Proof the Earth is Flat

[Shrewd Manager]

Totally 100% false.

For artillery, for example, there is a "reference ellipsoid": https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCRP 3-10E.6 Formerly MCWP 3-16.7.pdf?ver=2017-10-18-091219-953 (because even a sphere is not close enough to the actual shape).

Nobody uses 'reference ellipsoids' in practice. Can you imagine how that would have affected long range gunners during WWII? Or snipers? This is just one of those bogus 'transform equation'-type ideas to keep ppl in the dark.

Surveying, ballistics, and navigation are all based on the actual shape of the globe. If you used a "flat earth" map, both directions and distances would be wildly wrong.

No, geodetic surveying is unnecessary. Captain Cook used plane table surveying the whole time. Again, if you're saying there's allowance for curve, you need to say there's allowance for coriolis/ rotation. It's a package deal, the spinning ball earth. So do you say that ballistics and navigation allow for both curvature and motion?

 

[Radagast]

Nobody uses 'reference ellipsoids' in practice.

Of course they do. It's built into targeting software.

Can you imagine how that would have affected long range gunners during WWII?

I believe they may have used a spherical approximation to the shape of the earth. They certainly compensated for the rotation of the earth even in the 1800s (see The Principles and Practice of Modern Artillery).

Captain Cook used plane table surveying the whole time.

Captain Cook knew and used the fact that the earth is a globe.

It seems that every word you type is false.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Of course they do. It's built into targeting software.

What targeting software is that?

I believe they may have used a spherical approximation to the shape of the earth. They certainly compensated for the rotation of the earth even in the 1800s (see The Principles and Practice of Modern Artillery).

Lol so I can get into a helicopter and hover in wait for Perth to come to me. Ought to save time and money.

If ballistics had to correct for coriolis, the chances of a long-range sniper ever hitting the mark would be negligible, considering the rash of variables to be accounted for (longitude/ latititude, precise direction of the shot etc). It's a movable feast.

You might have a look at this page, which links a whole raft of declassified engineering and ballistics reports, and paints a fuller picture. The video contains a good breakdown imo.
Gov’t Admits FLAT EARTH

Captain Cook knew and used the fact that the earth is a globe.

Captain Cook charted everything on a flat surface, a method known as plane table surveying. Still the main method used for charts and surveys, I believe. It's someone else's job to project that 2D chart on to a 3D ball.
All that he surveys | National Museum of Australia

It seems that every word you type is false.

Now now, do try to control that temper.

 

[Radagast]

What targeting software is that?

The kind that controls modern artillery.

If ballistics had to correct for coriolis, the chances of a long-range sniper ever hitting the mark would be negligible

Wrong.

You might have a look at this page

Falsehoods. Like all lies, they come from the very pits of Hell. Those who love these falsehoods are eternally lost (Revelation 22:15).

Captain Cook charted everything on a flat surface

On flat sheets of paper, yes. But not using a flat earth model. The flat earth model is wildly inaccurate for Australia.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

The kind that controls modern artillery.

If you say so.

Wrong.

O...kay.

Falsehoods. Like all lies, they come from the very pits of Hell. Those who love these falsehoods are eternally lost (Revelation 22:15).

So those documents are all fraudulent?

On flat sheets of paper, yes. But not using a flat earth model. The flat earth model is wildly inaccurate for Australia.

Charted flat. In 2D. Cook didn't have an 'ellipsoid reference wg-24 model'. Maybe that's why the savages killed him, they were ba'al earthers?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The linear accelerator in the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory (in Menlo park California) is 2 miles long and it needs to be actually straight and not follow the curvature of the earth, otherwise the electrons will hit into the walls and the whole thing won't work. The curvature of the Earth is something like "8 inches a mile". Therefore the center of the accelerator is in fact closer to the Earth's center than the edges by about 8 inches.

This is also true for J-PARC (Japan Proton Accelerator Complex). Here's some documents on how curvature does matter while building that facility:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C06092511/presents/TU004_PPT.PDF
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C04100411/papers/010.PDF

Source:
Why do bridge designs account for the Earth's curvature?

A classic experiment to demonstrate the curvature of a body of water is to place markers (like flags) a fixed distance above the water in a straight line, and then view them along that line in a telescope. If the water surface is flat then the markers will appear also in a straight line. If the surface of the water is curved (as it is here on Earth) then the markers in the middle will appear higher than the markers at the ends. Here's a highly exaggerated diagram of the effect by Alfred Russel Wallace in 1870:

This is a difficult experiment to do as you need a few miles for the curvature to be apparent. You also need the markers to be quite high above the surface of the water, as temperature differences between the water and the air tend to create significant refraction effects close to the water.

However Youtuber Soundly has found a spot where there's a very long line of markers permanently fixed at constant heights above the water line, clearly demonstrating the curve. It's a line of power transmission towers at Lake Pontchartrain, near New Orleans, Louisiana.

One objection you might make is that the towers could be curving to the right. However the same curve is apparent from both sides, so it can only be curving over the horizon.

Source:
Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Of course, Flat Earthers will see all the above here as a lie, trickery, or conspiracy theory; But it's just basic observational Science.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Now you're just being driven by the spirit of adversity. That was a joke.

Well, I think believing in a flat earth is a joke because it is obvious to see it is false by using basic logic and observation of our own universe. Anyways, you didn't put the joke emoticon or abbreviation up, so how can I tell when you are joking if you believe in a flat earth (Which to me is silly or a joke)?

The missing 'aleph-tavs' tell a different story. They are the stone the translators rejected. When Jesus says 'I am the alpha and the omega', the modern reader has no real idea of what he's talking about, because his sign - the 'eth' word - has been scraped from every page of the the OT. That's a glaring defect. There are many others, but this isn't the place to discuss them.

I believe Psalms 12:6-7 in my King James Bible (Which is altered in Modern Translations). But believe as you wish. Just know that the KJV and Modern Translations do not teach precisely the same thing.

Just your opinion. And I suggest you'd want good scriptural proof to back it up, seeing as it changes the meaning from white to black.

Okay. Let's look at the verse.

“the LORD... he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.” (Joshua 10:12).

It is also entirely possible that the sun moved with the rotation of the Earth so as to stand still in shining its light upon Gibeon and the moon moved with the rotation of the Earth so as to stand still in shining (it's reflected light) upon the valley of Ajalon.

In other words, the sun and moon moved so as to stand still in shining their lights upon certain locations. They moved so as to stand still upon those locations.

For example: Imagine if you were holding up a light that shined upon a rotating ball, and God told you to stand still your light upon a specific dot on that ball. This means that you would have to move with the rotation of the ball in order for your light to stand still on that spot on the ball.

For the sun and moon had to stick (or stand) to shining upon these specific locations. That is what it is most likely saying here, and it is not saying that the sun and the moon must literally stand still altogether in the fact that they were both frozen. They were to stand still in context to lighting upon specific locations. In order to do that, they would have to move with the rotation of the Earth to make that happen. The point of the “stand still” was in reference to keeping it's light on a specific spot or location. Whatever the sun and moon needed to do in order to accomplish that goal is not of any consequence. The instructions of the sun and moon were to stand still it's light upon specific locations and it was not in reference to it's placement in the universe.

 

[Sean5151]

The Moon is round, Mars is round, Venus is round, Neptune is round, Uranus is round, Mercury is round, Saturn is round, Jupiter is round. So why would the earth be flat? Go stand on a big hill or mountain and look at the horizon does it look square to you? Or look out to Sea. I used to be into conspiracy theories and I have to say that the flat earth theory is one of the craziest conspiracy theories I have ever heard.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yes, a footstool usually has legs. And this requirement is met by the pillars of the earth, of which there are numerous Biblical references, eg:

For the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, And He set the world on them. (1 Sam 2:8)

The main purpose of a footstool is to place one's feet when one is seated. The seating position is invariably elevated. I can't believe I'm needing to explain this. Are you ok?

Sorry, you are not taking into account the context here. In 1 Samuel 2:8: The words “pillars of the earth“ is in reference to people and not actual physical pillars holding up the earth. It's a metaphor. In this example of the usage of the words “pillars of the earth”, 1 Samuel 2:8 is in reference to the poor, and the beggar, and he has set them among princes to make them inherit the throne of glory.

“He raiseth the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory...” (1 Samuel 2:8).

“He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them.” (1 Samuel 2:8).

These pillars are those who will inherit the throne of glory. God set the world upon these men who will inherit the throne of glory. They are the pillars.

We see this is confirmed in the fact that the believers at Ephesus (are told by Paul) that they are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (with Christ being the chief cornerstone).

19 “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;” (Ephesians 2:19-20).​

Now, Job 9:6, and Psalms 75:3 also mentions the words “earth” and “pillars”, but these pillars are in context to the pillars of the world (i.e. unbelievers or men of the world). Just read the entire chapter and look at these verses in context instead of seeing what you want to see.

 

[d taylor]

Another Biblical witness to the moon along with the sun and stars being created lights placed in the raqia (dome above the earth).

To Him who by wisdom made the heavens,
For His mercy endures forever;
To Him who laid out the earth above the waters,
For His mercy endures forever;
To Him who made great lights,
For His mercy endures forever—
The sun to rule by day,
For His mercy endures forever;
The moon and stars to rule by night,
For His mercy endures forever.

 

[JacksBratt]

It is worth taking note that one can prove the Earth is a sphere by the fact that we can see the stars spinning in one direction on the Northern Hemisphere and yet we can see the stars spinning in the opposite direction on the Southern Hemisphere. You can contact people in these different hemispheres and get them to record footage for you (without letting them know your intentions to prove a round or flat Earth).


~ J.

As I have discussed with you before... On a globe, a single ball, the stars must rotate the same direction from any point...It's a solid ball... Spinning one direction...

You are simply looking south... or North....

This has nothing to do with flat, or ball... it's the same thing.

 

[JacksBratt]

The kind that controls modern artillery.



Wrong.



Falsehoods. Like all lies, they come from the very pits of Hell. Those who love these falsehoods are eternally lost (Revelation 22:15).



On flat sheets of paper, yes. But not using a flat earth model. The flat earth model is wildly inaccurate for Australia.

I have seen several presentations of military experts describing extra long range sniper shooting and even the events of record long distance kills.

They mention dust, humidity, elevation (atmospheric density), heat of ammunition, wind speed and direction, rifling rotation per inch of barrel length, ambient air temperature and many more things.

They do not mention Coriolis. Nor do they mention that the curve of the earth is 8 inches per mile squared. That adds to the normal drop of a bullet during its arch of trajectory.

When the bullet leaves the barrel it is actually traveling upwards. It will hit a target at different amounts above the point of sight and then, as the target is further away, the bullet will start moving downwards, after it's top of the arch of flight, until it crosses the line of the sight of the gun. This is "point blank"

You sight in a rifle to shoot "point blank" at the most often distance that you target. In deer hunting, this could be 100, 200 or 250 yds....

At this distance, you hold dead on the bulls eye for the bullet to enter the bulls eye. Other wise you hold low to certain degrees.. After that.. You hold higher and higher...

After the bullet passes this distance, point blank, it continues to drop below the line of the sight until it hits the ground.

If you think about it... if "Coriolis" was real, the shooter would have to know their exact direction of the shot. Coriolis would be one direction when shooting directly south and then gradually change throughout the change of direction through the degrees of navigation until pointing north, where the bullet would move the opposite direction.

I did find one or two presentations that mention "Coriolis". Neither mentioned it's dependency on direction in comparison to the earths rotational axis...

One, funny enough.. reiterates that "this is real" in reference to the "Coriolis" effect.. It's the only variable, of many, that they felt it necessary to reiterate that it was real.... hmmm.

Anyway... When listening to long reports on the dynamics of super long range shots of high accuracy... no mention of "Coriolis"... But, a lot of other stuff that one may not take into consideration.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

As I have discussed with you before... On a globe, a single ball, the stars must rotate the same direction from any point...It's a solid ball... Spinning one direction...

You are simply looking south... or North....

This has nothing to do with flat, or ball... it's the same thing.

No. Take a giant round plate of pizza and put cameras on top of it. Then put some glowing stars on the ceiling. Then spin your pizza and collect the footage. You will see the stars spinning in one direction. Now, the only way your flat earth works if you cheat and say that your flat earth continues to the underside of the disc (Which most flat earthers say is the foundations or the rock part of the flat disc). The only way to simulate what we see on the Earth is to cheat, and put cameras on the underside of your pizza (i.e. under the large dish), and spin it and put some glowing stars on the floor, and thus you would see the stars spinning in the opposite direction. But this is where the rocky underside is at for a flat Earth. So it doesn't work. Your on the pizza (toppings part with cheese and sauce), or flat disc and you look up and you see the stars spinning one direction by doing so. Your model does not work in what we observe in the real world. So you don't know what your talking about. The bottom cameras would record a different direction of spin from the cameras on the top of the ball. In other words, what we see in the real world only works if the earth is a sphere, and not a flat earth with a rocky underside.

For if I took cameras and placed them on the top side of a beach ball, and at the opposite bottom side of the beach ball, and I spinned the beach ball, I would see the glowing stars (placed on the ceiling and floor) as each spinning in different directions. It's basic observational Science. If you don't believe me, just do the experiment for yourself and you feel absolutely foolish afterwards for believing an obvious lie that the earth is flat.

 

[JacksBratt]

No. Take a giant round plate of pizza and put cameras on it. Then put some glowing stars on the ceiling. Then spin your pizza and collect the footage. You will see the stars spinning in one direction. Now, the only way your flat earth works if you cheat and say that your flat earth continues to the underside of the disc (Which most flat earthers say is the foundations or the rock part of the flat disc). The only way to simulate what we see on the Earth is to cheat, and put cameras on the underside of your pizza (i.e. under the large dish), and spin it and put some glowing stars on the floor, and thus you would see the stars spinning in the opposite direction. But this is where the rocky underside is at for a flat Earth. So it doesn't work. Your on the pizza (toppings part with cheese and sauce), or flat disc and you look up and you see the stars spinning one direction by doing so. Your model does not work in what we observe in the real world. So you don't know what your talking about. What we see in the real world only works if the earth is a sphere, and not a flat earth with a rocky underside.

If a solid object is spinning one direction.. everyone on that object will see things around them spinning the same way. It's just that you are looking UP.... or DOWN..... on the globe.

You prove it with your idea of the underside of the pizza plate.

If the earth is fixed and the stars are moving.. or.. if the stars are fixed and the earth is moving.. everyone will see them everything spin the same way...

You seem to be stuck on this and it's not even a FE/Globe earth problem.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If a solid object is spinning one direction.. everyone on that object will see things around them spinning the same way. It's just that you are looking UP.... or DOWN..... on the globe.

You prove it with your idea of the underside of the pizza plate.

If the earth is fixed and the stars are moving.. or.. if the stars are fixed and the earth is moving.. everyone will see them everything spin the same way...

You seem to be stuck on this and it's not even a FE/Globe earth problem.

Your still not getting it. I cannot believe I have to actually tell you to do this.
Do the experiments and you will see what I am talking about. For what you propose is simpy contrary what we see in reality.

Note: I updated my previous post to you to include a spinning beach ball with cameras on the top and bottom sides of the ball with glowing stars on the ceiling and glowing stars on the floor. Record the footage and compare it with a flat disc (with cameras only on top) as you spin the disc.

The flat earth disc model experiment will show you footage of only the stars spinning in one direction if the cameras are looking up at the ceiling. This is not what we observe in the real world.

The sphere earth model experiment will show you video footage of both the stars on the ceiling and stars on the floor. The camers on top of the ball will spin differently than the cameras on the bottom of the ball. The rotation of the spin of the stars will each look different, and this is what we observe in our real world comparing the North pole vs. the South pole.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yes, a footstool usually has legs. And this requirement is met by the pillars of the earth, of which there are numerous Biblical references, eg:

For the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, And He set the world on them. (1 Sam 2:8)

The main purpose of a footstool is to place one's feet when one is seated. The seating position is invariably elevated. I can't believe I'm needing to explain this. Are you ok?

So you believe the Earth has literal physical pillars? If so, what do they look like?

There's no reason a localised spotlight cannot simply throw its light on a certain portion of its subject. You really haven't done much research at all. If you think that experiment even slightly debunks FE, you are richer in faith than I could have ever imagined, albeit sadly misplaced.

If you believe in the popular Flat Earth model (with the sun moving like this):

Then this is what it would look like from the ground:

But that is not what we see.

If the sun set on a Flat Earth, it would look like this:

And there would be a period of darkness for the entire world until the sun came back up. But does the entire world experience darkness all at once like this? Is this what we observe? No. The reason why the sun can be seen on another part of the Earth is because it is a sphere.

Ok, you have it right, I have it wrong.

Well, this is the first time you said something correctly on this topic. By your very own words, you said, I quote:

“I have it wrong.” ~ Shrewd Manager​

Have it your own way, rich man.

This is just an ad hominem with no real basis in any truth. You don't know my life or walk with the Lord. You know nothing about me to determine my finances and what I do with them. In fact, the idea of being rich repulses me. If I was rich, I would not have any need to work at a job, and I was just live on vacation the rest of my life. But this is not the case. I need to work at a job so that I can buy food, have a shelter, and clothes. I have put away watching secular movies, and worldly entertainment, and my daily goal in life is to serve and follow Christ.

You mean like seeing further than we should? Seeing objects (such as an oil rig) 15km away from a 1 meter height, with the horizon visible BEHIND it. Every time.

Show me the curve. Where is the curve? And yes, on a verifiable view, not some spaceman blowing bubbles in a shark tank with CGI.

We can see a ship (Which is Conti Lyon that was approximately 16 miles away) below the curvature of the Earth (in the far distance) while we view another large ship in the foreground or in our closer view.

This proves the earth is a sphere and not a flat disc. If you were to zoom in with high powered telescope, you would not be able to see the bottom half of the ship in the far distance (approximately 16 miles away). This again is just one of the many pieces of evidences that makes flat earth just look dumb.

Here is another image.

If that was the case they would also need to compensate for coriolis. Show me where I can get in a helicopter in Melbourne and wait for Perth to come to me. There's no such compensation, beyond maybe some kind of phony 'transform equation' that makes it appear this is happening just in order to save the theory and perpetuate the lie.

You cannot see Kawaikini from the peak of Mauna Kea.

Mauna Kea, the highest peak in Hawaii (the summit of the Big Island), offers incredible views. With nothing but the ocean around it, and a few other nearby islands, you should be able to see extremely far away. The island of Kauai has the seventh highest point in the Hawaiian islands: the peak known as Kawaikini. If you were to draw a straight line from Mauna Kea (elevation: 13,796 ft.) to Kawaikini (elevation: 5226 ft.) it would span a distance of 303 miles.

However, you cannot see one from the other, which you would absolutely be able to do if the Earth were flat. With a curved Earth of its measured radius, the line-of-sight limit for those two elevations caps out at 233 miles. Only with a curved Earth is one invisible from the other, and this is true for any two mountain peaks with clear line-of-sights from one to the other.

Source:
Five Impossible Facts That Would Have To Be True If The Earth Were Flat

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Flat earthers claim that we never see stars from space, but they are forgetting things taught to us about cameras and exposure. When the sun is above the horizon it's light is too bright, overexposing the sky, so we only see darkness.

This video shows the flight of a weather balloon to the stratosphere at night. Capturing light of the earth and stars from high altitude and the supposed flat earth sun is nowhere to be seen from 27 km altitude. The reason we don't see the sun is because it's below the horizon, illuminating the other half of our spherical Earth.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The Flat Earth model of the sun does not fit the reality of what we see in the real world. Antartica has 24 hours of daylight sometimes. This is not possible on a flat Earth. Their sun model has the sun rotating in a circle around the pizza crust (i.e. their outer edge ice wall). They have no explanation of how there are long periods of daylight in their flat earth model. It simply does not work. If one just visualizes this, it simply does not work.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Telescopes just make things bigger. If something is hidden beyond the horizon then you won't be able to see it with a telescope.

Here is what one spherical Earth proponent (i.e. reality observer) has said on another forum:

"I zoomed in on this boat. I could see the sail with the naked eye. The bottom of the boat was still covered. Then I stood up so I could see over the horizon and the boat appeared."

You can read more about what his debate with Flat Earthers here:

Help with a debate about curvature and distance calculations

More than likely if you did the experiment yourself, and seen the bottom part of the boat reappear, you either stood up or climbed to a higher part of the boat.