Is the Earth Flat?

[Subduction Zone]

If you ever rotate a marble slowly, ... you will notice that the patterns and shapes will shrink and grow depending on how direct the view is from your eyes ...

Or even more important, how close the marble is to the eye. One can accomplish the exact same results with a globe by taking pictures different distances from it. If one is close to the globe one sees far less than half of it. It still looks like a globe. If one is far away one sees almost half of it at a time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If these pictures are not foolish enough, I'll tell you what is. They say "Armstrong and Aldrin spent 21 hours, 36 minutes on the lunar surface." Wow, I mean, wow! No, not that they spent that much time there, but that they could not take 1 photo or video of the earth in that time, yet have hours of "lunar" footage. (That's like going to Yosemite and not taking a picture of Halfdome!) How could they miss it!? Unless of course...

You should learn a bit more about photography. The Moon would have been quite bright compared to the Earth and would have washed it out. There are days when you can see the Moon. It is all but washed out by Sunlight. It would have been the same on the Moon. If one has some distance the problem is much smaller. That is why there are pictures of the Earth and the Moon from the command modules. For the first landing especially they were photographing under rather novel conditions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Certainly looks like it took a picture of the whole globe? Or, did they crop it to make it look like a globe instead of showing the entire image?

With all due respect, your argument doesn't make sense to me.



Again... taken from far away or up close, if you're going to print a pic as "the globe" then you are being disingenuous if you crop it into the shape of a circle and leave parts out.


Nice try... both are presented as a picture of the "globe" in it's entirety and.... circular in shape and .... the continents are different sizes in percentage of the surface.

Cropping is not necessary. It is simply a result of geometry. As I said two posts ago, you can duplicate this on Earth by photographing a globe at different distances. Do an extreme close up where the US is centered. It still looks like a globe, but the US will cover a huge portion of the photograph. Back up ten feet and take a shot with a telephoto lens so that the globe is the same size. The US will be much smaller.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Too close. How's that? The whole stupid ball is visible, apparently.

You should have learned this geometry in high school. Flat Earthers are always rambling on about perspective but they never understand it.

You never see "the whole planet" from space. At most you see a little bit less than hall of it. Unless you have X-Ray Vision. You cannot see the back side.

Here is an experiment you can do at home. Cover its inside with a water soluble paint. While still wet lower a globe into it until it just touches. Pull the globe out. There will be a ring of paint the represents the tangent line of sight from the focus of the cone. The area inside the ring is what you would see if your eye was where the cone was. You will see that it is less than half of the globe.

 

[klutedavid]

If these pictures are not foolish enough, I'll tell you what is. They say "Armstrong and Aldrin spent 21 hours, 36 minutes on the lunar surface." Wow, I mean, wow! No, not that they spent that much time there, but that they could not take 1 photo or video of the earth in that time, yet have hours of "lunar" footage. (That's like going to Yosemite and not taking a picture of Halfdome!) How could they miss it!? Unless of course...

The Apollo 13 crew were sent to the moon to study the moon. They are not sending back images of the earth, that is not their mission objective.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

You should have learned this geometry in high school. Flat Earthers are always rambling on about perspective but they never understand it.

You never see "the whole planet" from space. At most you see a little bit less than hall of it. Unless you have X-Ray Vision. You cannot see the back side.

Here is an experiment you can do at home. Cover its inside with a water soluble paint. While still wet lower a globe into it until it just touches. Pull the globe out. There will be a ring of paint the represents the tangent line of sight from the focus of the cone. The area inside the ring is what you would see if your eye was where the cone was. You will see that it is less than half of the globe.

I thought some genius would pull me up on that remark.

Here's an experiment you can do at home: hang two lead balls from either end of a coat hanger in a shed, and observe (from outside the shed - very important).

If done correctly, you'll get back to me with the mass or weight of the earth and the moon.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

The Apollo 13 crew were sent to the moon to study the moon. They are not sending back images of the earth, that is not their mission objective.

Do you think that's why they looked so depressed in the press conference afterwards? No horseplay on the moon! Maybe that's why Aldrin became reclusive and turned to booze for years? No happy snaps.

Gladly, it appears that Nasa did relax that rule for later missions, allowing some golf to be played.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

there are no planets mentioned in the Bible, only the sun, moon, and stars.

There are some oblique references to planets, usually in the context of pagan worship in the OT. This Wikipedia page contains some interesting propositions:

Biblical astronomy - Wikipedia

 

[d taylor]

There are some oblique references to planets, usually in the context of pagan worship in the OT. This Wikipedia page contains some interesting propositions:

Biblical astronomy - Wikipedia

If angels and stars are not the same. Then stars could be like angels, where in angels i believe there are at least three types of angels, Seraphim, Cherubim, etc...

So there could be the types of stars like saturn, jupiter, venus (notice all pagan names) etc.. that have a certain function, that differ from other stars.

We have lost the knowledge that Adam (and other Tanakh ancients) had of God's creation and it has been replaced with the lies of science.

 

[Paul4JC]

You should learn a bit more about photography. The Moon would have been quite bright compared to the Earth and would have washed it out. There are days when you can see the Moon. It is all but washed out by Sunlight. It would have been the same on the Moon. If one has some distance the problem is much smaller. That is why there are pictures of the Earth and the Moon from the command modules. For the first landing especially they were photographing under rather novel conditions.

Washed out? Like midday? I wonder who really needs photography lessons.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Washed out? Like midday? I wonder who really needs photography lessons.

View attachment 309090

I don't see any ground in that picture, and yes, the Moon does look washed out there. Here is a hint, the Moon is not blue. (It is of course green, all that cheese you know).

 

[Paul4JC]

I don't see any ground in that picture, and yes, the Moon does look washed out there. Here is a hint, the Moon is not blue. (It is of course green, all that cheese you know).

Now you need ground (to stand on)? You can see the moon clearly at midday, just as you could see the earth if you were on the moon and easily take a photo, as I did of the moon at 12:45pm. Just give me a "washed out" picture of the earth from the moon Apollo. Apollo? (Apollo, I'll call you.)

Sure it's clearer in the dark. The same day, 4:45am....

Moon it's own source of light

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now you need ground (to stand on)? You can see the moon clearly at midday, just as you could see the earth if you were on the moon and easily take a photo, as I did of the moon at 12:45pm. Just give me a "washed out" picture of the earth from the moon Apollo. Apollo? (Apollo, I'll call you.)

Sure it's clearer in the dark. The same day, 4:45am....

Moon it's own source of light

Oh my, such a failure. Why would they want a picture of the Earth from the surface of the Moon in the first place? What was their purpose in going to the Moon?

And no, the Moon is not a source of light. I reflects light. Have you ever heard of a lunar eclipse?

 

[Paul4JC]

Oh my, such a failure. Why would they want a picture of the Earth from the surface of the Moon in the first place? What was their purpose in going to the Moon?

And no, the Moon is not a source of light. I reflects light. Have you ever heard of a lunar eclipse?

Pathetic is a better word. Scrap those other fake earth pics too.

It is Biblically. Have your heard of Rahu kala, the shadow entity of Hindu Paranas, and Ketu, "the descending lunar node."? Last Thursday was 97% lunar eclipse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Pathetic is a better word. Scrap those other fake earth pics too.

It is Biblically. Have your heard of Rahu kala, the shadow entity of Hindu Paranas, and Ketu, "the descending lunar node."? Last Thursday was 97% lunar eclipse.

You are not making any sense. We had a big lunar eclipse two weeks ago. Lunar eclipses refute the claim that the Moon is a source of light.

And how can you prove that those pictures are fake? Let's see your evidence. It will probably be hilarious.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

If angels and stars are not the same. Then stars could be like angels, where in angels i believe there are at least three types of angels, Seraphim, Cherubim, etc...

So there could be the types of stars like saturn, jupiter, venus (notice all pagan names) etc.. that have a certain function, that differ from other stars.

We have lost the knowledge that Adam (and other Tanakh ancients) had of God's creation and it has been replaced with the lies of science.

I think scripture is pretty clear on the idea that the pagans worshipped deified stars. As the 'planets' are the brighter stars in the sky, they'd be the prime suspects.

But certainly, Abram 'cephered' the stars at God's request, for faith points:

Then He brought him outside and said, “Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.” (Gen 15:5)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think scripture is pretty clear on the idea that the pagans worshipped deified stars. As the 'planets' are the brighter stars in the sky, they'd be the prime suspects.

But certainly, Abram 'cephered' the stars at God's request, for faith points:

Then He brought him outside and said, “Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.” (Gen 15:5)

It is an abuse of the Bible to try to use it as a science book. One only ends up refuting the Bible when one does so.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

It is an abuse of the Bible to try to use it as a science book. One only ends up refuting the Bible when one does so.

Stay in your lane Mr Atheist until you can do the basics of science, ie (a) design not chance (b) design ergo designer. Then you can perhaps gird up to earth science ie (c) no motion and (d) no curvature. It's really not that hard, just observation and deduction from 'the natural revelation'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Stay in your lane Mr Atheist until you can do the basics of science, ie (a) design not chance (b) design ergo designer. Then you can perhaps gird up to earth science ie (c) no motion and (d) no curvature. It's really not that hard, just observation and deduction from 'the natural revelation'.

Oh my! I am betting that I understand science far better than you ever will. Do you want to discuss basic science and how we know what we know?

There is no scientific evidence for a designer. That is why creationists always lose lawsuits. Judges, even conservative Christian ones, are experts in evidence and can see that there is none for your beliefs.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I don't see any ground in that picture, and yes, the Moon does look washed out there. Here is a hint, the Moon is not blue. (It is of course green, all that cheese you know).

Rubbish. Swiss cheese is not green.