Absolute proof.. can't deny.. the earth is flat

[prodromos]

We have two reflections. One from the "inside of the spacecraft" that the astronaut is in, and another from the underside of the hubble. Thats two planes, or two faces / projections. Its not enough to say "the glass is thick" Even with triple glazing, the glass can't reflect something if there is no face to reflect off.

I would draw a picture showing how light is reflected within the thick glass if I could. The only reason you see the second image of the Hubble is because the primary image is so bright. If it wasn't brightly lit there wouls be insufficient light in the internal glass reflection to show up in the image. There will be a secondary image of the astronaut taking the photo too, but the primary image is so dim that there isn't sufficient light for the exposure to leave an image. It is lost in the digital noise of the sensor.

 

[Acts2:38Apologetics]

Compare these few videos.

Weather balloon at 120000ft showing a flat earth

Weather balloon at 121000ft showing a flat earth

Weather balloon at 109,000ft showing a round earth

Weather balloon at 105000ft showing a round earth

 

[prodromos]

Compare these few videos.

Weather balloon at 120000ft showing a flat earth

Weather balloon at 121000ft showing a flat earth

Weather balloon at 109,000ft showing a round earth

Weather balloon at 105000ft showing a round earth

What is the focal length and field of view of each of the lenses used on those cameras. You do understand that the shape of the lense plays a huge role in the resulting image, don't you? Without that information you can't make any comparison between the videos.

 

[Tom 1]

Ah, there's the word... The word that solves everything for this issue.. However, it is empty and void of substance.

Refraction would change with temperature and humidity. It causes images to invert... It does not explain the true dimension and orientation of the topographical features shown in the visual reality of these photos and videos. They would be chance sightings..

So, I would disagree with your excuse.

Absolute proof the world is round (or an oblate spheriod) - it is. There is no such thing as a flat earth, it doesn't exist, hence any 'proof' belongs in the same world of fantasy. Living in a fantasy world is a poor life choice.

 

[Yttrium]

Okay, help me understand this. How does the earth spin, then go around the sun, as the sun travels, etc (all at what speeds). How does all this go on yet our constellations, or celestial sky, move at snail pace, almost remaining still and maintaining their positions exactly? Are they moving at lightspeed too? Is everything spinning? Is there a model of this? ...and yes, I'm getting dizzy.

There's a science known as "astronomy". You might want to look into it.

The stars in our galaxy all rotate around the galactic center, just like the planets in our solar system rotate around the Sun, and the moons rotate around their planets. Look at a plane going across the sky sometime. The farther things are away, the slower they seem to move. They're not moving slowly, they just have a long distance to travel for the motion to be noticeable by us.

Yes, obviously there's a model of this. It's all caused by gravity. Start reading up on astronomy, it's a very interesting subject.

 

[Paul4JC]

There's a science known as "astronomy". You might want to look into it.

The stars in our galaxy all rotate around the galactic center, just like the planets in our solar system rotate around the Sun, and the moons rotate around their planets. Look at a plane going across the sky sometime. The farther things are away, the slower they seem to move. They're not moving slowly, they just have a long distance to travel for the motion to be noticeable by us.

Yes, obviously there's a model of this. It's all caused by gravity. Start reading up on astronomy, it's a very interesting subject.

No, I prefer reading the Bible. [Psa 19:1-2 NIV] 1 For the director of music. A psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. 2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge.

So what your saying is like: Being on a merry-go-round with another merry-go-round inside of it. The people who are not on it though, are not stationary, but also moving outside with the merry-go-round, round and round. Everything is spinning; if you believe it.

Go look at the stars at night, they are still.

 

[Paul4JC]

If you are walking forward from the rear of a train carriage towards the dining car on a high speed train, are you travelling at 3mph or 150mph?

Next time I will look for a spinning train.

 

[prodromos]

Next time I will look for a spinning train.

So apparently you don't actually want help understanding.

 

[Yttrium]

No, I prefer reading the Bible.

Then why did you ask about a model? If you aren't willing to consider the answer, there's no point in asking.

Go look at the stars at night, they are still.

No, they're really not. They move. Since I've been alive, the constellations have shifted a bit, changing their shapes a little from our perspective. Not much, but we can measure it, and we can use our model to predict how much they'll move in another lifetime.

 

[Acts2:38Apologetics]

What is the focal length and field of view of each of the lenses used on those cameras. You do understand that the shape of the lense plays a huge role in the resulting image, don't you? Without that information you can't make any comparison between the videos.

Yes of course I'm aware the lenses play a part in it, thats why i posted the videos, four videos, two using a fish eye lense, two using a non fish eye lense. The point is, there is a vast difference between them, two very clearly show a curved earth, and two - at roughly the same altitude show no curvature at all. The fish eye lenses show clear curvature above AND below the horizon, depending on the camera angle, the videos showing a flat horizon don't appear to deviate at all.

 

[prodromos]

Yes of course I'm aware the lenses play a part in it, thats why i posted the videos, four videos, two using a fish eye lense, two using a non fish eye lense. The point is, there is a vast difference between them, two very clearly show a curved earth, and two - at roughly the same altitude show no curvature at all. The fish eye lenses show clear curvature above AND below the horizon, depending on the camera angle, the videos showing a flat horizon don't appear to deviate at all.

You won't be able to perceive much curvature at that altitude because the earth's radius is roughly 3950 miles whereas those videos are from roughly 18 to 20 miles above that which is an increase of just over 0.5%. You will see more of the curvature from the ISS which orbits at an altitude of 248 miles which is a bit over 6% more than the radius of the earth but it is still only going to appear slight. I don't think people appreciate just how massive the earth is in comparison to the thickness of the atmosphere. There isn't a distinct boundary between the atmospher and outer space, but at a little over 60 miles the air is so thin it is considered as vacuum and that is only 1.57% of the earth's radius.

 

[Acts2:38Apologetics]

You won't be able to perceive much curvature at that altitude because the earth's radius is roughly 3950 miles whereas those videos are from roughly 18 to 20 miles above that which is an increase of just over 0.5%. You will see more of the curvature from the ISS which orbits at an altitude of 248 miles which is a bit over 6% more than the radius of the earth but it is still only going to appear slight. I don't think people appreciate just how massive the earth is in comparison to the thickness of the atmosphere. There isn't a distinct boundary between the atmosphere and outer space, but at a little over 60 miles the air is so thin it is considered as vacuum and that is only 1.57% of the earth's radius.

But earth existing next to a vacuum without a physical boundary violates the second law of thermo dynamics

 

[prodromos]

But earth existing next to a vacuum without a physical boundary violates the second law of thermo dynamics

Another claim that is demonstrably false. Have you ever climbed a high mountain? The higher the altitude, the thinner the air becomes, and at some point you have to carry your own oxygen. You may have even experienced your ears popping and having to swallow to equalise the pressure in your inner ear when taking an elevator up in a tall building or driving up in the mountains. Your own experience tells you that the earth is not a sealed pressure vessel.
The gas molecules in the air have mass. Very little mass compared to most of what we engage with day to day, but enough for gravity to keep it from simply drifting out into space. The higher you go, the less dense the atmosphere. There isn't a sudden cut off point where there is atmosphere on one side and vacuum on the other, in fact the earth's atmosphere extends out past the moon, it is simply too thin to be measurable.

 

[Paul4JC]

Then why did you ask about a model? If you aren't willing to consider the answer, there's no point in asking.



No, they're really not. They move. Since I've been alive, the constellations have shifted a bit, changing their shapes a little from our perspective. Not much, but we can measure it, and we can use our model to predict how much they'll move in another lifetime.

You pointed me to nothing. That's like me pointing you to the Bible without giving any verse or reference point.

Of course, they are moving. Yet you couldn't answer my question.

You could have sent me something like this.

What are Zodiac Constellations?

Still the above doesn't answer my question. It shows a stationary sun, not one moving 448,000 mph, while the earth turns "roughly 1,000 miles per hour." Yet the night sky is relatively still. Makes no sense, except on a flat earth model.

How fast is Earth moving?.

How fast is the earth moving? - Scientific American

 

[Yttrium]

Still the above doesn't answer my question. It shows a stationary sun, not one moving 448,000 mph, while the earth turns "roughly 1,000 miles per hour." Yet the night sky is relatively still. Makes no sense, except on a flat earth model.

First off, 448,000 mph is nothing compared to the distance between the stars. It's 4.37 light years to Alpha Centauri, the nearest star. Second, all the stars in our galaxy are rotating around the galactic center. So the nearby stars are moving mostly the same way we are. We're not moving 448,000 mph relative to them. That's the speed we (and they) are going around the center.

 

[prodromos]

Still the above doesn't answer my question. It shows a stationary sun, not one moving 448,000 mph, while the earth turns "roughly 1,000 miles per hour." Yet the night sky is relatively still. Makes no sense, except on a flat earth model.

The earth is rotating at 15 degrees per hour, so while at the equator the velocity is roughly 1000mph, if you go close to the north pole or south pole the velocity will be less than 20mph.
You say the night sky is 'relatively' still, but it still moves at that same 15 degrees per hour, as anyone with a telescope can tell you. The telescope has to be oriented towards the North or South depending on which hemisphere you live, then it has to be adjusted for your longitude position. Once it is set up, you still have to constantly adjust at 15 degrees per hour, otherwise the object you are observing keeps moving West out of view.
Also, as the Earth orbits the Sun, the position of the stars in the night sky will change by roughly 1 degree per day. None of this makes sense in a flat earth model but is completely consistent with the globe earth.

 

[Paul4JC]

First off, 448,000 mph is nothing compared to the distance between the stars. It's 4.37 light years to Alpha Centauri, the nearest star. Second, all the stars in our galaxy are rotating around the galactic center. So the nearby stars are moving mostly the same way we are. We're not moving 4448,000 mph relative to them. That's the speed we (and they) are going around the center.

The earth is rotating at 15 degrees per hour, so while at the equator the velocity is roughly 1000mph, if you go close to the north pole or south pole the velocity will be less than 20mph.
You say the night sky is 'relatively' still, but it still moves at that same 15 degrees per hour, as anyone with a telescope can tell you. The telescope has to be oriented towards the North or South depending on which hemisphere you live, then it has to be adjusted for your longitude position. Once it is set up, you still have to constantly adjust at 15 degrees per hour, otherwise the object you are observing keeps moving West out of view.
Also, as the Earth orbits the Sun, the position of the stars in the night sky will change by roughly 1 degree per day. None of this makes sense in a flat earth model but is completely consistent with the globe earth.

Right of course! Except we ignore the fact that no one has ever measured these things, this is all space theory, even as Darwinism is evolution theory.

We can not fix the problems of this world, yet we imagine we understand the heavens. Millions live in hunger Overview Do we know these dimensions? There are wars all over this world. List of ongoing armed conflicts - Wikipedia Then you could add climate change and economic instability. Not to mention Drug cartels and let's not forget COVID-19, which science so brilliantly brought to an end, not. How bout just preventing the wildfires in California. That should be easy for you. Science boasts it knows endless dimensions of the heavens but can't help this world from the majority of endless crises' it faces today.

Just look through a telescope, and show me what 4k color images you get of our planets. You can believe we understand and enter dimensions that God said do not belong to man. That you know how light moving 299 792 458 miles a second is measured between objects no one has been to? Cause you saw it in Star Wars and Star Trek. As William Shatner says, "science is science fiction"

Shatner "Just give me one... other dimension, and the answer is “we can’t conceive of that.” (“That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.”) “ Well, It doesn’t mean it does exist.”

The Bible says science cannot enter or comprehend the heavens. [Psa 115:16 NASB95] The heavens are the heavens of the LORD, But the earth He has given to the sons of men.

[Job 38:4-41 NIV] 4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. 5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? 6 On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone-- 7 while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy? 8 "Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb, 9 when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness, 10 when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place, 11 when I said, 'This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt'? 12 "Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place, 13 that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? 14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment. 15 The wicked are denied their light, and their upraised arm is broken. 16 "Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep? 17 Have the gates of death been shown to you? Have you seen the gates of the deepest darkness? 18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth? Tell me, if you know all this. 19 "What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? 20 Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings? 21 Surely you know, for you were already born! You have lived so many years! 22 "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail, 23 which I reserve for times of trouble, for days of war and battle? 24 What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed, or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth? 25 Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain, and a path for the thunderstorm, 26 to water a land where no one lives, an uninhabited desert, 27 to satisfy a desolate wasteland and make it sprout with grass? 28 Does the rain have a father? Who fathers the drops of dew? 29 From whose womb comes the ice? Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens 30 when the waters become hard as stone, when the surface of the deep is frozen? 31 "Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades? Can you loosen Orion's belt? 32 Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons or lead out the Bear with its cubs? 33 Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set up God's dominion over the earth? 34 "Can you raise your voice to the clouds and cover yourself with a flood of water? 35 Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? Do they report to you, 'Here we are'? 36 Who gives the ibis wisdom or gives the rooster understanding? 37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds? Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens 38 when the dust becomes hard and the clods of earth stick together? 39 "Do you hunt the prey for the lioness and satisfy the hunger of the lions 40 when they crouch in their dens or lie in wait in a thicket? 41 Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God and wander about for lack of food?

[1Jo 2:15-16 NIV] 15 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. 16 For everything in the world--the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life--comes not from the Father but from the world.

 

[Yttrium]

Right of course! Except we ignore the fact that no one has ever measured these things, this is all space theory, even as Darwinism is evolution theory.

Measuring these things is what astronomy is all about. It's easy to criticize something that you know nothing about, and have no intention of learning anything about. It's also pointless. You're arguing against a strawman you've dreamed up. If you took the time to learn the science, you could start measuring these things yourself.

But if you dislike science so much, why don't you get rid of your computer, your phone, your car, your refrigerator, everything that's the product of science. Grab a pointy stick and hunt for your food.

 

[prodromos]

Right of course! Except we ignore the fact that no one has ever measured these things

We have them measured and understood to the point we can launch a telescope the size of a football field to a point in space where gravitational forces between the earth, moon and sun cancel out.

 

[prodromos]

The Bible says science cannot enter or comprehend the heavens. [Psa 115:16 NASB95] The heavens are the heavens of the LORD, But the earth He has given to the sons of men.

"The heavens" is referring to the spiritual realm. "The earth" is referring to the physical realm. Science can only deal with the natural, that which pertains to the physical realm, of which the visible universe is very much a part. Science cannot deal with the supranatural, miracles, the bodiless angels, anything in the spiritual realm.