Debunking Flat Earth

[JacksBratt]

I believe the highest man has bee above the earth is about 20 miles, how ever high they can fly in an airplane or jet.

Neil DeGrass Tyson has said that you cannot go high enough in any plane, to see the curve... And, he is The "NEIL" right? He cannot be wrong.... can he?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I see those as metaphors. After all, we don't literally see God's feet up in the sky above us, do we?

Looks like a foot to me

 

[essentialsaltes]

All of this makes "theoretical" simple math. However...is it an actual phenomenon? Or just more "theory" applied to nonsense.

It makes sense... but... is it reality? I have argued with people that say it is not measurable.

46and2's post #791 demonstrates an experiment to measure it.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

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."

Er no, God actually did reveal Himself to me and changed my heart and opened my eyes. So I tell people - 'If you're earnestly looking for the truth, sooner or later you'll run smack bang into Jesus Christ, who is truth incarnate.' Most ppl think it's crazy talk.

But that's ok, you don't need to believe. You'll get saved eventually, it just might involve wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

You're disinterested in the ship because it's fatal to a flat earth.

Hardly, we don't know the distance of the ship so it's a speculative distraction.

Flat is flat. You should be able to see all of it, except the 2-5 feet obscured by the surf.

That's the best you've got?

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

I like the word 'isthmus', and I believe in Christmas, just at a different time of year. Anyway, run the numbers for the video, he's saying eye level is 150ft. You'll find that at that distance over 1000ft should be hidden.

 

[SkyWriting]

Go

God's truth and reality are found in the pages of scripture about His creation. Not in the lies of science.

Most people experience a flat earth. It's not a big deal.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Would you actually look at the evidence for a ball earth or just dismiss it as deception?

Thanks, but we all went through that. It was called indoctrination aka high school. There are just insurmountable problems with the standard model when you scratch the surface. It requires so many unproven assumptions to prop it up, and needs to ignore or fudge so much contrary evidence as to be indistinguishable from a large-scale fraud.

Theories are supported by facts, experimentation, observation from many different fields of study that all support a theory to the point that it may be tweaked in the future but will never be fully rejected for something else.

I suggest you need to remove those rose-coloured glasses and apply some critical thinking. Take gravity, it's experimentally unprovable - no independent variable to isolate. And then generalising it to a governing universal principle! Lord puhlease!

If a scientist could demonstrate that a well established theory is severely wrong, such as evolution, they would win a Nobel prize be the most famous scientist ever with all kinds of money coming in for research etc.

You're joking. Darwinian macro-evolution is ludicrous. Can't explain biogenesis or speciation. Theory of life that can't explain whence why or whither. Evolution was soundly debunked in the 80s by mainstream peer-reviewed biologists, but all that just gets buried. If you're a physicist who wants to badmouth Einstein, good luck getting a job or a grant.

Science has demonstrated a good track record, faith has always had to adapt to knew scientific findings.

You're right, there have been some good developments in technology, medicine, engineering, materials and so on. But my point is that true science always needs to presuppose absolutes, and the moment it dispenses with those it falls into relativity, which leads to confusion and insanity of the likes of the 'holographic simulated multiverse' sci-fi, the inability to distinguish between the imagined and the real.

In the meantime mankind still suffers injustice, sickness, ignorance etc. These problems haven't been addressed, just weaponised.

I don't understand why you think we throw out all we can demonstrate about our universe because we have no solution yet to this problem. I am betting that science will solve the problem before faith will.

We can't possibly know with any level of confidence that the 'universe' is billions of years old. There is no reliable way to date any materials. It's all based on unproven assumptions, and dressed up to sound authoritative.

You are disparaging real people without proof. A massive conspiracy theory to prop up evolution, ball earth, gravity etc.

It is, as J Edgar Hoover once said (along the lines) 'A conspiracy so monstrous that the mind refuses to accept it'. You should look into who owns the financial system - every dollar in circulation (plus the rights to interest) is property of a small cabal. It's a proprietary system. Once you have that kind of power, you wield the 'power of preferment' over any industry, institution or theory you like.

Then the millions of people that work in industries that rely on the current theories of evolution and cosmology are deceived somehow?

The power of groupthink cannot be underestimated. If the boss wants something done a certain way, that's how you do it, even if there appears a simpler solution. If you got taught that various assumptions are uncontentious, you proceed in good faith on the expectation that those items are proven. It's the house of cards principle. But my friend, build your house not on sand, but on Jesus Christ the rock of ages. You won't be disappointed.

 

[JacksBratt]

Er no, God actually did reveal Himself to me and changed my heart and opened my eyes. So I tell people - 'If you're earnestly looking for the truth, sooner or later you'll run smack bang into Jesus Christ, who is truth incarnate.' Most ppl think it's crazy talk.

But that's ok, you don't need to believe. You'll get saved eventually, it just might involve wailing and gnashing of teeth.

This is true..

The fact is, much to our futility, all the talking and scripture posting and quoting that us Christians do here.... There is nothing that we can do or say as it is only God that can save the soul.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

This is true..

The fact is, much to our futility, all the talking and scripture posting and quoting that us Christians do here.... There is nothing that we can do or say as it is only God that can save the soul.

Yet we continue to warble the good news in the desert, by the grace of the Almighty.

 

[JacksBratt]

Yet we continue to warble the good news in the desert, by the grace of the Almighty.

Agreed, as is our job, to sow the seeds and let the Holy spirit water and grow it.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Why would I discard metaphysics? where would science be without metaphysics?

In #769 you contrasted metaphysics to science. You said the former is philosophy. Just what are you saying M. Bandersnatch?

How is this measurement process performed?

By the grace of God. Because there is an absolute standard. You can't measure anything in a quagmire of shifting sands. Even Einstein couldn't rid science of this accursed share in E=MC2, where C stands in as the absolute, the fixed standard.

Is what?

You tell me, it was your comment that posited some reality in a disembodied idea of perception.

we know enough about our best model of the universe to say those phenomena correspond to different specific kinds of influence in that model.

Guys stare at the sky and make claims. How can you postulate a gravitational relationship of 'planets' in the 'solar system' when you have a '3 body problem' which restricts your ability to even assess whether it's mathematically possible? Also, 'planetary distances', the 'astronomical unit' are just based on assumptions, and at best proportions that could be scaled up and down without changing predictive power. So 'flimsy' would be a euphemism.

 

[Yekcidmij]

How can you postulate a gravitational relationship of 'planets' in the 'solar system' when you have a '3 body problem' which restricts your ability to even assess whether it's mathematically possible?

Why can't he use the generalized n-body problem?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Hardly, we don't know the distance of the ship so it's a speculative distraction.

Why should any of the ship be obscured?

That's the best you've got?

Yes, it's pretty good. Why should any of the island be obscured by the flat sea when the observer is 150 feet above the flat sea?

Anyway, run the numbers for the video, he's saying eye level is 150ft. You'll find that at that distance over 1000ft should be hidden.

What if we run the numbers and figure out the topography of the island and locate distinctive landmarks on the island and discover that 500 feet are hidden, or 1,500 feet are hidden rather than the calculated 1,000? This would not mean that the earth is flat. It would just mean the radius of the earth is bigger or smaller than we thought. If a significant part of the island is obscured, then the earth must be round.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Guys stare at the sky and make claims. How can you postulate a gravitational relationship of 'planets' in the 'solar system'

By noting mathematical relations in the results of the sky-staring, and developing a theoretical model that explains them.

Kepler stared at the sky a lot and using little more than complicated geometry and trigonometry discovered his laws of planetary motion. The orbits are ellipses. The orbits sweep out equal areas in equal times. The period of the orbit is related to the size of the ellipse. These are observational regularities. Why do these regularities exist? Kepler didn't know. But it was a work of genius to even discover them through careful observation.

The genius of Newton was to see that a theory of gravity with an inverse square law explains all three of Kepler's Laws.

when you have a '3 body problem' which restricts your ability to even assess whether it's mathematically possible?

You don't actually know what you're talking about here. The fact that the name of the situation has 'problem' in it does not mean that the theory 'has a problem'. We can write the equations of motion for the general two body problem in a closed form. We can't for the general three body problem. (Or n body problem). This has nothing to do with whether the theory is valid.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Thanks, but we all went through that. It was called indoctrination aka high school. There are just insurmountable problems with the standard model when you scratch the surface. It requires so many unproven assumptions to prop it up, and needs to ignore or fudge so much contrary evidence as to be indistinguishable from a large-scale fraud.

I can demonstrate that the world is an oblate spheroid. You just keep asserting unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

I suggest you need to remove those rose-coloured glasses and apply some critical thinking. Take gravity, it's experimentally unprovable - no independent variable to isolate. And then generalising it to a governing universal principle! Lord puhlease!

It is experimentally demonstrated to be true every time we do an experiment. It is predictive and falsifiable. That is science. All you have to do is demonstrate that gravity as we understand it is not true, falsify it. Can you do that?

You're joking. Darwinian macro-evolution is ludicrous. Can't explain biogenesis or speciation. Theory of life that can't explain whence why or whither. Evolution was soundly debunked in the 80s by mainstream peer-reviewed biologists, but all that just gets buried. If you're a physicist who wants to badmouth Einstein, good luck getting a job or a grant.

Evolution does not claim to explain abiogenesis and it can demonstrate speciation, this further exposes your lack of understanding of science. If you take a couple of months to look at the evidence for evolution it is undeniable and overwhelming. You want an easy explanation and are unwilling to learn what evolution actually is and why it is true. The evidence is there if you are willing to take time to study, it is not as easy as putting lines on google maps, but anyone can understand evolution and the evidence for it.

You're right, there have been some good developments in technology, medicine, engineering, materials and so on. But my point is that true science always needs to presuppose absolutes, and the moment it dispenses with those it falls into relativity, which leads to confusion and insanity of the likes of the 'holographic simulated multiverse' sci-fi, the inability to distinguish between the imagined and the real.

You want to say science is unreliable in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. A multiverse has been proposed as a solution, no scientists believes it is actually the case because it has not been demonstrated to be true. How many people do you know that are alive because of science? I know many including my wife. That has only been true for the last 100 years or so through science, not Christianity.

In the meantime mankind still suffers injustice, sickness, ignorance etc. These problems haven't been addressed, just weaponised.

Yes, mostly be religious zealots. If Christianity can solve these things then go ahead solve them. There is less sickness and suffering because of science.

We can't possibly know with any level of confidence that the 'universe' is billions of years old. There is no reliable way to date any materials. It's all based on unproven assumptions, and dressed up to sound authoritative.

This is untrue, this is just more apologist anti science garbage. Do you even look at materials from scientists or just Christian apologists?

It is, as J Edgar Hoover once said (along the lines) 'A conspiracy so monstrous that the mind refuses to accept it'. You should look into who owns the financial system - every dollar in circulation (plus the rights to interest) is property of a small cabal. It's a proprietary system. Once you have that kind of power, you wield the 'power of preferment' over any industry, institution or theory you like.

Can you demonstrate this to be true? You also didn't understand what I am saying. There are engineers designing spacecraft using what we know about our universe, gravity, speed of earth etc. and going to Mars and such. If the world is flat these calculations could not work and all spaceflight would have been a disaster. You want me to believe without evidence that millions of people that are working on these problems using the results of science that demonstrates a ball earth are in on the conspiracy. They would know if their calculations are true or not.

We have seen space shuttles being launched into space. Where did they go? Where are people on the space station right now? We have seen satellites launched into space and never come back, where are they?

The power of groupthink cannot be underestimated. If the boss wants something done a certain way, that's how you do it, even if there appears a simpler solution. If you got taught that various assumptions are uncontentious, you proceed in good faith on the expectation that those items are proven. It's the house of cards principle.

Not when your job depends on actual calculations that were demonstrated to be true when you actually launched the rocket etc.

But my friend, build your house not on sand, but on Jesus Christ the rock of ages. You won't be disappointed.

I did for 18 years and he was a no show. I know, you will blame me and not your God for that. Demonstrate that God is real and moral and I will consider it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In #769 you contrasted metaphysics to science. You said the former is philosophy. Just what are you saying M. Bandersnatch?

Let me clarify. Metaphysics is a form of philosophy that deals with general concepts, abstractions, and principles; it is considered 'a-priori'. In contrast, science is the empirical study of specific observations of the world, and it is considered 'a-posteriori'. That is the distinction as I was taught it - do you have a different view?

By the grace of God. Because there is an absolute standard.

That's pretty vague - Einstein's absolute standard was explicit, the speed of light. What is the absolute standard you're talking about, what is it a standard of, what are its units?

Can you give an example of how the grace of God can be used to measure something in comparison to this standard?

Guys stare at the sky and make claims. How can you postulate a gravitational relationship of 'planets' in the 'solar system' when you have a '3 body problem' which restricts your ability to even assess whether it's mathematically possible?

The gravitational relationship is a model that describes and explains the various movements of the celestial bodies. The 3-body problem is a prediction of the gravitational relationship, not a challenge to it; and even 19th century n-body analytical approximations are sufficiently accurate for all but long-term modelling.

Also, 'planetary distances', the 'astronomical unit' are just based on assumptions, and at best proportions that could be scaled up and down without changing predictive power. So 'flimsy' would be a euphemism.

Everything is based on assumptions. Not sure what you mean by proportions that could be scaled up or down without changing predictive power - that would be a very useful general theory. But the solar system is not scale-invariant, as mass is proportional to volume, and the volume of a sphere scales with the cube of the radius.

 

[46AND2]

Hardly, we don't know the distance of the ship so it's a speculative distraction.



That's the best you've got?



I like the word 'isthmus', and I believe in Christmas, just at a different time of year. Anyway, run the numbers for the video, he's saying eye level is 150ft. You'll find that at that distance over 1000ft should be hidden.

 

[Strathos]

Instead of posting blurry photos that you claim to show things that would only be slightly beyond the horizon using the known curvature (and ignoring fudge factors like refraction), why don't you show us a picture of the Himalayas taken from Australia? On a flat earth, that would be not only possible, but easy.

 

[Shemjaza]

Instead of posting blurry photos that you claim to show things that would only be slightly beyond the horizon using the known curvature (and ignoring fudge factors like refraction), why don't you show us a picture of the Himalayas taken from Australia? On a flat earth, that would be not only possible, but easy.

Why not go easier... a long distance photo of the Sun at 2am from Melbourne.

 

[JacksBratt]

Instead of posting blurry photos that you claim to show things that would only be slightly beyond the horizon using the known curvature (and ignoring fudge factors like refraction), why don't you show us a picture of the Himalayas taken from Australia? On a flat earth, that would be not only possible, but easy.

These statements are not new and very common. However, all they do is show that you have not done much research on this subject.

The reason that this is not "easy", "simple" or even possible is due to the simple facts that the atmosphere contains humidity and dust particulates. Over very large distances, these contaminants make the images appear just as the one you are arguing about..

Try googling long distance photos with IR. These will give some images that are difficult to explain on the globe model.