FLAT or ROUND Earth?

[Edwin Wright]

Flat earth belief dormant for centuries....took off here about 2012...
Why the Flat Earth is Not Biblical

Your referenced article does not appear to have a named author. The following does:

https://planegeodesy.com/part-c-bible-verses-confirming-planar-earth-geocentrism.

 

[Edwin Wright]

Ita not a false claim if I see it with my eyes.



How do you explain the Coriolis affect on earth? It iant mentioned as part of the creation story and yet it exists

The problem with explaining the (so-called) Coriolis effect is that it does not exist. See ANALYSIS OF A NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC VIDEO IMPLIES THAT THE EARTH IS STATIONARY and Heliocentrism Refuted: Experimental Proof of a Stationary Earth.

 

[rambot]

The problem with explaining the (so-called) Coriolis effect is that it does not exist. See ANALYSIS OF A NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC VIDEO IMPLIES THAT THE EARTH IS STATIONARY and Heliocentrism Refuted: Experimental Proof of a Stationary Earth.

Would you care to summarize the argument as you are the one who believes it?
Because there is, of course, physical evidence that it exists.
And these articles reay don't say what your video says it does


ok ok. Ao i decided to check out your evidence. Please be gracious.

1. The passage uses the word "spinning" 5 times in its analogy to point out that the article says its not spinning. I wonder if someone is misunderstanding the analogy.
2. The hard hitting rebuttal is that "no it aint".
3. It goes on to describe that "because airplanes don't have to do periodic course corrections" it's flying north. Of course thats basically true but...
Computers plot the course taking the coreolis effect into account. And still there are small course corrections.


I'm sorry. Just because a website looks convincing doesn't mean it is a reliable source of information.

 

[d taylor]

Ita not a false claim if I see it with my eyes.



How do you explain the Coriolis affect on earth? It iant mentioned as part of the creation story and yet it exists

-
​

I do not have to explain it, The Bible gives adequate creation descriptions to know that what God created is not what science states is the creation.

 

[rambot]

-
​

I do not have to explain it, The Bible gives adequate creation descriptions to know that what God created is not what science states is the creation.

The Bible is NOT a scientific document. If you choose to go down that path it is your folly

 

[d taylor]

The Bible is NOT a scientific document. If you choose to go down that path it is your folly

-
​

Never said it was. But God being creator of His creation. Certainly has the right to give an account of His creation in The Bible. As people who state they are believers in God, should believe His creation descriptions.

 

[rambot]

-
​

Never said it was.

But you are treating it as if it was.

But God being creator of His creation. Certainly has the right to give an account of His creation in The Bible. As people who state they are believers in God, should believe His creation descriptions.

I dont doubt that God created the universe but I have no idea HOW he did it....."set in the vault" Is a poor description of sky bodies that move through the sky daily and over monthly and yearly cycles too.

 

[rambot]

The problem with explaining the (so-called) Coriolis effect is that it does not exist. See ANALYSIS OF A NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC VIDEO IMPLIES THAT THE EARTH IS STATIONARY and Heliocentrism Refuted: Experimental Proof of a Stationary Earth.

Just so you are aware, this man is frequently repeating a single argument that hinges on ONE misunderstanding of the mapping of plane travel. This guy tossed up some very impressive looking math (but it's gr8 level stuff). But the math is a distraction from the fact that the argument
Itself is flimsy.


In any case, if you'd like to do a science experiment with me, to show you the earth's curve I would love to do it!! I'm in edmonton alberta canada. Where are you?

Actually that invitations is open to anyone! Dm me if you want

 

[Edwin Wright]

Would you care to summarize the argument as you are the one who believes it?
Because there is, of course, physical evidence that it exists.
And these articles reay don't say what your video says it does


ok ok. Ao i decided to check out your evidence. Please be gracious.

1. The passage uses the word "spinning" 5 times in its analogy to point out that the article says its not spinning. I wonder if someone is misunderstanding the analogy.
2. The hard hitting rebuttal is that "no it aint".
3. It goes on to describe that "because airplanes don't have to do periodic course corrections" it's flying north. Of course thats basically true but...
Computers plot the course taking the coreolis effect into account. And still there are small course corrections.


I'm sorry. Just because a website looks convincing doesn't mean it is a reliable source of information.

Can you provide objective evidence supporting your assertion that computers plot the course taking the Coriolis effect into account?

 

[Edwin Wright]

Just so you are aware, this man is frequently repeating a single argument that hinges on ONE misunderstanding of the mapping of plane travel. This guy tossed up some very impressive looking math (but it's gr8 level stuff). But the math is a distraction from the fact that the argument
Itself is flimsy.


In any case, if you'd like to do a science experiment with me, to show you the earth's curve I would love to do it!! I'm in edmonton alberta canada. Where are you?

Actually that invitations is open to anyone! Dm me if you want

Please enlighten me. What is that ONE misunderstanding of the mapping of plane travel?

 

[d taylor]

But you are treating it as if it was.



I dont doubt that God created the universe but I have no idea HOW he did it....."set in the vault" Is a poor description of sky bodies that move through the sky daily and over monthly and yearly cycles too.

-
​

All you do is read science into The Bible, so how can you ever see what The Bible is saying about God's creation. Not a single place in The Bible does The Bible state God created a universe, God creation is always stated as heaven and earth.

 

[rambot]

Can you provide objective evidence supporting your assertion that computers plot the course taking the Coriolis effect into account?

Well. I'm having a hard time believing it would be worth my time.
There are pictures and experiments that prove the earth's spheroid. They are easy to find amd I am sure you've seen them.

And if you will dismiss reasonable physical evidence, I'm not excited to provide evidence for this assertion since it could easily (though not appropriately) be dismissed as subjective or tainted evidence.


I've brought up foucaults Pendulum a couple times because it ACTUALLY demonstrates the coriolis effect. So there's no point in even arguing about airplanes. You can see it with your eyes. That is direct primary evidence of its existence. Why ask for evidence of tertiary evidence?

 

[rambot]

-
​

All you do is read science into The Bible, so how can you ever see what The Bible is saying about God's creation. Not a single place in The Bible does The Bible state God created a universe, God creation is always stated as heaven and earth.

Oops. The 6th and 7th word in the Bible?
"The heavens".

Not heaven.

 

[Lost4words]

-
​

Never said it was. But God being creator of His creation. Certainly has the right to give an account of His creation in The Bible. As people who state they are believers in God, should believe His creation descriptions.

Believing is not the issue. Interpretation is..

 

[Nithavela]

You guys realise that convincing people determines to believe in a flat earth is just an excercise in futility, right?

I have found this video quite elucidating on the issue. It shows how flat earthers not only actively avoid engaging with evidence that debunks their belief, but migrate to other ideas that have no basis in reality either. It's not about trying to see reality as it is, it's about building a new reality in their mind that fits their pre-conceived ideas.

 

[Edwin Wright]

Well. I'm having a hard time believing it would be worth my time.
There are pictures and experiments that prove the earth's spheroid. They are easy to find amd I am sure you've seen them.

And if you will dismiss reasonable physical evidence, I'm not excited to provide evidence for this assertion since it could easily (though not appropriately) be dismissed as subjective or tainted evidence.


I've brought up foucaults Pendulum a couple times because it ACTUALLY demonstrates the coriolis effect. So there's no point in even arguing about airplanes. You can see it with your eyes. That is direct primary evidence of its existence. Why ask for evidence of tertiary evidence?

I am not asking for tertiary evidence. You airplanes account for the Coriolis effect

Well. I'm having a hard time believing it would be worth my time.
There are pictures and experiments that prove the earth's spheroid. They are easy to find amd I am sure you've seen them.

And if you will dismiss reasonable physical evidence, I'm not excited to provide evidence for this assertion since it could easily (though not appropriately) be dismissed as subjective or tainted evidence.


I've brought up foucaults Pendulum a couple times because it ACTUALLY demonstrates the coriolis effect. So there's no point in even arguing about airplanes. You can see it with your eyes. That is direct primary evidence of its existence. Why ask for evidence of tertiary evidence?

I am not asking for tertiary evidence. You made the assertion that computers plot the course taking the Coriolis effect into account, implying that you have some technical knowledge of commercial aviation operations in that regard. If that is the case, then please refer to a specific technical document that objectively demonstrates that (alleged) technical capability. If you are unable to point to such a document, then your assertion is nothing more than wishful thinking.

 

[rambot]

I am not asking for tertiary evidence. You airplanes account for the Coriolis effect

I am not asking for tertiary evidence. You made the assertion that computers plot the course taking the Coriolis effect into account, implying that you have some technical knowledge of commercial aviation operations in that regard. If that is the case, then please refer to a specific technical document that objectively demonstrates that (alleged) technical capability. If you are unable to point to such a document, then your assertion is nothing more than wishful thinking.

1) I don't have access to "specific technical documentation"...
Coriolis force on bullet vs airplane.

Planes are controlled. There is a guidance system (such as a pilot) which is trying to keep it on course. This is important because there are forces that will deflect the plane off course which are orders of magnitude more powerful than the Coriolis effect. If there was not active correction, those other forces would virtually guarantee that we never arrived at our destination.

Because there's a guidance system in play, we rapidly trim the aircraft to counteract the Coriolis effect as a side effect of trying to trim the aircraft for all of the much bigger forces at play. There may be a slight deflection of the rudder associated with the Coriolis effect, but you would be hard pressed to identify it amidst all the other forces.

At this point I am now waiting to hear how you hope to counter Foucault's pendulum since I am perfectly aware that the provided information will be insufficient for you.

To be clear, as the article states the Coriolis effect is quite small compared to other factors at play (like wind).

 

[d taylor]

Oops. The 6th and 7th word in the Bible?
"The heavens".

Not heaven.

Heaven can be used as heavens or heaven. This still does not change the fact that heaven is not another word for universe or outer space.

In The Bible there is the heaven (raqia Hebrew) that in English is known as dome, sky, firmament, expanse, vault. This heaven which is seperating two bodies of water, one the seas or oceans and another body of water above the raqia. This area is where the sun, moon and stars were placed by God when He created them.

There is also a third heaven the abode of God.

Then there is a second unmentioned heaven that is between the sky heaven and the third heaven.


Happy is he who has the God of Jacob for his help,
Whose hope is in the Lord his God,
Who made heaven and earth,
The sea, and all that is in them;
Who keeps truth forever,

I will lift up my eyes to the hills—
From whence comes my help?
My help comes from the Lord,
Who made heaven and earth.

 

[rambot]

Heaven can be used as heavens or heaven. This still does not change the fact that heaven is not another word for universe or outer space.

"Heavens" IS another word for universe and outer space. I've never heard someone call outerspace "heaven".

In The Bible there is the heaven (raqia Hebrew) that in English is known as dome, sky, firmament, expanse, vault. This heaven which is seperating two bodies of water, one the seas or oceans and another body of water above the raqia. This area is where the sun, moon and stars were placed by God when He created them.

Ok. So why did you choose "vault" instead of "sky"? And, given that these heavenly bodies are NOT "set" in the sky in ANY way, how are you explaining your, otherwise LITERAL translation?
And God didn't "PLACE" them right there because they unseen at night and they move around. As mentioned, the sun moves around A LOT; so much so that it's illogical to suggested it was "placed" anywhere.

 

[d taylor]

"Heavens" IS another word for universe and outer space. I've never heard someone call outerspace "heaven".


Ok. So why did you choose "vault" instead of "sky"? And, given that these heavenly bodies are NOT "set" in the sky in ANY way, how are you explaining your, otherwise LITERAL translation?
And God didn't "PLACE" them right there because they unseen at night and they move around. As mentioned, the sun moves around A LOT; so much so that it's illogical to suggested it was "placed" anywhere.

I did not choose any word, i just listed the English words that have been used to translate raqia to English. If i personally use an English word i use dome or sky.

The Bible states God placed the sun, moon and stars in the dome/sky above the earth. To give light on the earth.

CJB
God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to divide the day from the night; let them be for signs, seasons, days and years; and let them be for lights in the dome of the sky to give light to the earth”; and that is how it was. God made the two great lights — the larger light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night — and the stars. God put them in the dome of the sky to give light to the earth,

NKJV
Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth,

NIV
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, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 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. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth,

NAB (Revised Edition)
Then God said: Let there be lights in the dome of the sky, to separate day from night. Let them mark the seasons, the days and the years, and serve as lights in the dome of the sky, to illuminate the earth. And so it happened: God made the two great lights, the greater one to govern the day, and the lesser one to govern the night, and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky, to illuminate the earth,

CEV
God said, “I command lights to appear in the sky and to separate day from night and to show the time for seasons, special days, and years. I command them to shine on the earth.” And that's what happened. God made two powerful lights, the brighter one to rule the day and the other to rule the night. He also made the stars. Then God put these lights in the sky to shine on the earth,