Another Argument Against Flat Earth

[Strathos]

I read that documentation from the OP when it was posted. All it is is someone assuming the earth is a globe and concluding what must be the case if it were. It's not actually proof in itself of anything. Kind of surprised in 29 pages no one on the globe side pointed out that obvious error.

The point is that the measurements have to be that way because if you make them perfectly square, they don't line up properly.

 

[Paulos23]

Ummm, it wasn't about proving creation. It was about exposing bias in the scientific community.

No, it was trying to smear the scientific community so it could get Creation in the door. But there is no evidence for Creation theory, so it is hard to be a scientist in some fields and push Creation or ID.

 

[Aman777]

That's not how the burden of proof works. We've had this conversation before, but apparently none of it stuck. I'm not surprised.

False, since the ToE remains the same since no scientist can prove where it is wrong. Fact is that no scientist can prove it right either. Looks like those who accept the ToE as fact don't have a leg to stand on. Here are some scientific facts from Genesis. Can you explain HOW men who lived 3k years ago wrote these facts?

1. Genesis 1:21 shows that every living creature that moveth was made from water the on 5th Day. Science agrees that ALL life came from water 13.8 Billion years ago, in man's time. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/.../behold-luca-last-universal-common-ancestor-life...
2. Genesis 2:4 shows that the big bang was on the 3rd Day and Genesis 1:16 shows that it was the 4th Day before the first Stars were made. Science agrees and shows that it was 180 million years between the bb and the first Stars. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/.../first-stars-universe-big-bang-edges-space-scie...Feb 28, 2018 - Now, scientists peering back into deep time suggest that the earliest stars didn't turn on until about 180 million years after the big bang, when ...
3. Chromosone 2 fusion shows that Humans were first made, long before any other people. Genesis 2:4-7 Chromosomes were fused when an older generation of people produced children with prehistoric people who were much younger than Humans. (descendants of Adam) Gen 2:7 and Gen 1:21

 

[SeventyOne]

The point is that the measurements have to be that way because if you make them perfectly square, they don't line up properly.

If a globe is assumed.

 

[SeventyOne]

No, it was trying to smear the scientific community so it could get Creation in the door. But there is no evidence for Creation theory, so it is hard to be a scientist in some fields and push Creation or ID.

And this is a perfect example of the evolutionists viewing everything through the evolutionary lens. You don't know it's a lie because you've incorporated it into everything you process related to the topic.

So when people claim there has to be all these people in on some big coverup pertaining to the shape of the earth, that isn't even slightly accurate. If you wonder such a thing, look in the mirror and consider your stance on evolution. You have been convinced the lie is truth, just as the vast majority are convinced the earth is a ball.

 

[Paulos23]

And this is a perfect example of the evolutionists viewing everything through the evolutionary lens. You don't know it's a lie because you've incorporated it into everything you process related to the topic.

So when people claim there has to be all these people in on some big coverup pertaining to the shape of the earth, that isn't even slightly accurate. If you wonder such a thing, look in the mirror and consider your stance on evolution. You have been convinced the lie is truth, just as the vast majority are convinced the earth is a ball.

Given the evidence so far, I have no reason to this Evolution is totally of base. It may be wrong somewhere, but it is right more than it is wrong. Where ID or Creation Science can't even find supporting evidence and have to 'reinterpret' evidence in their world view.

I have yet to see an ID, CS, or FE for that matter do an experment and then after figuring out the experimental result is true, follow the evidence and not discard or twist the result for their pet theory.

So you make think I am believing a lie, but I have yet to see anything you offer to have some truth in them.

I am all for crazy ideas in fiction, they are fun to think about and play with, but when it comes to reality, facts must rule. I have yet to see the facts to change my mind.

 

[Freodin]

If a globe is assumed.

No, if the measurements are to be trusted.

 

[Strathos]

If a globe is assumed.

No assumption required. You can assume a flat earth and try the same measurements, and they won't work.

 

[pitabread]

Can you explain HOW men who lived 3k years ago wrote these facts?

Sure, it's simple:

Step 1: Pick any Bible passage.
Step 2: Pick an arbitrary interpretation. If it doesn't agree with reality, then just make up some fan fiction instead.
Step 3: Profit!

Of course at the end of that, you've demonstrated nothing except your imagination. You should write screenplays.

 

[Aman777]

Sure, it's simple:

Step 1: Pick any Bible passage.
Step 2: Pick an arbitrary interpretation. If it doesn't agree with reality, then just make up some fan fiction instead.
Step 3: Profit!

Of course at the end of that, you've demonstrated nothing except your imagination. You should write screenplays.

Thanks for recognizing the story which is actually written in Genesis and which is irrefutable. I love the story since it shows that instantaneous space travel is in the future of Christians who will have the ability to fly. Genesis is the most exciting story ever told IF you understand it, which you don't.

 

[pitabread]

Thanks for recognizing the story which is actually written in Genesis and which is irrefutable. I love the story since it shows that instantaneous space travel is in the future of Christians who will have the ability to fly. Genesis is the most exciting story ever told IF you understand it, which you don't.

(I'm pretty sure I'm not high enough to understand it on your level )

 

[SeventyOne]

 

[Paulos23]

Is it possible for them to do a video about this without the trolling and memes? Makes it unwatchable and hard to understand and verify.

From what I saw, of the few minutes I saw, they where happy seeing a light, even though it was not consistent nor where they adjusting for refraction (edit: yes they did, but they didn't explain by what method.) And I am willing to bet they are not showing when they didn't see something.

All I see in the little I saw in this video is sloppy science and an unwillingness to push after they got results they wanted. Which is little more than lights on the horizon, but not seeing the other side of the lake.

i am not saying this isn't intresting, but I don't think it is the globe killing prof they think it is.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... I don't think it is the globe killing prof they think it is.

How could it be?

 

[patrick jane]

Galileo Was Wrong - The Heliocentric Lie


26 minutes

1. In 1905, Einstein added time dilation to length contraction because it was required to fit his theory, not because he “discovered” it. It has since been applied to everything under the sun so that the Einstein advocates can claim that everything works by SRT. So let’s assume that the GPS satellites are in an inertial frame.


The fact is, the light beams traveling east-to-west are faster by 50ns than the beams traveling west-to-east. But according to SRT, there should beno difference of the two beams since both are in an inertial frame. (And if they are not in an inertial frame, then SRT cannot be applied). So, in order to hide this discrepancy to save SRT, the GPS computers are preprogrammed with a Sagnac correction so that it appears that the east bound beam is going the same speed as the westbound beam, and voila! SRT is “proved.”


2. EINSTEIN SAID THAT IF THERE WAS ANY ETHER IN SPACE, THEN HIS THEORY IS NULLIFIED. HE SAID : If Michelson-Morley is wrong, then Relativity is wrong. (Einstein ; The Life and Times, p. 107.) So, Einstein simply dismissed the fractional ether drift of MMX as a mere artifact. But the sad fact is, scientifically speaking, artifacts would not have appeared in all the dozens of interferometer experiments performed over the next 80 years. In 1921, Einstein wrote to a friend that if "the Miller experiments" produced positive results *"the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards." Miller's experiments produced consistently positive results.


The experiments of Sagnac and Michelson & Gale are rarely mentioned. Until recently it was quite difficult to find a reference to them. As Dean Turner pointed out "One may scan Einstein's writings in vain to find mention of the Sagnac or Michelson-Gale experiments. The same can be said of general physics text-books and of the McGraw-Hill Encyclopaedia of Science and Technology...Such an oversight constitutes a stinging indictment of professional scientific reporting".


It is indeed quite difficult to get information on these experiments. They seem to be such an embarrassment to relativity that those who know about them would rather not say too much. Quite a number of relativity experts, however, do know about them, and when pressed many admit that they show the Special Theory of Relativity (the theory taught to all science students, and the basis for much of "modern physics") to be inadequate.


3. Not only has General Relativity failed to provide adequate answers for stellar aberration, rotation, and action-at-a-distance (that is, without resorting to Mach’s “distant rotating masses”), Van Flandern reminds us that… “…it is not widely appreciated that this [General Relativity] is a purely mathematical model, lacking a physical mechanism to initiate motion. For example, if a “space-time manifold” (like the rubber sheet) exists near a source of mass, why would a small particle placed at rest in that manifold (on the rubber sheet) begin to move toward the source mass?


Indeed, why would curvature of the manifold even have a sense of “down” unless some force such as gravity already existed. Logically, the small particle at rest on a curved manifold would have no reason to end its rest unless a force acted on it.” “…all existing experimental evidence requires the action of fields to be conveyed much faster than lightspeed.


This situation is ironic because the reason why the geometric interpretation gained ascendancy over the field interpretation is that the implied faster-than-light action of fields appeared to allow causality violations [e.g., moving backwards in time, according to the principles of Special Relativity]….Yet the field interpretation of General Relativity requires faster than light propagation. So if Special Relativity were a correct model of reality, the field interpretation would violate the causality principle, which is why it fell from popularity.”


4. It is rather interesting that Relativists, on the one hand, claim that light is limited to 186,000 mps in Special Relativity, but admit that Special Relativity does not incorporate gravity or inertial forces. On the other hand, they claim gravity is limited to the speed of light because Special Relativity says nothing can go faster than light. But if Special Relativity has nothing to do with gravity, then how can Special Relativity claim that gravity’s speed is limited to light speed?


Moreover, in General Relativity, light, and we presume gravity, is not limited to 186,000 mps, and that is because General Relativity deals with frames that include gravity and inertial forces. But if gravity itself is a non-inertial frame, then how can it be limited to 186,000 mps by Special Relativity which only deals with inertial frames? This shows that the two theories of Relativity contradict themselves.


5. Einstein and Infield wrote in The Evolution of Physics (1938) : “…the theory of relativity resembles a building consisting of two separate storeys (sic), the special theory and the general theory. The special theory, on which the general theory rests, applies to all physical phenomena with the exception of gravitation.”


On this Dr. Kelly comments : “So, if the special theory loses its basis, the general theory is also without foundation.” The only original big idea in “Einstein's” so-called theory of general relativity was curved space. Yet through the 1980s and 1990s, and today with the Hubble space telescope, astronomers have methodically and painstakingly developed three-dimensional atlases of the universe.


However, they have detected no curvature of space. Theoretical physicist Paul LaViolette observes : “If space were curved by even the slightest amount, evidence of this would have shown up in astronomical surveys. When the data are checked, however, no evidence of curvature is found. Observations of the density of galaxies found at distant locations of the universe indicate that space is Euclidian out to the farthest limits of observation.”

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Go to Australia, or South Africa, or South America.
Go outside on a clear night.
Point to Polaris, or Ursa Major, or Cassiopeia.

Go to somewhere in North America or Europe.
Go outside on a clear night.
Point to the Southern Cross.

/end thread

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I can assure you, they believe it.

Lots of people believe lots of crazy things.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

No they don't.

They might actually believe it themselves. I can't exactly say that they don't actually buy into the idea. But people believing things does nothing to prove those beliefs are true.

 

[patrick jane]

Christopher Greene AMTV and Flat Earth Disinfo

10 minutes

 

[GoldenBoy89]

This video's long but you can easily skip ahead to see the progress.

I'd like for someone to point out where all of the other continents are.