the myth of flat earth debunked again

essentialsaltes said:

Train tracks 'spread out', but they are parallel. Following them the other way, they converge on a vanishing point that is very far away.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about light rays there dear one, not perspective and I gave an experiment that you can do.
I have to go to work now, I've been delaying on here too long, but I think I'll try to video myself doing the experiment today and put it online.

But your photo is good to see the vanishing point, the tracks appear to get smaller as they get farther away, this is an effect of our eyesight.

trophy33 said:

Psalms are songs. You stand on songs to get your science from, which is obviously absurd.

Click to expand...

Job 38:4-11 is not a song, it is a record of God actually speaking.
Genesis is not a song.
And yes the song Psalm 19:1-7 completely busts up the lies from the devil, that is how divine the word of God is.
I do not heed; oppositions of science falsely so called. And where did I get that statement from? The word of God.

contratodo said:

Yes I posted a video in which during sunset the sun appears to get smaller.

Things may appear to slow down as they move farther away, they don't actually slow down.
The telescope is locked to that one axis by the telescope user.

The Bible says the sun moves in a circuit and nothing is hid from its heat. Psalms 19:5-6
I stand on the word of God, it cleverly exposes the lies from our enemy.

Click to expand...

No, you're missing the points. Even if something appears to slow down the further away it gets, anything tracking it, whether it be an equatorial mount or binoculars in your hand etc, would also have to slow down in order to match its apparent speed. This is very basic stuff and you don't seem to get it. And at sunset the sun appears to get bigger not smaller, even though it is always visually at 0.5 degrees angular size.

contratodo said:

But your photo is good to see the vanishing point, the tracks appear to get smaller as they get farther away, this is an effect of our eyesight.

Click to expand...

Obviously the tracks don't literally get smaller, but the fact that they look smaller is not a problem with our eyes, but a matter of perspective.

contratodo said:

Job 38:4-11 is not a song, it is a record of God actually speaking.
Genesis is not a song.
And yes the song Psalm 19:1-7 completely busts up the lies from the devil, that is how divine the word of God is.
I do not heed; oppositions of science falsely so called. And where did I get that statement from? The word of God.

Click to expand...

Job uses frequent metaphors and mythology and Genesis 1 is a mythological drama.

You have no understanding what you read in your Bible and thats why you come up with such absurd conclusions.

I'm still waiting on @contratodo to back up his claim that the maximum distance of human line of sight is 3 miles.

contratodo said:

Job 38:4-11 is not a song, it is a record of God actually speaking.
Genesis is not a song.
And yes the song Psalm 19:1-7 completely busts up the lies from the devil, that is how divine the word of God is.
I do not heed; oppositions of science falsely so called. And where did I get that statement from? The word of God.

Click to expand...

In Job 38:7, did the morning stars actually sing together? Or is that metaphor?

And where is the tabernacle for the sun (Psalm 19:4)? Or is that metaphor too?

contratodo said:

Everything your saying there still assumes 'outer-space' and you have an image of a flat plane in a dome floating in 'outer-space'.
That is not the truth of the Biblical flat earth model.

The land is on water, outside of the dome is more water, the sun and moon are inside of the firmament just as it says in Genesis.
The firmament holds the water in just as was declared by God Almighty Himself in Job 38:8-11.
We know from Revelation that on top of the dome is the great city of God, with street of transparent gold,
and Gods throne out in the open, from which water flows.
Therefore the water is coming from God, flowing down and around the dome, filling an eternal ocean.
We are under the dome in the middle of that eternal ocean, our waters are calmer because of the dome.

There is no 'outer-space' the sun is clearly a local light above us.
The earth is as the Bible describes.

Click to expand...

You have completely misunderstood the nature of the image.
It is not meant to be a representation of biblical cosmology but the direction of the gravitational forces for a flat earth which is not described in the Bible.
You have ignored the evidence for a spherical earth in this case gravitational forces acting in a radial direction and conforming to an inverse square law as supported by gravimetric measurements, to focus on your interpretation of the Bible which is totally irrelevant for making the case for a flat earth.

@contratodo
It is painfully obvious you are clueless as to how equatorial mounts work.

Here is a primer on equatorial mounts 101.
An equatorial mount moves in two axes, the RA (Right Ascension) axis and Declination axis.
In @Phil G 's video in post #795 shows movement around the RA axis, which uses a RA motor to drive the mount so it completes a 360 degree rotation in 23 hrs and 56 minutes.
The video also shows the polar axis was adjusted to 34 degrees corresponding to Sydney's latitude, if the mount was used at any other latitude at the same angle, the Sun would not stay aligned but exhibit a phenomenon known as declination drift which a north-south or south-north movement which cannot be corrected by the RA motor.

If the Sun is moving around a stationary flat earth would you care to explain how the declination drift is insignificant at Sydney's location but can be significantly larger at any other latitude?
There are no such problems for explaining declination drift for a rotating spherical earth.

sjastro said:

You have completely misunderstood the nature of the image.
It is not meant to be a representation of biblical cosmology but the direction of the gravitational forces for a flat earth which is not described in the Bible.
You have ignored the evidence for a spherical earth in this case gravitational forces acting in a radial direction and conforming to an inverse square law as supported by gravimetric measurements, to focus on your interpretation of the Bible which is totally irrelevant for making the case for a flat earth.

Click to expand...

I think the only problem with your gravitation counterexample is that I don't think Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation can be derived in a flat earth cosmos.

Not knowing the full history of Newton's discovery, I did a quick perusal of the relevant page on Wikipedia and found that he first demonstrated that the centripetal force must be inversely proportional to the radius in an elliptical orbit. If you then postulate that that force is the same one that pulls us toward the Earth and work out the shell theorem and voila -- universal gravitation. (I suppose there could be a different force that pulls things toward the surface of the Earth...)

That was, however, dependent on Kepler's elliptical orbits which all break the whole flat earth thing already.

contratodo said:

That the sun is a local light in the sky is proven by the spread out rays it casts down threw the clouds.

Click to expand...

Flat earthers always claim "perspective" when it suits them, but don't recognise it when it doesn't. Those rays of light are actually parallel, but appear to spread out because the gaps in the clouds are much, much further away than where the light reaches the earth's surface. Those same rays when photographed from a high altitude flight, appear completely parallel.

contratodo said:

In a Bible based flat earth model that is exactly what happens with the sun.

Click to expand...

Except that it doesn't.

contratodo said:

The sun moves in a large circle above us, from one end of the sky to the other [Psalms 19:5-6] it appears to rise and set due to perspective,
similar to cars or anything we see going far away from us.

Click to expand...

There's that claim of "perspective". Perspective just makes distant objects appear to get smaller (which doesn’t happen with the sun and moon) until their angular size is smaller than our eyes can discriminate. It does not make objects appear to sink below a horizon.

contratodo said:

It continues to rotate the way it does because it is locked on that axis, not because the sun is actually on the other side of the 'globe'.
One could lock the telescope to any axis.

The sun comes back around from making its circle and the telescope is locked to that axis still, it can't rotate any other way than it is locked to.
The sun rotates in a large circle going far enough away that night ensues, then it comes back around bringing dawn and a new day.

That telescope is set to line up with the initial light it gets from the sun, and to stay on that set axis.
Being locked on that one axis it can do nothing else but rotate that way.


We can take two circular pieces of cardboard about 2 feet wide or so,
and make some 2-4 inch holes in both, in the same spots,
drawing dark circles around the holes.

If we take those two pieces, and hold one up above the other outside,
using the sun as a far away light, we will be able to line up the sun rays with the holes of the bottom piece,
because the sun is very far away from our cardboard pieces, the light can come straight through.

If we take our cardboard pieces inside and use a closer light, a flash light or close sealing light,
we will not be able to align the light with the holes, the rays will tend to spread out, because the light is more local, closer to the cardboard.

The sun is a local light in the sky, we can see so due to the rays that penetrate the clouds, they spread out,
and a video of us flying right by the sun at 28000 feet is above in this thread. The sun is not 93 million miles away outside of the sky.

Click to expand...

You demonstrate that the sun is not local and in the same breath claim it is local.
Mind bogglingly stupid.

contratodo said:

Yes I posted a video in which during sunset the sun appears to get smaller.

Click to expand...

It appears to get smaller because most of the sun is hidden behind the horizon. You are not seeing a smaller circle, you are seeing the edge of the same size circle.

contratodo said:

Things may appear to slow down as they move farther away, they don't actually slow down.

Click to expand...

The angular velocity does slow down as objects get further away. In the case of the sun it is so far away that the change in relative distance is barely perceptible with the most precise instruments used for measurement.

contratodo said:

The telescope is locked to that one axis by the telescope user.

Click to expand...

Which puts its axis parallel to the axis of the globe earth.

contratodo said:

The Bible says the sun moves in a circuit and nothing is hid from its heat. Psalms 19:5-6

Click to expand...

Tell that to people living in the far North of Greenland during Winter. They neither see the sun nor feel its heat.

contratodo said:

I stand on the word of God, it cleverly exposes the lies from our enemy.

Click to expand...

You stand on your faulty interpretation of God's Word, and all it exposes is your stupidity.

Hans Blaster said:

I think the only problem with your gravitation counterexample is that I don't think Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation can be derived in a flat earth cosmos.

Not knowing the full history of Newton's discovery, I did a quick perusal of the relevant page on Wikipedia and found that he first demonstrated that the centripetal force must be inversely proportional to the radius in an elliptical orbit. If you then postulate that that force is the same one that pulls us toward the Earth and work out the shell theorem and voila -- universal gravitation. (I suppose there could be a different force that pulls things toward the surface of the Earth...)

That was, however, dependent on Kepler's elliptical orbits which all break the whole flat earth thing already.

Click to expand...

I’m not sure where centrifugal forces and planetary orbits come into the picture here as the Shell theorem states the only force law for a spherical mass distribution on an object outside the shell is the inverse square law.

This can be demonstrated using the static case of first determining the force between a hollow shell or sphere and an external object, then extending to the case of the force between a solid spherical mass and the object.

Here is a diagram of the gravitational force between an object of mass m at the point P and a hollow sphere.
Let O be the centre of the sphere and subdivide the surface of sphere into circular elements such as ABCDA as illustrated in the diagram.


The area of the surface element ABCDA is equation (1).



Here the radius of the element is (a sin (θ)) hence the circumference is 2π(a sin (θ)) and the thickness is (a dθ).
If σ is the mass per unit area then the mass of ABCDA is 2πa²σ sin (θ) dθ.
Due to spherical symmetry all points of ABCDA are at the same distance W = AP then the force of attraction of the elements ABCDA is the mass m at point P is equation (2).



n is the unit vector of the force from P directed towards O.

From the diagram are equations (3)



Using the cosine rule w² = a² + r² -2arcos(θ) and substituting into equation (3) which is then combined with equation (2) gives equation (4).



The total force for the between hollow sphere and the mass m at point P is then equation (5)



This integral can be solved by using the variable w in the cosine rule in place of θ.
When θ = 0 , w² = a² -2ar + r² = (r - a)².
w = r- a
When θ = π , w² = a² + 2ar + r² = (r + a)².
w = r + a
In addition differentiating the cosine rule gives
2w dw = 2ar sin(θ) dθ

r – a cos (θ) = r – a(a² + r² - w²)/2ar = a(w² - a² + r²)/2r and equation (5) becomes equation (6).



Equation (6) is the force between the hollow sphere and the mass at point P.

The case for a solid sphere such as the earth we need to subdivide a solid sphere into thin concentric shells where each individual shell is at some distance R from the centre where dR is the thickness of each shell and 4πR² is its surface area.

The force of attraction between any individual shell of mass and the mass at point P is equation (7).



Finally the total force of between a solid shell and the mass at point P is obtained by integrating from R = 0 to R = a which is equation (8).



Hence the force F is based on the inverse square law.

sjastro said:

I’m not sure where centrifugal forces and planetary orbits come into the picture here as the Shell theorem states the only force law for a spherical mass distribution on an object outside the shell is the inverse square law.

Click to expand...

I was not aware of the item I linked in my post before tonight, but apparently this was a big part of Newton's path to his law of gravitation.

sjastro said:

This can be demonstrated using the static case of first determining the force between a hollow shell or sphere and an external object, then extending to the case of the force between a solid spherical mass and the object.

Click to expand...

I am (obviously) aware of all of the rest of your post and it is absolutely correct in our actual Universe, but the flerfers live in their own fantasy land in which gravity is the magic force that pulls stuff down and does not seem to be tied to mass. The also live in a strange world where the fact that I can see Polaris every clear night and you can see the Southern Cross every clear night and neither of us can see the opposite ever doesn't seem to matter.

Hans Blaster said:

The also live in a strange world where the fact that I can see Polaris every clear night and you can see the Southern Cross every clear night and neither of us can see the opposite ever doesn't seem to matter.

Click to expand...

I live in Sydney and I've seen Polaris.
I just happened to be visiting Wisconsin at the time

prodromos said:

I live in Sydney and I've seen Polaris.
I just happened to be visiting Wisconsin at the time

Click to expand...

As a teenager in the late 60's I used to watch the Polaris nuclear missile submarines sailing to or from Faslane on the Firth of Clyde.

prodromos said:

You stand on your faulty interpretation of God's Word, and all it exposes is your stupidity.

Click to expand...

Surely I am more stupid than any man, and have not the understanding of a man,
I neither learned wisdom, not have the understanding of the Holy One.
Who has ascended up to beyond the sky or descended from beyond the sky?
Who has gathered the wind in His fists?
WHO HAS BOUND THE WATERS IN A GARMENT?
Who has established all the ends of the land?
What is His name? And what is His Sons name, if you know it?
Proverbs 30:2-4

That passage is just a coincidence dear one? Or is it the divine word of God?
God has bound the waters in a garment, the firmament, they stop at its boundary,
just as declared in Job 38 by God Almighty Himself.

The word of God is a sharp two edged sword.
Solid and mighty, able to guide one to truth and faith and eternal life.

Equatorial mount specs insist that the earth is moving, they do not prove anything, the dome does not move,
the stars, sun and moon, themselves circle in unique patterns and elipses.
And many graphs given to describe the mount, simply match the reality of the stars moving around us on the flat stationary land.






The dome is not moving, the stars are.

A celestial sphere can also refer to a physical model of the celestial sphere or celestial globe. Such globes map the constellations on the outside of a sphere, resulting in a mirror image of the constellations as seen from Earth.

Observers on other worlds would, of course, see objects in that sky under much the same conditions – as if projected onto a dome.

Click to expand...

The so called "celestial sphere".




Is what your looking at with any telescope.