Debunking Flat Earth

[Shrewd Manager]

No it isn't. Catalina island reaches over 2000 feet.

Ok, over 1,000 ft should be hidden on a 150ft eye height and 54 mile shot. I'm guessing Catalina doesn't shoot straight up like the White Cliffs of Dover.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

What distance? Giant cargo ships like that don't go to Catalina island. San Pedro and Long Beach are much closer to Malibu than Catalina.

Where are you going with this? Suggesting he's edited the boat in?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Its trivially easy to explain that video on the globe. You haven't even made a case for why it is a problem for us.

1,000 ft hidden. As per his diagram, that would mean the entire tip of the island gone.

Full marks for creating yourself some wriggle-room with obfuscation though! but I'll again nail it shut with this one.

I have many more examples than you have excuses my friend.

 

[46AND2]

Now, would you care to explain why we can't see the lower elevation of Catalina? I'm guessing you'll just hand-wave it away, and post another video that I will tear to pieces, just like your first two.

1,000 ft hidden. As per his diagram, that would mean the entire tip of the island gone.

Full marks for creating yourself some wriggle-room with obfuscation though! but I'll again nail it shut with this one.

I have many more examples than you have excuses my friend.

Nailed it. Hand wave and a video.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Nailed it. Hand wave and a video.

That's the way, just ignore anything you can't answer. 1000 ft of Catalina should be hidden, that means all the bits you can see in the video, as per the diagram.

 

[46AND2]

That's the way, just ignore anything you can't answer. 1000 ft of Catalina should be hidden, that means all the bits you can see in the video, as per the diagram.

Dude, you haven't answered a single question of ours. Projecting, much? Where is Corsica? Where is Sardinia? Where is Avalon? Avalon Bay? The bottom of the ship? You've ignored them all.

Whether it is 700 feet hidden or 1000 feet hidden, it doesn't matter, YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN EITHER VALUE.

I told you that the vast majority of the time, we don't even have to teach you about light refraction to show you up. I'd be happy to explain it to you, but for now I'm giving you an advantage by NOT incorporating light refraction, and it STILL destroys your Catalina video.

 

[d taylor]

That the moon reflects the sun. This does not stop the moon from being a light to us, the full moon is enough to see quite well at night. So I believe that God made the two great lights and also that it is reflecting the sun.

The first light was neither the sun, moon or stars even though there was a day and night cycle. The light seems to be something else. Perhaps it was the suns light without the sun actually being present yet. We can only guess.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

I tend to believe God didn't make them first because a lot of ancient civilizations worship them, especially the sun. Making them later lessons their importance.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Again we have a day and night without the physical presence of the sun.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Third day with a day and night cycle before the 'sun' as well as growing plants. Not that plants can't survive a day and night in the dark but obviously the light was there.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Since the moon is to govern the night it could not be too bright or it would turn the night into day. To me, it seems perfect just as it is.

So after giving this long answer to my simple question your answer is that: you do not believe the Bible but instead believe science about God creation.

That the moon is not a created light by God but a created light reflector, even though there is not a single place in the Bible, that even hints at the moon being a created light reflector.

Paul even states that the sun, moon and stars have their own glory, Jesus states that the moon will not give its own light.

And on a side note you will never find the sun in the Bible being called a star. Or will you ever find God stating He created a universe or outer space.
But again and again in the Bible it is stated that God created heaven and earth.

Its the age where christians read sciences lies into the Bible.

 

[coffee4u]

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Now you are just being rude. I included the scripture because it's interesting and relevant and I thought we were having a discussion, obviously not. The Bible states that the moon is the light governing the night along with the stars. Which the moon does, it gives light to the earth at night. I don't see it matters if the light it gives, is it's own light or reflected light.
Genesis tells us step by step what was created on each day, but the Bible doesn't delve into things further. What we can take from it is that God created the sun, moon and stars on day 4, anything else you take from it is conjecture.

The Hebrew word used for emit/give light in this verse ('owr) can mean both “to be or become light” and “to be illuminated or become lighted up” (Strong’s 0215)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Unfortunately you've compromised to a science that rejects absolutes, which is no science at all. Theology is the king of sciences, and the metaphysics that go with it.

Science deals with observations of the world. There are no absolute certainties about observations of the world.

Metaphysics is philosophy, and it's debatable whether theology can be considered a science. It's not a science like the natural sciences - but if it is a science of the observable, it's a science of people's responses to the perceived supernatural, i.e. behavioural, psychological; alternatively, it's a scriptural science, i.e. literary, historical.

Not true. That's modern scientific approach - posit a theory, it holds until disproven. FE works the other way, with deduction/ conclusion drawn from observation and experiment.

No. Science starts with observations, posits explanations for them (hypothesis), tests the explanations, and provisionally accepts the most successful explanation. This does not become a scientific theory until it has been well-tested and is widely accepted.

I'm suggesting, however, that when you have such radical mismatches and also zero evidence of 95% of the stuff you need to sustain your unviersal model, isn't it time to be taking a long hard look at the paradigm?

You misunderstand the situation - we have abundant evidence - multiple independent lines of observational evidence of that 95% of the universe, and we know that ~25% behaves like gravitating matter and that ~75% behaves like negative pressure. What we don't yet know is the particular causes of those phenomena.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Unfortunately you've compromised to a science that rejects absolutes, which is no science at all. Theology is the king of sciences, and the metaphysics that go with it.

You don't understand how science is really done then.

Not true. That's modern scientific approach - posit a theory, it holds until disproven. FE works the other way, with deduction/ conclusion drawn from observation and experiment.

The fact that you would say that people posit theories shows that you don't understand science.

Refraction and looming are limited kinds of effects. Snell's law, for instance, gives us the range of refraction expected in air. Many long range photos would require the air to have refractive index of ethanol to refract so dramatically.

I never said that refraction or looming could cause us to see 325 miles. My point was that it is not accounted for it in any of the videos or your calculator you linked. You can definitely see something 150 miles away with these affects.

Have you seen the film The Principle? It's entirely what he said.

No its not and if he did say it, then he is wrong. The cosmological constant is at issue not the observations we can verify, just because we have this discrepancy does not mean the observations suddenly go away. If I see water boiling at 180 F I may not know why it is boiling at that temperature or why there is a discrepancy of 32 F, but I do know that it is boiling.

Of course Kaku wasn't suggesting we dispense with the theory. He makes a living out of it!

Whatever. This kind of accusations of dishonesty is just stupid.

I'm suggesting, however, that when you have such radical mismatches and also zero evidence of 95% of the stuff you need to sustain your unviersal model, isn't it time to be taking a long hard look at the paradigm?

This is not the case as I explained earlier.

Of course it should make ALL the assumptions of this model highly dubious and questionable. Go back and read Hubble, he was of the view the obs supported a 'special central position' of the earth, so he added a mathematical fudge factor to escape 'the horror of a unique position'. Standard model unproven/ unprovable assumptions are certainly more the rule than the exception. It's science fiction really.

It seems to me that you think that because we have to add a fudge factor to make calculations work, that invalidates observations. That is just not true. Maybe I am misunderstanding you.

You are the one that believes without evidence that millions of people around the world are keeping the flat earth secret and deceiving people on purpose using what would have to be trillions of dollars to do it. Talk about science fiction.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Science deals with observations of the world. There are no absolute certainties about observations of the world.

You'd be naive in the extreme to assert that material science is devoid of philosophical foundations. Reason, for one, the use of deduction and induction. Epistemology and ontology are the studies of these things. Material science just assumes these tools as givens and proceeds.

A science without a foundation in God is ultimately just magic eg 'Nothing exploded and created everything'. Well, nothing comes from nothing. Or where's the energy to get started?

Science starts with observations, posits explanations for them (hypothesis), tests the explanations, and provisionally accepts the most successful explanation. This does not become a scientific theory until it has been well-tested and is widely accepted.

As above, before you can have observations you need a whole metaphysical framework. Material science assumes the ideal existence of knowledge, how to get it, our capacity, certainty, accuracy, truth, reality etc. We're still dealing with Platonic or Aristotelian philosophical presuppositions, to say the least.

we know that ~25% behaves like gravitating matter and that ~75% behaves like negative pressure. What we don't yet know is the particular causes of those phenomena.

Your universe is almost infinite and yet you know all these things. It's a miracle! Well, the beauty of God is He shows us truly it's impossible for us to wrap our 'great brains' around Him.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You'd be naive in the extreme to assert that material science is devoid of philosophical foundations.

Indeed - that's why I didn't assert that.

A science without a foundation in God is ultimately just magic eg 'Nothing exploded and created everything'. Well, nothing comes from nothing. Or where's the energy to get started?

Ignoring your straw man of the big bang, perhaps you could explain to me how God is a better explanation than magic - in terms of testability, fruitful predictions, explanatory power, unifying principles, parsimony, coherence with existing body of knowledge, and not raising supernumerary questions - particularly unanswerable ones?

As above, before you can have observations you need a whole metaphysical framework.

I think you probably meant 'before you can describe observations'. Perception alone requires no framework.

Your universe is almost infinite and yet you know all these things. It's a miracle! Well, the beauty of God is He shows us truly it's impossible for us to wrap our 'great brains' around Him.

Ah, the argument by mockery and unsubstantiated assertion. Usually indicates the lack of a coherent argument.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

You don't understand how science is really done then.

Maybe you can explain how it's come to this, a ball earth moving at breakneck speeds in multiple directions, but zero observational or experimental evidence of motion or curvature...?

The fact that you would say that people posit theories shows that you don't understand science.

Ok, so the theory of gravity, the theory of evilotion..?

My point was that it is not accounted for it in any of the videos or your calculator you linked. You can definitely see something 150 miles away with these affects.

The refractive index of air as per Snell's law is insufficient to account for 'superman refraction'.

No its not and if he did say it, then he is wrong.

Take it up with him. Sounds like you have certainty on this point. Ah, certainty that elusive object of desire.

The cosmological constant is at issue not the observations we can verify, just because we have this discrepancy does not mean the observations suddenly go away. If I see water boiling at 180 F I may not know why it is boiling at that temperature or why there is a discrepancy of 32 F, but I do know that it is boiling.

I don't know what you're talking about. The cosmological constant is a myth. What do you base it on?

This kind of accusations of dishonesty is just stupid.

Ah, scientists don't depend on grants, they don't care about mundane matters like job security. No conflicts of interest, no frauds. Just a squeaky-clean white coat.

This is not the case as I explained earlier.

I must have missed your explanation. You got some data from somewhere...?

add a fudge factor to make calculations work, that invalidates observations.

He did this expressly to avoid the otherwise inescapable conclusion of geocentricity.

You are the one that believes without evidence that millions of people around the world are keeping the flat earth secret and deceiving people on purpose using what would have to be trillions of dollars to do it.

No, millions of people are deceived. That's just how the world is I'm afraid, 'til Jesus returns.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The refractive index of air as per Snell's law is insufficient to account for 'superman refraction'.

Did you know that the refraction of air is dependent on its temperature, pressure, and humidity, and that these are particularly variable over large bodies of water?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Where are you going with this? Suggesting he's edited the boat in?

No, that it's a cargo ship going from Long Beach to Japan or China. It is much closer to the observation point than Catalina. You don't know the distance, and you don't know how tall the ship is, so you don't know whether it should be totally obscured by curvature. But we can certainly see that it is partially obscured, demonstrating that there is curvature.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Indeed - that's why I didn't assert that.

Not sure how you'd discard metaphysics but keep philosophy. Enlighten me.

Ignoring your straw man of the big bang, perhaps you could explain to me how God is a better explanation than magic - in terms of testability, fruitful predictions, explanatory power, unifying principles, parsimony, coherence with existing body of knowledge, and not raising supernumerary questions - particularly unanswerable ones?

Big bang's a strawman? It's much worse than that. God to science represents the possibility of knowing anything. Without the absolute or ideal of truth, meaning, er direction, motion etc, what do you have? Just a relativistic quicksand. So now we're possibly in some quasi-holographic digital simulation where nothing is as it seems.

See, God is the rock of ages, the standard against which all things can be measured, the source of all true value, the author of life. Without God science is groping in the dark, or worse, eating from the table of demons.

Perception alone requires no framework.

Perception just is?

Ah, the argument by mockery and unsubstantiated assertion. Usually indicates the lack of a coherent argument.

Do you say that we possess sufficient data regarding the universe to be making any such grandiose universal claims?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

No, that it's a cargo ship going from Long Beach to Japan or China. It is much closer to the observation point than Catalina. You don't know the distance, and you don't know how tall the ship is, so you don't know whether it should be totally obscured by curvature. But we can certainly see that it is partially obscured, demonstrating that there is curvature.

Not interested in the boats or ship. Fact you can see most of the island that should be lost behind 1000ft of curvature is the point.

I posted another vid above of 18km point to point observation. I'll wager I can produce more vids than you can excuses!

 

[essentialsaltes]

It was only after I researched geocentrism for some years as an atheist/ agnostic that the obstacle to Christianity was removed and not long after - boom! born again

That's the heart of a really novel apologetics approach: "Once I got myself to a place where I could believe that the earth was flat, believing in a religion was a piece of cake. Go thou and do likewise."

 

[essentialsaltes]

Not interested in the boats or ship. Fact you can see most of the island

You're disinterested in the ship because it's fatal to a flat earth. Regardless, why is some of the island hidden? Flat is flat. You should be able to see all of it, except the 2-5 feet obscured by the surf.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Catalina has an isthmus that is quite low at Two Harbors. Changing the height of observation reveals more or less of the isthmus.