Flat Earth

[JNB2]

"Globe Earth" is simply reality. It is not a theory. The Globe is an accurate map of the entire earth.
"Flat Earth" is simply not. It does not even qualify to be a theory. There is no accurate flat earth map of the entire earth.

 

[JNB2]

The truth is simply that we really do know, or at least we should know, that the earth is the globe, spheroid, or whatever you want to call it , that it really is.

I don't know what is the real intent of all this flat earth foolishness . Maybe it's just some sort of a weird game ? "Let's just imagine that the earth was flat and think of all the ways and things that it would have to be like if the earth was flat. Let's start with the horizon. Where would it have to be if the earth was flat ?"........Just a wild guess ?

 

[circuitrider]

Truth be told, I can't believe we are even having this discussion. But then if you are going to elect people who don't believe in science then almost any belief about the world becomes possible.

 

[JNB2]

Truth be told, I can't believe we are even having this discussion. But then if you are going to elect people who don't believe in science then almost any belief about the world becomes possible.

I really just started this to see if there were really any persons who really believed the earth was flat or if they knew of any. (Outside of The Flat Earth Society)I guess we shouldn't be too judgmental. That's their problem, but some of them do seem to be a bit judgmental about those who DON'T believe the way they do. LOL

 

[circuitrider]

I really just started this to see if there were really any persons who really believed the earth was flat or if they knew of any. (Outside of The Flat Earth Society)I guess we shouldn't be too judgmental. That's their problem, but some of them do seem to be a bit judgmental about those who DON'T believe the way they do. LOL

Judgemental, no. But we also shouldn't be over tolerant of out and out fantasy. That is how you get things like "alternative facts."

We are each allowed our own opinions. But the fact that 2+2=4 isn't an opinion. The fact that the earth is a globe is far too easily verifiable today to entertain the idea that the earth is flat with any seriousness.

 

[Dave-W]

You can orbit a flat Earth, as easily as you can circumnavigate it. An orbit is accomplished in 1 plane, not 2.

In a flat earth scenario, there is no "orbit" as such. Rather, a satellite just travels in a circle above the earth. That "orbital plane" would be parallel to the earth surface plane.

As such, I am very curious to see the math that keeps the satellites from just falling down via gravity. The centripetal/centrifugal forces are perpendicular to gravity rather than in line with it to counteract it.

 

[Joshua_5]

"Globe Earth" is simply reality. It is not a theory. The Globe is an accurate map of the entire earth.

And yet your only proof of this is the NASA photos. Your insistence globe earth theory is reality does not make it so.

 

[Joshua_5]

In a flat earth scenario, there is no "orbit" as such. Rather, a satellite just travels in a circle above the earth. That "orbital plane" would be parallel to the earth surface plane.

As such, I am very curious to see the math that keeps the satellites from just falling down via gravity. The centripetal/centrifugal forces are perpendicular to gravity rather than in line with it to counteract it.

Most who believe the Earth to be flat do not believe in Newton's Universal theory of gravitation. Sure, objects fall, that's obvious, but not as a result of their attraction for each other. The sun and moon orbit the Earth, yes, but not due to gravity.

Just because you are unfamiliar with thinking satellites can orbit a flat Earth, doesn't make them any less orbits - just not the type of orbits you have been taught to understand.

 

[Dave-W]

Most who believe the Earth to be flat do not believe in Newton's Universal theory of gravitation.

Fine. They can use Einstein's general theory of relativity.

 

[Dave-W]

Just because you are unfamiliar with thinking satellites can orbit a flat Earth, doesn't make them any less orbits - just not the type of orbits you have been taught to understand.

OK - explain what a flat-earth orbit is and what it looks like. I don't know about anyone else, but I am very curious as to what you do with it.

Let us take 2 simple examples:

1) a satellite in near-earth orbit (period of 2.5 hours) going west to east around the equator;

2) a spy satellite in polar orbit with a period of 4 hours.

 

[JNB2]

We do know that the earth is a globe and has been known for a long time.
I saw something to the effect that this flat earth thing has about 21 million believers but I am just curious as to what is the attraction ? It seems the main flat earth mind set is to deny any factual thing connected with the earth, just deny and call it fake you don't know anything about it. The most glaring flat error I have seen is about the horizon. FE says it is just a blur. Of course it is a definite line where sea and sky appear to meet (sea is the best example.) Flat earth just doesn't make any sense....this is the year 2017 A.D. is it not ?

 

[JNB2]

And yet your only proof of this is the NASA photos. Your insistence globe earth theory is reality does not make it so.

There are many evidences of the globe. NASA seems to be the scapegoat of the flat earthers. Ever hear of geodesy ? Have you ever seen an accurate flat earth map map of the entire earth ? Have you ever seen the Unipolar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection (of the globe) which some flat earthers say is "A" Flat Earth Map ? Have you ever talked to anyone in any Navy about flat earth ? Ask them why the man in the crow's nest can see farther to the horizon than the man on the bridge ? There are so many evidences that the earth is globe shaped, but none that it is a flat disc with an ice ring around the rim.
The main flat earth answer seems to be "It looks flat. to me" .I realize you are never going to change a flat earther's mind with facts. But don't worry, we'll just keep things like keeping ships and aircraft on course and every thing else running according to the fact that the earth is the globe that it is......You might like to talk to some airline pilots and ship captains about what they think of your so-called "flat earth."...Or would you believe a word of what they told you ? Or would you just believe they were all just a bunch of liars like everyone else on earth except flat earthers who are the only true believers ?

 

[Dave-W]

And yet your only proof of this is the NASA photos. Your insistence globe earth theory is reality does not make it so.

Well - you can take those NASA photos and believe it, OR you can go up there and see for yourself. Either way you will see the earth is a globe, roughly spherical.

Besides, what would be gained for NASA to lie about this? Or the European Space agency? Or China? Or Russia?

 

[JNB2]

Well - you can take those NASA photos and believe it, OR you can go up there and see for yourself. Either way you will see the earth is a globe, roughly spherical.

Besides, what would be gained for NASA to lie about this? Or the European Space agency? Or China? Or Russia?

You might or might not get an answer. I haven't gotten any answers to my last post, bit maybe I should be a little more patient and wait a bit ?

But I would be interested in reading any answers to your questions as well as mine but
I am a bit dubious about getting any answers.
What would be the advantage to a flat earth ?

Here is another one.
I wonder if that person believes that if a ship passes out of sight because it has passed beyond the horizon you can "restore it to view with a telescope" ?
I wonder if that person has ever been to sea or down to the shore to watch ships come in from the sea and go out to sea ? I have. Been there. Done that.

 

[JackRT]

And yet your only proof of this is the NASA photos. Your insistence globe earth theory is reality does not make it so.

If we examine our universe there are a number of observations that must be consistently explained:

1. tidal effects on earth
2. moon's near side “locked' to earth
3. phases of the moon
4. retardation of the moon's 'rising'
5. seasons of the earth
6. seasonal 24 hour days and nights in the arctic and antarctic
7. coreolis effects on earth
8. Foucault's pendulum
9. precession of the earth's axis
10. apparent daily rotation of the "fixed stars" about the pole star
11. motion of the "wandering stars" (planets) including retrograde motion
12. earth-moon centre of gravity orbits
13. eclipses of the sun, moon and planets
14. northern and southern lights
15. meteors, asteroids and comets
16. moons and/or rings around other planets
17. there are certainly other effects that I have missed

There is only one self consistent model that explains all of these observations and that is the present cosmology of our solar system. This does not explain why these objects behave as they do, it only provides a very refined model that accounts for all the observed effects.

Now add into this the experimentally verified non-relativistic laws of motion and of gravity, known as Newtonian or classical mechanics, and we now have the why that explains the model in a near perfect manner. It is so successful that it has enabled us to send people into earth and moon orbits, to the moon itself and even return to earth. We have been able to navigate probes to all the planets and beyond. People have stood on our moon and observed our planet rotating in front of them in real time. Any other cosmology finds it necessary to suspend known laws of science, hypothesize supernatural intervention and invoke a conspiracy theory extending over centuries involving tens of millions of people a great many of whom are Christian.

In Old Testament times it is certainly true that they regarded the earth as flat in a three tiered universe --- flat with a sky-dome (the firmament) overhead. Just like the rapture theory and the trinity theory, the flat earth worldview is nowhere stated explicitly but it is alluded to in many places. There are also many old testament and even a few new testament stories that are only to be understood in a flat earth context. Generally this flat earth was regarded as circular but we are in places told that it has four corners and is supported by pillars and that there are storehouses for the snow and hail. Of course this seems very primitive to us today but we must remember that these scriptures come out of a far less sophisticated culture. A culture that was deeply suspicious of anything Gentile. It may well be that some of the educated elite were aware of the Greek notion of a spherical world but with an illiteracy rate of about 90% the common people certainly were not. The scriptures were most likely written with the naivety of the common people in mind and used language that would not stretch their credulity too far.

In New Testament times, the young Christian church had a similar suspicion of paganism. Over a period of several centuries it systematically destroyed all things pagan. Temples, shrines, academies, libraries and universities were pulled down and burned. Their priests, teachers and professors were tortured and executed often in front of bloodthirsty Christian mobs. They destroyed not just spiritual works but any book even the slightest bit tainted by paganism even if it was on astronomy, medicine, engineering, technology, mathematics, geography, history or architecture. This massive loss of the underpinnings of civilization contributed in part to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire and the subsequent thousand years of the Dark Ages. In AD380 after a yet another wave of persecution, the 95 year-old hierophant Nestorius, ended the Eleusinian Mysteries and announced the predominance of mental darkness over the human race. How very ironic and prophetic!

It is little wonder then that the flat earth notion persisted so long and that the bible was used to support it. After all the flat earth was the biblical worldview. Should it concern us that the bible supported this notion? Not at all! We do not need to rush to its defense and use weasel words to somehow prove to ourselves that the bible authors had the same worldview that we do. We must realize that these authors lived in a historical context and that the language and ideas that they used fit that context as well.

 

[Joshua_5]

Fine. They can use Einstein's general theory of relativity.

This was only invented to try to justify why heliocentrists believed the Earth was moving, when no movement could be felt nor detected. No self-respecting geocentrist, let alone flat-Earther, believes this theory.

 

[Joshua_5]

OK - explain what a flat-earth orbit is and what it looks like. I don't know about anyone else, but I am very curious as to what you do with it.

Let us take 2 simple examples:

1) a satellite in near-earth orbit (period of 2.5 hours) going west to east around the equator;

2) a spy satellite in polar orbit with a period of 4 hours.

Different diameters or speeds around a central point. Remember, a circle is flat but still has a diameter.

I'm not an expert in the heavenly bodies, and don't claim to fully understand how the firmament works. But this doesn't mean every test conducted down here on Earth, where we can test and directly observe rather than trusting liars at NASA, shows the Earth to be flat.

 

[Joshua_5]

Well - you can take those NASA photos and believe it, OR you can go up there and see for yourself. Either way you will see the earth is a globe, roughly spherical.

Besides, what would be gained for NASA to lie about this? Or the European Space agency? Or China? Or Russia?

Who is the god of this world? What is his specialty? China and Russia are known for their godless Communism (although Communism is not godless, but rather their god is the god of this world). What about all the Satanists who invented NASA? Don't you find it a little odd a space agency was created by Occultists?

I'm not sure about the European Space agency. Have they claimed to have done anything of note, like go to the Moon, or Mars or something?

The purpose of heliocentricity is and always has been to rebel against the true God. NASA and the other space agencies are there so when they "discover" alien life, you'll believe them.

 

[JackRT]

Any theory that makes any sort of pretense to be scientific must also make predictions that if shown to be false would invalidate the theory. For example when we in northern countries observe the night sky we see the stars moving in a circle around the pole star (aka Polaris or the North Star). For us this rotation is clockwise. However people in southern countries cannot even see the pole star but they do observe a counterclockwise rotation. If our world is flat then the stars will revolve around it all in the same direction at every point on the surface because wherever you are on the surface you are always looking at the same stars. Australians observe the stars rotating in an opposite direction to Canadians, hence the flat earth theory is invalidated.

 

[Joshua_5]

If we examine our universe there are a number of observations that must be consistently explained:

1. tidal effects on earth
2. moon's near side “locked' to earth
3. phases of the moon
4. retardation of the moon's 'rising'
5. seasons of the earth
6. seasonal 24 hour days and nights in the arctic and antarctic
7. coreolis effects on earth
8. Foucault's pendulum
9. precession of the earth's axis
10. apparent daily rotation of the "fixed stars" about the pole star
11. motion of the "wandering stars" (planets) including retrograde motion
12. earth-moon centre of gravity orbits
13. eclipses of the sun, moon and planets
14. northern and southern lights
15. meteors, asteroids and comets
16. moons and/or rings around other planets
17. there are certainly other effects that I have missed

1. tidal effects on earth- not due to gravity - why does the water remain on Earth if the moon attracts it by gravity? Why are lakes and inland water bodies miraculous unaffected by tides, if these are due to gravity.
2. moon's near side “locked' to earth - the moon is the light God created to govern the night. Heliocentricity relies on a lot of coincidences to explain why its far side never faces Earth. Why are parts of it transparent when its not full (you can see the sky and stars through it), and why don't NASA's photos correspond with this?
3. phases of the moon - not due to gravity - its the nature of its design.
4. retardation of the moon's 'rising' - this is also an issue for heliocentrists - movement of the heavenly bodies should be uniform according to the theory.
5. seasons of the earth - changes in diameter of sun's orbit. Sun is further from the North on a larger, faster diameter, and from the South on a smaller, slower diameter.
6. seasonal 24 hour days and nights in the arctic and antarctic - no valid proof of 24 hour days in the Antarctic (a single Youtube video that seems doctored doesn't count), and historical explorer diary entries speak of night time during periods where there should have been 24 hour days on a ball-Earth. Why is no one allowed there to check, except with government/military clearance? NASA is military.
7. coreolis effects on earth - No proof of such thing, and if there were, easily explained by motion of Heavens, rather than Earth.
8. Foucault's pendulum - No proof of such thing, and if there were, easily explained by motion of Heavens, rather than Earth.
9. precession of the earth's axis - Evidence suggests Earth is immobile.
10. apparent daily rotation of the "fixed stars" about the pole star - "Apparent" rotation of the stars about Polaris is actual rotation. The stars are fixed in the firmament, and the firmament moves. This is why the star configuration remains the same year to year, century to century.
11. motion of the "wandering stars" (planets) including retrograde motion - these stars are not-so-fixed in the firmament.
12. earth-moon centre of gravity orbits - if this is legitimate, I'd guess it applies to all Heavenly bodies.
13. eclipses of the sun, moon and planets - exactly what they look like - one Heavenly body moving in front of the other.
14. northern and southern lights - not sure, but I don't see how they are evidence for ball-Earth theory.
15. meteors, asteroids and comets - again not sure, but I don't see how they are evidence for ball-Earth theory. They could be just pieces of sky, and the comets could be similar to planets (wandering stars).
16. moons and/or rings around other planets - as God made them, but not evidence for ball-Earth theory.
17. there are certainly other effects that I have missed - and easily explanable as not evidence for ball-Earth theory.

Note that most of your "proofs" rely on the behaviour of Heavenly bodies, which we don't have direct access to. There are definitely many aspects of Heaven'y bodies which we do not know. However, just because we don't have a just-so story for this behaviour doesn't make Earth to be a ball. The evidence we can test here on Earth (lighthouse visual distances, no correction for curvature for materials for large civil engineering projects, inability to measure movement of Earth) does suggest Earth is flat, irrespective of the workings of the Heavens.

In Old Testament times it is certainly true that they regarded the earth as flat in a three tiered universe --- flat with a sky-dome (the firmament) overhead. Just like the rapture theory and the trinity theory, the flat earth worldview is nowhere stated explicitly but it is alluded to in many places. There are also many old testament and even a few new testament stories that are only to be understood in a flat earth context. Generally this flat earth was regarded as circular but we are in places told that it has four corners and is supported by pillars and that there are storehouses for the snow and hail.

Agreed. And let God be true, and every man a liar.[/QUOTE]