Flat or round earth -The final experiment.

[The Liturgist]

Why do so many people today point to modern cosmology and give all the glory to the forces of nature and 'Science' ?

Because of the rise of Nihilist philosophical movements which are Materialist in nature, but these people have also advocated for things and been awesruck by things which science actually says are incorrect. For example, eugenics was once widely believed in, and many of the people who claim to be awestruck by scientific cosmology also believe in things that science has debunked, for example, extra-sensory perception, telekinesis, telepathy and other “psychic” abilities, “ancient aliens” theories of the van Daniken variety which inspired some of the more wacky films of Roland Emmerlich, such as Stargate and Independence Day, and other things of this nature, for example, widespread misunderstandings about quantum mechanics. For example, many of these people believe in what one might call “quantum spirituality” which every quantum physicist I am aware of regards with disgust, even those who believe that mental processes are affected by quantum mechanics (which is very much a fringe position, even among those working on quantum computers and AI; the only well-respected scientist who holds this view is often derided over it, and its a bit outside his field; some of the problems include the fact that we have not been able to reproduce some of the more interesting and unusual quantum effects outside of the artificially cold, near-absolute zero temperatures in quantum physics laboratories, because the movement of particles at higher temperatures tends to cause quantum systems to decohere. But I digress.

The bottom line is that nihilism is your enemy, and also so are the various materialist philosophies derived from it, such as Marxist-Leninism and various forms of secularism.

 

[Jipsah]

Why aren't modern people awestruck then?

You're hanging with the wrong people. You've never seen an amateur astronomer go into raptures about a good clear vow of Jupiter or Saturn. You've never been around geekboys like me pondering the intricacies of how the various celestial objects behave. Not the sort of thing you'd care about, and a lot of which you simply deny exists. You don;t look, so you don't see. End result, you know jack about what God has done, and don't really care.

Why do so many people today point to modern cosmology and give all the glory to the forces of nature and 'Science' ? Science gets no glory, they just point out what's there. And yeah, it's all about the forces of nature, designed and regulated and orchestrated by God. Most of it is stuff that you don't weant to hear about, because it exists outside the tiny creation that you declare is all that God has made. As if!.

Modern cosmology = Epicureanism = something exploded, some 'splodey stuff got lucky, but there is nothing special about it.

How would you know, you dare not look! You're afraid, and rightfully so, you'll see something that dashed your tiny universe into pieces. Yiouy want, no, require, a tiny God who constructed a tiny universe. Sorry, there ain't none who fits that description.

Earth is just another speck of mass hurdling through the void from an explosion.

Not to be allowed, is it? Who does God thing He is, to make thngs greater than out green and pleasant Earth? We're the Earth! The A Number 1! The be all and end all! God couldn't have managed to outshine us, simply unthinkable.! God creating an unimaginable number of galaxies many of whom are more vast than the the impossibly huge one we live it. No! We forbid it! Our little One Planet Shop is All There Is!

None of this inspires a reverence for the God of the Bible

Really? A tiny, limited God is far more likely to inspire reverence than one whose creation is unfathomable, impossible to comprehend. Nah,we just need a kind of mediocre God who doesn't get too big for us.

, which is why so many atheists and agnostics embrace modern cosmology so passionately

Or they do because it happens to be true, and they realize something of the magnitude of what "just happened". And it;s that "just happened" that cause many to discard atheism, since nothing of this magniicence "just happens". And let's face it, your one mudball universe isn't the one that's gonna inspire them when hey can look up at the night sky, or into the depths of the ocean and find thngs thar are simply unthnkable in your 3-page creation.

, because exploding things don't look like they were designed.

Sory mater, but it's your tiny Rube Goldberg universe that looks like a comic strip. The vast interlocking, interacting, ever moving, ever changing, universe created by the Lord God, with its infinite complexity and impossible grandeur that speaks of the Creation worthy of an Almighty Lord God.

Y'all want to keep God small, but isn't possible. Save it for the simple minded,who need a simple God.

Actually, because of "Relativity", there isn't evidence the earth is moving..

If you refuse to see it. Voluntarty blindness is still blindness,and still a handicap.

Even other globe believers on this thread will admit that. Einstein even admitted it, as well as other prominent physicists.

ROFL. As lame attempts go, that was extraordinarily lame.

It's not how I reckon it... it's what the words actually say in scripture. You're the one saying that the words in scripture don't account for anything in actual reality and that it's all symbolism.

Was that suposed to mean something? It didn't.

Can God be allowed to create a cosmos in the way he says or is that off limits for him?

We're not the ones who declare that the best He could do was one little planet in a jar with some holes in the lid.

Yep, it looks like the sun is moving. What's so terrible about believing that the sun is as it appears to be?



I just believe he did it the way he said he did it, or how it is written in the Bible.



You just said we look up and see the sun moving. That is what's actually happening. It's not culty to make observations.



I thought one's cosmological beliefs didn't matter, as long as they are surrendering to Christ? Do you disagree?

Is there something sacred about the belief in a globe/heliocentric earth?

 

[The Liturgist]

Believe in it? I've seen it several times! It was the first movie space ship that didn't look like either a rocket or a pie plate

Well technically the primary hull does look a bit like a pie plate; it’s often called the “saucer section” for a reason, although in all fairness to Matt Jeffries, his original design for the Enterprise featured a spherical primary hull, and they wound up keeping that design as canon for the older Essex-class spacecraft, and a model of one is in Captain Sisko’s office on Deep Space Nine, and also a spherical primary hull was used on the Pasteur-class medical spacecraft commanded by Dr. Beverly Crusher which we saw in the finale of TNG, All Good Things. But Star Trek even in the original season quickly dispensed with any adherence to an overly “Flying Saucer” aesthetic, since aside from the Constitution class starships, of the alien ships we see in TOS, only one of them had a similiar aesthetic, that being the Romulan Bird of Prey, designed by the very talented Wah Ming Chang (who did many of the more iconic designs in the Original Series). I also vaguely recall one or two small alien ships that were vaguely pie-platey, but nothing serious). The Klingon Battlecruiser looks closer to the original design of Jeffries, as does the Tholian spacecraft, while the DY-100 class sleeper ship Botany Bay does look like a 1960s projection of what a nuclear powered spacecraft in the 1990s might look like, which unfortunately did not happen, but it could have happened had we invested more money in the NERVA project.

Despite its lack of scientific credibility, one thing I admire Star Wars for was introducing even more diversity to the screen in terms of spacecraft design, so that we started to see the same range of spacecraft in films as we saw in books. And this in turn benefitted ST:TNG and following series, which became much more diverse in terms of the designs of spacecraft, ranging from the interesting Borg Cube and Romulan Warbird to the very strange and somewhat overly complex design of the Son’aa spacecraft from the strange and somewhat under-developed and over-baked concept of Star Trek: Insurrection. Of course I am not at all happy about the current state of Star Trek; 2009 era Trek was problematic, but modern day Alex Kurtzman Trek has been, like the modern day continuations of Star Wars, not very well done I don’t think, even setting aside the political aspects. One can be left wing without being an incompetent hack - consider George Orwell, who wrote one of the finest science fiction novels of all time with Nineteen Eighty Four.

 

[The Liturgist]

Which apparently began 2000+ years ago.

About 2500.

 

[d taylor]

But of course, we know that not to be the case. You can bounce a radio signal off the moon and the return time will be consistent with the calculated distance.

But your post is also off-topic, because this thread refers to the geometry of the Earth and not about the location of the moon, although, since you have brought it up, I will say that the demonstrated fact that the average distance of the moon, at about 1.3 light seconds from the Earth, which is the time it takes for a round-trip radio signal or other light beam to return, is another fact that makes the Flat Earth model untenable, since that distance, combined with the tidal effects generated by the gravitational mass of the moon acting on the Terrestrial oceans, requires the Earth to be globular.

-
​

It is all connected as science's lies cover all of God's creation. So when the lie of man going to the moon is exposed all other lies about God's creation will also be exposed earth's shape, outer space, the flood, evolution, etc..

This may not happen at once or even the exposing of the moon lies may not come first, but it is coming. As sure as Jesus is going to return to earth and setup His 1000 year kingdom.

 

[Jipsah]

It's not how I reckon it... it's what the words actually say in scripture.

Except they don't.

You're the one saying that the words in scripture don't account for anything

My first reaction was a one-word two syllable one. It wopuld have been appropriate, but a bit too harsh fo this forum. Let';s just say you demonstrated a remarkable amount of dishnesy, and outright mendacity in that statement.. I kow that shouldn't surprise me, but I oten underestimate the intellectual sleaziness to which some folks are willing to stoop.

in actual reality and that it's all symbolism.

Not evey "sumbolism" when you declare that "thesun rose" meansthe sun was movng and not the observer. Even you know better.

Can God be allowed to create a cosmos in the way he says or is that off limits for him?

He, can, and He did, and you don't like it. Your problem. matey, not mine.

Yep, it looks like the sun is moving. What's so terrible about believing that the sun is as it appears to be?

N othing, as long as you understand that such a statement is either a evidence of invincible ignorance, or simp[ly a lie.

I just believe he did it the way he said he did it, or how it is written in the Bible.

In other words, eisgesis.

ou just said we look up and see the sun moving.

And I'll say the sun rose this mornng. You may may take that as evidence that I believe the sun moves around us, but it would be ridiculously false,

That is what's actually happening.

I submit that you know better than that, although that may simply be a product of my reluctance to believe that anyone is that obtuse.

It's not culty to make observations.

It is if they're intentionally false.

I thought one's cosmological beliefs didn't matter,

Depneds on how you beat that drum. If it's simply ignorance, no harm done. The illiterate we will always have with us. If 'ts elevated to a matter of soteriologicl importance, then it becomes a pernicious lie.

as long as they are surrendering to Christ?

Again, if it's honest ignorance, sure. When it's a matter of preaching a falsehood as the truth, then it's despicable.

Is there something sacred about the belief in a globe/heliocentric earth?

Only if you consider the truth sacred.

 

[Jipsah]

Please, do not lie.

<Reaction Deleted>

Your models are totally useless, inconsistent, paranoid and logically impossible.

Yeah, and?

 

[Jipsah]

Key word: relative. You are actually tracking the motion of celestial objects relative to a stationary earth.



We don't have ready access to all the data about those flights, the exact route over ocean, the exact speeds and wind variables for the entire trip.

<ROFL>

It's a point that deserves attention

Not really. The flight schedues tell it all.

, but far from anything conclusive.

<LAUGH>

If we're really trying to get to the truth of the matter, that is.

The truth is that southern hemisphere flight follow great circle routes just like northern hemisphere ones.

at least one of those racers is a confirmed flat earth believer.)

Did he ever make it back to port?

For the record, I've not heard a single flat earth Christian say or imply that you have to believe in flat earth to go to heaven.

Hey, it's how Satan (who apparently lo0ms large in FE theology) "hathers souls", right?

 

[Jipsah]

In your own words explain all this me. one by one, if you can.

NASA.gov, matey.

 

[Jipsah]

But of course, we know that not to be the case. You can bounce a radio signal off the moon and the return time will be consistent with the calculated distance.

I can testify to that. 1.5 kilowatts into a twenty element yagi, CW only. Fun when it works, extremely boring when it doesn't. Calling CQ EME is a great passtime for people who don't really want to talk to anyone.

 

[Apple Sky]

Well technically the primary hull does look a bit like a pie plate; it’s often called the “saucer section” for a reason, although in all fairness to Matt Jeffries, his original design for the Enterprise featured a spherical primary hull, and they wound up keeping that design as canon for the older Essex-class spacecraft, and a model of one is in Captain Sisko’s office on Deep Space Nine, and also a spherical primary hull was used on the Pasteur-class medical spacecraft commanded by Dr. Beverly Crusher which we saw in the finale of TNG, All Good Things. But Star Trek even in the original season quickly dispensed with any adherence to an overly “Flying Saucer” aesthetic, since aside from the Constitution class starships, of the alien ships we see in TOS, only one of them had a similiar aesthetic, that being the Romulan Bird of Prey, designed by the very talented Wah Ming Chang (who did many of the more iconic designs in the Original Series). I also vaguely recall one or two small alien ships that were vaguely pie-platey, but nothing serious). The Klingon Battlecruiser looks closer to the original design of Jeffries, as does the Tholian spacecraft, while the DY-100 class sleeper ship Botany Bay does look like a 1960s projection of what a nuclear powered spacecraft in the 1990s might look like, which unfortunately did not happen, but it could have happened had we invested more money in the NERVA project.

Despite its lack of scientific credibility, one thing I admire Star Wars for was introducing even more diversity to the screen in terms of spacecraft design, so that we started to see the same range of spacecraft in films as we saw in books. And this in turn benefitted ST:TNG and following series, which became much more diverse in terms of the designs of spacecraft, ranging from the interesting Borg Cube and Romulan Warbird to the very strange and somewhat overly complex design of the Son’aa spacecraft from the strange and somewhat under-developed and over-baked concept of Star Trek: Insurrection. Of course I am not at all happy about the current state of Star Trek; 2009 era Trek was problematic, but modern day Alex Kurtzman Trek has been, like the modern day continuations of Star Wars, not very well done I don’t think, even setting aside the political aspects. One can be left wing without being an incompetent hack - consider George Orwell, who wrote one of the finest science fiction novels of all time with Nineteen Eighty Four.

I get it now. all you globers r trekkie & starWar fans

 

[lifepsyop]

Well, no, because these celestial objects have motion relative to each other and the Earth moves with some of them,

Observing celestial motions does not suddenly make the earth start moving, that is magical thinking.

which is how Copernicus determined that Geocentrism is an error.

He may have determined that, but he never demonstrated it.

Yes, you do, via ADS-B,

This is based off of GPS, a coordinate system that was continuously meridian-corrected to fit within a predetermined 3d globe model. It does not necessarily provide us an accurate picture where something is, especially over ocean.

but you also don’t need it, since the factors you mention cause the trips to be longer rather than shorter than would otherwise be the case, and the whole point here is that these aircraft are traveling these sectors at a time which according to Flat Earth is impossibly fast. And by impossibly fast, I mean, if the Flat Earth model were real, there has never been an aircraft in the history of the human race with sufficient speed and range that could complete these sectors in the time allotted.

You do not know the actual routes being traveled with any certainty. The pilots may not even be aware if they are simply following pre-programmed GPS waypoints between the locations, going over a huge amount of ocean. It seems awkward to be pinning all your hopes on what you think this one flight is doing.

 

[Jipsah]

Observing celestial motions does not suddenly make the earth start moving, that is magical thinking.

I'm sorry, what? The only "magical thinking here is thinking that the Earth is somehow anchored in space. THis where you were supposed to deny the existence of "space", and any "celestial motions". Try to keep the rubbish if at all possible, consistent.

This is based off of GPS, a coordinate system that was continuously meridian-corrected to fit within a predetermined 3d globe model. It does not necessarily provide us an accurate picture where something is, especially over ocean.

Good grief, man, am I supposed to help you even with your irrational universe? GPS does not, and cannot, exist in a flattie cosmos.

You do not know the actual routes being traveled with any certainty.

If the world werfe actually flat you coud make some pretty accurate assumptions. Only so many ways to get from BA to Capetown even in the real world.

The pilots may not even be aware if they are simply following pre-programmed GPS waypoints between the locations, going over a huge amount of ocean. It seems awkward to be pinning all your hopes on what you think this one flight is doing.

Doesn't matter anyway, your imaginary routes in your imaginary world are all... well, imaginary, anyway.

 

[trophy33]

I get it now. all you globers r trekkie & starWar fans

My most favorite sci-fi series is Star Gate.

 

[prodromos]

This is based off of GPS, a coordinate system that was continuously meridian-corrected to fit within a predetermined 3d globe model. It does not necessarily provide us an accurate picture where something is, especially over ocean.

The corrections are on the order of fractions of arc seconds, which are 1/3600 of a degree. You are trying to suggest that GPS is not reliable when in fact the level of error is minuscule.

You do not know the actual routes being traveled with any certainty.

Sure we do.

The pilots may not even be aware if they are simply following pre-programmed GPS waypoints between the locations, going over a huge amount of ocean.

Sydney to Santiago goes just South of New Zealand on the great circle route which is pretty hard for the pilots to miss, and if they followed the path on your flat earth map the distance almost doubles. Sydney to Los Angeles is already a longer flight than Sydney to Santiago. No amount of your unqualified hypotheticals can explain away the flight durations and paths between continents in the Southern Hemisphere. They completely break your flat earth model.

It seems awkward to be pinning all your hopes on what you think this one flight is doing.

These are regular flights that are well documented. Average flight times are given in both directions which account for the wind assisting in one direction while impeding the return. If you were honest about this you would do your research and be able to come to an informed conclusion. You won't do this, but instead resort to vague "it could be" or "it might be" arguments. You've already decided what you want to believe and refuse to consider evidence to the contrary.
And since your argument is bankrupt from a physics point of view, you try to turn it into a theological argument, but you fail there too.

 

[Apple Sky]

My most favorite sci-fi series is Star Gate.

Most of my favorite movies are about time travel. In 4 Baruch there is mention of time travel, not sure how true it is.

 

[Apple Sky]

The earth is not moving, even Einstein claimed this.

 

[Apple Sky]

Our planet is a rotating sphere. One rotation lasts about 24 hours. It is orbited by the Moon, which is also a similar but smaller sphere. Earth orbits, with the other planets, around the sun. This cycle lasts about 365 days.
Everything in the universe is in motion. This movement is governed by the curvature of space. Space is curved by the mass of objects.

From this, you can easily derive everything we observe. For example, the Moon eclipse is when our planet gets between the Sun and the Moon. The Sun eclipse is when the Moon gets between the Earth and the Sun. Sunset is when the place where you are standing rotates away from the Sun. Seasons are caused by the distance of our planet from the Sun, during the year. Etc.

The earth does not move it is still. The sun and the moon are exactly the same size which move from east to west counting our days in a year which are 365.
The only things that are in motion is the sun. moon & the stars which are set in the firmament which today they call the Van Alan Belts.
The sun, moon & the stars are set in motion via a magnetic black tower which resides at the center of the earth which is at at the north pole under the star Polaris & Antarctica circumferences the earth 360%.
The planets are but wondering stars.

 

[prodromos]

The earth does not move it is still. The sun and the moon are exactly the same size which move from east to west counting our days in a year which are 365.
The only things that are in motion is the sun. moon & the stars which are set in the firmament which today they call the Van Alan Belts.
The sun, moon & the stars are set in motion via a magnetic black tower which resides at the center of the earth which is at at the north pole under the star Polaris & Antarctica circumferences the earth 360%.
The planets are but wondering stars.

This isn't even good fiction

 

[Apple Sky]

This isn't even good fiction

So yer calling the Bible fiction now ?