Flat earth evidence

[ecco]

No it has not been settled. Mathematical equations are not reality. You can start by reading the research over at cluesforum.info.

Perhaps you should try getting your "facts" from something other than a "we love all conspiracies" website.

 

[AV1611VET]

This cannot be a serious conversation.

Scientists think that if the earth was flat, one should be able to go up on a high enough mountain and see all the kingdoms of the earth at once.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Larnievc: "Otherwise it would be impossible to play catch."

I dont understand your answer. Can you explain further. You have not answered my question please read it again

"if the earth is spinning, a plane travelling in the direction of the spin would take longer to reach its destination and a plane travelling in the opposition direction to spin would reach its destination quicker?"

If a plane losing contact with the earth would suddenly allow the earth to 'spin away' beneath it, then this would also happen when a baseball loses contact with your hand when you throw it. If planes go 1000 mph faster in one direction rather than the other, then so would thrown baseballs. Baseballs obviously don't, and that explains why planes don't.

Similarly, if you're on a moving plane, or in a moving car, and you drop something, it does not move toward the back of the plane or the car. It falls straight down. These are simple applications of Newton's first law. Objects in motion stay in motion. Planes keep the motion imparted to them by the spinning earth. Similarly a drone or helicopter that lifts off the ground does not have to work hard to stay in place, because it already has a motion that is basically the same as the motion of the earth beneath it. It doesn't get left behind by the spinning earth.

 

[olusanya800]

Are you old enough to remember the Apollo Moon landings?

Im not fortunately - to young by around a decade

 

[olusanya800]

Scientists think that if the earth was flat, one should be able to go up on a high enough mountain and see all the kingdoms of the earth at once.

I like the scripture verse. We should not oppose science falsely, or be heretical when quoting scripture. It affirms what I believe about the bible and that science can and should not be used to oppose the bible.

Not sure about the second comment. There is a limit to how far the human eye can see even on a flat plain

 

[AV1611VET]

We should not oppose science falsely, or be heretical when quoting scripture.

Science is our friend.

But in the wrong hands, it can breed suspicion in the word of God, prevent some from getting saved, and morally destroy a nation.

Balak, who tried to get Balaam to curse Israel, wouldn't do it because God gave Balaam the words to say.

But Balaam devised a way to satisfy Balak, and he suggested the Midianites commit whoredom with the Israelites, and thus bring down God's wrath on the people of Israel.

This has come to be known as the "error of Balaam," "the way of Balaam," and the "doctrine of Balaam."

Today it is called "science."

 

[TheQuietRiot]

No it has not been settled. Mathematical equations are not reality. You can start by reading the research over at cluesforum.info.

There is no polite way to tell you that you are simply wrong.

 

[florida2]

I think the one who said "The fact that science changes its views is its strength - as new evidence is found and discoveries made, theories have to be changed in light of this new evidence" is having more fun.
"

Seriously?

You think that science should be completely unchanging? Adapting to new evidence and discoveries to improve theories about how the world works is how science works. Not sure what problem you can have with that.

 

[florida2]

In reply to your post about a flat earth and a round moon, not making sense, Sir, not wishing to be flippant, however in a previous post you said common sense has nothing to do with reality. Be that as it may, I think there are times when it does and are times when it does not.

It makes no sense insofar as how could the Earth form flat and the moon form as a globe shape? You've offered no mechanism for why and how these can be different, hence not making sense.

You are quite correct, I’m not a Scientist so it would be difficult to debate you on this, but am happy to listen to your scientific views and am genuinely open to correction, unfortunately most people are not with regard to science. Science however should follow logic and common sense and if correct should not be difficult to explain to a simple reasonably intelligent man like myself.

That's great to hear. Sadly, you're right and there a lot of people who prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and go 'La la la can't hear you' in respect to science.

I am not denigrating science, it does however have its limits and yes it is great that we can communicate through science in this way. However I must disagree with you that science changing is a strength. Science has been around thousands of years and has changed in that time. Religion has also changed it views to some extent of late, especially with regard to marriage, but that’s another debate for another day. Religion is certainly weakened when it can change from day to day. I view science the same way and that’s why I can’t always take science seriously

To be accurate science hasn't been around for thousands of years. Modern methods which we call science have only been around since the 17th century at the latest.

Do you think that science should still have the same views as the 17th century? Obviously not. Then why is science changing a bad thing?

There are theories which to the best of our understanding explain a fair bit of how the universe works. Scientists carry out research and find new evidence and ideas. These might serve to back up current theories or might challenge them or perhaps go in a completely different direction. If they do, awesome, because it means that we can have another look at our theories and realise that they probably aren't complete. That's all I'm talking about. If you want to be treated with just 17th century medicine, that's up to you.

To go back to a point about wider acceptance of a globe earth and the evidence. It is my understanding that in the early part of the century the globe earth was more openly questioned and those that questioned it were not subject to ridicule. The globe earth theory became more prevalent after the moon landings in the late 1960's roughly 50 years ago.

Again, can you provide any link to something about this? I would be genuinely interested.

Your link to globe earth – I read all of this and the evidence no doubt is good. I am however not convinced. It’s a good solid article but it has not convinced me

Edge of the earth – a flat earth does not necessitate an edge. The bible talks about a firmament which is a dome like structure that would encompass the earth like an upside down fish bowl . There is more chance of falling off the edge in a globe earth than with the flat earth theory I am suggesting.

Is there any evidence for this firmament? What is it made of? Again, you're just presenting some supposition without any scientific evidence.

If there is a firmament how do we have space rockets and satellites?

Why do ships disappear over the horizon? not 100% sure to be honest. I suspect that the eye has it limits past a certain range/distance

You can get the most powerful telescope you like, you still won't be able to see the ship once it goes over the horizon. Why? Because of the curvature of the Earth.

Your point about the two dots on the ball is a fair point. I however do not believe the earth is spinning or moving at the speed science says it is

Then what speed do you believe (ie think without evidence) that the Earth is spinning at?

Finally – if the earth is spinning, a plane travelling in the direction of the spin would take longer to reach its destination and a plane travelling in the opposition direction to spin would reach its destination quicker?

A fantastic question which is a bit of a head-scratcher at first, but can be explained when understanding that momentum is conserved.

First, a little experiment. Stand up and jump. Now, did the wall of your house splatter into you at 1000mph (exact speed obviosuly depends where you are in the world). No? Good. The reason is that although the Earth is moving and everything on the Earth is moving with it and has momentum. Imagine an observer in a spaceship far enough away from the Earth so it's not moving and they're watching the Earth rotate before them. To their point of view your jump doesn't actually follow a straight line, it follows a parabola. During your little jump your initial takeoff spot is about quarter of a mile away, but the Earth has moved exactly the same amount as well because you were already moving at the same speed as the Earth when you took off.

It's the same idea as if you are in a car travelling down the road at 60mph. If you toss something up in the air, does it shatter through the back window? No, because it it travelling at the same speed as the car and momentum is conserved.

When it comes to planes, it's important to remember that when it's sitting on the ground it has momentum because it's rotating with the Earth. When it takes off we know that momentum has to be conserved, allowing it to fly to its destination without the Earth rotating away underneath it. The atmosphere also (pretty much) rotates with the Earth again allowing the plane to fly.

A plane flying in the same direction that the Earth rotates may actually get to its destination quicker because the atmosphere is rotating in the same direction.

This is about as far as my physics goes before my head hurts!

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

There are theories which to the best of our understanding explain a fair bit of how the universe works. Scientists carry out research and find new evidence and ideas. These might serve to back up current theories or might challenge them or perhaps go in a completely different direction. If they do, awesome, because it means that we can have another look at our theories and realise that they probably aren't complete. That's all I'm talking about. If you want to be treated with just 17th century medicine, that's up to you.

This is a great post. It's the great thing about science. It has a willingness to be wrong and change it's ideas based on what the evidence tells them. I'm not a scientist but I would like to think a scientist strives to introduce new ideas to give us a better understanding of the universe and the natural world. It's great when more evidence confirms current theories but new discoveries....that's something to be get really excited about. I hope science continues to push the envelope.

 

[florida2]

This is a great post. It's the great thing about science. It has a willingness to be wrong and change it's ideas based on what the evidence tells them. I'm not a scientist but I would like to think a scientist strives to introduce new ideas to give us a better understanding of the universe and the natural world. It's great when more evidence confirms current theories but new discoveries....that's something to be get really excited about. I hope science continues to push the envelope.

Thank you.

If you listen to a lot of the scientists at the LHC, or indeed any scientists, they will say that finding evidence to back up their current theories is cool but finding evidence which contradicts their current theories is much much more exciting. This is were the anti-evolution 'it's all a conspiracy' people seem clueless.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is a great post. It's the great thing about science. It has a willingness to be wrong and change it's ideas based on what the evidence tells them. I'm not a scientist but I would like to think a scientist strives to introduce new ideas to give us a better understanding of the universe and the natural world. It's great when more evidence confirms current theories but new discoveries....that's something to be get really excited about. I hope science continues to push the envelope.

I'm sure a generation of Thalidomites are just high-fouring right now!

Did you see my response to Gottservant's thread about resciencing?

 

[AV1611VET]

... finding evidence to back up their current theories is cool but finding evidence which contradicts their current theories is much much more exciting.

Yup.

I'll bet they just all got goosebumps when a new generation of mutant copy-errors came on the scene -- didn't they?

 

[ecco]

RE: Post 52: Please do not embed your responses within the quoted post. It is too easy to miss them.

ecco:
Why would they (Copernicus,Galileo, Kepler, Newton and Boyle.) have an agenda to undermine God and christianity?

olusanya800:
I dont know to be honest Ecco. "I have been going to church 42 years (all my life, Im not that old!!!! hopefully!!!!) and I can tell you not everyone in those churches was a Christian. Adolf Hitler considered himself a Christian, it does not mean he really was. His actions speak for themselves Sir​

Are you suggesting that Copernicus, etc, were not real Christians?

ecco:
Sheepherders 6000 years ago believed the earth was flat and stationary. That should surprise no one.
Back then there were a lot of beliefs.
Leviticus 11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Do you eat lobster, clams or octopus?

olusanya800:
no, isnt lobster expensive?
​

Duck and dodge.

Acts 10:12-15
On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: 10And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,11And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: 12Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 13And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. 14But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. 15And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.​

olusanya800:
We are under the new testament and not the old testament law. If we were still under the old testament we would need to have live animal sacrifices in church
​

So, things written in the OT are no longer true - OK.
So, the earth is no longer flat - right?

Where in the NT does it state that it's OK to eat lobster?


BTW, Adolf Hitler used the teachings of Martin Luther to turn the mostly christian German people against the Jews:

First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom,​

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Yup.

I'll bet they just all got goosebumps when a new generation of mutant copy-errors came on the scene -- didn't they?

Can you clarify what you are talking about?

 

[olusanya800]

Science is our friend.

But in the wrong hands, it can breed suspicion in the word of God, prevent some from getting saved, and morally destroy a nation.

Balak, who tried to get Balaam to curse Israel, wouldn't do it because God gave Balaam the words to say.

But Balaam devised a way to satisfy Balak, and he suggested the Midianites commit whoredom with the Israelites, and thus bring down God's wrath on the people of Israel.

This has come to be known as the "error of Balaam," "the way of Balaam," and the "doctrine of Balaam."

Today it is called "science."

Yes Sir, you are quite correct. Science shuold not be contradicting the bible or trying to bring the bible into disrepute. To be clear, God is above science and I will listen to the word of God above man every time. Man is fallible. God is not and this is the point I have been trying to get across.

 

[Larniavc]

Yes Sir, you are quite correct. Science shuold not be contradicting the bible or trying to bring the bible into disrepute. To be clear, God is above science and I will listen to the word of God above man every time. Man is fallible. God is not and this is the point I have been trying to get across.

I thought that the point that you were trying to get across was that the world is flat.

If it is flat why has nobody just gone to the edge a took a photo? We have pictures from the Mariana Trench: why not the edge of the world?

 

[ecco]

God is above science and I will listen to the word of God above man every time. Man is fallible. God is not and this is the point I have been trying to get across.

That is why infallible god created everything and then, a few years later, was upset at how badly it all turned out and drowned (almost) everyone and everything.

 

[olusanya800]

I thought that the point that you were trying to get across was that the world is flat.

If it is flat why has nobody just gone to the edge a took a photo? We have pictures from the Mariana Trench: why not the edge of the world?

Sir, you are kind of right. However I was trying to show that the bible does not support a globe earth or a spinning moving earth. The bible is clear in that the earth is fixed and cannot be moved. I was also demonstrating that the globe earth theory is not irrefutable as some people no doubt think. With a flat earth theory the edge would be at Antarctica. Antarctica is protected from proper visitation and examination by the Antarctica treaty. Therefore the flat earth theory cannot be proved or disproved according to the flat earth theory

 

[Larniavc]

Sir, you are kind of right. However I was trying to show that the bible does not support a globe earth or a spinning moving earth. The bible is clear in that the earth is fixed and cannot be moved. I was also demonstrating that the globe earth theory is not irrefutable as some people no doubt think. With a flat earth theory the edge would be at Antarctica. Antarctica is protected from proper visitation and examination by the Antarctica treaty. Therefore the flat earth theory cannot be proved or disproved according to the flat earth theory

You do know that people have been to Antarctica, don't you? And I hardly think a source that defines pi as 3 as having any validity in science.