Flat or round earth -The final experiment.

prodromos · Aug 15, 2024

Apple Sky said:
The earth is not moving, even Einstein claimed this.

Fact check false.

prodromos · Aug 15, 2024

Apple Sky said:
So yer calling the Bible fiction now ?

Chapter and verse for the black magnetic tower.

Apple Sky · Aug 15, 2024

prodromos said:
Fact check false.

Fact check -
King James Bible
Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever. Psalms 104:5

prodromos · Aug 15, 2024

Apple Sky said:
Fact check -
King James Bible
Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever. Psalms 104:5

I don't see any quotes from Einstein there, and the Bible verse says it will not be "removed". It does not say it doesn't move.

Apple Sky · Aug 15, 2024

prodromos said:
Chapter and verse for the black magnetic tower.

King James Bible
And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 2:9

Apple Sky · Aug 15, 2024

prodromos said:
I don't see any quotes from Einstein there, and the Bible verse says it will not be "removed". It does not say it doesn't move.

To make it simpler for you.
New International Version
He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. Psalms 104:5

Phil G · Aug 15, 2024

Apple Sky said:
To make it simpler for you.
New International Version
He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. Psalms 104:5

Or, to make it even simpler:

I have set the Lord always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. Psalm 16:8 KJV

And to this day David has not moved from the spot where he wrote this!

Apple Sky · Aug 15, 2024

Phil G said:
Or, to make it even simpler:

I have set the Lord always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. Psalm 16:8 KJV

And to this day David has not moved from the spot where he wrote this!

Whats this got to do with the earth not moving ?

prodromos · Aug 15, 2024

Apple Sky said:
King James Bible
And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 2:9

Still no mention of a black, magnetic tower.

Phil G · Aug 15, 2024

Apple Sky said:
Whats this got to do with the earth not moving ?

Same word, even in Hebrew. If the earth doesn't physically move based on your interpretation of this word, neither did David.

prodromos · Aug 15, 2024

Apple Sky said:
To make it simpler for you.
New International Version
He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. Psalms 104:5

So now you are pitting translators against each other. Do you pick and choose different translations when a verse doesn't say what you want it to say in your translation of choice?

prodromos · Aug 15, 2024

Also, there is no mention of what those "foundations" are. I can easily understand them to be the laws of physics embedded in God's creation, such that the Earth is bound in a gravitational field around the Sun. It has been locked in this orbit for thousands of years and shows no sign of ever leaving.

Apple Sky · Aug 15, 2024

prodromos said:
Also, there is no mention of what those "foundations" are. I can easily understand them to be the laws of physics embedded in God's creation, such that the Earth is bound in a gravitational field around the Sun. It has been locked in this orbit for thousands of years and shows no sign of ever leaving.

Does someone have to spell it out for you as to what foundations are ?

Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who fixed its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its foundations set, or who laid its cornerstone, Job 38:5

lifepsyop · Aug 15, 2024

The Liturgist said:
There is a reason for this - the explanations you provide to explain away one thing contradict explanations you provide to explain other things.

I haven't seen one side doing that any more than the other side.

The Liturgist said:
For example, there is the claim that photographs taken from high altitude are taken with fisheye lenses creating a false appearance of a horizon, which is debunked by the statements of the people who took those and by examinations of the cameras, which are in many cases the same types of cameras used by your community in its experience, but even saying that contradicts the claim that those high altitude photographs are impossible.

Okay, but regardless, the first claim is true. Exaggerated fisheye lenses are used all the time for high altitude earth photography, presenting a false 'curve of the earth' to viewers. I would even submit that this is why most people believe the earth is a sphere. They mistakenly believe that they've seen it with their own eyes.

The Liturgist said:
And a few posts ago, you actually tried to use the relativitistic physics against me, which is a model which requires a spheroid Earth because of what it says about gravitation in general relativity and the speed of light in special relativity.

All relativity requires is math. You could use math to make the groundbreaking discovery that your boat is standing still in a strong current, while the whole world rushes past you.

In the same way, people looked at a rotating sphere of stars and used math to make the earth a rotating sphere instead.

The Liturgist said:
And all of this occurs via the use of communications devices which would not function in a universe with the random and arbitrary properties you assign to it

it's no more random or arbitrary than the idea of universal gravitation or relativity.

The Liturgist said:
as you seek to explain away each item of evidence that collectively points to the globe theory that until the past 15 years or so, was almost universally accepted.

Up until the past 15 years or so, Big-Bang cosmology generally was also almost universally accepted as settled science. Today it is known as a fundamentally flawed theory that must create imaginary objects in order to sustain itself.

Globe Earth, like Heliocentrism, is a sacred belief, the ultimate testament to man's scientific enlightenment. It is a philosophically entrenched idea that is now coming under critique. And it turns out, there is actually very little evidence that we do live on a globe.

The Liturgist said:
Indeed when I first saw members of a related conspiracy, the moon landing denial conspiracy, in the 2000s, assaulting Apollo astronauts, I was shocked and appalled, and if someone had said to me then that by 2024 i would find that there was a growing online community of people who actually believe the world is flat,

To be fair, the moon-landing footage really does look fake. You shouldn't be so surprised to see people questioning it.

But I guess the Moon-Landing is another sacred event that is supposed to be beyond question. "Oops! We deleted the original footage of the most historic event in human history! Our bad!"

The Liturgist said:
and who are trying to integrate that belief into Christianity as something essential to salvation, I would have found such a claim impossible to accept with equanimity.

and that's not actually something that any flat-earth Christians say. I've listened to many and have never heard that once.

lifepsyop · Aug 15, 2024

prodromos said:
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.

Do you have a source for that? Are you referring to the original creation of the GPS system?

I've read primary literature that implied the original meridian corrections were actually quite significant.

prodromos · Aug 15, 2024

lifepsyop said:
Do you have a source for that? Are you referring to the original creation of the GPS system?

I've read primary literature that implied the original meridian corrections were actually quite significant.

The document you linked but apparently only read superficially.

The Liturgist · Aug 15, 2024

Apple Sky said:
So yer calling the Bible fiction now ?

The Bible doesn’t say any of what you says it does, unless by Bible you mean something completely different in contents from what we mean. Given that you regard 4 Baruch as canonical, this is possible, although I would note the Ethiopians regard it as deuterocanonical, and I accept as deuterocanonical the Ethiopian deuterocanon.

That said I do feel you ought to disclose to us what books you regard as canonical, since if your Bible is greatly different from ours, then there would be a legitimate basis for your claims in the context of the books you regard as canonical. Since there are works of apocrypha that do describe cosmologies substantially different from our own - they have always been regarded by the Church as apocryphal, and most of them date from the 2nd and 3rd century AD, for example, certain scriptures connected to the Valentinians, Manichaeans and fellow emanationist-docetic heterodox communities.

The Liturgist · Aug 15, 2024

lifepsyop said:
Okay, but regardless, the first claim is true

Then the second claim is false. You cannot have the high altitude images taken with a fisheye lens without having high altitude flights. And furthermore, these images still depict curvature even compensating for the lens angle. And indeed curvature is visible to the naked eye from high altitude aircraft. Indeed even from FL410 one can discern it, and FL410 is a very common altitude for medium and long haul flights towards the end of their sector, before they begin their descent (the most efficient flight path is a graduated climb, wherein altitude is increased as fuel is expended, to take advantage of reduced wind resistance at higher altitudes, which by the way also validates the spheroid Earth model.

The Liturgist · Aug 15, 2024

lifepsyop said:
To be fair, the moon-landing footage really does look fake. You shouldn't be so surprised to see people questioning it.

It looks pretty real to me, unless you are talking about the provided animations that depicted the expected trajectory of the lunar lander before a television feed was established, which were animated, and no one ever claimed that was actual photography.

We also have all of the mission data available.

The amount of effort required to fake a mission to the extent of producing that much actual data, and keep it a secret, would exceed the effort required to actually go there, which we had the technology to do thanks to the development of cruise missiles and ICBMs starting with the V2. The Saturn V, a technological descendant of the V2 rocket, and its predecessors and their Soviet counterparts, represented peaceful uses of this technology, and the space race in general was very positive as it represented a peaceful diversion away from nuclear war.

Which would also be impossible in a flat Earth scenario. Indeed if you believe that the Moon Landings did not happen and that the world is flat, you must also disbelieve in the existence of nuclear power, nuclear weapons, and radiation, since these all depend on the same theories that define the shape of the world. And if you disbelieve in those things, then you must disbelieve in the existence emergency exit signs, and various other luminescent devices and materials that rely on radioactive materials such as radium and tritium. And in smoke detectors.

And of course the problem with that is that radiation doesn’t care if you believe in it or not, since a high dose will give you acute radiation sickness, which can be fatal, and a moderate dose will increase your risk of cancer, which is also potentially fatal.

Thus we have yet another case of Flat Earth belief being actually dangerous to health. It is a danger to one’s personal safety and the safety of others, as well as a danger to religious piety and a stumbling block for potential converts to Christianity when people attempt to make it part of the Gospel, which it is not.

The Liturgist · Aug 15, 2024

lifepsyop said:
Up until the past 15 years or so, Big-Bang cosmology generally was also almost universally accepted as settled science. Today it is known as a fundamentally flawed theory that must create imaginary objects in order to sustain itself.

That’s not even remotely true. The cosmology taught today in physics classes is the same as was taught fifteen years ago. The only real advance in the past fifteen years has been the confirmation that the Higgs Boson exists, which was expected.

Flat or round earth -The final experiment.

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

In Sight Like Unto An Emerald

Senior Veteran

In Sight Like Unto An Emerald

In Sight Like Unto An Emerald

Grafted In

In Sight Like Unto An Emerald

Senior Veteran

Grafted In

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

In Sight Like Unto An Emerald

Regular Member

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency