https://stellarium.org/ ''developers''] ||Astronomy software which factors in standard atmospheric refraction when calculating the apparent position of astronomical objects.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Simulation+of+Atmospheric+Refraction Simulation of Atmospheric Refraction] || Walter Bislin || Comprehensive calculator for terrestrial refraction. Shows a visual comparison between globe Earth and flat Earth predictions.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator Advanced Earth Curvature Calculator] || Walter Bislin || Comprehensive calculator for earth curvature, with the option to factor in atmospheric refraction.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://www.metabunk.org/refraction/ Metabunk Refraction Simulator] || [[Wikipedia:Mick West|Mick West]] || See how temperature profile affects refraction in the atmosphere.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== references ==<br />
<references/></div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Celestial_Theodolite&diff=7146Celestial Theodolite2026-04-26T15:50:34Z<p>Washcarso: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''celestial theodolite (CT)''' is a proposed method for verifying Earth's curvature by recording the time that a star is [[Wikipedia:Occultation|occulted]] by a terrestrial object (typically a mountain peak) of known distance and known relative [[Wikipedia:Elevation|elevation]].<ref>https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept</ref> The method was created by [[Mike Heffron]]. Flerfs claim that the CT method produces data that is consistent with a flat Earth and not a globe. Flerfs [[Space Audits]] and [[Shane St. Pierre]] are notable proponents of CT.<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
The CT method ultimately compares the "predicted" elevation angle of the star in Stellarium with the calculated elevation angle of the mountain peak assuming a flat Earth. The only data that is actually collected is the time of occlusion . This is because if flerfs used an [[Wikipedia:Theodolite|actual theodolite]] to measure the elevation angle of the mountain peak, it would confirm the globe.<br />
<br />
As described by [https://www.youtube.com/@roohif roohif]:<br />
<blockquote><br />
Basically they record the time that a star is occluded behind a mountain, perform some fuckery in [[Wikipedia:Stellarium|Stellarium]] to get an angle, then they compare that angle to the raw, flat Earth [[Wikipedia:Trigonometry|trig]].<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Calculating the FE elevation angle ===<br />
Once a mountain peak and observer location is selected, the [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]] (which uses spherical geometry) is used to compute the distance between the the two locations. The elevation angle assuming flat Earth can then be calculated using:<br />
<br />
<math>\theta=\arctan\frac{\Delta h}{d} </math><br />
<br />
Where &Delta;h is the difference in elevation between the observer and peak, and d is the horizontal distance between the observer and mountain. It's important to note that in this step, the horizontal distance is assumed to be flat despite having obtained this value under the assumption that earth is spherical.<br />
<br />
== List of globe earth assumptions ==<br />
The CT method as proposed by flerfs uses several globe earth assumptions and calculations, including:<br />
*The distance between the observer and the mountain (see: [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]])<br />
*The predicted altitude angle of the star<br />
*The amount of astronomical refraction<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE</ref><br />
*Stellarium being accurate whatsoever, given it uses globe earth to make predictions<br />
This list is a confirmation of the First [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== references ==</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Celestial_Theodolite&diff=7145Celestial Theodolite2026-04-26T14:43:32Z<p>Washcarso: /* Method */</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''celestial theodolite (CT)''' is a proposed method for verifying Earth's curvature by recording the time that a star is [[Wikipedia:Occultation|occulted]] by a terrestrial object (typically a mountain peak) of known distance and known relative [[Wikipedia:Elevation|elevation]].<ref>https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept</ref> The method was created by [[Mike Heffron]]. Flerfs claim that the CT method produces data that is consistent with a flat Earth and not a globe. Flerfs [[Space Audits]] and [[Shane St. Pierre]] are notable proponents of CT.<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
The CT method ultimately compares the "predicted" elevation angle of the star in Stellarium with the calculated elevation angle of the mountain peak assuming a flat Earth. The only data that is actually collected is the time of occlusion . This is because if flerfs used an [[Wikipedia:Theodolite|actual theodolite]] to measure the elevation angle of the mountain peak, it would confirm the globe.<br />
<br />
As described by [https://www.youtube.com/@roohif roohif]:<br />
<blockquote><br />
Basically they record the time that a star is occluded behind a mountain, perform some fuckery in [[Wikipedia:Stellarium|Stellarium]] to get an angle, then they compare that angle to the raw, flat Earth [[Wikipedia:Trigonometry|trig]].<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
== List of globe earth assumptions ==<br />
The CT method as proposed by flerfs uses several globe earth assumptions and calculations, including:<br />
*The distance between the observer and the mountain (see: [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]])<br />
*The predicted altitude angle of the star<br />
*The amount of astronomical refraction<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE</ref><br />
*Stellarium being accurate whatsoever, given it uses globe earth to make predictions<br />
This list is a confirmation of the First [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== references ==</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Celestial_Theodolite&diff=7144Celestial Theodolite2026-04-26T14:42:34Z<p>Washcarso: /* Method */</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''celestial theodolite (CT)''' is a proposed method for verifying Earth's curvature by recording the time that a star is [[Wikipedia:Occultation|occulted]] by a terrestrial object (typically a mountain peak) of known distance and known relative [[Wikipedia:Elevation|elevation]].<ref>https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept</ref> The method was created by [[Mike Heffron]]. Flerfs claim that the CT method produces data that is consistent with a flat Earth and not a globe. Flerfs [[Space Audits]] and [[Shane St. Pierre]] are notable proponents of CT.<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
The CT method ultimately compares the "predicted" elevation angle of the star in Stellarium with the calculated elevation angle of the mountain peak assuming a flat Earth. The time of occlusion is the only data that is actually collected. This is because if flerfs used an [[Wikipedia:Theodolite|actual theodolite]] to measure the elevation angle of the mountain peak, it would confirm the globe.<br />
<br />
As described by [https://www.youtube.com/@roohif roohif]:<br />
<blockquote><br />
Basically they record the time that a star is occluded behind a mountain, perform some fuckery in [[Wikipedia:Stellarium|Stellarium]] to get an angle, then they compare that angle to the raw, flat Earth [[Wikipedia:Trigonometry|trig]].<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
== List of globe earth assumptions ==<br />
The CT method as proposed by flerfs uses several globe earth assumptions and calculations, including:<br />
*The distance between the observer and the mountain (see: [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]])<br />
*The predicted altitude angle of the star<br />
*The amount of astronomical refraction<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE</ref><br />
*Stellarium being accurate whatsoever, given it uses globe earth to make predictions<br />
This list is a confirmation of the First [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== references ==</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Celestial_Theodolite&diff=7143Celestial Theodolite2026-04-26T14:35:22Z<p>Washcarso: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''celestial theodolite (CT)''' is a proposed method for verifying Earth's curvature by recording the time that a star is [[Wikipedia:Occultation|occulted]] by a terrestrial object (typically a mountain peak) of known distance and known relative [[Wikipedia:Elevation|elevation]].<ref>https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept</ref> The method was created by [[Mike Heffron]]. Flerfs claim that the CT method produces data that is consistent with a flat Earth and not a globe. Flerfs [[Space Audits]] and [[Shane St. Pierre]] are notable proponents of CT.<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
The CT method ultimately compares the "predicted" elevation angle of the star in Stellarium with the calculated elevation angle of the mountain peak. The time of occlusion is the only data that is actually collected. This is because if flerfs used an [[Wikipedia:Theodolite|actual theodolite]] to measure the elevation angle of the mountain peak, it would confirm the globe.<br />
<br />
As described by [https://www.youtube.com/@roohif roohif]:<br />
<blockquote><br />
Basically they record the time that a star is occluded behind a mountain, perform some fuckery in [[Wikipedia:Stellarium|Stellarium]] to get an angle, then they compare that angle to the raw, flat Earth [[Wikipedia:Trigonometry|trig]].<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
== List of globe earth assumptions ==<br />
The CT method as proposed by flerfs uses several globe earth assumptions and calculations, including:<br />
*The distance between the observer and the mountain (see: [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]])<br />
*The predicted altitude angle of the star<br />
*The amount of astronomical refraction<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE</ref><br />
*Stellarium being accurate whatsoever, given it uses globe earth to make predictions<br />
This list is a confirmation of the First [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== references ==</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Celestial_Theodolite&diff=7142Celestial Theodolite2026-04-26T14:34:48Z<p>Washcarso: /* Method */</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''celestial theodolite (CT)''' is a proposed method for verifying Earth's curvature by recording the time that a star is [[Wikipedia:Occultation|occulted]] by a terrestrial object of known distance and known relative [[Wikipedia:Elevation|elevation]].<ref>https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept</ref> The method was created by [[Mike Heffron]]. Flerfs claim that the CT method produces data that is consistent with a flat Earth and not a globe. Flerfs [[Space Audits]] and [[Shane St. Pierre]] are notable proponents of CT.<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
The CT method ultimately compares the "predicted" elevation angle of the star in Stellarium with the calculated elevation angle of the mountain peak. The time of occlusion is the only data that is actually collected. This is because if flerfs used an [[Wikipedia:Theodolite|actual theodolite]] to measure the elevation angle of the mountain peak, it would confirm the globe.<br />
<br />
As described by [https://www.youtube.com/@roohif roohif]:<br />
<blockquote><br />
Basically they record the time that a star is occluded behind a mountain, perform some fuckery in [[Wikipedia:Stellarium|Stellarium]] to get an angle, then they compare that angle to the raw, flat Earth [[Wikipedia:Trigonometry|trig]].<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
== List of globe earth assumptions ==<br />
The CT method as proposed by flerfs uses several globe earth assumptions and calculations, including:<br />
*The distance between the observer and the mountain (see: [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]])<br />
*The predicted altitude angle of the star<br />
*The amount of astronomical refraction<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE</ref><br />
*Stellarium being accurate whatsoever, given it uses globe earth to make predictions<br />
This list is a confirmation of the First [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== references ==</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Celestial_Theodolite&diff=7141Celestial Theodolite2026-04-26T14:20:43Z<p>Washcarso: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''celestial theodolite (CT)''' is a proposed method for verifying Earth's curvature by recording the time that a star is [[Wikipedia:Occultation|occulted]] by a terrestrial object of known distance and known relative [[Wikipedia:Elevation|elevation]].<ref>https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept</ref> The method was created by [[Mike Heffron]]. Flerfs claim that the CT method produces data that is consistent with a flat Earth and not a globe. Flerfs [[Space Audits]] and [[Shane St. Pierre]] are notable proponents of CT.<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
As described by [https://www.youtube.com/@roohif roohif]:<br />
<blockquote><br />
Basically they record the time that a star is occluded behind a mountain, perform some fuckery in [[Wikipedia:Stellarium|Stellarium]] to get an angle, then they compare that angle to the raw, flat Earth [[Wikipedia:Trigonometry|trig]].<br />
</blockquote><br />
== List of globe earth assumptions ==<br />
The CT method as proposed by flerfs uses several globe earth assumptions and calculations, including:<br />
*The distance between the observer and the mountain (see: [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]])<br />
*The predicted altitude angle of the star<br />
*The amount of astronomical refraction<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE</ref><br />
*Stellarium being accurate whatsoever, given it uses globe earth to make predictions<br />
This list is a confirmation of the First [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== references ==</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Celestial_Theodolite&diff=7140Celestial Theodolite2026-04-26T13:42:58Z<p>Washcarso: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''celestial theodolite (CT)''' is a proposed method for verifying Earth's curvature by recording the time that a star is [[Wikipedia:Occultation|occulted]] by a terrestrial object of known distance and known relative [[Wikipedia:Elevation|elevation]].<ref>https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/99_Old/Celestial-Theodolite/Cel-Theo/Cel-Theo-Concept</ref> Flerfs claim that the CT method produces data that is consistent with a flat Earth and not a globe. Flerfs [[Space Audits]] and [[Shane St. Pierre]] are notable proponents of CT.<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
As described by [https://www.youtube.com/@roohif roohif]:<br />
<blockquote><br />
Basically they record the time that a star is occluded behind a mountain, perform some fuckery in [[Wikipedia:Stellarium|Stellarium]] to get an angle, then they compare that angle to the raw, flat Earth [[Wikipedia:Trigonometry|trig]].<br />
</blockquote><br />
== List of globe earth assumptions ==<br />
The CT method as proposed by flerfs uses several globe earth assumptions and calculations, including:<br />
*The distance between the observer and the mountain (see: [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]])<br />
*The predicted altitude angle of the star<br />
*The amount of astronomical refraction<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE</ref><br />
*Stellarium being accurate whatsoever, given it uses globe earth to make predictions<br />
This list is a confirmation of the First [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== references ==</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Celestial_Theodolite&diff=7139Celestial Theodolite2026-04-26T13:21:25Z<p>Washcarso: /* List of globe earth assumptions */</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''celestial theodolite (CT)''' is a proposed method for verifying Earth's curvature by recording the time that a star is [[Wikipedia:Occultation|occulted]] by a terrestrial object of known distance and known relative [[Wikipedia:Elevation|elevation]].<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
As described by [https://www.youtube.com/@roohif roohif]:<br />
<blockquote><br />
Basically they record the time that a star is occluded behind a mountain, perform some fuckery in [[Wikipedia:Stellarium|Stellarium]] to get an angle, then they compare that angle to the raw, flat Earth [[Wikipedia:Trigonometry|trig]].<br />
</blockquote><br />
== List of globe earth assumptions ==<br />
The CT method as proposed by flerfs uses several globe earth assumptions and calculations, including:<br />
*The distance between the observer and the mountain (see: [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]])<br />
*The predicted altitude angle of the star<br />
*The amount of astronomical refraction<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE</ref><br />
*Stellarium being accurate whatsoever, given it uses globe earth to make predictions<br />
This list is a confirmation of the First [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== references ==</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Celestial_Theodolite&diff=7138Celestial Theodolite2026-04-26T13:15:30Z<p>Washcarso: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''celestial theodolite (CT)''' is a proposed method for verifying Earth's curvature by recording the time that a star is [[Wikipedia:Occultation|occulted]] by a terrestrial object of known distance and known relative [[Wikipedia:Elevation|elevation]].<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
As described by [https://www.youtube.com/@roohif roohif]:<br />
<blockquote><br />
Basically they record the time that a star is occluded behind a mountain, perform some fuckery in [[Wikipedia:Stellarium|Stellarium]] to get an angle, then they compare that angle to the raw, flat Earth [[Wikipedia:Trigonometry|trig]].<br />
</blockquote><br />
== List of globe earth assumptions ==<br />
The CT method as proposed by flerfs uses several globe earth assumptions and calculations, including:<br />
*The distance between the observer and the mountain (see: [[Wikipedia:Haversine formula|haversine formula]])<br />
*The predicted altitude angle of the star<br />
*The amount of astronomical refraction<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH1TMWS8KE</ref><br />
<br />
== references ==</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Celestial_Theodolite&diff=7137Celestial Theodolite2026-04-26T12:57:58Z<p>Washcarso: created page</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''celestial theodolite''' is a proposed method for verifying Earth's curvature by measuring the time that a star is [[Wikipedia:Occultation|occulted]] by a terrestrial object of known distance and known relative [[Wikipedia:Elevation|elevation]].<br />
<br />
== Method ==<br />
<br />
== List of globe earth assumptions ==</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Space_Audits&diff=7136Space Audits2026-04-26T12:22:29Z<p>Washcarso: /* Notable Appearances */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Infobox|alias='''Space Audits'''|realName='''Alan'''|platform=[https://www.youtube.com/@space_audits YouTube]}}<br />
<br />
'''Alan''', known online as '''Space Audits''', is an independent researcher and content creator who critically examines scientific claims within mainstream cosmology and physics. His work aims to challenge established paradigms and explore the lost history of physics, particularly focusing on the concept of the Ether.<br />
<br />
= Known Accounts =<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/@space_audits Space Audits on YouTube]<br />
<br />
= Notable Appearances =<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Date !! Venue !! Participants !! Link !! Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Feb 28, 2026 - March 13, 2026 || [https://www.youtube.com/@RedsRhetoric Reds Rhetoric] || Alan v [https://www.youtube.com/@Astronomy_Live Astronomy Live] || Youtube Livestream: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e21-tkyLA7I&t=4804s Part 1], [https://www.youtube.com/live/6e7m_1yTC8E Part 2] || Debate on the [[Celestial theodolite]]. Astronomy Live presents a range of his own Cel Theo measurements that show the data can only be explained with a spherical Earth.<br />
|-<br />
| Jan 28, 2025 || [[Modern-Day Debate|MDD]] || Alan & [[Dominik]] v Peter Markley & MCToon || [https://www.youtube.com/live/UDzgdWJv7Xs YouTube livestream] || During the debate Dominik whined that Toon & Peter’s opening statements were both “slander-fests.” Peter [[Dominik#“Slanderfest” Allegation|addressed this afterward]].<br />
<br />
When the open discussion portion was over, Dominik said he couldn’t stay for superchat Q&A because he “had to walk his dog.” Moments later Alan said “I have to go too,” and disappeared with no explanation. During the [https://www.youtube.com/live/jE63nsXxOl4 MattersNow Aftershow], John (aka Axle84) called this a “whimper-quit” (like the sad version of a ragequit).<br />
<br />
It turned out that Alan & Dominik planned together to quit before superchats. They lied, and spent the time [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXz5A-Y9yN0&t=8568 watching MDD from their own channel] instead.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
= Other Info =<br />
<br />
== Channel Focus ==<br />
* '''Critical Analysis''': Evaluates and questions mainstream scientific claims, offering alternative perspectives on cosmology and physics.<br />
* '''Ether Physics''': Investigates historical and contemporary theories related to the Ether, aiming to uncover and discuss its significance in modern science.<br />
* '''Educational Content''': Provides explanations and discussions on complex scientific concepts, such as stellar parallax and relativity, to foster a deeper understanding among viewers.<br />
<br />
== Notable Content ==<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvBQA5syuqk '''"Space Audits #12: Stellar Parallax Explained"''']: A video delving into the basics of stellar parallax, offering insights into this astronomical phenomenon.<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EsTb1jJWW8 '''"DEBATISM Ep 4 | MCToon vs. Alan from Space Audits"''']: A debate focusing on relativity and Earth's movement, showcasing Alan's engagement in scientific discourse.<br />
<br />
== Collaborations and Appearances ==<br />
* '''Earth Awakenings Events''': Presented "The Lost History of Ether Physics," discussing the historical context and significance of Ether theories.<br />
* '''Interviews''': Participated in conversations exploring his research and perspectives, such as "A Conversation With 'Space Audits'."<br />
<br />
== Support and Contributions ==<br />
* '''Ko-fi Page''': Alan accepts support for his research through his Ko-fi page, where he shares updates and engages with supporters.<br />
<br />
For more information or to view his content, visit the YouTube channel linked above.<br />
<br />
[[Category:YouTube flerfs]]<br />
[[Category:American flerfs]]</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Space_Audits&diff=7135Space Audits2026-04-26T12:20:32Z<p>Washcarso: debate with Astronomy Live</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Infobox|alias='''Space Audits'''|realName='''Alan'''|platform=[https://www.youtube.com/@space_audits YouTube]}}<br />
<br />
'''Alan''', known online as '''Space Audits''', is an independent researcher and content creator who critically examines scientific claims within mainstream cosmology and physics. His work aims to challenge established paradigms and explore the lost history of physics, particularly focusing on the concept of the Ether.<br />
<br />
= Known Accounts =<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/@space_audits Space Audits on YouTube]<br />
<br />
= Notable Appearances =<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Date !! Venue !! Participants !! Link !! Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Feb 28, 2026 - March 13, 2026 || [https://www.youtube.com/@RedsRhetoric Reds Rhetoric] || Alan v [https://www.youtube.com/@Astronomy_Live Astronomy Live] || Youtube Livestream: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e21-tkyLA7I&t=4804s Part 1], [https://www.youtube.com/live/6e7m_1yTC8E Part 2] || Debate on the [[Celestial Theodolite]]. Astronomy Live presents a range of his own Cel Theo measurements that show the data can only be explained with a spherical Earth.<br />
|-<br />
| Jan 28, 2025 || [[Modern-Day Debate|MDD]] || Alan & [[Dominik]] v Peter Markley & MCToon || [https://www.youtube.com/live/UDzgdWJv7Xs YouTube livestream] || During the debate Dominik whined that Toon & Peter’s opening statements were both “slander-fests.” Peter [[Dominik#“Slanderfest” Allegation|addressed this afterward]].<br />
<br />
When the open discussion portion was over, Dominik said he couldn’t stay for superchat Q&A because he “had to walk his dog.” Moments later Alan said “I have to go too,” and disappeared with no explanation. During the [https://www.youtube.com/live/jE63nsXxOl4 MattersNow Aftershow], John (aka Axle84) called this a “whimper-quit” (like the sad version of a ragequit).<br />
<br />
It turned out that Alan & Dominik planned together to quit before superchats. They lied, and spent the time [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXz5A-Y9yN0&t=8568 watching MDD from their own channel] instead.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
= Other Info =<br />
<br />
== Channel Focus ==<br />
* '''Critical Analysis''': Evaluates and questions mainstream scientific claims, offering alternative perspectives on cosmology and physics.<br />
* '''Ether Physics''': Investigates historical and contemporary theories related to the Ether, aiming to uncover and discuss its significance in modern science.<br />
* '''Educational Content''': Provides explanations and discussions on complex scientific concepts, such as stellar parallax and relativity, to foster a deeper understanding among viewers.<br />
<br />
== Notable Content ==<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvBQA5syuqk '''"Space Audits #12: Stellar Parallax Explained"''']: A video delving into the basics of stellar parallax, offering insights into this astronomical phenomenon.<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EsTb1jJWW8 '''"DEBATISM Ep 4 | MCToon vs. Alan from Space Audits"''']: A debate focusing on relativity and Earth's movement, showcasing Alan's engagement in scientific discourse.<br />
<br />
== Collaborations and Appearances ==<br />
* '''Earth Awakenings Events''': Presented "The Lost History of Ether Physics," discussing the historical context and significance of Ether theories.<br />
* '''Interviews''': Participated in conversations exploring his research and perspectives, such as "A Conversation With 'Space Audits'."<br />
<br />
== Support and Contributions ==<br />
* '''Ko-fi Page''': Alan accepts support for his research through his Ko-fi page, where he shares updates and engages with supporters.<br />
<br />
For more information or to view his content, visit the YouTube channel linked above.<br />
<br />
[[Category:YouTube flerfs]]<br />
[[Category:American flerfs]]</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Top_Left_2026&diff=7134Top Left 20262026-04-26T11:55:58Z<p>Washcarso: fixed broken hyperlink for FER</p>
<hr />
<div>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tny2gjj3t20 TopLeft Finalists Announcement]:<br />
<br />
Finalists:<br />
# [[Mikey Smith]]<br />
# [[Apothecari]]<br />
# [[Vlad]]<br />
# [[Divergent Droid]]<br />
# [[Pete & Peter Peterson]]<br />
# [[Roger Ledwell | Woger]]<br />
# [[Flat Earth Reconnaissance]] (Sam)<br />
# [[Angels of Light | Angels of Shite]]<br />
<br />
<br />
Nominations, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i46L5RM9lF8 part one] and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5KLNSsz948 part deux]:<br><br />
[[File:Peter_and_Pete_campaign_for_TopLeft_2026.png|thumb|right|200px|Peter and Pete campaign for TopLeft 2026]]<br />
* [[Brian Sweet]]<br />
** Earthlyskeptick<br />
* [[Pete & Peter Peterson]]<br />
** CuriousUK Debunks, Ginger_w_Evo<br />
* [[Vlad]]<br />
** HaRnold, TDDS, Boston Concerts <br />
* [[Mikey Smith]]<br />
** The Canadian Space Advocate, Eric Burns, MCToon, Brenda, Mike Dude, Astronomy Live, DJ Sarah Jones, jeraneurism, evilproducer, Bruce Wayne, Leodonus Keyron, Nugz Automation, Sharlenwar, Tay Redgrave, Jack Fetter, Jim Daniels, Patchvonbraum, JoeBlack, RocinanteGold Capq57<br />
** Video "Drunk debunk knows nothing about star trails."<br />
*** 11 minutes gets the movement of the start wrong on the equator.<br />
*** 23 minutes Gets the prediction for the equator correct.<br />
*** 40 minutes counting on his fingers<br />
* [[Austin Witsit]]<br />
** Max (MxXxD), Andreas Eldh, Steve Tomayer, Groundedextracts, Donniepw2, <br />
* [[Dave Weiss]]<br />
** Joe Whip, Jredwhine, <br />
* [[Apothecari]]<br />
** FTFE. Zoomy, Rubiks, Rach Bot, <br />
* Jah Jah Bunk<br />
** garybrown<br />
* [[Bart Sibrel]]<br />
** FoxworthKerman<br />
* [[Space Audits]] (Blob/Alan)<br />
** PhD Tony<br />
* [[Nathan Oakley]] AND [[Pepper Grinder]]<br />
** MrOttopants, Brenda<br />
* [[Roger Ledwell]]<br />
** BigFish, MonkeyCatPatPat, Unfornicated, CMS, HarNold, Dvids, 3dPrinterJesus, NicN, CK, FE_Eddy, Wesley Grandlienard, Wicked Pissah, lil G, Mike Gurney, Sourpounder, ICSpin<br />
* [[Angels of Light]]<br />
** xforbiddenone, CJ lamoreaux, Bob Null<br />
* Will Duffy<br />
** Emma<br />
* [[Ross Perry]]<br />
** Plastic Citizen<br />
* Negative - [[Dick Wayne]]<br />
** HarNold<br />
* [[Arwijn]]<br />
** Welchs<br />
* [[Divergent Droid]]<br />
** StarStuff<br />
* [[Flatzoid]] Wankzoid, Fkatzoid, Fapzoid,<br />
** MyMomBakesCakes, tadd is mad, <br />
* [[Fittest Flat Earther]]<br />
** Roundaboutm, OGKenG, <br />
* [[McFlatty]]<br />
** Steelcity<br />
* [[Karen B]]<br />
** Hakrumun<br />
* FTFE<br />
** Mark Beiser<br />
* [[Demmoch]]<br />
** Randy Layhe, ChrisLbarker, Mark Von Wisco, lindasyboe,<br />
* [[FER]] (Sam)<br />
** Whatkast, calibadgerdude, Richmonty,<br />
* [[Joseph Hanvey]] Forrest Gump<br />
** AidyPhive<br />
* [[ChiTownCubbie|Cubbie]]<br />
** Whalepanties,<br />
* Lindsay Harris from Tomb of El-lumination<br />
** Aleks NP</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Flerfraction&diff=7133Flerfraction2026-04-26T11:10:10Z<p>Washcarso: added walter bislin dome model screenshot</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Atmospheric refraction - sunset and sunrise.png|thumb|Atmospheric refraction generally raises the apparent position of astronomical objects near the horizon, as well as causing a slight vertical compression]]<br />
'''Atmospheric Refraction''' is the bending of light within Earth's atmosphere due to variations in air density.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction</ref><br />
Flerfs generally have no clue how atmospheric refraction actually works, so they use it ('''flerfraction''') to explain phenomena which are actually impossible on a flat Earth, such as:<br />
*sunsets/rises and moonsets/rises<br />
*why stars can't be seen from particular locations (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Polaris|Polaris]] from the southern hemisphere)<br />
*why objects beyond the horizon are obstructed<br />
*why the [https://mctoon.net/horizon-does-not-rise-to-eye-level/ horizon appears below eye level]<br />
*the existence of the south [[Wikipedia:Celestial pole|celestial pole]].<br />
*why the sun and moon do not change in angular size<br />
*[[Star Trails|star trails]] always being perfectly circular<br />
<br />
Not all flerfs use flerfraction to explain the above phenomena; those who don't generally invoke [[Flerfspective|flerfspective]].<br />
<br />
Flerfs often deny the presence of refraction when presenting observations of "missing curvature", while simultaneously using it to explain observations that are impossible on flat Earth. This is an example of the Third [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== Atmospheric "Magnification" ==<br />
Many flerfs claim the atmosphere can magnify things like a [[Wikipedia:Magnifying glass|magnifying glass]].<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmUD4VH19Lk</ref> This is partly because they think the term "'''atmospheric lensing'''" (which generally means the same thing as '''atmospheric refraction''') literally means the atmosphere acts like a [[Wikipedia:Lens#Construction of simple lenses#Types of simple lenses|bioconvex lens]]. Flerfs use this to explain why objects can appear obstructed by the horizon.<br />
<br />
In reality, there is no mechanism by which the atmosphere can act this way. Because gravity causes air density to change as a function of height, objects can only appear to be compressed (or stretched in [https://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirsims/loom/loom.html#towering rare cases]) in the vertical direction. Some flerfs propose the mechanism for atmospheric "magnification" is water droplets in the air. While a singular water droplet can act like a lens, flerfs don't realise that a collection of many water droplets does not equal one big lens.<br />
<br />
== Walter Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model ==<br />
[[File:WalterBislin dome model absurd starlight bending.png|thumb|Walter Bislin's model showing the impossible paths light would have to take.]]<br />
Flerfs have [[Plagiarism of Walter Bislin's model|plagiarised Walter Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model]], claiming it is a working model of flat Earth. In reality, the simulation shows how light would need to bend in impossible ways for flat Earth to make any sense. <br />
Flerfs that subscribe to this model believe the light bending is made possible due to '''flerfraction''' and/or some firmament-related magic.<br />
<br />
== Useful Resources ==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Resource !! Author !! Notes<br />
|-<br />
| [https://stellarium.org/ Stellarium] ||See [https://stellarium.org/ ''developers''] ||Factors in atmospheric refraction when calculating the apparent position of astronomical objects.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Simulation+of+Atmospheric+Refraction Simulation of Atmospheric Refraction] || Walter Bislin || Comprehensive calculator for terrestrial refraction. Shows a visual comparison between globe Earth and flat Earth predictions.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator Advanced Earth Curvature Calculator] || Walter Bislin || Comprehensive calculator for earth curvature, with the option to factor in atmospheric refraction.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://www.metabunk.org/refraction/ Metabunk Refraction Simulator] || [[Wikipedia:Mick West|Mick West]] || See how temperature profile affects refraction in the atmosphere<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== references ==<br />
<references/></div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=File:WalterBislin_dome_model_absurd_starlight_bending.png&diff=7132File:WalterBislin dome model absurd starlight bending.png2026-04-26T11:07:57Z<p>Washcarso: Walter Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model shows the impossible ways light would have to bend to make flat Earth match observable reality.</p>
<hr />
<div>== Summary ==<br />
Walter Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model shows the impossible ways light would have to bend to make flat Earth match observable reality.</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Flerfspective&diff=7131Flerfspective2026-04-26T10:58:51Z<p>Washcarso: /* Rhetoric */ hyperlink</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Early Flerfspective Diagram.png|thumb|right|400px|One of the first flerfspective diagrams, drawn ca. 1865 by [[Wikipedia:Samuel Rowbotham|Samuel Rowbotham]]]]<br />
<br />
[[File:Flerfspective 2016.png|thumb|right|400px|Screenshot from a modern animated diagram ca. 2016]]<br />
<br />
'''Flerfspective''' is a term for the butchered mess that [[:Category:Flerfs|flerfs]] make out of [[Wikipedia:Perspective (graphical)|linear perspective]] when using it to explain:<br />
* [[Wikipedia:Sunset|sunset]]<br />
* [[Wikipedia:Hull down|hull down ships]]<br />
* [[Wikipedia:Celestial navigation|star elevation angles]]<br />
* why we can't see China from directly over America<br />
* ''a variety of other phenomena''<br />
<br />
Flerfs that realise the painfully obvious flaws with using flerfspective to explain the above phenomena will sometimes resort to [[Flerfraction|flerfraction]].<br />
<br />
= Vanishing Point Issue =<br />
<br />
A key misunderstanding is that flerfs think the [[Wikipedia:Vanishing point|'''vanishing point''']] lies at a [[Wikipedia:Glossary of mathematical jargon#finite|finite]] distance from the observer, when it's actually [[Wikipedia:Infinity|infinite]].<br />
<br />
The elevation angle of Rowbotham's sun would decrease as it moves away horizontally, but an elevation of 0&deg; is the<br />
[[Wikipedia:Limit (mathematics)|infinitesimal limit]] of this series.<br />
<br />
In other words: the sun '''could recede horizontally forever, but could still never actually reach 0&deg; elevation.'''<br />
<br />
Without this limit, a flat and level floor beneath an observer would be able to block his line of sight to an object that's above him, which is [[Wikipedia:Reductio ad absurdum|patently absurd]].<br />
<br />
= Rhetoric =<br />
<br />
Despite extravagant, ongoing efforts among globers to explain the above issue, to date apparently no flerf has ever comprehended it (except [[:Category:Ex-flerfs|ex-flerfs]]).<br />
<br />
When confronted on it, flerfs generally become chaos gremlins and rebut with statements like:<br />
* "The atmosphere [[Flerfraction|magnifies things]]."<ref>https://youtu.be/tflhWwoqWAw?t=7m40s</ref><br />
* "Using an orthographic diagram to explain perspective is a category error."<ref>https://www.youtube.com/live/DypTjkfLDY8?t=1h0m18s</ref><br />
* "Math is a language, and can be used to lie just like any other language."<br />
* [[Curved visual space|"We see in hyperbolic geometry, not Euclidean."]]<ref>https://youtu.be/T7Ge9wW58Lk?t=5m0s</ref><br />
* ''... and many similar piles of nonsense.''<br />
<br />
For this reason, the "flerfspective" concept is a rich source of [[Wikipedia:Word salad|word salad]].<br />
<br />
= References =<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Flerf lies]]<br />
[[Category:Glossary pages]]</div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Flerfraction&diff=7130Flerfraction2026-04-26T10:43:20Z<p>Washcarso: added useful resources section</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Atmospheric refraction - sunset and sunrise.png|thumb|Atmospheric refraction generally raises the apparent position of astronomical objects near the horizon, as well as causing a slight vertical compression]]<br />
'''Atmospheric Refraction''' is the bending of light within Earth's atmosphere due to variations in air density.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction</ref><br />
Flerfs generally have no clue how atmospheric refraction actually works, so they use it ('''flerfraction''') to explain phenomena which are actually impossible on a flat Earth, such as:<br />
*sunsets/rises and moonsets/rises<br />
*why stars can't be seen from particular locations (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Polaris|Polaris]] from the southern hemisphere)<br />
*why objects beyond the horizon are obstructed<br />
*why the [https://mctoon.net/horizon-does-not-rise-to-eye-level/ horizon appears below eye level]<br />
*the existence of the south [[Wikipedia:Celestial pole|celestial pole]].<br />
*why the sun and moon do not change in angular size<br />
*[[Star Trails|star trails]] always being perfectly circular<br />
<br />
Not all flerfs use flerfraction to explain the above phenomena; those who don't generally invoke [[Flerfspective|flerfspective]].<br />
<br />
Flerfs often deny the presence of refraction when presenting observations of "missing curvature", while simultaneously using it to explain observations that are impossible on flat Earth. This is an example of the Third [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== Atmospheric "Magnification" ==<br />
Many flerfs claim the atmosphere can magnify things like a [[Wikipedia:Magnifying glass|magnifying glass]].<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmUD4VH19Lk</ref> This is partly because they think the term "'''atmospheric lensing'''" (which generally means the same thing as '''atmospheric refraction''') literally means the atmosphere acts like a [[Wikipedia:Lens#Construction of simple lenses#Types of simple lenses|bioconvex lens]]. Flerfs use this to explain why objects can appear obstructed by the horizon.<br />
<br />
In reality, there is no mechanism by which the atmosphere can act this way. Because gravity causes air density to change as a function of height, objects can only appear to be compressed (or stretched in [https://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirsims/loom/loom.html#towering rare cases]) in the vertical direction. Some flerfs propose the mechanism for atmospheric "magnification" is water droplets in the air. While a singular water droplet can act like a lens, flerfs don't realise that a collection of many water droplets does not equal one big lens.<br />
<br />
== Walter Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model ==<br />
Flerfs have [[Plagiarism of Walter Bislin's model|plagiarised Walter Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model]], claiming it is a working model of flat Earth. In reality, the simulation shows how light would need to bend in impossible ways for flat Earth to make any sense. <br />
Flerfs that subscribe to this model believe the light bending is made possible due to '''flerfraction''' and/or some firmament-related magic.<br />
<br />
== Useful Resources ==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Resource !! Author !! Notes<br />
|-<br />
| [https://stellarium.org/ Stellarium] ||See [https://stellarium.org/ ''developers''] ||Factors in atmospheric refraction when calculating the apparent position of astronomical objects.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Simulation+of+Atmospheric+Refraction Simulation of Atmospheric Refraction] || Walter Bislin || Comprehensive calculator for terrestrial refraction. Shows a visual comparison between globe Earth and flat Earth predictions.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator Advanced Earth Curvature Calculator] || Walter Bislin || Comprehensive calculator for earth curvature, with the option to factor in atmospheric refraction.<br />
|-<br />
| [https://www.metabunk.org/refraction/ Metabunk Refraction Simulator] || [[Wikipedia:Mick West|Mick West]] || See how temperature profile affects refraction in the atmosphere<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== references ==<br />
<references/></div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Flerfraction&diff=7129Flerfraction2026-04-26T10:17:13Z<p>Washcarso: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Atmospheric refraction - sunset and sunrise.png|thumb|Atmospheric refraction generally raises the apparent position of astronomical objects near the horizon, as well as causing a slight vertical compression]]<br />
'''Atmospheric Refraction''' is the bending of light within Earth's atmosphere due to variations in air density.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction</ref><br />
Flerfs generally have no clue how atmospheric refraction actually works, so they use it ('''flerfraction''') to explain phenomena which are actually impossible on a flat Earth, such as:<br />
*sunsets/rises and moonsets/rises<br />
*why stars can't be seen from particular locations (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Polaris|Polaris]] from the southern hemisphere)<br />
*why objects beyond the horizon are obstructed<br />
*why the horizon appears below eye level<br />
*the existence of the south [[Wikipedia:Celestial pole|celestial pole]].<br />
*why the sun and moon do not change in angular size<br />
*[[Star Trails|star trails]] always being perfectly circular<br />
<br />
Not all flerfs use flerfraction to explain the above phenomena; those who don't generally invoke [[Flerfspective|flerfspective]].<br />
<br />
Flerfs often deny the presence of refraction when presenting observations of "missing curvature", while simultaneously using it to explain observations that are impossible on flat Earth. This is an example of the Third [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== Atmospheric "Magnification" ==<br />
Many flerfs claim the atmosphere can magnify things like a [[Wikipedia:Magnifying glass|magnifying glass]].<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmUD4VH19Lk</ref> This is partly because they think the term "'''atmospheric lensing'''" (which generally means the same thing as '''atmospheric refraction''') literally means the atmosphere acts like a [[Wikipedia:Lens#Construction of simple lenses#Types of simple lenses|bioconvex lens]]. Flerfs use this to explain why objects can appear obstructed by the horizon.<br />
<br />
In reality, there is no mechanism by which the atmosphere can act this way. Because gravity causes air density to change as a function of height, objects can only appear to be compressed (or stretched in [https://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirsims/loom/loom.html#towering rare cases]) in the vertical direction. Some flerfs propose the mechanism for atmospheric "magnification" is water droplets in the air. While a singular water droplet can act like a lens, flerfs don't realise that a collection of many water droplets does not equal one big lens.<br />
<br />
== Walter Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model ==<br />
Flerfs have [[Plagiarism of Walter Bislin's model|plagiarised Walter Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model]], claiming it is a working model of flat Earth. In reality, the simulation shows how light would need to bend in impossible ways for flat Earth to make any sense. <br />
Flerfs that subscribe to this model believe the light bending is made possible due to '''flerfraction''' and/or some firmament-related magic.<br />
<br />
== references ==<br />
<references/></div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Flerfraction&diff=7128Flerfraction2026-04-26T10:16:47Z<p>Washcarso: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Atmospheric refraction - sunset and sunrise.png|thumb|Atmospheric refraction generally raises the apparent position of astronomical objects near the horizon, as well as causing a slight vertical compression]]<br />
'''Atmospheric Refraction''' is the bending of light within Earth's atmosphere due to variations in air density.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction</ref><br />
Flerfs generally have no clue how atmospheric refraction actually works, so they use it ('''flerfraction''') to explain phenomena which are actually impossible on a flat Earth, such as:<br />
*sunsets and moonsets<br />
*why stars can't be seen from particular locations (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Polaris|Polaris]] from the southern hemisphere)<br />
*why objects beyond the horizon are obstructed<br />
*why the horizon appears below eye level<br />
*the existence of the south [[Wikipedia:Celestial pole|celestial pole]].<br />
*why the sun and moon do not change in angular size<br />
*[[Star Trails|star trails]] always being perfectly circular<br />
<br />
Not all flerfs use flerfraction to explain the above phenomena; those who don't generally invoke [[Flerfspective|flerfspective]].<br />
<br />
Flerfs often deny the presence of refraction when presenting observations of "missing curvature", while simultaneously using it to explain observations that are impossible on flat Earth. This is an example of the Third [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== Atmospheric "Magnification" ==<br />
Many flerfs claim the atmosphere can magnify things like a [[Wikipedia:Magnifying glass|magnifying glass]].<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmUD4VH19Lk</ref> This is partly because they think the term "'''atmospheric lensing'''" (which generally means the same thing as '''atmospheric refraction''') literally means the atmosphere acts like a [[Wikipedia:Lens#Construction of simple lenses#Types of simple lenses|bioconvex lens]]. Flerfs use this to explain why objects can appear obstructed by the horizon.<br />
<br />
In reality, there is no mechanism by which the atmosphere can act this way. Because gravity causes air density to change as a function of height, objects can only appear to be compressed (or stretched in [https://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirsims/loom/loom.html#towering rare cases]) in the vertical direction. Some flerfs propose the mechanism for atmospheric "magnification" is water droplets in the air. While a singular water droplet can act like a lens, flerfs don't realise that a collection of many water droplets does not equal one big lens.<br />
<br />
== Walter Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model ==<br />
Flerfs have [[Plagiarism of Walter Bislin's model|plagiarised Walter Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model]], claiming it is a working model of flat Earth. In reality, the simulation shows how light would need to bend in impossible ways for flat Earth to make any sense. <br />
Flerfs that subscribe to this model believe the light bending is made possible due to '''flerfraction''' and/or some firmament-related magic.<br />
<br />
== references ==<br />
<references/></div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Flerfraction&diff=7127Flerfraction2026-04-26T10:14:17Z<p>Washcarso: /* Atmospheric "Magnification" */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Atmospheric refraction - sunset and sunrise.png|thumb|Atmospheric refraction generally raises the apparent position of astronomical objects near the horizon, as well as causing a slight vertical compression]]<br />
'''Atmospheric Refraction''' is the bending of light within Earth's atmosphere due to variations in air density.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction</ref><br />
Flerfs generally have no clue how atmospheric refraction actually works, so they use it ('''flerfraction''') to explain phenomena which are actually impossible on a flat Earth, such as:<br />
*sunsets and moonsets<br />
*why stars can't be seen from particular locations (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Polaris|Polaris]] from the southern hemisphere)<br />
*why the horizon appears below eye level<br />
*the existence of the south [[Wikipedia:Celestial pole|celestial pole]].<br />
*why the sun and moon do not change in angular size<br />
*[[Star Trails|star trails]] always being perfectly circular<br />
<br />
Not all flerfs use flerfraction to explain the above phenomena; those who don't generally invoke [[Flerfspective|flerfspective]].<br />
<br />
Flerfs often deny the presence of refraction when presenting observations of "missing curvature", while simultaneously using it to explain observations that are impossible on flat Earth. This is an example of the Third [[Laws of Flerf|Law of Flerf]].<br />
<br />
== Atmospheric "Magnification" ==<br />
Many flerfs claim the atmosphere can magnify things like a [[Wikipedia:Magnifying glass|magnifying glass]].<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmUD4VH19Lk</ref> This is partly because they think the term "'''atmospheric lensing'''" (which generally means the same thing as '''atmospheric refraction''') literally means the atmosphere acts like a [[Wikipedia:Lens#Construction of simple lenses#Types of simple lenses|bioconvex lens]]. Flerfs use this to explain why objects can appear obstructed by the horizon.<br />
<br />
In reality, there is no mechanism by which the atmosphere can act this way. Because gravity causes air density to change as a function of height, objects can only appear to be compressed (or stretched in [https://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirsims/loom/loom.html#towering rare cases]) in the vertical direction. Some flerfs propose the mechanism for atmospheric "magnification" is water droplets in the air. While a singular water droplet can act like a lens, flerfs don't realise that a collection of many water droplets does not equal one big lens.<br />
<br />
== Walter Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model ==<br />
Flerfs have [[Plagiarism of Walter Bislin's model|plagiarised Walter Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model]], claiming it is a working model of flat Earth. In reality, the simulation shows how light would need to bend in impossible ways for flat Earth to make any sense. <br />
Flerfs that subscribe to this model believe the light bending is made possible due to '''flerfraction''' and/or some firmament-related magic.<br />
<br />
== references ==<br />
<references/></div>Washcarsohttps://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Gary_Wybenga&diff=7126Gary Wybenga2026-04-26T10:12:37Z<p>Washcarso: /* Other Info */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Infobox|image=File:Garywybenga.jpg|realName=Gary Wybenga|location=US|platform=[https://www.youtube.com/@garywybenga4188 YouTube]|religiflerf=yes}}<br />
<br />
== Known Accounts ==<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/@garywybenga4188 Gary Wybenga]<br />
<br />
== Other Info ==<br />
* Gary Wybenga is a farmer and curator of the largest elastic band collection on his farm.<br />
* He has developed the "Vanishing Zone" concept, explaining how [[Flerfspective|perspective]] creates bottom-up obstruction.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Religiflerfs]]<br />
[[Category:YouTube flerfs]]<br />
[[Category:American flerfs]]</div>Washcarso