FLAT or ROUND Earth?

[Reasonably Sane]

I hear a lot of Christians saying that we live on a flat earth and nobody can go in or out the earth. Is the Bible clear on this subject?

I found out in high school that none of these were very helpful in math.

But they are not Math books. It is a fool's errand to find details of Pythagoras' theorem there, though they are very useful if your interest is the history of California.

The bible is not a science book. Science is about how. Religion is about why. The bible is about our relationships in regards to our creator, our fellow believes and those that don't believe. For details on how creation works, a science book would be a better choice. You're not going to find 24th century scientific knowledge and discoveries in the bible. Moses didn't, Jesus didn't, Paul didn't, and we don't. That is outside its swim lane.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

You simply made a bald assertion, with no scientific basis. I will await your proper scientific breakdown of all forces involved on the body of the aircraft.

Ecclesiastes 1:5 (KJV) states that the sun sets and then rushes back to where it will rise, underneath the earth I presume.

Bible Gateway translates this KJV verse in Ecclesiastes 1:5 a number of ways.

Ecclesiastes 1:5 - Bible Gateway

www.biblegateway.com

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Ecclesiastes 1:5 (KJV) states that the sun sets and then rushes back to where it will rise, underneath the earth I presume.

Bible Gateway translates this KJV verse in Ecclesiastes 1:5 a number of ways.

Ecclesiastes 1:5 - Bible Gateway

www.biblegateway.com

Yep. The bible is rife with "figures of speech". Imagine men thousands of years in the future reading our current writings about sunset and sunrise and saying, "can you believe those stupid 21st century people didn't know the earth spins, giving the impression the sun actually rises and sets?"

But it's just a figure of speech. It makes the point, assuming the listener or reader will infer what it "technically" is describing.

 

[NxNW]

The Holy Bible IS clear on the subject and replete with references to the stationary, flat earth. For just a few of those references, see for example, BIBLE VERSES CONFIRMING PLANAR EARTH GEOCENTRISM.

I made two transatlantic flights recently, and I could see the curvature from the plane. The 787 also had a screen showing the plane's route over the curved surface, and the land masses out the window matched what was on the screen, and it's not flat. I'm thinking you need to change your interpretation to match reality.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

I made two transatlantic flights recently, and I could see the curvature from the plane. The 787 also had a screen showing the plane's route over the curved surface, and the land masses out the window matched what was on the screen, and it's not flat. I'm thinking you need to change your interpretation to match reality.

My daughter got married a year ago. She and her husband are both fairly new converts to Catholicism. He used to be Greek orthodox and she used to be protestant. They are both "avid" catholics, going to mass every day, and she always wears a head covering. i.e. You could almost call them "pre-Vatican II"

I've had friendly disagreements with them regarding Mary's ever virginity and the eucharist, but on the last visit a few months ago I was blown away. They actually believe the earth is the center of the universe, physically, and everything - EVERYTHING - revolves around it. At first I thought he was joking. But I realized he was serious. To preserve the relationship I changed the subject after a while. But that was a real shocker. I was shocked by the "ever virginity of Mary" thing, but that pales in comparison to this. It actually took me a while to be convinced that he was serious.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

The Holy Bible IS clear on the subject and replete with references to the stationary, flat earth. For just a few of those references, see for example, BIBLE VERSES CONFIRMING PLANAR EARTH GEOCENTRISM.

Let me reword that as I personally see it: The Holy Bible IS clear on the subject and replete with references to the belief of the writers in the stationary, flat earth.

And who wouldn't have seen it that way back then? They were merely basing their writing on their interpretation of what they were experiencing.

FWIW, I interpret the signal from my eyes to my brain as the world being right side up. Yet my eyes actually send an upside down image to my brain. The brain is an amazing thing. Most of the time it gets things right.

 

[Edwin Wright]

T

My daughter got married a year ago. She and her husband are both fairly new converts to Catholicism. He used to be Greek orthodox and she used to be protestant. They are both "avid" catholics, going to mass every day, and she always wears a head covering. i.e. You could almost call them "pre-Vatican II"

I've had friendly disagreements with them regarding Mary's ever virginity and the eucharist, but on the last visit a few months ago I was blown away. They actually believe the earth is the center of the universe, physically, and everything - EVERYTHING - revolves around it. At first I thought he was joking. But I realized he was serious. To preserve the relationship I changed the subject after a while. But that was a real shocker. I was shocked by the "ever virginity of Mary" thing, but that pales in comparison to this. It actually took me a while to be convinced that he was serious.

They are not alone in this regard. They are right on all counts. Yes, the earth IS stationary and flat and IS the center of the universe. Please forward them the following link to our site: Plane Geodesy. Our site is also pro-Catholic. Their comments would be appreciated.

 

[BNR32FAN]

d taylor seems to expect everybody to figure out that his yellow cube is supposed to represent New Jerusalem, as described in the Book of Ezekiel and the Book of Revelation. The dimensions are around 1500 miles across.

I would imagine that if God were to plop such a city on the planet, the bottom would be curved to accommodate the Earth's surface. Or God could just carve out a portion of the Earth's surface. But on the other hand, a tilting box of a city could be fun.

Yeah your guess sounds a lot better than mine. The United States is 2892 miles wide at its widest point and it doesn’t appear to have any difficulties conforming to the spherical surface of the earth. So that’s quite a weak argument. In fact I don’t even think it qualifies as being relevant.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

T

They are not alone in this regard. They are right on all counts. Yes, the earth IS stationary and flat and IS the center of the universe. Please forward them the following link to our site: Plane Geodesy. Our site is also pro-Catholic. Their comments would be appreciated.

One thing I did learn about it, after bringing this up with a lot of catholic friends is that they may not be alone, but a lot of my catholic friends do not agree. Kinda like, as a professing Christian I do not agree that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

But yes, those people are out there.

 

[Lost4words]

My daughter got married a year ago. She and her husband are both fairly new converts to Catholicism. He used to be Greek orthodox and she used to be protestant. They are both "avid" catholics, going to mass every day, and she always wears a head covering. i.e. You could almost call them "pre-Vatican II"

I've had friendly disagreements with them regarding Mary's ever virginity and the eucharist, but on the last visit a few months ago I was blown away. They actually believe the earth is the center of the universe, physically, and everything - EVERYTHING - revolves around it. At first I thought he was joking. But I realized he was serious. To preserve the relationship I changed the subject after a while. But that was a real shocker. I was shocked by the "ever virginity of Mary" thing, but that pales in comparison to this. It actually took me a while to be convinced that he was serious.

Thats not a Catholic belief. Thats a personal belief.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Thats not a Catholic belief. Thats a personal belief.

Well, all beliefs are personal. But you may want to take that up with Edwin Wright: FLAT or ROUND Earth?

 

[d taylor]

Sure, what exactly would you like for me to explain?

-
​

How the New Jerusalem a 1500 mile square cube fits on a globe earth

 

[prodromos]

-
​

How the New Jerusalem a 1500 mile square cube fits on a globe earth

It won't be the old earth.

 

[sjastro]

From a purely mechanical perspective, the rotating merry-go-round is analogous to the (allegedly) rotating earth. Based on a number of comments, the issue seems to be whether the (allegedly) rotating atmosphere of the (allegedly) rotating earth aerodynamically guides the plane laterally (i.e., west to east) increasing or decreasing its tangential velocity with latitude. In the case of the New York to Bogotá flight, we would be talking about a laterally accelerative force on the plane resulting in an increase in tangential velocity of 397 km/hr (or a decrease of 397 km/hr on the return flight). Do you not see a dynamical issue here?

Are you familiar with the term hydrostatic equilibrium?
To put in simplest terms the earth’s atmosphere doesn’t dissipate into the vacuum of outer space because it has mass and therefore subject to gravity.
The atmosphere is anchored to the earth’s surface due to friction and rotates as well.
The rotating frame of reference therefore not only includes the earth but also the atmosphere and its contents such as planes.

Your argument doesn’t even make any sense.
The plane’s tangential acceleration is parallel to its tangential velocity in a N-S direction , there is no lateral acceleration in a W-E direction as the net force on the plane in the N-S direction cannot perform work to move an object in perpendicular to this direction.
This leaves the action of the fictitious Coriolis force due to the rotating frame of reference which pilots need to take into consideration for the flight path.

 

[prodromos]

d taylor seems to expect everybody to figure out that his yellow cube is supposed to represent New Jerusalem, as described in the Book of Ezekiel and the Book of Revelation. The dimensions are around 1500 miles across.

I would imagine that if God were to plop such a city on the planet, the bottom would be curved to accommodate the Earth's surface. Or God could just carve out a portion of the Earth's surface. But on the other hand, a tilting box of a city could be fun.

But he has plonked his cube on the old earth, which by that time has been done away with. For example, his globe has seas, but the new earth on which New Jerusalem descends does not have any sea.

 

[prodromos]

Are you familiar with the term hydrostatic equilibrium?
To put in simplest terms the earth’s atmosphere doesn’t dissipate into the vacuum of outer space because it has mass and therefore subject to gravity.
The atmosphere is anchored to the earth’s surface due to friction and rotates as well.
The rotating frame of reference therefore not only includes the earth but also the atmosphere and its contents such as planes.

I'm curious to know if the rotating mass of the earth also provides a kind of gravitational inertia which drags objects along behind it, kind of like the quantum locking which occurs with a superconductors floating above a magnet.
I wanted to see if the earth's rotation impacted on polar orbiting satellites but have not been able to find any relevant info.

 

[Edwin Wright]

National Geographic is an entertainment/educational magazine, not a scientific textbook. I don't care if they messed up something in their article, especially when they're talking about magical paper airplanes that aren't behaving normally in the atmosphere anyway.

Are you seriously using National Geographic as a source of scientific research?

National Geographic (like many other mainstream publications) exposes its huge readership to a continual barrage of evolutionary and heliocentric nonsense. In the video cited, they actually got it right, disproving earth rotation—in spite of themselves. So for that, it is only fair to give them credit. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[essentialsaltes]

I'm curious to know if the rotating mass of the earth also provides a kind of gravitational inertia which drags objects along behind it,

I'm not sure it's quite what you're thinking, but in general relativity, there is what is generically known as frame-dragging, and has specific application to rotating bodies.

There have indeed been some satellite observations of the effect.

 

[sjastro]

I'm curious to know if the rotating mass of the earth also provides a kind of gravitational inertia which drags objects along behind it, kind of like the quantum locking which occurs with a superconductors floating above a magnet.
I wanted to see if the earth's rotation impacted on polar orbiting satellites but have not been able to find any relevant info.

The earth’s atmosphere is modelled as a fluid subject to laminar flow.

Think of the earth’s surface as the moving plate.
The atmospheric layer adjacent to the surface moves at the same velocity as the surface as it is being sheared and dragged along due to friction between the surface and the layer.
Without the "fixed plate" the laminar velocities should remain fairly constant in static conditions.

On the subject of the effect on satellites, in the 1960s the upper atmosphere was found to be moving at rotational speeds 1.3X greater than the earth's rotation but not fully understood.

1966SSRv....6..248K Page 248

adsabs.harvard.edu

 

[Yttrium]

National Geographic (like many other mainstream publications) exposes its huge readership to a continual barrage of evolutionary and heliocentric nonsense. In the video cited, they actually got it right, disproving earth rotation—in spite of themselves. So for that, it is only fair to give them credit. Wouldn't you agree?

Their article certainly deserves credit, and it points out an interesting effect. But it involves a magic paper plane that ignores the atmosphere. Sure, if you can ignore the atmosphere, you'll miss the target.

Every magic paper airplane should be equipped with GPS guidance.