The Earth is Flat, and you will prove it.

[SkyWriting]

Hi,

I have seen your observations in the sense that when I arrive in a place with few researchers, soon I have people hating me.

The fur flys, both men and women get upset with me from time to time, then All of Them apologize to me in one way or another, as time goes by.

In my last major battle at a corporation with an individual, I readied myself to years of taking this man's flak.

He was already totally upset with me.

Sitting at my desk one day, I overhear a conversation with the last guy on a science issue only, who took three days of constant table talks and drawings until he had his "Aha" moment, that I did not recover well from.

(He is a very large eastern Montana boy, and I had just shown him up in my opinion. That had long term disaster written all over it.)

As the conversation between Montana and my newest rival went on, Montana told him that no matter how outrageous anything sounds coming out of my mouth, research wise, that he is going to find out it is actually true.

In three days, I am called over to my newest rival's desk.

He says this: "When I do research, I find four or five sources that agree. When I do that I am 97-98% right. (If I recall those numbers, as they triggered a response.)(instantly my mind redid his numbers. There is no way that is true. I came up with a probable number on that technique. Then continued to listen on) You. You don't do that."

What he meant is, I keep looking and looking........

Philosophers, and stated research wise, those people who study the entire range of human thought, without proofs normally, have always asked us, how we know our life and things are not an illusion.

Still in research mode.

If God who is energy and the manipulator of energy also among the other things that He Is, changes something, then this all could be an imagined illusion from one point of view, as All energy, which can neither be created nor destroyed, but merely change forms, could very easily be taken back by God, to where that energy came from, and if and when He decides to, erase all that we were and saw. To us, what is real, would then be gone, and thus the equivalent of an illusion, would possibly be gone, possibly including all of us, our existences, on and in all realms, except in energy again, in some form.

Out of research mode.

Yet, I still had a few more years with that newbie on other issues, eventually it all ended very well, as research is research, and if done well and stated well, it is always true.

The next two issues, he caved on quicker, eventually settling on what is and was real.

Always. Always research is true if it is done properly and stated well.

Stating it well is important. Even Einstein stated Relativity well. He stated it as a theory, as far as I remember, thus if anything changes, the theory changes.

Thus, on purpose or not, it says that God exists in this sense: As things are now, this is correct.

If God decides to change any part of Creation, then things like The Speed of Light can change. Other things He might change.

Stating his work that way, allows for God to change things.

Research is Always correct, if stated well, and done well.

And of course, it is always possible, that the way Creation is Done is a result of the way God Is internally, thus nothing including the speed of light, will ever change.

LOVE,

 

[SkyWriting]

Jack, this is a shot of my house with Google Earth. If there are no satellites, what took this picture?

There are 100's of possible ways to explain things
when looking backwards. If there is only one way to
explain evidence, likely you still don't have the
entire answer.

 

[JacksBratt]

Jack, this is a shot of my house with Google Earth. If there are no satellites, what took this picture?

Let's see.... what was my response to your comment about the problem with satellites....

Ya, I know, How would satellites work on a flat earth... IDK. Especially the geosynchronous ones.

 

[durangodawood]

Let's see.... what was my response to your comment about the problem with satellites....

Did it deal with how satellite communication engineers have to place them around a sphere? How they lose line-of-sight in such a way as would never happen over a flat disk?
...
(or are they part of the NASA conspiracy, even as private companies)?

 

[JacksBratt]

JacksBratt, do you have any idea what modern cosmology claims? Because if not, why are you talking about it? And if so, how did you miss the most basic fundamentals of how the earth relates to the sun?

Has creationism so poisoned your mind that no authoritative source is reliable, but any old internet blog or ancient counter-culture book is good enough? What is going through your head right now? I really am curious; I legitimately don't get it.

I told you, I do not think the earth is flat. I believe there are some new technologies that allow everyday people to test the globe theory. And we should. There are some things that need to be questioned.

Was it not Eisenstein that said:
“The important thing is not to stop questioning.”

Check out this site. The flat earth question is growing.

http://wakeup-world.com/2015/08/14/examining-the-recent-rise-of-the-flat-earth-movement/

 

[JacksBratt]

Did it deal with how satellite communication engineers have to place them around a sphere? How they lose line-of-sight in such a way as would never happen over a flat disk?
...
(or are they part of the NASA conspiracy, even as private companies)?

Oh man.... no! Should I apologize because I have the same question you do about how the satellites are to function on a FE model? Am I to be chastised when somebody asks a question and I respond with "ya, That's a question I have too"?

One thing I have found on these forums, if someone is certain about their view on something and they are confident with their supporting information, they do not have an aggressive response to someone who questions their view.

However, when someone is presented with information that questions their view and they cannot give a solid sound retort.... they usually resort to name calling and condescension. Especially if their view protects the evolutionary account and the new view would parallel the need for a creator.

I have stated many times on this thread that I do not believe in the flat earth. However, I am questioning the globe earth model, due to my personal character trait to not believe everything I am told no matter how many letters after the name of the person spouting the information. Also because of my complete loss of trust in NASA and any military or government "scientific" information. Combined with the explosion of new data by real people that have presented tough questions on the subject.

 

[The Cadet]

I told you, I do not think the earth is flat.

At this point, I don't care. It's not about you supporting the flat earth movement or not. It's about you, your understanding of science, and your willingness to speak on issues you have no knowledge of. You've put forward arguments on numerous occasions on this thread that are not just wrong, but so wrong that it outright boggles the mind. Do you know what the current cosmological model is? Do you not understand what's so nonsensical about saying that 3 straight months of sunlight is impossible on the north pole with a round earth? Do you really not get why a model that portrays the sun and moon as spotlights above the earth fundamentally would fail to match what we observe?

And, most importantly of all, do you care that you're so wrong about any of this? You may not think the earth is flat, but you're taking terrible arguments on board, and don't seem to care that they're wrong. And that's the problem here.

Was it not Eisenstein that said:
“The important thing is not to stop questioning.”

"Where is your bible?"
"Right here in my hand."
"But where is your bible?"
"Right here. In my hand."
"Where is the bible, man?"
"It's here, I'm holding it in my hand!"
"No, where is the bible?"
[...]
*300 years of exactly this nonsense*
"But where's the bible?!"
"Oh come on. You know the answer already, give it a rest."
"You know, Einstein said that we shouldn't stop questioning, so I'm gonna keep asking: where's the bible?"

Which of those two people is being incredibly unreasonable? If you open your mind too far, your brain will fall out. Yes, keep asking questions, but take an answer every once in a while. The earth is not a flat disk.

Check out this site. The flat earth question is growing.

See, I'm a little concerned about this. It means basic education is failing, and more people are falling for nonsensical conspiracy theories. This, to me, is cause for concern. Why isn't it for you?

 

[lasthero]

Let's see.... what was my response to your comment about the problem with satellites....

The answer seems pretty clear - satellites actually do exist. What else would be taking the picture?

Aside from going into space yourself, what more do you want?

 

[[serious]]

OK, fair enough. However, check this out and help me figure how this and other examples of seeing things that should not be visible due to the curve of the earth. Credit should be given to Rob Skiba for the information below.

So, my friend took this little math problem to a college level math professor. After the guy said such a thing should not be seen, Jef said, "But we've all seen it. I'm referring to the Anacapa Island arch." Doh! In a text message to me after talking with the math professor, Jef said, "Needless to say, the math guy was intrigued."

So am I.

I suspect this is a case of neglecting to account for observer height. If you take a picture with your camera sitting on the ground, it would be different than taking a photo from eye level, maybe about 5 feet above the ground. We should also take a look at tide height as that will change the height above sea level.

Now, let's start by getting a minimum possible viewing distance based on these numbers:
25 foot arch would be visible from a camera sitting at water level 6.1 miles out. An observer 5 feet tall standing at water level could stretch this another 2.7 miles. 8.8 miles is less than the distance in question, so at least on some days, some people won't be able to see it from some vantage points. That's not a problem though, since the recounting says it's noteworthy when it's visible.

Now let's play with those assumptions a bit. The tidal range for the california cost runs about 40-50 cm. Let's assume that the arch height is measured from half way between high and low tide. That gives us about another foot on each side bringing us to 9.2 miles. But what if the person isn't standing right at the edge of the water, but higher on the beach? I'm not sure the elevation changes for different parts of that beach, but let's call it 6 feet. It could be more, but we're just spit balling to fill in vague information here. That brings us up to 10.4 miles, already pretty close. The author says he was a lifeguard. Could he have had a life guard chair he was viewing from? That could bring us to 11.4, getting us a view of the arch from the coast, though not from the specified beach. But what about differences in air temperature close to the water and above it? On typical days, this would give us about another 8% or about another mile of distance for the above assumptions. On days with a high gradient, we could very easily see such a distant object.

Now, as a counter question, if the earth was flat, why would objects ever appear to be cut off by the horizon?

 

[[serious]]

I understand your attitude toward this topic. When I first heard it, I blew milk out my nose and almost fell off my chair. So, I decided to prove them to be as wrong as I thought they were, and still do by the way. However, when you look into all their arguments put together, they are good arguments. It's not as easy as I thought to brush them off as unintelligent or ill informed. They have done their homework. A picture like the ones below make me wonder too.
If the earth is a globe, it must be much bigger than 8 inches of curve per mile squared.

Those are both hazy, low resolution images. I can't resolve where the horizon is well enough to actually put down a flat line. Lets look for a higher resolution image with a clearer horizon and see what we find. I'll pull a random one off of google images. If you want to pull a specific one, I'll run that too.

 

[[serious]]

I understand your attitude toward this topic. When I first heard it, I blew milk out my nose and almost fell off my chair. So, I decided to prove them to be as wrong as I thought they were, and still do by the way. However, when you look into all their arguments put together, they are good arguments. It's not as easy as I thought to brush them off as unintelligent or ill informed. They have done their homework. A picture like the ones below make me wonder too.
If the earth is a globe, it must be much bigger than 8 inches of curve per mile squared.

Those are both hazy, low resolution images. I can't resolve where the horizon is well enough to actually put down a flat line. Lets look for a higher resolution image with a clearer horizon and see what we find. I'll pull a random one off of google images. If you want to pull a specific one, I'll run that too.

 

[[serious]]

And here's what I have. I've added a straight line from the left edge of the horizon to the right and also one for the leading edge of the wing (to show that straight lines are straight in the image)

EDIT: on a bad connection and it keeps failing to upload. Try it yourself though. Go to google and find any good clear horizon from a plane window of ~1080 resolution. Open up paint and drop a 1 pixel line from the left side of the horizon to the right.

If you think that all of google images is in on the conspiracy, take a photo out the window of a plane yourself.

 

[The Cadet]

However, I am questioning the globe earth model, due to my personal character trait to not believe everything I am told no matter how many letters after the name of the person spouting the information. Also because of my complete loss of trust in NASA and any military or government "scientific" information.

To me, it seems that it's not just that you "don't believe everything you're told", it's that after centuries of research, you don't believe anything, period! Don't mistake skepticism for outright denialism.

I think I see the problem here, and it's a common one. It's the belief that "official" sources are wrong on principle. This is a particularly ridiculous belief to hold when dealing with fields of science you have no understanding of, given that you're essentially saying, "I know nothing about X, but I know the people who have dedicated their lives to studying X can't possibly be right, because everyone thinks they're right". It's arrogant and ignorant, and almost always leads to the wrong answer, because by and large, these "official" sources? They got to be called "official" for a reason.

NASA isn't just some shadowy government cabal. They're the world's largest space agency, employing a large number of scientists, for most of whom this was their dream job. They have an extremely impressive track record which takes a downright absurd conspiracy of every single space agency in the world (including the soviets during the space race) to discredit. The conspiracies that many flat earthers and geocentrists dream up, that all of NASA's accomplishments are faked and the people working their spend all their time constructing fake pictures and phony data... I'm sorry, do you honestly think that hundreds of scientists who spent their lives dreaming of stepping up to become a part of the space race would just go along with it if they found out that their real job was "Learn how to use photoshop really well"? You think they'd keep doing that soul-crushing job for decades, with nobody opening their mouth? It's absurd.

And all this for what? Why would they lie to us? What possible gain is there in perpetrating lies about, say, the atmospheric makeup of Jupiter or how its moons look like? What does this achieve? Nothing. There's no point. If your worldview hinges on whether or not Io is volcanic, you're officially so fringe and unimportant that a conspiracy of this level would be downright wasteful.

The worst part of all this? I can see that you're a smart person. You're just like my friend Yosarian - obviously you're a really smart, well-meaning guy. But these conspiracy theories have poisoned your mind to the point where a credible source supporting a claim is a reason to reject the claim, rather than accept it. And that's a really toxic, dangerous attitude, because not only are you taking a dump all over the ivory tower which is by far mankind's most significant and important accomplishment, but the moment you apply this logic to fields like medicine, where it can make a significant difference in your life, it's can very literally kill you. What you seem to be saying to me really is, "Because these people have spent their whole lives studying this, they cannot be trusted." And that's a really, really stupid idea.

One thing I have found on these forums, if someone is certain about their view on something and they are confident with their supporting information, they do not have an aggressive response to someone who questions their view.

Or, alternatively, they're just sick to death of dealing with people who know nothing and have no interest in learning anything. People who believe that the earth is flat deserve all the scorn, derision, and ridicule that's coming their way. And you deserve to be laughed out of the room if you think these arguments hold water. :/ It's entirely possible to be both wrong and mocked.

 

[SkyWriting]

To have that person go on a high altitude balloon flight, and then tell everyone what he saw.
To have one of their own take a Mig 29 high altitude fight and report back.
I imagine if it was important enough, a Space Shuttle flight would end all this, one way or another.

Science requires that all assumptions be re-tested.
The vast majority of researchers do not have such
access. Science requires untested faith.

 

[SkyWriting]

"Because these people have spent their whole lives studying this, they cannot be trusted." And that's a really, really stupid idea.

No, it's the basis of Science. Do not trust other peoples work. Retest all assumptions.
That's where you're stuck.

 

[SkyWriting]

Now, as a counter question, if the earth was flat, why would objects ever appear to be cut off by the horizon?

Hills?
Most people see them now and again.

 

[SkyWriting]

People who believe that the earth is flat deserve all the scorn, derision, and ridicule that's coming their way. And you deserve to be laughed out of the room if you think these arguments hold water

That's not the proper scientific response.
You can't ridicule new or old ideas and
properly address them at the same time.
That is allowing your emotions to do work
that may require further study.

Suppose the person is your 3 year old daughter.
What do you teach them when you laugh
in their face?

 

[The Cadet]

No, it's the basis of Science. Do not trust other peoples work. Retest all assumptions.
That's where you're stuck.

So the first thing any aspiring scientist should do before getting into astrophysics is re-do Newton's gravitational experiments. Then they should spend a few years repeating Kepler's observations of the solar system and confirming that they are, indeed, correct. Then they should check and cross-check the calculations in Einstein's work, and repeat all of Planck's important experiments to ensure that they're right. Then, they should ask for access to the Hubble Telescope (or better yet, build their own, because we can't trust other people's work, and who even knows if it's even really up there?), and waste its extremely valuable time recreating established experimental results to ensure that they are correct. I'm certain I've left out countless experiments that are less famous but similarly valuable in establishing what we know and how we know it.

Oh, but before they do all that, first they have to establish the shape of the earth, because this is not something we have figured out at any point in the last 10,000 years.

Then, once all that is done, they can get down to the business of establishing new scientific ideas and furthering mankind's knowledge about the universe. That is, assuming they managed to do all that in the 80-odd years of life they're likely to get.

Does that sound anything at all like how science works? Does that sound like a practical or reasonable way to explore reality? Or does it sound patently absurd? We retest old scientific data when something comes along that puts it into question, that doesn't seem like it fit. We don't need to redo every ancient experiment; we have them all on record and they fit the established model. The time when we need to check if what we have already learned via the scientific method is actually accurate is when there is reason to believe it is not. What you are proposing makes progress almost impossible. It is not how science works, and if that was how science works, we would not be speaking to each other over the internet.

The true value of science comes from our ability to stand on the shoulders of giants. To take the results of a lifetime of work and run with it, using it as the basis for further study and discovering more and more about the universe and how it works. You do not understand science. You don't understand how it works, you don't understand how it is practiced, and you would do well to stop making absurd claims about how the method works when you don't think we can use science to establish things in the past (a view I guarantee you would drop the instant it is subjected to argumentum ad baseball bat).

That's not the proper scientific response.

You want a proper scientific response? Do some actual science.

You can't ridicule new or old ideas and
properly address them at the same time.

This entire thread has been one big display of people ridiculing and addressing incredibly bad ideas at the same time. Incredibly bad ideas like this one! Oh look, I did it again!

Hills?
Most people see them now and again.

Right, because there are a lot of hills that persistently block our sight here:

Oops, I did it again.

 

[The Cadet]

Suppose the person is your 3 year old daughter.

Are you 3 years old? Do you have the approximate mental capabilities of a 3-year-old? No? Then why should I treat you like a 3-year-old when you propose nonsensical ideas?

We give children credit because they're children. A 3-year-old can't be expected to know very much about the world around them. They have a lot to learn, and we can't begrudge them that. How would a 3-year-old who's never learned about the subject know that the earth is round?

But you aren't a 3-year-old. You're a grown man who is claiming that the world is flat. You should know better. And then you have the gall to lecture me about science?

 

[[serious]]

Hills?
Most people see them now and again.

What about over water?