It does fluctuate. It's called the tide.

But you won't make that conclusion, because it might prove you wrong about FE.
You'd have a problem with it if he was arguing against you.
Dave's just using an exercise in creative debate with disregard for the truth. Stop making empty excuses and refute what I explained. You speculate about FE and why this and that might work, but you can't explain the 24hr antarctic sun, and I'm the bad guy for speculating on if a globe is possible?
I could make the same claim about you FE's. Quit the rhetoric, and refute what I said. You guys expect me to believe in an earth that defies the physical laws of nature, and would be a perpetual miracle, because all things are possible with God, but it is impossible for God to make an earth and surrounding environment consistent with the laws of physics, the natural order of things.
Once again, I'll remind you that once I ventured into the FE section of this forum, I thought it perhaps a joke at first that people were entertaining the idea that the earth was flat. Then I see that these traditional Catholics really believe it, and really believe that it is Church teaching. I'm like, " Wow! Really? I need to look into this, because I want to know the truth and the true faith."

Each time I'd start watching a YT video I'm expecting to become a FE. I unlocked the fact of the globe, which I had accepted as certainty, and exposed it to being completely thrown out, and that memory overwritten with a new understanding of the world. Once the videos get to where they explain their claim, it falls apart as I identify simple errors in their logic.

I was left uncertain for probably a good year or so as I both hoped to understand the logic of the FE believers and make observations of my own. Eventually, I realized the extreme unlikeliness of the earth being flat through observation and reason, and that a globe is apparently still quite compatible with Catholic teaching, but having arrived at this conclusion myself rather that just believing what the scientists say.

I often think of the small details, exactly how something works, to a greater extent than most people care to venture. I can never get too many details; every little bit of truth and how things work interests me. I was mocked by someone once because I said I didn't understand/agree with/believe Bernoulli's principle as taught out of the textbook in college, and for good reason. As used to explain airplane flight, it is insignificant, wrong, and often taught as practically a dogma of divine revelation rather than explained. A few basic experiments proved me right in that regard.

I may now quote ...and to go against the flow of common opinion when it goes against reason.


A conspiracy theorist must be careful not to go too deep into all cօռspιʀαcιҽs. Just because scientists lie about some things doesn't mean it's all a lie. Just because space videos look CGI doesn't mean they are, and just because space programs use CGI, doesn't mean the whole operation is fake. I'm willing to agree its fake, but I don't have sufficient certainty. I will say that CGI simulations of what is happening in space based on telemetry makes it much easier for humans to monitor and make sense of many telemetry channels when they can't actually see what's happening up there.


Here are a couple easy experiments to try, I haven't tried them yet, but they can be used to detect the drop of the horizon as you increase in altitude, and are much more valuable than watching someone else on YT.

The first uses a speed square tool as a right angle with a weighted string attached to the corner so you know when the top is level. You look straight down the top edge at the horizon, and see what angle the string hangs. Speed squares are marked with degrees in the middle. The second is a water level. The further apart the two vertical tubes are, the more precise your measurement will be. It is one continuous tube with open ends. The water naturally levels itself, so you look through or beside it such that your eye level matches both water levels, then see if that matches the horizon level when you are very high above the ground.

Here are a couple easy experiments to try, I haven't tried them yet, but they can be used to detect the drop of the horizon as you increase in altitude, and are much more valuable than watching someone else on YT.

The first uses a speed square tool as a right angle with a weighted string attached to the corner so you know when the top is level. You look straight down the top edge at the horizon, and see what angle the string hangs. Speed squares are marked with degrees in the middle. The second is a water level. The further apart the two vertical tubes are, the more precise your measurement will be. It is one continuous tube with open ends. The water naturally levels itself, so you look through or beside it such that your eye level matches both water levels, then see if that matches the horizon level when you are very high above the ground.

Who says we can’t explain the 24 hour Antarctic sun


what about the fact that on the flat earth model the firmament meets earth at Antarctica, how do we know that the light does not reflect off of the firmament, how do you know there are not multiple suns.

This is one of my top proofs of flat earth. The horizon is *always* at eye level, no matter how high you go. You never have to look down to see the horizon, like you ABSOLUTELY WOULD if you were on a ball, however large that ball was. That's the predicted behavior if we were living on a planar realm, rather than a big ball.

People say "I can see the curve from my airplane window" but there are 2 problems with that.
1. The windows are convex and so cause an artificial curve, even at ground level, and
2. If the earth really WERE a globe and curved, you wouldn't be able to see the horizon from the airplane window. The horizon wouldn't be conveniently at your window seat eye level. The windows on planes aren't 4 feet tall, nor is the plane wall/body transparent. If the horizon wasn't pretty much eye level, you wouldn't be able to see it from your plane window.

By the way, there have been several high profile cases demonstrating this always-present horizon at eye level -- most of which were NOT anxious to prove flat earth at all -- quite the contrary. The Red Bull jump for example. The video from inside the craft shows the horizon outside -- still at eye level, that high up! Wow, the earth must really be a plane, not a planet.
It isn't till he goes outside and switches to his GoPro with a fisheye lens that you see something globers can seize upon, "See! the curve! There's the curve! See!?"

Seriously, St. Giles, if you could demonstrate the second item (having to look down at the horizon) that would 100% disprove flat earth, and would CONCLUSIVELY, EXPERIMENTALLY prove we're living on a ball.
Put me down ON THE RECORD for saying that.

If I could get that kind of evidence, I would be forced to return to the globe earth position. But that's the kind of evidence every Flat Earther sought -- in vain. They looked for actual proofs -- not NASA propaganda and fakery, not consensus and lies, not misdirection and strawmen, but actual scientific evidence. After their heads exploded, they all had to either lie to themselves, or embrace the truth, however unpopular. Being as the are "flat earthers", they obviously chose the latter.

I'm not holding my breath for such evidence to appear, however. I've seen too much other evidence for flat earth. As a matter of fact, I myself was looking for flat earth-disproving evidence for the past 4 years. Still haven't found any.