• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Proof the Earth is Flat

Discussion in 'Conspiracy Theories' started by BlessedCreator, Jun 16, 2020.

  1. JacksBratt

    JacksBratt Searching for Truth Supporter

    +5,577
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    Glad you still have your sense of humor. Many people get angry, hostile and bash people..

    Check the video that I posted.. at the time stamp that I indicated. Pretty well explained.

    Anyway.. Looks like everyone still on the thread has their minds made up.

    Ciao
     
  2. renniks

    renniks Well-Known Member

    +2,552
    Christian
    Married
    I did. I guess I don't get it.
     
  3. Shrewd Manager

    Shrewd Manager Through him, in all things, more than conquerors. Supporter

    +3,085
    Australia
    Christian
    Single
    Why say that? We're all using the same earth curve calculations. They're uncontroversial. Even the globe-believers who take up the argument accept that 'we see too far', they just try to explain it away, generally by 'refraction'. This is clearly inadequate, as for instance, there is no distortion, and also in some experiments you can see things like far shorelines behind the objects eg buoys, that are supposed to be refracted.

    Unfortunately, the theory of universal gravitation has led us to having to postulate 95%+ of the 'universe' is dark matter and dark energy. Totally unknown. As Michiu Kaku admits, the theory is out by a factor of 1^120, which he concedes is the biggest gap between theory and observation in the history of science. So congrats modern cosmology and Big G, you've debunked your own absurd paradigm. Time to leave it behind. Just the gravitational solar system idea is totally unworkable when you think about it afresh.

    Sure, we don't trust the photos from space. They're unverified and unverifiable. And moreover, some of the 'classics' like 'earthrise' are proven to have been edited. There are so many anomalies. Sometimes stars, other times not. The astronauts are always contradicting each other on this point too, as well as things like the experience of the hi-radiation van halen belt (yes, van allen). What other evidence is there of 'outer space' than maths theory plus star trek?

    Ok, if you're going to dismiss it out of hand, just admit you're totally prejudiced and sorry, but quit wasting my time trying to give you resources. But if you're ready to entertain the possibility that the world actually matches your daily experience of it - flat and stationary - then I encourage you to delve in.
     
  4. LockeeDeck

    LockeeDeck Member

    229
    +98
    United States
    Atheist
    Private
    I take it you don't get how refraction works.

    If you can provide a unified theory that doesn't need dark matter go for it but it has to account for things we already know like the gravitational constant and observations of the movement of the planets. From what we know about gravity a large disk in space will not hold it's shape.

    So every space faring country on Earth is involved in a massive conspiracy to fool you specifically.

    That every single frame from the ISS is doctored to fool you personally?

    That every government adds delays to their communications satellites just to fool you personally?

    That every airline in the world takes a longer route just to fool you personally?

    That every shipping company takes a longer route just to fool you personally?

    That every astronomer ever in the history of humanity lied about their observations to fool you personally?

    Is that what you are saying?

    You dismiss everything that disproves FE out of hand, I encourage you to learn more physics.
     
  5. Shrewd Manager

    Shrewd Manager Through him, in all things, more than conquerors. Supporter

    +3,085
    Australia
    Christian
    Single
    Of course not, but there are many experiments disproving the refraction hypothesis. For instance, the guy on the boat who keeps the building in shot as he heads 15kms towards it and back out again. I take it you don't get how pride blinds.

    Yes, it's called the flat, stationary and enclosed earth. It doesn't need inconceivable theoretical distances and timeframes, nor ad hoc postulates to hold together an almost infinite set of moving parts.

    It offends the modern mind in its simplicity.

    Not me specifically or personally, but the general public as a whole. It is 'occult knowledge', for the 'illuminated ones'. But not really, it's there in plain words in the Bible.

    What satellites? Something like 97% of the worlds comms use land and undersea cables. Look it up.

    No, there are many flight routes that have been re-mapped onto flat earth and make more sense. You must have experienced plenty of flights eg 'via Dubai' for no good reason.

    Same as above. The Suez Canal is totally straight and FLAT the whole way. That's how it was engineered and built, no compensation for curvature.

    Where do you get these sweeping generalisations? Check out the Michelson Morley experiment, Michelson Gale, Sagnac for starters. Airey's Failure, there's another one. The flat non-rotating earth was still being taught in schools in the early 20th century.

    I understand it's a lot to take in, and challenges some pretty basic issues of trust that have been instilled in you by the system. You might want to start with a less 'radical' truth, like 911 or the moon landing frauds.

    Ah, the denial is strong in this one. Let me know what I've dismissed. And whil'd your at it, maybe you could point me to an experiment with spinning ball holding water to its exterior. Or how to maintain a high and low pressure system side by side with no barrier separating them.

    These are physics 101 issues that are just imponderable for the globe-believer. And before you turn to your all-purpose ad hoc 'Gravity' to answer all, just think about it...if you dare.
     
  6. Yttrium

    Yttrium Independent Centrist

    +1,745
    United States
    Skeptic
    Single
    Gravity is a major part of Physics 101. With that, you can use pretty easy calculations to determine the amount of force due to gravity on a given mass of water at a given distance from the center of the Earth. Plenty to keep it from spinning into space. Oh, and note that the water pressure increases with the depth of the water, thanks to the weight of the water due to gravity.
     
  7. GreekOrthodox

    GreekOrthodox Psalti Chrysostom

    +2,360
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    I used to map great circle flights for marketing purposes for the Boeing 777 for fuel saving amounting to millions of dollars. Believe me, if we could map on a flat earth, we would have.
     
  8. LockeeDeck

    LockeeDeck Member

    229
    +98
    United States
    Atheist
    Private
    I take it you didn't like the math in physics.

    But a LOT of people would need to know the truth to pull off such a ruse, to the point where the people in the know would out number the people being fooled.

    Military satellites are used to communicate with forces far from friendly communication infrastructure so it's important for them, every major country has some satellite communications for that.

    Quick question, how do satellites work in an FE model?
    In a globe model they go so fast sideways that the earth curves away as they fall but that doesn't work in an FE model. So how do things like GPS work?

    Long flight routes are for logistical and cost cutting reasons. In general though flights are setup to save fuel, hence the globe arc in their paths.

    Not sure what you mean by that as it wouldn't need compensation for curvature. It's a canal you just dig a straight line to the next body of water.

    Planets would move differently in the night sky in the FE model and you would be able to see all the stars in the FE model. The fact they don't already disproves the FE model.

    And there it is, the real heart of the issue. An FE model is SPECIAL knowledge that you know because you are ever so smart and not like the sheep. No one is trying to fool you (without trying to take your money at least) and you know why? Because you are not special and it's just not worth the effort.

    An FE model requires gravity for the same answers you know. Water stays down in either model because of gravity and the air doesn't leave (at least not all at once) because of gravity in both models. It's just that gravity in a globe model also explains the moon and other planets and their orbits and those things just don't work in an FE model.

    Gravity comes from mass in a globe model and it can't come from mass in an FE model because again mass based gravity forms into a globe. I suppose it could come from the turtle the world is on top of but that creates it's own problems.
     
  9. Shrewd Manager

    Shrewd Manager Through him, in all things, more than conquerors. Supporter

    +3,085
    Australia
    Christian
    Single
    Lol, how do you think the nautical discoverers and surveyors of the world produced their maps? Plane table methods. That means, everything is mapped flat. Then Captain Cook returns to Admiralty: 'Wot'o, here's some of my recent charts, chaps.' 'Spiffing, let's get those boffins in the basement wrapping them around a ball.' And that's how it's done.

    It's like Catch-22 now for flat maps and the like, where they take the 3D distorted map and chart it back to a 2D. Secondary distortion. Remember the soldier who saw everything twice? That's how absurd it's become. Kind of like mainstream Christian theology.
     
  10. Shrewd Manager

    Shrewd Manager Through him, in all things, more than conquerors. Supporter

    +3,085
    Australia
    Christian
    Single
    Ow, it burns. If you want to try to make a case that refraction explains the sighting etc of objects at distance X that should be obscured by a mountain of bulge at height Y on a 40,000km circumference sphere, be my guest. Make the case or drift.

    Not really, if everyone just believes it because they're taught it from day dot, it becomes de facto reality. Like those '5 monkeys' experiments where everyone ends up falling in line but never asking why. Group psychology shows it's actually disturbingly easy. Why? Because we're sheepish and accepting. That's why I choose the Good Shepherd, because I know I can trust the God who suffered and died for me. Who you gonna trust?

    No satellites. For starters, find me just one photograph of a satellite, whether on earth or up there. Lots of cartoons. There's supposed to be around 30,000 satellites in space, try finding one (shooting stars don't count). If you think GPS can perfectly triangulate you driving along by a team of satellites at 35000km distance all orbitally tumbling in lockstep at 16000km/h as the gyrating spinning nutating earth hurtles elliptically through space weather, I'd say you're off with the faeries. What's the signal delay at that distance, anyways?

    Sure, so you're saying the average commercial airplane (get it 'plane'?) has to dip its nose every few minutes to follow the curve of the earth? Is that how gyroscopes work? I don't think so. Planes fly flat and level. After disembarking a long flight, do you really think you're standing upside down relative to where you were 12 hours before? Dang jetlag lol!

    Not to mention the mess of flying when the earth is spinning away at 1,000 mph at the equator. Tell me, how high would you need to go straight up in a chopper, in order to come straight down and land in a different spot? Why not just hover and let your westerly destination come to you?


    See above. I am the sheep, I choose the Good Shepherd, I gladly hear his voice. Don't follow the wolf in sheep's clothing, he just comes for to steal and kill and destroy. 'When he lies, he speaks his native language'. God is waiting for you to humble yourself, confess you don't know. Then He can show you.

    Perhaps gravity is required in FE, but it isn't asked to do a magic show. If gravity holds the water to the spinning earth, why isn't there a huge drag on the oceans as the sea bed rotates away underneath? 1000mph is massive linear velocity. Why doesn't the moon fall to earth? And remember, pressure is a much stronger force than gravity. Why aren't we getting sucked into space?
     
  11. Shrewd Manager

    Shrewd Manager Through him, in all things, more than conquerors. Supporter

    +3,085
    Australia
    Christian
    Single
    Right, so do the calcs on the mass of the moon and its ability to affect the tides at 250,000km distance. I think you'll find it doesn't work. And if it did, why doesn't the moon fall to earth...due to gravity?
     
  12. Yttrium

    Yttrium Independent Centrist

    +1,745
    United States
    Skeptic
    Single
    Why are you asking me as if you've done the math yourself? Well, just quickly throwing the numbers in, I get a force of about 8.6 newtons on a 1 kilogram mass. Of course, the oceans have much more mass than that. Don't know how much offhand. Comes out to a significant amount of force anyway. (By the way, the distance between the Earth and the Moon actually averages out to about 384,400 km. Shaving off the radius of the Earth, well, let's call it around 378,000 km from the center of the Moon to the surface of the Earth.)

    The Moon IS falling to Earth. Constantly. But it's in an orbital path, so it keeps going around and around and never hits. That's how orbits work. Anything in orbit is falling toward the planet, but moving tangentially fast enough that it doesn't hit. If that's confusing I suggest... taking Physics 101 at your local college or university. Or if you have taken it, it sounds like it's definitely time for a refresher course.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2021
  13. LockeeDeck

    LockeeDeck Member

    229
    +98
    United States
    Atheist
    Private
    It's more likely the experiment was done wrong.

    But you are saying that a HUGE group of people are actively changing data and doing things that lose them money to fool you. According to you people are hiding an ice wall, faking the ISS and every satellite, lying about plane paths, etc, etc. That takes a lot of people to know that they are lying.

    Satellites are small and fast so you wouldn't see one with the naked eye or even with a telescope, except maybe geosynchronous satellites.

    Also you don't believe in GPS satellites?
    How do you think all that works then?

    The speed of light to the satellite and back, it's far enough that I believe it comes out to dozens of milliseconds.

    You are really confused on how gravity works aren't you.

    You are misunderstanding relative motion.

    You've been in a car, once you stop accelerating and hit cruise control everything in the car is going to the same speed as you so if you pick up a ball and drop it in the car it would go straight down and not fly to the back.

    The same thing is going on with the spin of the Earth, everything is going the same speed so if a helicopter goes straight up the earth doesn't just spin under them because the helicopter was already spinning with the earth when it was on the ground.

    There is a special case when something goes very high very fast as in rocket launches. You notice that they start to curve, that's not the rocket curving it's the earth rotating away from it.

    Many Christians believe in the globe model, what do you make of them?

    Relative motion first of all and second there IS a drag. The oceans actually slow down the rotation of the earth VERY slightly.

    Again, if FE requires gravity and gravity comes from mass then FE is already disproved because any mass large enough for gravity to be relevant will form into a globe.

    Also the air would fall off the sides in an FE model.

    It is but if EVERYTHING is going at that same speed would you notice it?

    The same way all things orbit, it's going very fast sideways.

    Pressure comes from gravity.
     
  14. Cis.jd

    Cis.jd Well-Known Member

    +1,378
    Catholic
    Single
    I've watched the video. It's complete nonsense.
     
  15. HantsUK

    HantsUK Newbie

    356
    +71
    Baptist
    Private
    Agreed. I don't know whether to laugh or to cry in despair.

    The only thing this video proves, and repeatedly proves, is that the author ignores gravity, and does not understand gravity or basic mechanics. If this video was submitted as a school physics (or applied maths) project, it would be marked with a big red fail.

    The oft quoted "8 inches per mile squared" is an approximation, albeit OK for short distances.

    The claim that you can see further than you should at sea level is easily explained by refraction due to variation in the speed of light through different atmospheric conditions.

    If the earth was flat, then why can you see further as you climb up a cliff face at the seaside? Or why can't you see the sea from the top of a hill where the intervening land is all at a lower level? Or why can't you see a 4,000m mountain form a long distance, when you should have a clear line of sight?

    I do agree that most people just blindly accept that the earth is a globe, orbiting the sun, with the moon orbiting the earth. Many cannot explain how this works, and may have faulty understanding in various areas. So, when someone comes along and questions their assumptions, they are unable to refute what is said, or see why it is wrong.
     
  16. Cis.jd

    Cis.jd Well-Known Member

    +1,378
    Catholic
    Single
    I see that you are from Australia.. tell me, why can't you see the North Star over there?
     
  17. Paul4JC

    Paul4JC It is for freedom that Christ has set us free

    +1,126
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Which flight goes across Antartica?
     
  18. Shrewd Manager

    Shrewd Manager Through him, in all things, more than conquerors. Supporter

    +3,085
    Australia
    Christian
    Single
    Haze. Tell me, how did Marconi send his radio signals trans-Atlantic when they're line-of-sight? How is it that Navy ship radar set at <50m height has a 250 mile range? How is it that whales can hear each other's sonar half a world away? The list goes on and on my friend. Any spectrum line of sight tech you can find - optics, laser, radio, microwave, sonar etc - all go much further than they should for a ball of 40,000 km circumference. And long range ballistics too.
     
  19. Shrewd Manager

    Shrewd Manager Through him, in all things, more than conquerors. Supporter

    +3,085
    Australia
    Christian
    Single
    There are hundreds of such experiments and the globe believers have tried their best to debunk them. It's just a question of height and distance. The methodology is sound.

    It only takes a few, for instance those who own the money supply (yes, monetary system is privately owned). What they do is establish large philanthropic bodies that take control of the institutions of learning etc and after a couple of big wars to kill off a lot of their detractors they can hit the reset button. And everyone accepts 'that's just how it is' when they learn it from birth.

    Rubbish. Invisible satellites lol.

    GPS is ground-based.

    Sure, and factor all those unknowns into the equation. They're mighty durable, low-maintenance, orbital decay doesn't seem to worry them, just 'set and forget'. Nasa has been using a system of satellite-laden high altitude balloons for decades. Research it.

    Newtonian or Einsteinian? Perhaps you can point me to an experiment demonstrating gravity. Like Cavendish claimed. You know, get a feather and put it next to a boulder, see if it attracts. Didn't think so.

    Well try that with an open top car that's flying around a racetrack while simultaneously spinning on its axis.

    So what's the 'very high very fast' limit/ formula that suddenly kicks in? Does that affect missiles, how about F16s? What a crock.

    If you can't see plainly that those Nasa rockets are flattening out and heading into the drink, you should consider your sanity sir.

    Be nice if they had faith in the small things. A lot of non-Christians believe the earth's flat, what do you make of them?

    Hilarious.

    These are bizarre claims, sir. God made the earth, as He made you and I. Books don't write themselves.

    Firstly, it's not (on your model). Every air molecule perpendicular to earth would need to travel at a different velocity due to its orbit. By what means do the air molecules translate their motion to those above them?

    Secondly, the earth's supposed orbit around the sun is not uniform velocity, it's elliptical, and faster on the straights and slower on the curves.

    Thirdly, if earth is rotating as its orbiting, the velocity would be greater as it rotates in the direction of orbital motion than away from it. Maybe that's why the days seem to go so fast lol?

    Um, it's allegedly traveling at 2,300 mph around earth. Not very fast compared to your sprightly satellite at 20,000mph, you'd have to agree.

    ROFL!
     
  20. Cis.jd

    Cis.jd Well-Known Member

    +1,378
    Catholic
    Single
    1st- Guglielmo Marconi: I don't understand why you asked this about Marconi, unless you assume all radio signals are the same. Marconi experimented with the HF and MF range and that allowed him to use different propagation modes. There is no reason why that can not be done on a globe earth based on the range he did this on.

    2nd-Navy Ships: Yeah but regardless, they can only detect objects above the horizon.

    3rd: Whales: Show me a link of this, because I want to make sure this is not the same as whales being heard singing for thousands of miles.

    4th: the Spectrum line of sight tech: What is supposed to be the result if this was a globe sphere? Are other countries such as India or China able to see an optic or laser coming from the USA?

    Since, i've answered your questions, would you show the same respect and answer mine? Again, since you are in Australia, can you see the North Star? I bet if you ask a random flat earther who lives in the USA, they'll be able to see it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2021
Loading...