Proof the Earth is Flat

[JacksBratt]

So your position is that Adam Savage, a civilian, tv host, is in on the FE conspiracy and is out to lie to people? Because he said he saw the curve while up in the plane. So either he did see the curve, or he was brought into the great deception and convinced that he needed to continue the lie.

What I'm saying is that... while on the runway, the horizon in their camera view.. was a curve..

So, any curve that they photograph at any altitude.. is void.

Here's a good question, however.... what do you think would of happened if Adam Savage went up in a military aircraft and said... "I couldn't see any curve"?

Let that sink in.....

Now.. look at the ridicule people on this forum get.. when arguing in favor of the FE model.. The names calling is predictable.

Then, there is Rob Skiba.. a very famous YouTube guy and has many books on controversial biblical theology... who did have a great following and numerous sponsors... who lost almost everything for coming out in support of the FE model.

Now... back to Adam Savage... What do you think he's gunna say... even if he didn't see the curve?

And let's be clear here JB. For someone who isn't a proponent for the FE, you're about the strongest defender of the view on this forum.

Seriously? Well thanks for that honor.. but.. I just like to put out the arguments against the globe when people clearly haven't even looked into it..

The most common are:

Wheres the edge.. how come nobody falls off?

Or any of the failed experiments to prove rotation or movement of any kind.

Look... I don't know if it's a ball or a pancake... BUT... it certainly isn't what they are feeding us.

 

[JacksBratt]

Of course, there's always a reason for the earth looking spherical. But when it looks flat then it's called 'proof'.

If I go outside.. I look up... Is it a dome... or is it a small portion of a ball? Cannot tell.

 

[JacksBratt]

You cannot see Kawaikini from the peak of Mauna Kea.

Have you ever taken out a telescope?

 

[Phil G]

Actually, yes, that is the case. Except it's not 'trickery' glass. They are just too stupid to understand what they are looking at.

And there you have it - flat earth believers actually believe they are more intelligent than those of us who believe the earth to be spherical. That's the condescending attitude I come accross all the time with flat earthers.

 

[Phil G]

Here you go. I made a whole thread about a group that debunked every point the 'Professor' made in his silly little video.

Responses to Flat Earth Challenges

And in that thread you only rehashed videos which prove nothing.

 

[Phil G]

I don't doubt that you are correct... What I am saying is that the earths curve is 8 inches for every mile of surface...

And, having that fact to go by.. there are objects that should be well beyond the curve... yet are clearly visible.

I'm not here to argue those two absolutes.. The rate of curve... or that objects are regularly and consistently in view when they should never be.

There are too many websites and too many examples taken by many people.. to dispute either one of those.

No, there are websites focussing on the wrong formula. 8 inches per mile or 8 inches per mile squared are not formulae which indicate how far an object can be seen. That requires the formula I gave you.

The websites also make claims rather than give independantly verified facts.

 

[Phil G]

Like I said, immediately rejected. So typical.

No, not immediately rejected. Just no proof.

 

[Phil G]

If I go outside.. I look up... Is it a dome... or is it a small portion of a ball? Cannot tell.

I don't see a dome or part of a ball. I see evidence of an Almighty God who created an incromprehensively large universe of immense complexity.

 

[Phil G]

Have you ever taken out a telescope?

I have, and it it doesn't reveal objects beyond the horizon unless I am high enough as per formula I gave you. I live on the east coast of Ireland. I cannot see the coast of Wales about 60 miles away unless I climb higher than anywhere near sea level.

 

[d taylor]

I don't see a dome or part of a ball. I see evidence of an Almighty God who created an incromprehensively large universe of immense complexity.

You want to prove that from the Bible, every time i read the Bible. When i see Gods creation mentioned, it is always heaven and earth. Not one time have i see any mention of God creating a universe (and placing the sun, moon earth, stars out in a universe).

The 1st heaven is the raqia the dome above the earth (the sky, where the birds fly across the face of Genesis 1:20). This raqia is the location of the sun, moon and stars, Genesis 1:14,15,16 and 17

So you have proof that God created a universe, show me in the Bible.
Genesis 1:1, Psalms 124:8, Psalms 115:15, Psalms 121:2, Psalms 146:6 Isaiah 45:18 verse after verse states God created heaven and earth.

 

[Phil G]

You want to prove that from the Bible, every time i read the Bible. When i see Gods creation mentioned, it is always heaven and earth. Not one time have i see any mention of God creating a universe (and placing the sun, moon earth, stars out in a universe).

The 1st heaven is the raqia the dome above the earth (the sky, where the birds fly across the face of Genesis 1:20). This raqia is the location of the sun, moon and stars, Genesis 1:14,15,16 and 17

So you have proof that God created a universe, show me in the Bible.
Genesis 1:1, Psalms 124:8, Psalms 115:15, Psalms 121:2, Psalms 146:6 Isaiah 45:18 verse after verse states God created heaven and earth.

Well now you're getting into what is the 'universe' and what is meant by 'heavens'. If the reality is as you describe, then God has created something within human understanding. I see God as creating something beyond human understanding.

The model you advocate is not proved in Scripture but is a particular interpretation of the Scriptures. If 'heavens' is limited to a dome which does not stand up to the evidence, then that interpretation is wrong.

 

[JacksBratt]

And there you have it - flat earth believers actually believe they are more intelligent than those of us who believe the earth to be spherical. That's the condescending attitude I come accross all the time with flat earthers.

Actually... condescension is rampant among people condemning FE'ers..
I don't see a lot of condescension from FE'ers but it is not absent.

 

[JacksBratt]

No, there are websites focussing on the wrong formula. 8 inches per mile or 8 inches per mile squared are not formulae which indicate how far an object can be seen. That requires the formula I gave you.

Again... I was not talking about how far an object can be seen.. But.. how much curve there is to one mile of the earths surface.. in order for it to be a sphere of the given diameter.

 

[Phil G]

Again... I was not talking about how far an object can be seen.. But.. how much curve there is to one mile of the earths surface.. in order for it to be a sphere of the given diameter.

You are talking about how far an object can be seen. Here is your quote:

'there are objects that should be well beyond the curve... yet are clearly visible.'

You have also reiterated the claim 'we see too far' which is not consistent with the evidence (rather than claims).

You are trying to use a formula outside of its context in order to validate a claim which I can see for myself is not true. As I have said to you before the claims of flat earthers are out of kilter with the evidence I see for myself.

A drop of 8 inches per mile will not give you a true indication of what should or should not be visible above the horizon at a given distance and eye height.

 

[SPF]

Again... I was not talking about how far an object can be seen.. But.. how much curve there is to one mile of the earths surface.. in order for it to be a sphere of the given diameter.

Point 2 in the above video should speak to you on this one. Watch it. You’re relying on what FE proponents with no actual education say for your information.

 

[JacksBratt]

You are talking about how far an object can be seen. Here is your quote:

'there are objects that should be well beyond the curve... yet are clearly visible.'

You have also reiterated the claim 'we see too far' which is not consistent with the evidence (rather than claims).

You are trying to use a formula outside of its context in order to validate a claim which I can see for myself is not true. As I have said to you before the claims of flat earthers are out of kilter with the evidence I see for myself.

A drop of 8 inches per mile will not give you a true indication of what should or should not be visible above the horizon at a given distance and eye height.

Ok, lets clear things up.. There is a distance at which we see the horizon.. This is different at different altitudes.. With the size of the globe when we see the horizon.. it is X miles away.

However, an 8 inch object, even when it is not at the horizon.. should not be seen, due to curvature, at one mile.. if the line of site is at zero inches..

Do you see the difference?

Therefore. Tall objects, that are beyond the horizon.. on both globe and FE models.. will be seen.

Therefore.. and object that is 1000 feet tall should not be visible at 40 miles.. even though we can see farther than 40 miles.

 

[SPF]

Ok, lets clear things up.. There is a distance at which we see the horizon.. This is different at different altitudes.. With the size of the globe when we see the horizon.. it is X miles away.

However, an 8 inch object, even when it is not at the horizon.. should not be seen, due to curvature, at one mile.. if the line of site is at zero inches..

Do you see the difference?

Therefore. Tall objects, that are beyond the horizon.. on both globe and FE models.. will be seen.

Therefore.. and object that is 1000 feet tall should not be visible at 40 miles.. even though we can see farther than 40 miles.

JB, you really should take a few minutes out of your life and scroll to the 4 minute and 34 second mark in this video. You keep saying the same thing you've been told (you haven't studied this on your own) by the FE camp, which is 8 inches per mile squared.

That's not correct math. You don't know what you're talking about. Watch the video at the 4 minute and 34 second mark. Stop believing everything the FE camp preaches to you.

 

[SPF]

The actual calculation for the curvature of the earth that you need to use in order to determine whether or not you see an object is......

h=r-r cos(s/2r)

Stop believing everything the FE conspiracy theorists tell you.

 

[JacksBratt]

JB, you really should take a few minutes out of your life and scroll to the 4 minute and 34 second mark in this video. You keep saying the same thing you've been told (you haven't studied this on your own) by the FE camp, which is 8 inches per mile squared.

That's not correct math. You don't know what you're talking about. Watch the video at the 4 minute and 34 second mark. Stop believing everything the FE camp preaches to you.

I will, When I get the time.
Always in for a good video...

 

[Phil G]

Ok, lets clear things up.. There is a distance at which we see the horizon.. This is different at different altitudes.. With the size of the globe when we see the horizon.. it is X miles away.

However, an 8 inch object, even when it is not at the horizon.. should not be seen, due to curvature, at one mile.. if the line of site is at zero inches..

Do you see the difference?

Therefore. Tall objects, that are beyond the horizon.. on both globe and FE models.. will be seen.

Therefore.. and object that is 1000 feet tall should not be visible at 40 miles.. even though we can see farther than 40 miles.

I don't know what you are trying to get at. It is completely unrealistic to have a line of sight at zero inches. Whether an object 1000 feet tall can be seen at a distance of 40 miles depends very much on the eye height of the observer. Here is a website that explains it:

David Senesac Visual Line of Sight Calculations dependent on Earth's Curvature

If a person is standing at sea level with an eye height of say 5 feet above sea level, then the top of an object 1000 feet tall can be seen from 40 miles. In fact it can still be seen from just under 46 miles away according to the correct formula. If a person is standing with an eye height of 10 feet, then it can be seen from just under 47 miles away.

For some reason you are stuck on the 8 inches per mile formula for deciding how far an object of a particular height should be seen if the earth's curvature is mesured by that 8 inches per mile. You seem to forget about how crucial the eye height of the observer is for this.