the myth of flat earth debunked again

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

@contratodo Why do you claim that human sight stops at 3 miles, even though that perfectly lines up with the fact that horizon begins at 3 miles, and yet if you are stood on a higher elevation, you line of sight stops much further than 3 miles?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

And many graphs given to describe the mount, simply match the reality of the stars moving around us on the flat stationary land.

Of course what seems to be flat stationary land is also part of the moving system. That has been known for centuries.

 

[Phil G]

Equatorial mount specs insist that the earth is moving, they do not prove anything, the dome does not move,
the stars, sun and moon, themselves circle in unique patterns and elipses.
And many graphs given to describe the mount, simply match the reality of the stars moving around us on the flat stationary land.

View attachment 344912




The dome is not moving, the stars are.

Celestial sphere - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The so called "celestial sphere".

View attachment 344913


Is what your looking at with any telescope.

Again, you misunderstand how the mount works. The mount needs to be set up for a specific latitude according to which hemisphere you are located. If in the northern hemisphere, the mount needs to be set up so that the declination axis is aligned towards the north celestial pole (near Polaris). If in the southern hemisphere, it needs to be set up so that declination axis aligns towards the south celestial pole (where Polaris is nowhere to be seen). This would not be necessary if the earth was flat as it would only need to be aligned to the north celestial pole. And Polaris would always be nearby, which it isn't in the southern hemisphere.

The fact is the sky is visually rotating around two different polar axes.

A demonstration video may help you:

 

[Ophiolite]

@contratodo Why do you claim that human sight stops at 3 miles, even though that perfectly lines up with the fact that horizon begins at 3 miles, and yet if you are stood on a higher elevation, you line of sight stops much further than 3 miles?

It's a good question. I've seen the Andromeda galaxy with the naked eye and it is roughly 14,557,880,000,000,000,000,0000* miles away.

*I may have missed out, or inserted, one or more zeros, but the underlying point remains.

 

[pgp_protector]

It's a good question. I've seen the Andromeda galaxy with the naked eye and it is roughly 14,557,880,000,000,000,000,0000* miles away.

*I may have missed out, or inserted, one or more zeros, but the underlying point remains.

Even on "Flat Earth" you can see over 3 Thousand miles without issue.

 

[sjastro]

Again, you misunderstand how the mount works. The mount needs to be set up for a specific latitude according to which hemisphere you are located. If in the northern hemisphere, the mount needs to be set up so that the declination axis is aligned towards the north celestial pole (near Polaris). If in the southern hemisphere, it needs to be set up so that declination axis aligns towards the south celestial pole (where Polaris is nowhere to be seen). This would not be necessary if the earth was flat as it would only need to be aligned to the north celestial pole. And Polaris would always be nearby, which it isn't in the southern hemisphere.

The fact is the sky is visually rotating around two different polar axes.

A demonstration video may help you:

Nice video but an expensive way of demonstrating the earth is not flat.

 

[weekEd]

Even on "Flat Earth" you can see over 3 Thousand miles without issue.

i'd like you to demonstrate that you can see the surface of the earth for 3k miles in the distance... even an ocean expanse...

 

[sjastro]

Equatorial mount specs insist that the earth is moving, they do not prove anything, the dome does not move,
the stars, sun and moon, themselves circle in unique patterns and elipses.
And many graphs given to describe the mount, simply match the reality of the stars moving around us on the flat stationary land.

View attachment 344912




The dome is not moving, the stars are.

Celestial sphere - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The so called "celestial sphere".

View attachment 344913


Is what your looking at with any telescope.

My goodness your eyes must have lit up given the illustrations picture a dome which might have some biblical significance.
The celestial sphere is a pictorial representation for the projection of earth's latitude and longitude coordinate system onto the sky.
The most common coordinate system used by astronomers is declination and RA (right ascension) which corresponds to latitude and longitude respectively.

Latitude and longitude (and declination and RA) are examples of curvilinear coordinates and are used for good reason since the earth is near spherical and not flat.
Furthermore since the earth rotates so does the projected coordinate system around the axis passing through the celestial poles.
An equatorial mount with the polar axis pointed at one of the celestial poles confines motion to RA only which can be reduced to zero by using a RA motor to drive the telescope in RA.

An equatorial mount simply doesn't work on a flat non rotating earth.

 

[pgp_protector]

i'd like you to demonstrate that you can see the surface of the earth for 3k miles in the distance... even an ocean expanse...

Did I say the surface of the earth?

 

[weekEd]

Did I say the surface of the earth?

I didn't take your comment as simply "I can see for miles"

 

[Phil G]

Nice video but an expensive way of demonstrating the earth is not flat.

Somehow I think this guy has a LOT of equipment anyway

 

[Phil G]

Surely I am more stupid than any man, and have not the understanding of a man,
I neither learned wisdom, not have the understanding of the Holy One.
Who has ascended up to beyond the sky or descended from beyond the sky?
Who has gathered the wind in His fists?
WHO HAS BOUND THE WATERS IN A GARMENT?
Who has established all the ends of the land?
What is His name? And what is His Sons name, if you know it?
Proverbs 30:2-4

That passage is just a coincidence dear one? Or is it the divine word of God?
God has bound the waters in a garment, the firmament, they stop at its boundary,
just as declared in Job 38 by God Almighty Himself.

The word of God is a sharp two edged sword.
Solid and mighty, able to guide one to truth and faith and eternal life.

So where is your evidence that God literally gathered the wind in His fists (Proverbs 30:4)? God is spirit and therefore He has no 'fists'. The language is obviously figurative. Your claims are actually in keeping with atheists who try to discredit Scripture. Here's a good article on the word 'firmament'.

The Firmament: What Did God Create on Day 2?

Considerable disagreement exists in the church about what God made on the second day of Creation Week in Genesis 1.

answersingenesis.org

 

[contratodo]

So where is your evidence that God literally gathered the wind in His fists (Proverbs 30:4)? God is spirit and therefore He has no 'fists'. The language is obviously figurative. Your claims are actually in keeping with atheists who try to discredit Scripture

I believe the word of God first and foremost, the evidence therefore that God gathered the wind in His fists is Proverbs 30:4.

The Bible describes the truth of creation, modern 'cosmology' is a lie, a deception, leading up to the days of the beast and false prophet.

Only if you believe in modern 'science' more than the Bible do those kind of anti-Christian sceptics have any ground.


And Jesus is God in the flesh and existed before creation. Col 1:17 Therefore God does have fists and hands.
He has inscribed us in the palms of His hands literally. Isaiah 49:16 His nail pierced hands.


Who has ascended up beyond the sky or descended from beyond the sky?
A literal statement, Christ ascended up beyond the sky. John 3:13 Acts 1:9-11

Who has bound the waters in a garment?
A literal statement: Genesis 1:7, Job 38:9-11.

Who has established all the ends of the land?
God literally established all the ends of the land.

What is His Name? Yahweh
What is His Sons Name? Yahoshuah [ Numbers 13:16 ]

The passage is talking about literal things.

 

[contratodo]

The fact is the sky is visually rotating around two different polar axes.

What any telescope is looking at is called the "celestial sphere" I posted about it above.
If the earth is a ball, should not there be at least two sets of stars seen? one set seen from the north pole region,
and a totally different set seen from like the bottom of Africa?

Furthermore since the earth rotates so does the projected coordinate system around the axis passing through the celestial poles.

How can the stars be seen as a dome over us? And mapped out as if they are on a dome over us?
What does the wiki page say about it?


"All celestial objects seem equally far away, as if fixed onto the inside of a sphere with a large but unknown radius,which appears to rotate westward overhead; meanwhile, Earth underfoot seems to remain still. For purposes of spherical astronomy, which is concerned only with the directions to celestial objects, it makes no difference if this is actually the case or if it is Earth that is rotating while the celestial sphere is stationary"

?!

So, if the world were stationary, the result would be the same .

 

[weekEd]

what result??

 

[contratodo]

And Polaris would always be nearby, which it isn't in the southern hemisphere.

The fact is the sky is visually rotating around two different polar axes.

Because the earth is not a ball, at the north pole Polaris is always above you.

One can see the Big Dipper, which is not far from and is in line with Polaris, in the southern hemisphere.

As one goes farther away from the center, the star at the center, Polaris, is further away.
The 'north pole' is the center. 'Antarctica' is a ring of ice around the domes edge.

 

[contratodo]

what result??

It is saying that even if the earth were stationary one could map out the stars in the same way as in the celestial sphere.

Which is my point, the "celestial sphere" map given works just the same on a correct flat earth, dome overhead, Biblical model.

Further more they use fancy words to try to explain away the fact that everybody, sees the same stars!

 

[Ophiolite]

Further more they use fancy words to try to explain away the fact that everybody, sees the same stars!

Am I using these allegedly fancy words to "explain away the fact that everybody, sees the same stars" because I am

1. Under the influence of the devil?
2. Willingly doing the devil's work?
3. Suffering from mental illness?
4. Paid to lie by some secret organisation?
5. Lack the intelligence to see I have been fooled?
6. Some other reason?

What do you think I, and tens of milliions , hundreds of million others, gain by insisting on this alleged lie?

 

[contratodo]

Am I using these allegedly fancy words to "explain away the fact that everybody, sees the same stars" because I am

1. Under the influence of the devil?
2. Willingly doing the devil's work?
3. Suffering from mental illness?
4. Paid to lie by some secret organisation?
5. Lack the intelligence to see I have been fooled?
6. Some other reason?

What do you think I, and tens of milliions , hundreds of million others, gain by insisting on this alleged lie?

. Literally brainwashed

Likely having watched much television and films.
Seeing things like the 'universal films' intro repeatedly over a life time.
Literal images flashed before your eyes and years of indoctrination.

Everybody should not see the same stars. There should be at least two distinct different sets if we are really on a ball.


There are not millions insisting on the lie, from my perspective there are now a vast majority that believe the flat earth truth.
This is clear on an open platform such as bit chute.

When Revelation 8 is happening people will be led to believe that it is just random 'asteroids/meteors'.
When Revelation 9 is happening people will be led to believe that it is just random 'aliens'.
In that manner clear end times events will be masked by generations worth of lies,
if you believe the lies strongly it will be hard not to go along with the mainstream.

You do have something to gain by marking these words, marking this whole thread,
reading it all, from start to finish, over and over, noting these little asides about the end from me and others.

 

[Ophiolite]

Thank you for your detailed reply. I realise you are sincere. However, I have satisfied myself through direct observation that the world must be approximately spherical. What you claim to have observed is in direct contradiction to what is observable. Also you have demonstrated a poor grasp of three dimensional geometry. Further discussion in the matter would be fruitless. I shall do my best not to trouble you again and my very best not to waste any more time "marking this whole thread".