[MOVED] What happens when a non-NASA astronaut is asked about the shape of the earth?

[SeventyOne]

I’m still waiting to hear why you can’t see Polaris from Argentina. Which you would be able to do on a flat earth .

You are waiting to be spoon-fed? You could actually attempt to see if your claim that it would be viewable on the flat earth is accurate or not before making such a statement. I'll save you some time. Your statement is false.

But since you are waiting for someone to come to you with evidence, that just tells me you are wanting to sit as a judge, rather than engage as a learner. But if you ever want to learn something on this topic, you could start here:

 

[d taylor]

I’m still waiting to hear why you can’t see Polaris from Argentina. Which you would be able to do on a flat earth .

Same reason the sun can not be seen, as it goes in its circuit over the earth. Eventually the sun goes out of a persons vision capabilities

 

[Brightmoon]

That is the silliest thing I’ve ever seen . You’ve got a fantastical and invisible arbitrary barrier that prevents you from seeing the entire sky . Please try better and keep these fantasies out of it.

yes I’m waiting for accurate details aka spoonfed

so far we’ve got a foggy picture, an invisible imaginary dome that you can’t see through and a book written in the Bronze Age that gets other natural phenomena details wrong .

 

[SeventyOne]

That is the silliest thing I’ve ever seen . You got an fantastical and invisible arbitrary barrier that prevents you from seeing the entire sky . Please try better and keep these fantasies out of it.

yes I’m waiting for accurate details aka known as spoonfed

so far we’ve got a foggy picture, and invisible imaginary dome that you can’t see through and a book written in the Bronze Age that gets other natural phenomena details wrong .

Wow. It took you a whole 3 minutes to review, consider, and respond to a concept explained in a bit of detail over a course of 70+ minutes.

Figures. You're just another one of these non-thinking ballers who prowl around these threads, acting smart and looking dumb. I do appreciate you letting me know quickly that you aren't worth any more of my time in the future. So, thank you for that, and have a good life.

 

[d taylor]

Wow. It took you a whole 3 minutes to review, consider, and respond to a concept explained in a bit of detail over a course of 70+ minutes.

Figures. You're just another one of these non-thinking ballers who prowl around these threads, acting smart and looking dumb. I do appreciate you letting me know quickly that you aren't worth any more of my time in the future. So, thank you for that, and have a good life.

You are probably, talking to a person who is sitting at home, on their computer wearing a mask, who believes all that science spews out of their mouths.

 

[Brightmoon]

I live in NYC which is about 40N . When I visit relatives in the Carolinas or in DC , Polaris is closer to the ground. It’s easy to see why I’d get that observation on a globe earth . But that makes no sense on a flat earth

 

[Brightmoon]

You are probably, talking to a person who is sitting at home, on their computer wearing a mask, who believes all that science spews out of their mouths.

. Yep that’s true . That’s because I spent many more years than that actually studying the science that “ spews out of my mouth” including getting real science degrees. And just for kicks I do understand basic astronomy

 

[Brightmoon]

If the earth is motionless why are a solar day and a sidereal day different lengths . They wouldn’t be if the earth were actually motionless

as Ricky said to Lucy “ Splain!”

 

[d taylor]

I now wonder, if that operation fish bowl back in the 60's was to see just how high a rocket could be sent up.

So when they started faking the space trips they would know their limit on high high a rocket could be safely launched.

 

[Strathos]

I now wonder, if that operation fish bowl back in the 60's was to see just how high a rocket could be sent up.

So when they started faking the space trips they would know their limit on high high a rocket could be safely launched.

If there was a solid barrier surrounding the atmosphere, we could easily measure its distance by bouncing a laser off of it. You could even do it yourself, from home, if you bought a powerful enough laser. But no one has ever done this. Because it doesn't exist.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

But when someone points out that those numbers don't mean what you think they mean, you can't go ahead and say the whole premise is nonsense, because you were using those numbers in the first place to make your argument.

Oh, 95% doesn't mean 95%? [Caution: mainstream doublespeak ahead]

You think the ionosphere is a solid dome?

Er, try bouncing radio waves off thin air. And doing so at sharp (reflective) angles. And predicting where they'll end up. Don't think you can.

Based on =/= identical. Modern flat earthers all get their cues from Dubay, as you have shown yourself to be familiar with him too. The fact that Dubay rejects Christ should be a major red flag for all of the Christian flat earthers who think that flat earth is somehow an inherently Christian idea.

Dubay is not the only voice in the FE movement, not by a long shot. There are many Xtians who are, and many agnostics/ other. Idk how anyone could accept FE and remain agnostic, but there you go. As for me, may I paraphrase St Paul and say I'm indebted to the Geeks and the Bavarians.

So what do you believe, some type of purgatory?

Universal salvation. Come on over to the Controversial Christian Theology forum if you want to learn about it, or maybe for a debate.
Controversial Christian Theology

God wants all saved, we just believe He gets His way, by the blood of the Lamb. Now that's good news.

The Bible only says the earth is flat if you take certain passages super literally, and ignore others.

Oh yes, which scriptures in any way support a spinning waterball earth? And please don't come with Isa 40:22, that describes a 'circle', as distinct from a 'ball', which the prophet refers to in v22:18. So you can bash the brains out of that idea like it was a Babylonian baby.

I've experienced God's presence as well, and He never told me anything about the earth being flat.

Bet He never told you He'd be annihilating everyone who doesn't 'love Him back' either smh.

Not really. I know people who have converted because of good examples set by Christians, and those who have deconverted because of bad examples.

Well, I don't care. Hypocrisy and self-righteous pride ire the worst, that's what Jesus teaches us. The leaven of the Pharisees.

But has to convey certain things in a way the people He was speaking to can understand. Hence the use of allegory, parables, and metaphor.

Case in point. Because what, they weren't smart in those days, not like we is.

So I take it you accept that the bottles in that verse are metaphorical?

Wineskins. Well, if metaphorical they still describe large storage facilities. Bet you think the sky's blue because of Rayleigh scattering? I accept the Bible that it's the emanations of the waters above through the glass firmament.

I even went to the beach and performed the experiment of looking at a ship disappear over the horizon with binoculars. It dipped over the horizon exactly the way the globe earth model says it would.

That's it? Did you notice that when it had been lost to the naked eye, you could still see it with the binoculars? And if you had powerful enough optics, you could still see it when it should have been well-obscured behind the curve? Now did you watch that vid I posted, any explanation for why the horizon line is visible behind the oil rig?

And here's another for you:

Experiment and observation, not mathemagic and hypothesis.

Of course you are going to say that all of the people involved in any of this in any way are all part of the conspiracy. You should know in advance that I can't take that kind of argument seriously.

Perish the thought! The credibility of Amyr Klink is beyond reproach. Look at that face. tell me, does he also sell snake oil?
Amyr Klink - Wikipedia

 

[Brightmoon]

You do understand that they call it the ionosphere because we there are ions there . The energy from the sun breaks electrons off of atoms. The charged atoms can absorb energy and reflect energy of different wavelengths. The EM energy that we call visible light is also scattered by the air molecules .You see the effect of that because the sky is blue . In other words there’s no there, there. There’s certainly not a hard dome .
Flat earth “ science “ seems to be about ignorance and just so stories . They’re plausible only if you are scientifically illiterate or a 5 year old.

 

[d taylor]

They’re plausible only if you are scientifically illiterate or a 5 year old.

Or you forgot the other or "do not believe the science lies"

 

[d taylor]

I never had no education, I don't know how to tell lies.
Ed Davey
(gunsmoke)

 

[SPF]

You are probably, talking to a person who is sitting at home, on their computer wearing a mask, who believes all that science spews out of their mouths.

As opposed to most conspiracy theorists who sit in their parents basement, on their computers, wearing a tin foil hat, who rejects all that common sense shows us.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

As opposed to most conspiracy theorists who sit in their parents basement, on their computers, wearing a tin foil hat, who rejects all that common sense shows us.

Actually, radiation-shielding your home is good policy in anyone's language. Do you deny that many ppl get sick from radiation poisoning?

 

[Brightmoon]

Five year olds don’t have an education

how about those solar vs sidereal days ? The four extra minutes that appears to move the constellations across the sky . The reason Orion is overhead in winter and sinking in the west in spring. The SCIENTIFIC explanation is that the earth is rotating as well as revolving so it’s not stationary at all. So the earth is moving around the sun and spinning at the same time. So much for your stationary geocentric earth . And no your partially invisible dome doesn’t explain that. The reason that the air doesn’t blow away is that it is part of the earth . It’s the same reason people in a car don’t fall out of the back window if the car is moving steadily .

 

[Brightmoon]

Actually, radiation-shielding your home is good policy in anyone's language. Do you deny that many ppl get sick from radiation poisoning?

. Tin foil will only protect you from alpha particles but then again so will a few sheets of paper. And somehow I don’t think thick lead panels is a good idea in a home .

 

[Strathos]

Oh, 95% doesn't mean 95%? [Caution: mainstream doublespeak ahead]

You don't get it. You can quote your 95% figure, but when I point out that that means a ridiculously large part of space that makes the earth utterly insignificant, you can't just go and suddenly deny all of the science behind it, because you are quoting a figure based on that science in the first place.

Stolen Concept Fallacy

Er, try bouncing radio waves off thin air. And doing so at sharp (reflective) angles. And predicting where they'll end up. Don't think you can.

This is a complete non-sequitur.

Oh yes, which scriptures in any way support a spinning waterball earth? And please don't come with Isa 40:22, that describes a 'circle', as distinct from a 'ball', which the prophet refers to in v22:18. So you can bash the brains out of that idea like it was a Babylonian baby.

The shape of the earth is not clearly stated in the Bible. Why would it be?

Case in point. Because what, they weren't smart in those days, not like we is.

They understood less than we do now about the universe that God created. God was trying to instruct us on spiritual matters. He figures we can learn natural matters on our own.

Wineskins. Well, if metaphorical they still describe large storage facilities. Bet you think the sky's blue because of Rayleigh scattering? I accept the Bible that it's the emanations of the waters above through the glass firmament.

You're evading the question. If you think there are not literal bottles, wineskins, or such containers in the sky where rain comes from, and it is simply a metaphor for clouds, then you are being inconsistent. Because if your interpretation of verses suggesting a flat earth was applied to this verse too, you would be claiming a giant conspiracy to hide where rain really comes from.

That's it? Did you notice that when it had been lost to the naked eye, you could still see it with the binoculars? And if you had powerful enough optics, you could still see it when it should have been well-obscured behind the curve? Now did you watch that vid I posted, any explanation for why the horizon line is visible behind the oil rig?

I've heard all of these nonsensical arguments before. I clearly saw it dip below the horizon and could not see it again, binoculars or no.

Perish the thought! The credibility of Amyr Klink is beyond reproach. Look at that face. tell me, does he also sell snake oil?
Amyr Klink - Wikipedia

And of course, you accuse all evidence disproving you of being part of the conspiracy. That's how conspiracy theories work. It's impossible to ever convince their proponents otherwise since they just say that everything is part of the conspiracy. The US and USSR, who almost wiped each other out with nuclear weapons multiple times, were both cooperating on everything. Every airline pilot, professional and amateur astronomer, geodesist, cartographer, sailor, and about 100 other occupations, comprised of people from all over the world with vastly different political and religious philosophies, stretching back 2.5 millennia, are all in on it.

I'm done with you.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

You don't get it. You can quote your 95% figure, but when I point out that that means a ridiculously large part of space that makes the earth utterly insignificant, you can't just go and suddenly deny all of the science behind it, because you are quoting a figure based on that science in the first place.

Stolen Concept Fallacy

Hilarious. 95% is still 95%, regardless of the size of the pie. And frankly, the size of the standard model pie is totally unproven and based on the most groundless assumptions smh.

This is a complete non-sequitur.

Not sure why you'd say that. Either you can experimentally bounce radio waves off ionised air or you can't. I don't think it's possible.

The shape of the earth is not clearly stated in the Bible. Why would it be?

It is, the other centrepiece of God's creation. As in Gen 1:1, and the new heavens and new earth in Rev 21:1. So Biblical cosmology is a thing.

They understood less than we do now about the universe that God created. God was trying to instruct us on spiritual matters. He figures we can learn natural matters on our own.

You seem sure of that. And I say they had a more accurate basic model, being flat stationary and enclosed.

You're evading the question. If you think there are not literal bottles, wineskins, or such containers in the sky where rain comes from, and it is simply a metaphor for clouds, then you are being inconsistent. Because if your interpretation of verses suggesting a flat earth was applied to this verse too, you would be claiming a giant conspiracy to hide where rain really comes from.

No, I think the evidence of the flood is in the sky, in the form of the Great Rift (which moderns call the Milky Way for some strange reason). That would be the stitch-ed up rift in the heavens through which the water flowed freely when it inundated the earth back in the Days of Noah.

But comparing a wineskin to a cloud is a fairly straight-up analogue. I'm asking you for Biblical analogues to the spinning hurtling waterball earth with a relatively stationary sun, around which the planets revolve.

I've heard all of these nonsensical arguments before. I clearly saw it dip below the horizon and could not see it again, binoculars or no.

Mate, the optics of anything creates the illusion of merging with the horizon-line bottom first. That's due to the temperature zone just above the surface and how the brain processes the resolving power of the eye at its limits. So many examples of this. That's what I mean about putting predilections aside - don't be jumping to conclusions or making assumptions as to cause.

Again, how do you explain the appearance of the horizon line behind an object that ought to have receded over the horizon? Can't do it, and that's powerful proof.

And of course, you accuse all evidence disproving you of being part of the conspiracy. That's how conspiracy theories work. It's impossible to ever convince their proponents otherwise since they just say that everything is part of the conspiracy.

No, it's called the absence of a means of independent verification.

The US and USSR, who almost wiped each other out with nuclear weapons multiple times, were both cooperating on everything.

Almost lol. Like in the movie War Games.

he US and USSR, who almost wiped each other out with nuclear weapons multiple times, were both cooperating on everything.

Well, if you read books like Wall Street and the Rise of Communism by Anthony Sutton, you'll see the minutiae of evidence in the form of directorships, receipts, purchase orders etc showing that the owners of big industry in the US and USSR were identical. Read 'The Best Enemies Money Can Buy'.

Every airline pilot, professional and amateur astronomer, geodesist, cartographer, sailor, and about 100 other occupations, comprised of people from all over the world with vastly different political and religious philosophies, stretching back 2.5 millennia, are all in on it.

No, they're just conditioned into accepting a certain model. But for thouseands of years, all navigators, sailors, adventurers etc all used GEOCENTRIC coordinate reference systems. Basically they still do.

And there are many declassified hi-tech military white papers around showing how missiles, ballistics, and guidance systems are all developed based on the assumption of a 'flat non-rotating earth'. The evidence is really overwhelming.

I'm done with you.

Don't you want the final word? Go on.