FLAT or ROUND Earth?

[essentialsaltes]

I disagree. I find Foulcault's Pendulum a quaint, dainty little thing.

Maybe instead of "It does take some effort to notice the Coriolis Effect." I should have said:

it's very easy to ignore Foucault's Pendulum if your worldview is threatened by Foucault's Pendulum.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The Coriolis Effect is not likely to be directly involved in flight path calculations. I imagine that's more about the vector difference between air speed and ground speed (i.e. the effect of the wind). You have to adjust your heading so that you're following the proper ground path.

But of course, that proper ground path is calculated based on a spherical earth. Some approximation to a great circle route.

 

[Paul4JC]

The Bible is NOT a scientific document. If you choose to go down that path it is your folly

Are you saying only parts of the Bible are to be believed? Just ignore the other parts, especially if they make you uncomfortable?

 

[rambot]

Are you saying only parts of the Bible are to be believed? Just ignore the other parts, especially if they make you uncomfortable?

Not.at.all.

 

[rambot]

I did not choose any word, i just listed the English words that have been used to translate raqia to English. If i personally use an English word i use dome or sky.

The Bible states God placed the sun, moon and stars in the dome/sky above the earth. To give light on the earth.

CJB
God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to divide the day from the night; let them be for signs, seasons, days and years; and let them be for lights in the dome of the sky to give light to the earth”; and that is how it was. God made the two great lights — the larger light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night — and the stars. God put them in the dome of the sky to give light to the earth,

NKJV
Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth,

NIV
And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth,

NAB (Revised Edition)
Then God said: Let there be lights in the dome of the sky, to separate day from night. Let them mark the seasons, the days and the years, and serve as lights in the dome of the sky, to illuminate the earth. And so it happened: God made the two great lights, the greater one to govern the day, and the lesser one to govern the night, and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky, to illuminate the earth,

CEV
God said, “I command lights to appear in the sky and to separate day from night and to show the time for seasons, special days, and years. I command them to shine on the earth.” And that's what happened. God made two powerful lights, the brighter one to rule the day and the other to rule the night. He also made the stars. Then God put these lights in the sky to shine on the earth,

There's a lot of differences between those. How do you know which one is the ABSOLUTE word of God and not a mere poor translation?

 

[d taylor]

There's a lot of differences between those. How do you know which one is the ABSOLUTE word of God and not a mere poor translation?

-
​

The point is not a single one (English translations) even hints at God placing the sun, moon and stars in an outer space. Millions to billions of miles and light years away from earth.

And not only, The Bible state this, that these created lights are not in outer space. Even an observed view of these created lights, shows they are in the (raqia) dome, sky, firmament, expanse, vault and not in outer space.

​

 

[rambot]

-
​

The point is not a single one (English translations) even hints at God placing the sun, moon and stars in an outer space. Millions to billions of miles and light years away from earth.

And there is a VERY very sensible reason for that.

Did the ANCIENT Israelites have any concept of "light years"?
Did they know the number 1,000,000?
Could they comprehend the idea of being "away from earth".
Do you think they could have understood the the earth they stood upon was as big as it was? No. The ancient Israelites could not even conceptualize these concepts in ANY way. So why would God tell them a story about creation that they could not even wrap their head around and understand? It would make sense to them. He would use images that they were used to and metaphors that were already common place.

And not only, The Bible state this, that these created lights are not in outer space. Even an observed view of these created lights, shows they are in the (raqia) dome, sky, firmament, expanse, vault and not in outer space.

Well here's the problem: The created light will be either in the bottom of the ocean, sitting on land, or in the sky. That is pretty much the only 3 options to an ancient civilization. So the argument that "look, they're in the sky" and showing them be in the sky is kind of a "good piece of evidence to prove your point"....if we were living 6000 years ago.

View attachment 338223

View attachment 338222​

Why is so little of the moon lit up? What's happening here?



When planes and ships circumnavigate the globe, how does a flat earther respond? I'm very curious.

 

[essentialsaltes]

-
Even an observed view of these created lights, shows they are in the (raqia) dome, sky, firmament, expanse, vault and not in outer space.
​

Can you explain what detail or feature or observation across these four photographs of the moon leads you to differentiate between the moon being set in a firmament, and the moon (outside our atmosphere in space) being seen *through* our atmosphere?

 

[d taylor]

Can you explain what detail or feature or observation across these four photographs of the moon leads you to differentiate between the moon being set in a firmament, and the moon (outside our atmosphere in space) being seen *through* our atmosphere?

The detail is that i never let science effect my observations. It is just like the tonal school of painting, who teaches their students to see in value and not in color/

I was never exposed to tonal painting when i began to paint. So i was not affected by its teaching, so when it came to painting from life outdoors's, still life's and landscape's. I was freely able to observe color and it relationship to light.

So not having science and its beliefs drilled into me, when i look at the moon. I can actually look and observe the moon as it is and not from what i have been told it is.

Just like the sun, i never believe (way before i knew anything about a flat earth) the sun was a star. I remember asking a fellow believer if the sun is a star, why is it not spoken of that way in The Bible. The Bible never refers to the sun as a star.

So i an see the sun as it has been created, a great created light and not just another sun among billions of suns in an outer space.

​

 

[HantsUK]

Just so you are aware, this man is frequently repeating a single argument that hinges on ONE misunderstanding of the mapping of plane travel. This guy tossed up some very impressive looking math (but it's gr8 level stuff). But the math is a distraction from the fact that the argument
Itself is flimsy.


In any case, if you'd like to do a science experiment with me, to show you the earth's curve I would love to do it!! I'm in edmonton alberta canada. Where are you?

Actually that invitations is open to anyone! Dm me if you want

The maths is designed to baffle. The calculations might be correct. However, the entire argument behind the maths is wrong. Not just flimsy.

However, let's go with it. The author of Heliocentrism Refuted: Experimental Proof of a Stationary Earth fails to take the argument presented to it's next logical step and final conclusion. This conclusion will blow your mind!

Wind does not exist. Repeat: there is no wind. OK, you can feel wind, but it stops above tree height.

This can be proved using any long flight. We can use the Avianca Flight AV21 which so convincingly proved that the earth is stationary (I haven't actually checked this flight exists, but the authors' calculations gives me confidence).

Wind can allegedly exceed 100 km/hr. Any wind, if it existed, would affect the movement of the airplane. Unlike someone or something on the ground, an aircraft does not have anything to counteract any sidewise force from, for example, the alleged wind.

Let us now consider the hypothetical case of a wind from the east flowing to the west, at a speed of 25.487 km/hr. The force of this alleged wind on the side of the aircraft will result in the aircraft accelerating in a westward direction, according to Newtonian mechanics. This acceleration will not continue indefinitely, but only until the westward component of the aircrafts velocity matches that of the wind. At this point, the westward component of velocity would be 25.487 km/hr.

As the reader will appreciate, on the 5 hr flight, this will result in the aircraft having deviated by 127.435 km. In practice, the offset will be slightly less as an allowance must be made for the initial acceleration to reach the (alleged) wind speed. This will depend on the size and weight of the craft, and will also be affected by the number of passengers and amount of luggage. An American flight would take longer to reach the same speed of the wind than an Asian flight.

What about wind that is not normal (side on, for those not versed in mathematical language) to the aircraft? Well, there will be a vector element blowing the aircraft westward, but to a lesser amount. However, there will also be a vector element opposing the forward motion of the aircraft. This will result in the aircraft not reaching BOG in the timed 5 hours and landing short of the destination.

But in the real world, flights always manage to land on a runway to an accuracy of a few metres, and on time.

--------

Now, I will let someone else explain why this is all nonsense.

 

[Paul4JC]

When planes and ships circumnavigate the globe, how does a flat earther respond? I'm very curious.

As a globalist, I struggled with this as I had traveled in both directions multiple times from CA. India via Japan, Korea, India via Frankfurt, Moscow. Upon studying the map it made sense either way. In fact, flat and round are basically mirrors of each other.

Gleason's new standard map of the world - Norman B. Leventhal Map & Education Center

collections.leventhalmap.org

The ISS orbit visualized on the flat earth map (Azimuthal equidistant projection)​

Stellarium shows the sun moving faster in January than in June​

Flat Earth Model with Planets in Motion

 

[essentialsaltes]

Wind can allegedly exceed 100 km/hr. Any wind, if it existed, would affect the movement of the airplane. Unlike someone or something on the ground, an aircraft does not have anything to counteract any sidewise force from, for example, the alleged wind.

True.

Now, I will let someone else explain why this is all nonsense.

It's already explained by the diagram in #743, i.e.

You point the airplane in a different direction than the one you want to go. You do it in such a way that the wind blows you back onto the ground course you want.

You can often see this effect clearly with landings when there is a strong crosswind. The plane is going (more or less) straight down the runway, but it's pointed at an angle to account for the wind.

 

[prodromos]

Now, I will let someone else explain why this is all nonsense.

Don't all aircraft set trim to compensate for such things?

 

[essentialsaltes]

As a globalist, I struggled with this as I had traveled in both directions multiple times from CA. India via Japan, Korea, India via Frankfurt, Moscow. Upon studying the map it made sense either way. In fact, flat and round are basically mirrors of each other.

Gleason's new standard map of the world - Norman B. Leventhal Map & Education Center

collections.leventhalmap.org

What does the QANTAS flight from Johannesburg to Sydney look like on that map?

Does it look 6,800 miles long?

 

[HantsUK]

Don't all aircraft set trim to compensate for such things?

I am pretty certain aircraft are flown by navigating relative to the earth below. But I don't have one.

The analogy in Heliocentrism Refuted: Experimental Proof of a Stationary Earth likening a plane with throwing a ball while on a rotating merry-go-round is wrong in several areas: airplanes fly - they are not thrown, the atmosphere follows the earth as it rotates, besides you could always compensate.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

This is like the Flintstones arguing with the Jetsons.

 

[prodromos]

What does the QANTAS flight from Johannesburg to Sydney look like on that map?

Does it look 6,800 miles long?

I've raised flight times in the Southern Hemisphere multiple times in the past. I never get a response.
Sydney to Los Angeles takes 20min longer than Sydney to Santiago, yet looking at the flat earth map the flight path to Santiago literally passes directly over LA.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The analogy in Heliocentrism Refuted: Experimental Proof of a Stationary Earth likening a plane with throwing a ball while on a rotating merry-go-round is wrong

The argument there is not that much more sophisticated than asking why (if the earth is rotating) we don't land 300 meters away when we jump up in the air.

 

[rambot]

The detail is that i never let science effect my observations. It is just like the tonal school of painting, who teaches their students to see in value and not in color/

I was never exposed to tonal painting when i began to paint. So i was not affected by its teaching, so when it came to painting from life outdoors's, still life's and landscape's. I was freely able to observe color and it relationship to light.

So not having science and its beliefs drilled into me, when i look at the moon. I can actually look and observe the moon as it is and not from what i have been told it is.

But you could do that with anything. It doesn't make your observation more meaningful OR more correct.

You can observe a husky for what it is but that a) doesn't mean you understand what it is b) you understand the inner physiology of a dog c) understand that it is related to wolves.

Just like the sun, i never believe (way before i knew anything about a flat earth) the sun was a star. I remember asking a fellow believer if the sun is a star, why is it not spoken of that way in The Bible. The Bible never refers to the sun as a star.

What is a star and how does our sun contradict that definition?

So i an see the sun as it has been created, a great created light and not just another sun among billions of suns in an outer space.

To be clear, that doesn't mean you know what a sun is. It just means you know WHERE it is.

 

[Yttrium]

What is a star and how does our sun contradict that definition?

Keep in mind that he considers the planets to be stars.
Earth, Moon, Sun, stars.