Debunking Flat Earth

[Herman Hedning]

Below is the definition from Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon:

Mhm, that verse from Proverbs talks about the horizon which looks like a circle from any vantage point. The verse from Job probably talks about the dome of the firmament as it sits on the (flat) earth as a circle. Looking at many different bible translations, most do use wordings like "the circuit of the heavens", "the circle of heaven", "heaven's rim", and similar.

 

[A_Thinker]

Mhm, that verse from Proverbs talks about the horizon which looks like a circle from any vantage point. The verse from Job probably talks about the dome of the firmament as it sits on the (flat) earth as a circle. Looking at many different bible translations, most do use wordings like "the circuit of the heavens", "the circle of heaven", "heaven's rim", and similar.

I think that it is fairly clear that both of the citations are metaphorical. It is when we try to make such passages literal that we run into problems. Almost all Biblical passages regarding the physical nature of the earth fall into this category ...

Isaiah 40

22 It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in;

23 who brings princes to nothing; who makes the judges of the earth meaningless.

24 They are planted scarcely. They are sown scarcely. Their stock has scarcely taken root in the ground. He merely blows on them, and they wither, and the whirlwind takes them away as stubble.

Job 26

7 He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth upon nothing.

8 He wraps up the waters in His clouds,
yet the clouds do not burst under their own weight.

9 He covers the face of the full moon,
spreading His cloud over it.

10 He has inscribed a horizon on the face of the waters,
at the boundary between light and darkness.

 

[Strathos]

Thanks.



Farthest thing from. I never intended to become a flat-earther, but I had to land where the reasoned evidence took me. Life would be a lot easier if I weren't, but for me to deny it at this point would make me a liar.

They say that recent converts are often the most zealous believers. That probably applies to you too.

If you want to convince me that the earth is flat, you really only have to do one thing - show me the edge.

But what would convince you it's not flat?

 

[SeventyOne]

But what would convince you it's not flat?

A measurable curve that is 8 inches per mile squared and a successful experiment showing rotational and orbital motion.

 

[Strathos]

A measurable curve that is 8 inches per mile squared and a successful experiment showing rotational and orbital motion.

What kind of experiment? Any one you wouldn't dismiss as part of a conspiracy?

 

[SeventyOne]

What kind of experiment? Any one you wouldn't dismiss as part of a conspiracy?

For curvature, something like the hundreds of physical measurements that I've already witnessed which reveal zero curve. This is already a tall order to counteract due to the abundance of evidence against it. What I will not accept is any derivation of the Eratosthenes experiment as that was shoddy and inconclusive, or anything from the Stephen Hawking earth measurement show a few years back as they completely botched one measurement, and was shown to use video tricks on another.

For motion, you can start with retesting Sagnac's experiment, which demonstrated the movement observed between the earth and the stars was due to the stars being in motion, and not the earth itself.

 

[Strathos]

For curvature, something like the hundreds of physical measurements that I've already witnessed which reveal zero curve.

You keep referencing this, yet providing no citations.

 

[Tanj]

Hey SeventyOne, how come stars move counter clockwise around a central point in the northern hemisphere but clockwise in the southern?

 

[A_Thinker]

You keep referencing this, yet providing no citations.

These "hundreds of measurements" are performed by a myriad of persons who don't really know how to perform verifiable tests.

Meanwhile, Geodesists have been successfully measuring the Earth's curve for centuries.

Geodesy and Satellite Navigation - Inside GNSS

 

[A_Thinker]

A measurable curve that is 8 inches per mile squared

The entire field of Geodesy is based upon measurement of the Earth (curves and all). And it's been used for millennia to establish our current day mapping, GPS, air and shipping routes, etc.

Geodesists will tell you that the 8" per mile is an APPROXIMATION only useful for distances of less than 100 miles.

I suggest that you look into the work of modern-day goedesist, Jesse Kozlowski ...

Jesse Kozlowski

 

[Radagast]

A measurable curve that is 8 inches per mile squared

That's not the correct curvature, but innumerable demonstrations of the correct curvature exist.

For curvature, something like the hundreds of physical measurements that I've already witnessed which reveal zero curve.

There are no such experiments.

For motion, you can start with retesting Sagnac's experiment, which demonstrated the movement observed between the earth and the stars was due to the stars being in motion, and not the earth itself.

You completely misunderstand Sagnac's work. In fact, his work forms the basis for modern fibre-optic gyroscopes, so it is "retested" every day. It proves that the world is round.

Hey SeventyOne, how come stars move counter clockwise around a central point in the northern hemisphere but clockwise in the southern?

This is indeed one of the totally definitive proofs of a round earth.

With a flat earth, there could only be one celestial pole around which stars rotate. With a round earth, there would be two (North and South). And there are two.

The entire field of Geodesy is based upon measurement of the Earth (curves and all). And it's been used for millennia to establish our current day mapping, GPS, air and shipping routes, etc.

And, for hundreds of years, this has been done with enough precision to definitively prove not only a round earth, but the fact of a very slight flattening at the poles.

 

[SeventyOne]

You keep referencing this, yet providing no citations.

You asked what I would accept, and that's that I would accept. I can't help it that none of you are as far along in this study as I am. These are the things that tipped the balance into flat earth for me. If you can demonstrate the opposite effect is actually the case, you'd really be on to something.

I know multiple people are telling me it's not this or not that, or I don't 'understand', but those are excuses, and I do 'understand' a lot more than they think. Physical motion tests and physical curvature tests. Something direct and tangible, not abstract.

 

[A_Thinker]

You asked what I would accept, and that's that I would accept. I can't help it that none of you are as far along in this study as I am.

Presumptive, at best.

Not something that is helpful when conducting an honest investigation into truth ...

 

[SeventyOne]

Presumptive, at best.

Not something that is helpful when conducting an honest investigation into truth ...

I'm not investigating anything with that post, and it's a rather no-brainer assumption based on the responses I get here. It's not meant as an insult, but rather just a confirmation of the current reality.

 

[A_Thinker]

I'm not investigating anything with that post, and it's a rather no-brainer assumption based on the responses I get here. It's not meant as an insult, but rather just a confirmation of the current reality.

It's presumptive to say that others are not as knowledgeable as you ... simply because they disagree with you.

Such an attitude is not conducive to honest investigation of the truth ...

 

[Paulos23]

or anything from the Stephen Hawking earth measurement show a few years back as they completely botched one measurement, and was shown to use video tricks on another.

What measurement did they botched?

 

[SeventyOne]

What measurement did they botched?

The second one, from the boat. Incorrect starting point.

 

[Paulos23]

The second one, from the boat. Incorrect starting point.

The second one? The one where they had to add to the cardboard they were marking on? What was incorrect about that?

 

[SeventyOne]

The second one? The one where they had to add to the cardboard they were marking on? What was incorrect about that?

They measured a 6 foot difference, which is only applicable on a ball earth at their reported distance of 3 miles if the laser elevation is at ground level. However, the laser was just over 2.5 feet off of the ground, which results in a considerably less noticeable curve at 3 miles. You can use any earth curve calculator to check that out.

 

[Paulos23]

They measured a 6 foot difference, which is only applicable on a ball earth at their reported distance of 3 miles if the laser elevation is at ground level. However, the laser was just over 2.5 feet off of the ground, which results in a considerably less noticeable curve at 3 miles. You can use any earth curve calculator to check that out.

The made two measurements and showed the difference between them. How high the laser was makes no difference, other than it has to be level. Even if the calculation is of, it is not a highly accurate method they are doing, and errors can happen. But even if they were off by 2.5 feet, it still shows a curve. Just because it is not perfect doesn't mean it doesn't show a curve. It shows that on a flat lake, there is still evidence of a curve.