Articles, Blog

Flat Earth | Refraction part 2/3 – Star Trails

Hi Flat Earthers,
This is Zack. And this is Steve.
In the previous video we gave you an introduction on how the refraction in the atmosphere or
atmosplane was the solution to the various visual problems that were not working on Flat
Earth models.If you haven’t watched that video yet, click on this link to watch it now.
Today we are going to explain a little bit more by showing you the star trails from different
locations on the flat earth. Many people thought that the video we showed before was not enough
to prove that refraction is the reason why the sun rises and sets, and many others thought
that refraction would make the apparent sun appear higher up instead of down. So to make
this clear, let me tell you that what we did was add the atmosphere to the FE model in
Cinema4D, and Cinema4D made the apparent sun go down. Not us. So if there is anything wrong
with this, then it will be Cinema4D’s fault. If you disagree with the software please,
send them an email and see what they will tell you. Now picture the sun is above you and the last layer of the atmosphere or atmosplane is a
lot closer to you than the sun. The refraction will happen until that last layer of the atmosplane
which goes to the ground, right? So looking at the sun from the ground, through that atmosplane,
can make the apparent sun appear lower instead of higher.
And if you look at it this way, the apparent sun will appear higher, right? But this is
all incorrect, What you will see from the ground, is the apparent sun only. So whether
it appears here or there, it is always lower. and the real sun is always higher. Now the
question is, what makes the sun go down as it moves away from you? There are a few theories
about this, but they can all be wrong. But let us explain one theory, if the atmosplane
is only 5 miles up. and the apparent sun is right above it, then yes, perspective can
make the sun go down in less than 7000 miles away from the observer. And this will make
the flat earth model work, but you and I believe that the atmosplane or atmosphere is a lot
thicker than that, therefore perspective will help a little but not a lot.
So if the real sun moved to the west for about 4 thousand miles, how would the apparent sun
look like from the observer’s perspective… We can guess but we will not know until we
make a physical experiment that represents all of this. For example, we can do this in
a big swimming pool to see how a refracted bulb will look like from far way in order
to see both refraction and perspective in action.
If you guys can help, please contact us and let’s prove this scientifically. But for now
let’s just call it a theory, because we’re just trying to prove it in a 3D program. I
am pretty sure we’re correct but let’s just call it a theory.
Here is how the real sun and the apparent sun move in Cinema4D. It’s acting exactly
how we expected. The apparent sun appears to move faster than the real sun, therefore
it disappears in less than 7000 miles away from the observer. when the apparent sun is at 0 degrees, the
real sun is at 35 degrees and as the real sun rises at its normal speed, the apparent
sun follows at a higher speed. The more they rise the closer they get, and when they are
90 degrees, the refraction is 0. This is a diagram I made in AutoCAD with the
real elevation angles of the sun that we get from This is the location and
date that I used, you can try that yourself. So when we draw the angles accurately, we
notice that the sun travels faster the more it moves away from the observer. As you can
see the distance between 5 and 6 pm is a lot longer than the distance between 4 and 5pm.
and the distance between 12 and 1 pm is very close to the speed of the sun on the Tropic
Of Cancer. On the globe model, you can say it’s the speed of the spinning earth in the
Tropic Of Cancer. But of course the apparent sun doesn’t travel
in a straight line like the real sun does, so the distance between each hour should not
be so exaggerated , we can draw it like this. But this is nothing but a diagram. And by
the way, If perspective is the reason why the sun sets
on the Flat Earth, then the more the sun moves away from us the slower it should
appear to us, right. Imagine yourself in the middle of a highway, the cars that pass by
you will be moving in their real speed, but as they move away from you, they look like
they are slowing down. But that doesn’t happen with the sun, right. In fact the sun appears
to travel faster the more it moves away from you. So perspective is definitely not the
only reason why the sun go down. Here is how the star field would look if we
removed the atmosplane. The place is Tenerife –Spain. The lens that I used here has a
122º field of view. As you can see, the stars never set because they are too high for perspective
to make them rise and set. Their altitude now is about 4000 miles. This number is fairly
accurate and matches the rise and set times shown in programs such as Stellarium.
Now I am going to play the same video but with the atmosplane added…As you can see,
the view has changed completely and the star trails looks exactly like the original picture.
Here it is. Taken in Tenerife- Spain March 15, 2015
Let’s play the two videos side by side so you can see the effect of the atmosplane.
We can do this on any location. They all work the same. And here is another test in France…. Look at it carefully and compare it with the original
picture. Tell me if we’re doing anything wrong. And here is how the sun rises and sets in
Salinas, California. We still need to adjust the height of everything
but the atmosplane already makes them rise and set correctly. The atmosplane was the
key to solving the puzzle. This is a quick view of the stars in AutoCAD
so you can understand how we draw them in Cinema4D. All the stars you see on the model
are 4000 miles up, and the angles of the stars are accurate and they match modern science,
we didn’t make them up. and that excel sheet on the left side of the screen shows all the
DATA that we used. You can find it in the description.
Here is a south view of the stars on the Flat Earth with the Atmosplane added Now this should be enough for some trolls
to see that wherever we are on the flat earth, the sun and the stars will rise and set. And
if they don’t look like real life, then please, try to understand that by adjusting the map
and the height of all the objects in the sky can fix the problem, we still don’t know for
sure the height of everything and we still don’t know for sure how the real map looks
like. The point is that the atmosphere or atmosplane makes everything in the sky rise
and set in Cinema4D. If you think that the atmosphere should make things go up instead
of down, then please talk to Cinema4D programmers. Here is something that we’re going to talk
about in the next video. When the atmosplane was added, the first thing
we noticed was that spheres looked oblong when viewed through the refraction. The only
way to overcome this was to make the spheres as flat as possible. For the moon it could
not be perfectly flat, or the phases would not work.
So the moon is a very flat sphere or almost flat but not 100%.
Don’t forget to Subscribe to my channel Steve Torrence. where you will find complete versions of the clips shown. I will also be doing more videos this week, showing views from various locations Thanks for watching

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

100 thoughts on “Flat Earth | Refraction part 2/3 – Star Trails

  1. Awsome jobs guys…..i probably can't help but if I can let me know….. excellent work. Am I right in saying these star trails we see here taking into account the atmos"sphere" are the reasons we get anti clockwise and clockwise star trails on a flat earth?

  2. as i said in facebook great work.

    but sun and moon stretch dramatically at horizon when setting or rising which is not happening in real. a bit of stretch happens only where sun touches horizon on the edges not the whole sun stretches

    something wrong…

    liked anyway

    i need to educate myself about cinema 4d so i can make it myself too

  3. please capture the moment for me in real life, when the Moon is turning upside down (7:24) or even the planets . Perhaps the next thing you want to "research" is why we sometimes look a little more ahead of the moon. Good luck explaining it without planetary physics. a tip: it's because Moon's orbital speed is growing as it gets closer and slows down as it moves away.

  4. I am deeply convinced that the conclusion will be end as we expected soon with the hard evidence.Then we will be the first group of people in present time who lead the world into the Era of light and reality to correct the future next 100,200,300, … years. Or, maybe there is no longer time to future like that as we've ever been imagine to in our brain, but this might be the time to reveal reality and destroy the Matrix.

  5. Pyramidal shape of our field of view must be taken into account for proper interpreting of what we see. Because of pyramidal shape of our field of view we get an appearance of Sun rising up from horizon line to zenith position, and lowering itself from zenith position toward horizon line. All horizontal parallel lines in our field of view converge into a vanishing point, or into the horizon line, when there is an absence of vertical lines in our field of view.

  6. Will this help with plotting the sun, making an accurate map? You will be a KEY person in figuring out where we live and the true shape of our home! You will have a place in history for this work! If you continue on this path it won't be long before you have indisputable proof!
    Patiently waiting for the next video!
    (I would help if I could)

  7. the only truth is the spherical concave cellular earth folks FLAT is utter bullcrap definitely not truth (LSC EARTH) (cell earth glass sky) game over flats😜

  8. Will this theory can also describe how crepuscular and anti crepuscular rays (solar and antisolar rays) work on FE model? Thanks for this video! Wasallam

  9. Flat-Earther: "We have all this math and science showing how thick the atmosphere is, and we know it's right because planes wouldn't be able to fly were it wrong. But… It doesn't mesh with our hypothesis, so we are going to pretend it's thicker so our model works instead of scrapping it as a failure and trying something else."

    Nothing says credibility like making up the numbers for your data samples until your pre-determined outcome almost makes sense.

  10. ‘The Earth is flat’: RT’s ‘Space 360’ leads to age old conspiracy accusations: – It is actually getting debatable, please a take part and make some points.

  11. Hi Dr. Zack, any advancement with the map? Is the only thing we need to have to let us talk about flat earth…any other videos, including this one and other published by anyone, don't make any sense without the MAP. Please show us the MAP of the Flat Earth…thanks

  12. Maybe this can help you understand?
    "God is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The parable of His light is as if there were a niche and within it a lamp: the lamp enclosed in glass: the glass as it were a brilliant star: lit from a blessed tree, an olive, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil is well-nigh luminous, though fire scarce touched it: Light upon Light! God doth guide whom He will to His light: God doth set forth parables for men: and God doth know all things."

  13. Great video guys. I've ended up just with perspective regarding the sun path especially during the equinox from a viewer who is exactly at 0 lat 0 long who sees the sun set exactly at 270°. I think that the atmoplane or atmosphere works as a filter on our view for us, as it hides things considering long range distances in addition to perspective. And the refraction works too. Every kind of light always will find the shortest path to pass trough a pseudo lens, which is how the atmosphere acts. Really great job. I hope i can help somehow. I'm from Italy, so if you need any kind of pics or observation from my latitude just let me know. I'll be glad to help.

  14. Aah i am confused. I realised the lies about a year ago and kept an open mind since, i just dont have a brain for this kind of information, globe or flat, i wish i could understand it more

  15. The disk of the sun might of sunk on the horizon, but it's light should still be illuminating the earths atmosphere where I am because nothing is blocking the light on a FE model. Any explanations thanks.

  16. this is one of the best video…. i am now completely and fully a flat earther…
    thanks to you dr.zack and steve ..

  17. Dear Dr. Zack, it is true that "Most of the earth's atmosphere (80 to 90%) is found in the troposphere, the atmospheric layer where we live. This layer, where the earth's weather occurs, is within about 12 km (7 miles) of the earth's surface." I noticed in the video you stated that if the atmosplane was 5 miles up then perspective could cause the sun to set in less than 7000 miles, but then you said that "we" believe it is a lot thicker than that. I wonder if that even matters, think about it, you can't hardly breath at the top of mount everest, how much effect can such a thin atmosphere really have? I think you have solved the puzzle, we don't need to use a thicker atmosphere

    also, don't use any data past about 20 miles up or so (as high as balloons go) because any data that relies on rockets is false, since they do not work in thin air they go about as high as jet planes.

    i think this "lens" experiment shows nicely that it is just the lower atmosplane that matters? SUN SETS JUST FINE ON FLAT EARTH – deniers most hated experiment i think you have seen it

  18. lol, if you think something is wrong with flat earth, call tech support. classic. flat earth is the most epic troll of the century.



  21. salam Dr.Zack || the ups and downs of sea water (Al-Quran)

    And you see the mountains, you would have thought he was still in his place, and he walked as a way of cloud. (That's) act of God that is made with a sturdy all things; Allah is Aware of what you do. Surat An-Naml Verse 88

  22. Hey Dr Zack! Just want to say something about 4:33 through 5:08. This comparison between the sun and the cars is not accurate because the cars are on the observers eye-line or z-axis or longitudinal axis, but the sun is traversing PARALLEL to ones z-axis. So instead of the sun approaching and going away like this — . — (with the dot as the observer), the sun moves more like this / . and visually moves more perpendicular to the observer.

    You're right, the cars going away on your eye-line or z-axis …will… slow down as they recede in the distance, but the sun does NOT move on our eye-line, but moves PARALLEL to it and visually moves more perpendicular, like this / . , so it won't visually slow down.

    So not only won't the sun slow down as it goes away, it won't shrink, (much if any at all), either, for the same reasons. : )


  23. Hi Dr Zack I just watched an interesting video by Russianvids. Watch that video from 7min 20sec
    And Im wondering if the southern stars are maybe not against a downward invisible dome wall around the edge as the ELITE always hide things in plain site.

  24. WOW great work. Please keep your experiments, I just wanna know the truth.
    And can you please do a research about the moon phases ? What causes it according to the FE ? Thank you!

  25. I think you should use a frimament in the aggregate with atmoplane refraction inyour model. So I think there should be exact the same star trails as we have in real.

  26. Support Flat Earth Truth. Shop, buy, educate and support!
    Buy Flat Earth books, T-shirts, maps, stickers and more! Spread Truth and Awareness.


  28. It looks pretty good. If it is right – this is one of the most important clips in mankind history. Good work.

  29. Such a Wonderful Mind that you possess Dr. Zack, And Steve Torrence, along with everyone involved in this research.
    The Perspective of the Star Chart Travel Diagram, whereas, this Light/Sun motion corresponded perfectly in unison is:
    – Pun intended.
    Are Either of You Gentlemen familiar with "Eric Dubay" ?

  30. Dr. Zack you're right, but what you call atmospheric plain Nikola Tesla called Ether – fourth aggregate state of water

  31. What a bunch of bullshit. At 4:54 he points obvious flaw in FE, doesn't bother to explain further. Star trails looks nothing like in the real world. And this absolutely doesn't explain, why you cannot see Polaris south of equator.

  32. Another mistakes: Startrails do NOT come closer together near horizon in the real world. I don't know, what magic properties did you assign to your "atmosplane", with is has nothing to do with real atmosphere


  34. Like to ask a question … Would all people of earth see the face we see, of the moon .. On a flat model? Thank's

  35. Really nice work here. thanks for sharing. Soon a school curriculum can be written with this kind of data.

  36. excellent video! one thing I noticed is that the moon looked larger at the horizon when rising and setting, just like in real life.

  37. I am still on my journey to FE, Lies of New Atheism, genius of Tesla, joke of Eisenstein and theory of relativity, and the list goes on and on. If there is anything out there that keeps telling me that I am not getting fooled is only this channel and hard work of Dr Zack. All the other truthers are simply liars and are acting like smoke screen to confuse people further. Keep up the good work. Its nice to know that there are still people of integrity and truth out there even if their theories turn out to be wrong. This is what we call true science and true scientist.

  38. Okay, refraction"could" explain startrails on one spot, but as the density of the atmosphere is the same (not in height), why does refraction show diferent behaviours between sun/moon and stars? I mean, their light beams are moving trough the same atmosphere, so while on the ecuator sun and stars would behave similarly, if stars seen when closer to the poles bend their trayectories, so would the sun, right?

  39. Why does the moon elongate vertically just after rising, and setting? Why do the stars have "S" shaped paths? Want to share your atmosphere data so anyone can use them in cinema 4D? I'm guessing not.

  40. Stop calling those hipothesis theories; if you want to sound scientifically accurate, stick to our vocabulary. If your theory isn't supported by empirical data, it is just an hipothesis.

  41. Stop with the stupid music. I do not want to be manipulated into a mood as it seems like you are trying to do.. I just want the information please without the stupid music. All you people who make videos about the research into the earth, why do you feel the need to put music in the uploads?

  42. Stars circle to the opposite direction at the South Hemisphere. Totally according to the Globe, tottaly impossible in the Flat Earth model. Oh, wait… they can claim "stars move to the same direction, but the atmosplan cause a delusion of inversion."

  43. I don't understand why this refraction is happening upward, in this model. The air closer to earth is denser, so according to the phenomenon of refraction, it should bend the light downwards not upwards. Light is a wave (in the case of refraction) and will bend inwards when it comes to a denser substance, not outwards. Could you create an experiment where you could demonstrate that light actually bends upwards when it comes to a denser air? I'm not saying this can not happen, just that it seems to be a bit odd, and so by, could need further proof.

    Also, have you guys considered that maybe the dome, over the sky, could bend the light also, and be some kind of explanation to this question?

  44. I have yet to see a video showing how the Earth would appear differently if it were in fact a ball, for example horizon on land vs airplane, and other observable differences.

  45. Great stuff! One question though, does the atmospheric simulation simulates only refraction or other phenomenon like lensing? I would imagine that lensing effect would play a big role as well

  46. Hah, 4:58 – CGI. All fake.
    Simple question – if the refraction makes it, why do we see the same sun and the same sky from a high mountain, plane or a high altitude balloon? We should not…
    So another FE "theory" fails…

  47. With technology accessed easily on the 21st century, it's easier for you to just go to your ice wall then take a pic and prove the world they're wrong. It seems no-one did that. Eratosthenes had you beat, since he already proved the world is round (no NASA intervention) without superior technology and a brain as dumb as a conspiracy theorist.

  48. Your computer simulated star trails are very distorted near the horizon. Much more than we actually see in the real world.

  49. Yes u are right it is refraction .WE are underwater. Also, the Sun is in the firmament. iI is a Reflection ..SO you add to that u have that distortion its like which way did he go.,and perspective. as it never sets.Great job we continue to learn,, funny we will know all about all of his wonderful creations when we meet him,but you know it really wont matter then .I will be so overjoyed to be with YHWH/YAHUSHUA/HOLY SPIRIT

  50. The air does not refract as you need, the air is almost transparent, its refraction index is almost 1 in the perpendicular. It does not bend the light more than one tenth of degree.

  51. Please stop saying atmos-plane.

    The suffix, “phere,” means to carry. It is where we get the word ferry, as in ferry boat.

    The prefix, “atmos,” is derived from the Greek word, “atmo,” which means, “tiny thing.”

    Items like dust, smoke, and ash, are all considered to be, “atmos,” and they are carried on the wind, the, “phere.” Atmos-phere. Two real terms, that have real meaning.

    Saying atmos-plane is just plain silly.

  52. Dr.Zack : star trails do not work on flat Earth, did you not know that?
    Just look here:
    After you watched this, you can safely delete your own video to avoid further embarassment…

  53. Thanks god for the refraction other wise flat eart cant be explained …..

    Flatearth logic….if you cant explain something just say refraction or CGI and everyone will believe it…. god bless you all

  54. this is what real science looks like. i can imagine a future where educational text books teach this instead of all the lies and propaganda.

  55. The second video comes in a few segments. The first segment (about three minutes) is the most important part, I think, and it shows that they have no idea what they are talking about. 
    a.    First, they say that they don’t understand why the refraction works in their animations. They say only that the software makes it look that way, and it’s the software programmer’s fault if they are wrong (around 0:50). That should be a red flag for you that they are not working from science but only fantasy.
    b.    At 1:28, they say that “looking at the Sun through the atmosplane makes the Sun appear lower rather than higher.” As they say this, they show a diagram that has refraction bending the light in the OPPOSITE way that it actually bends. Either they don’t know how refraction works, or they are liars. (If you don’t believe me, look at the diagram that they include at 2:37.)
    c.    At 1:40, they say that “We can’t see the Sun–only the apparent Sun–and the apparent Sun appears lower and the real Sun is always higher” (or something like that). THAT’S IT!? That’s their entire argument that they use to support all three of the videos. Right there in those 20 or so seconds, and right after they make a false statement about how the angle of the Sun will change due to refraction, they lay down the entire theoretical basis of their videos. And yet the entire basis of that claim (bending the angle the wrong way) is absolutely false.
    d.    At 2:00, they say that if they Sun is only five miles high, then perspective will make the Sun get to the horizon in 7000 miles. They are correct in this case that the angle above the horizon would be extremely close to zero (close enough), but it doesn’t acknowledge how the Sun would shrink to nothing before getting there.
    e.    At 2:25, he beings a segment where he basically says, “We don’t know, but we could guess, how the Sun will appear to get to the horizon.” He then supposes that someone could do a swimming pool experiment, not acknowledging that refraction in water is far more significant than refraction in air (refraction is dependent upon changes in density of the medium).
    f.     The rest of the video is just animations using that software, but they offer no explanation regarding what the software is doing or why. In other words, they are either not smart enough to know whether the software reflects reality, or they manipulated the software until it gave them what they wanted.

  56. >Flat earthers REEEEEEEEEE about supposed NASA CGI of the globe earth
    >While also using CGI to "prove" the flat earth model
    Holy crap, that is funny.

  57. Check this out at
    Flat Earth Hat, Flat Earth map

  58. Here's a fresh idea. Both models are false paradigms… endless loop distractions.
    Jumping from spinning ball earth to flat earth and thinking you understand the universe… is like switching from Democrat to Republican and thinking you understand politics.
    There’s much MORE to it.

  59. Hold It–Hold it—Hold it. Isn't the sun and everything inside of a dome? And isn't that dome filled with air? Then there would be no atmosplane because the suns rays would be traveling in the atmosphere the whole time? What am I not seeing?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *