Flat Earth Theory.

[Michael Snow]

I was first exposed to a few of these flat earth videos a few years ago. I was convinced at the time that it was an experiment to see just how gullible people could be regarding what they see on the internet. Fortunately, most people don't buy it.

It is absurd an many, many levels. I even saw a couple of videos where the flat earthers did an experiment and said at the beginning that if such-and-such results happened, it meant their flat earth theory was wrong. Well, those results DID happen (proving the earth is round) and they moved the goal posts. It was actually pretty funny.

And yes, we landed on the moon.

Yes. Those who reject that reject God's word.
Faithful Witnesses: The Resurrection, and The Moon Landings

 

[Michael Snow]

This can easily be explained away. WITCHCRAFT!!!

You are either insane or a servant of the Great Deceiver, Satan. Repent before it is too late.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

You are either insane or a servant of the Great Deceiver, Satan. Repent before it is too late.

A little bit of column A, a little bit of column B.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

-
​

We really do not have any common ground to discuss. Or what we would discuss/debate. i have already many times in the pass.

The bolded statement confuses me. I don't know what you mean.

Regarding common ground, that is actually typical when you have Christians and non Christians discussing topics that touch religion in any way. But they still find something to discuss. And the same goes for Christians when they disagree, if only in an "iron sharpening iron" sort of way.

I prefer to discuss with people that disagree with me. It's how I learn.

Regarding your second and third sentences, I don't know what you mean.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

A little bit of column A, a little bit of column B.

I just thought it was a joke. It made me laugh.

 

[d taylor]

The bolded statement confuses me. I don't know what you mean.

Regarding common ground, that is actually typical when you have Christians and non Christians discussing topics that touch religion in any way. But they still find something to discuss. And the same goes for Christians when they disagree, if only in an "iron sharpening iron" sort of way.

I prefer to discuss with people that disagree with me. It's how I learn.

Regarding your second and third sentences, I don't know what you mean.

Bolded statement, i did not bold any of my post i made.

There is no common ground to even began a discussion with. To begin with i do not think you understand the type of creation i believe God created.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Bolded statement, i did not bold any of my post i made.

There is no common ground to even began a discussion with. To begin with i do not think you understand the type of creation i believe God created.

First, sorry. I meant to bold it in the excerpt but forgot to. But the last line of my post covers it.

Regarding the type of creation you believe God created, I suppose you're right. I don't know what kind of Creation you think God created. However, often when a discussion is began, common ground can be found, even though we may find out we disagree on a lot.

FWIW, I believe all of creation in our physical realm is pretty much empty space. We just sense light, mass, etc. e.g. when I clap my hands, nothing actually touches. No atoms touch. It just feels like it to me.

 

[d taylor]

First, sorry. I meant to bold it in the excerpt but forgot to. But the last line of my post covers it.

Regarding the type of creation you believe God created, I suppose you're right. I don't know what kind of Creation you think God created. However, often when a discussion is began, common ground can be found, even though we may find out we disagree on a lot.

FWIW, I believe all of creation in our physical realm is pretty much empty space. We just sense light, mass, etc. e.g. when I clap my hands, nothing actually touches. No atoms touch. It just feels like it to me.

-
​

Well to give you an idea. It may be best to state what i do not believe. I do not believe in an outer space where God has placed the sun, moon and stars extremely far distances away. I do not believe the sun is a star or stars are suns. I do not believe God created planets. I do not believe the moon reflects the suns light, but gives off its own light. That is a few beliefs or do not beliefs about God's creation.

 

[JacksBratt]

To believe in a flat earth just goes to show how truly gullible people are. Its beyond belief how people can truly get sucked into the lies of the flat earth bubble. Its utter madness.

Thank you, Lost, for another post that proved my point.

 

[JacksBratt]

Why do you make sweeping generalizations based on the posts of one person?

You are right. I apologize.

Not every one of them gets triggered. But..... I see globe believers getting triggered but I don't see FE believers getting triggered.

 

[JacksBratt]

Part of Science is a god that is worshiped. Many Christians here live at its altar. What idolatry!

Auguste Piccard was a fascinating person. They don't name any of their "space" ships or programs after him. No, they prefer pagan Greek gods and goddesses.

Star Trek had the main character named after him though... Jon Luc Piccard..... "Make it So".... great fiction.... just like NASA.

 

[Laodicean60]

Star Trek

Can we not. I like the series.

 

[JacksBratt]

You need a water level in those photos to show where eye level actually is. When the water level is used, the horizon is always below eye level as you go up in elevation. Everything you stated was false.

Thing is..... in all reality, if you were on a ball, as you went up, you would see farther... when you saw farther the horizon would be curving away which would make it lower, much lower.
This is not even close to being represented. Even with high altitude balloon video and photos.
For all intents and purposes.... the horizon remains at eye level...Even the ocean seems to rise up to eye level when you stand on the shore.

 

[JacksBratt]

A Flat Earth?

A 10-minute video summarizes this article: tinyurl.com/AFlatEarthModel A one-hour physics colloquium based on this article. 50-minuta versio tinyurl.com/PlataTero, kun partopreno de Derek Roff. In …

brucesherwood.net

1) The flat-earth model predicts that the visual diameter of the flat-earth Sun can, depending on your latitude, vary by more than a factor of 2 between noon and sunrise or sunset, which we do not observe. At sunrise or sunset the flat-earth Sun is much farther away from an observer than at noon, so it would look much larger at noon (and the sunlight would be over four times as intense at noon), whereas in reality the Sun is so very far away that its tiny change in angular size from sunrise to noon is undetectable. Also, the angular size of the flat-earth Sun is very different when viewed from different latitudes, which is not what is observed in the real world.

2) The flat-earth model predicts that the flat-earth Sun will never get anywhere near the horizon, despite the fact that we see sunrises and sunsets with the Sun at and even sinking below the horizon. Because the flat-earth Sun is about 3500 miles above the disk, an observer on such a flat Earth should always see lots of sky between the horizon and the Sun; at sunrise and sunset the flat-earth Sun is far above the horizon.

3) A closely related naked-eye observation is that at sunset one sometimes sees the bottoms of low-lying clouds lit by the setting Sun. The flat-earth model predicts that this cannot happen, since the flat-earth Sun is about 3500 miles above the Earth.

4) The flat-earth model predicts that the North Star will be visible even from Argentina, despite the fact that it is not visible from anywhere a few miles south of the equator (the North Star is a small angular distance from the point around which it seems to circle, so that at a short distance south of the equator you can see it some of the time). In fact, from the edge of the flat-earth disk, the North Star will be about 25 degrees above the northern horizon. Similarly the flat-earth model predicts that the angular height of the North Star should be about 60 degrees in Dallas Texas, but it’s actually only 33 degrees above the horizon, which is a huge naked-eye discrepancy. The latitude of Dallas is 33 degrees, and on a round Earth one predicts that the North Star will be 33 degrees above the horizon, as is observed.

5) The flat-earth model predicts that if you watch a constellation that is near the eastern horizon at nightfall, it will grow larger until midnight, as it comes closer to you, then smaller as it moves away from you toward the west. No such effect is in fact observed. Closely related is the prediction that as you move farther from the North Pole, the larger will be constellations in their closest approach to you. Moreover, in all cases the brightness of the flat-earth stars and flat-earth Sun will vary depending on how close or far you are from them, which is not observed in naked-eye observations. This implies that the stars and Sun are very far away, so that moving large distances on the Earth’s surface hardly changes the large distance to stars and the Sun. Also, except at the North Pole, a constellation in reality never moves parallel to the horizon during the night as it does in the flat-earth model.

There is no room for the well-known southern-hemisphere constellation, the Southern Cross! Just as the North Star should be well above the horizon even in Argentina, so should all the constellations of the southern hemisphere be well above the horizon in the US. Not only do we not see these constellations in the US, there isn’t room for all the southern-hemisphere constellations and all the northern-hemisphere constellations to be jammed into the single hemisphere that is the rotating flat-earth dome.

6) If you move away from the North Pole you’ll see that the tracks of the stars around the North Star are no longer circles but are now ellipses, which does not agree with long-exposure photos of the night sky.

My point was.... to anyone getting up and having a cup of coffee, heading off to work, going out to lunch, taking in a ball game.... whatever... the earth can be flat or a ball...... would not matter one bit.

Even if you go to elaborate scientific tests.. they can't prove any spin or movement through space.

All depends on the atmospheric conditions how much bending of light occurs.

Some of these things are seen every day that there is visibility to that distance. Not on random days where the atmospheric conditions are just right.

Where can I find this mythical 'accepted FE model'?

On the internet. If you can't even take the time to look into that... then you're not worthy of debating.

Have these observations been repeated at different times of the day and during different seasons, or is it just a one off when conditions happened to be just right?

You mean like your "refraction" excuse? No, these are regular visible facts.

This has never been shown. Flat Earthers always choose small boats as the subject of these 'proofs', which appear to disappear because their arc width is smaller than the human eye can discern. Zooming in with a camera brings the whole boat back into view because it is not beyond the horizon. The explanation of why they 'disappear' also fails to explain why far more distant aircraft are still visible.

Do more research. This has been shown in many videos.. Empty horizon... zoom in... voila... a ship, boat.. whatever. Do some research.

You fail to provide any images with instruments (such as a water level) to show where eye level is in relation to the horizon.
In other threads I have shown photos with a water level used to show eye level and the horizon is always below eye level, with the difference increasing as you go up in altitude.

Go to any large lake, up in a plane, to an ocean... The horizon is always eye level.... Even if it's slightly below... it is the same at sea level or in a 747 at 30,000 feet.

No proofs given, just bald assertions.

Check it out on the forum... long discussions. I'm not digging it up for you. Just ask around.

That pesky atmospheric refraction again.

You're one overused excuse.

The sun is orders of magnitude larger than the moon. There are two areas of shadow cast by the moon, the penumbra and the umbra. The umbra is the cone shape corresponding to the different diameters of the sun and moon. If the moon was just a little further from the earth then the umbra would end just short of the earth's surface and we would never witness a total eclipse.

Take a good look at your diagram....
Look at the size of the sun as it sits behind the moon. It's not reality.
But, it works for your argument... which is why it's presented this way.

In reality, the sun and moon, when observed from the ground... are identical in size. Which destroys this diagram and it's validity.
The sun, being hidden completely by the moon allows no room for the blessed sacred "umbar" and "penumbra".

View attachment 340610

Again, where is this mythical model we keep hearing about?

Again... you must have a keyboard... and internet. You are literate.... You can find all the false diagrams and arguments that are spat out like skittles on this forum...

Take a leap and look at some of the other things you are requesting.

 

[JacksBratt]

Can we not. I like the series.

Better than star wars... right?

 

[JacksBratt]

Flat earth believers like Jack always throw up truly unscientific things. Non proven and pure fantasy.

Just like the flat earth map. There isnt a real flat earth map! Have you seen the comical ones that flat earthers put out there!

Flat earth, moon has its own light source...pure and utter fantasy that has no scientific proof at all. No Biblical proof either. Just bad interpretation of scripture!

You are "Lost for words" must also be lost for ears...
I have not embraced the FE.
At least I have spent time looking into something before I criticize it.
Instead of just blurting out nothing burger cliche comments on other posts.

 

[JacksBratt]

-
​

I have heard of Auguste Piccard,in a few discussions and people have referenced him in videos. After looking up how high he went (or supposed) to have went it has been stated as around 10 miles high. Which is about as high a the Concord would fly.

I keep hearing about these contemporary balloon trips to space, but nothing is ever stated as actually happening.

It simply boils down to belief, either a person has belief in science that science is telling the truth about everything they say. Or a person has belief in The Bible as being an truthful and accurate account of God's creation.

I believe The Bible's creation accounts, as given in The Bible, i have no reason not to.

Go to the 151 minute mark of this video.. If you don't want to watch the whole thing.

Rob Skiba was a warrior and didn't just sit at his computer and argue. God bless this man's life works. Taken too soon from this world.

 

[JacksBratt]

Rather it boils down to pride.

Prideful people cannot accept contradiction to their view.
Humble people have the ability to accept that others can hold a view that is different to their own.

 

[JacksBratt]

I see it this way: Science is about "how". Religion is about "why". And "why" is the higher pursuit. The bible is not a science book. God did not impart 25th century knowledge to readers thousands of years ago. He let us figure it out for ourselves. The bible explains the cosmos and the earth with the bias of the men writing it at the time. And that's ok. The bible is both divine and human. The men who wrote the books were inspired by God. They didn't enter a trance when writing. They wrote based on their observations. And when it comes to the earth, early man naturally assumed it was flat and the center of the universe.

Comically, my new son-in-law still believes that. I thought he was joking at first, but he wasn't. One takes all of the bible literally at their peril.

For me, one thing is pretty clear: much of the scripture about the purpose of man should be followed by "as far as we're concerned". e.g. the earth is the center of the Universe, as far as we're concerned. Jesus died for our sins, as far as we're concerned. But what about the other quintillions of planets that possibly exist with sentient beings on them? They have their own "as far as they are concerned" about their own world and its history and future. The only true common ground we have with any of them is that we have the same creator.

The above is just my opinion, of course, and really just a theory or, more precisely, an hypothesis, since I can't prove it through experimentation. But I have yet to find scripture that contradicts it.

And here is one that has bugged me for years. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

Now, at the time that was written, it is safe to say that the scripture they were familiar with was the LXX. So, why is it not our old testament in our English bibles? What are we missing that is in the books there that we don't see? I highly recommend getting a copy of the Septuagint in English. It is eye opening.

Jesus walking on water... Not scientific
Jesus bringing Lazarus back from the dead.. Not scientific
Jesus saving a young girl from miles away, Not scientific.
Jesus instantly turning water to wine. Not scientific.
The Red Sea separating for the Israelite's to cross.. Not scientific
A burning bush. Not scientific.
Water pouring from a rock, in the desert. Not scientific.
Floating axe head. Not scientific.
Talking donkey. Not scientific.
Pregnant virgin. Not scientific.

We believe all of these things. Why? Because the eternal safety of our eternal soul depends on it.

Otherwise, we would dismiss them outright.

How hypocritical.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Why is it that people that are solid globe earth believers and FE deniers... are so triggered?

I don't think I have ever seen a person with the FE view tell someone to "wake up", accuse someone of "grossly misinterpreting something" or any other sort of condescension.

Yet, I see it all the time. The obvious abrasive words, put downs, ridicule and lack of acceptance of the fact that someone doesn't hold their view from some here with the globe only view.

I think it's that sometimes something is just such lunacy that, though we'd like to ignore it, it's impossible to do so because enough people are young and listening to the lunacy as though it might be true.

As I said in a previous posts When I first saw this flat earth stuff, I honestly thought it was an experiment to see how easy it would be to convince people to believe something that is ridiculous and easily disproven. Yet, as time goes on I'm more convinced that some otherwise intelligent people actually fall for this.

Here is a very level headed and fair observation of the whole thing by a real scientist. It's one of my favorite channels on everything scientific.