P A N

I like to get straight to the point, so I nip things like that at the bud. Calling it a quack theory is very subjective languange, and when discussing this topic I've found a precedent is needed. If it was a joke, I apologize, but to any and all who may be reading this, a respectful conversation will better happen if we are aware that such things can very justifiably be perceived by their receivers as ad hominem or directly insulting. It's a waste of time that I'm unequivocally adhered to confrontation with. Which is a sh*ttty little paradox.

Anyway, regarding the clock that is the sky, context is needed. First and foremost and always to be remembered, is that the Geocentric Model has variations depending on who you talk to, and it doesn't matter. The reason it doesn't matter is that the Flat Earth Hypothesis has basically been altogether reborn because of the internet, and a collectivization of information about this on a worldwide scale has made it so there can't possibly be a concensus on everything about it yet. This is not important because it gives me an out for answering certain questions either. It's important because the Flat Earth community as a whole recognizes the validity of unanswered questions with answers pending on a more democratic process of inquiry. In the end, and in short, this means I don't know what the sky is made of or quite how it works, but I'm definitely curious.

Talking about the sky, with this in mind, should help build a framework within which one - such as yourself - can more properly observe concpts which they previously thought impossible.

Now, saying "tell me about this clock" is really vague. So I don't know where to begin really. The first thing that comes to mind is that we've been using it as a clock for as long as any history teaches. It's commonly accepted that it is the most reliable barometer by which to measure the passage of time.

The second thing that comes to mind is that Geocentrists usually don't believe in stars as Heliocentrists do. We don't all agree on what they are, but we agree that they are not infinitely burning balls of gas maintaining an overall perfectly round body while travelling through space at a gajillion miles an hour. Many think they would have tails if they were doing that. Big ones. I tend to agree.

Third, the sun and moon are the same size and distance from the Earth to most Geocentrists. They are 32 miles wide and about 3000 miles above the Flat Earth, circling the pole at varying distances from it, which creates the seasons.

Regarding third point: Eratosthenes is documented as having proved the Earth to be spherical, and made what is a pretty accurate calculation on its size, relative to the accepted Heliocentric Model. He put two poles in the ground, perpendicular to level, at a distance of something like 600 or 800 miles. He saw that the shadows diverged from one another, and concluded from this that the Earth is a ball, and is whatever size he came up with. That's all fine and dandy, until you enter the supposed lens effect cited often by Heliocentrists, caused by sunlight passing through the atmosphere. Lenses are at the ready for testing for most people, and it's readily apparent that putting light through the broad side causes it to focus underneath. But in the case of our very special (downright magical) atmosphere it causes sun rays to converge, rather than diverge, as they do in Eratosthenes' experiment. Effectively Eratosthenes proved the Earth is flat. For another example of diverging sun rays look up "crepuscular sun rays". This is relative to the third point because it is these shadows which have helped Geocentrists determine the distance of the sun and moon.

I think I'll stop there in hope that this inspires more concrete questions.