I believe that all the actual facts favor Flat Earth. Initially I was opposed to the notion, but when I actually looked at the evidence, I had to concede. Earth is a flat plane enclosed by a firmament dome. That we live on a globe flying through space is one of the Illuminati’s greatest lies to mankind. Most people just SAY the earth is a globe because they are brainwashed into believing it. But as soon as you start digging into the actual evidence, it becomes clear that it’s a lie.
They're ludicrous ...
Just out of curiosity, Ladislaus, which flat earth model do you believe in?The cool one is where the sun goes under the oceans at night and time zones are a Zionist conspiracy.
I would say that if someone genuinely believes something, they can't be accused of lying.
Just out of curiosity, Ladislaus, which flat earth model do you believe in?
:facepalm:
Flat Earth, and many of the arguments cannot be refuted.
As far as the moon, it’s often translucent, where you can actually see stars through it.
There are daytime eclipses for which science has no explanation, just speculation. Shadows can be caused by any number of things. But if they’re caused by the earth, then how can there be eclipses when the sun is visible in the sky.
I don’t want to go into the evidence here...
There's a consensus model, with North Pole in the center, Antarctica on the edges.
Right back at you, bud. You'll realize someday what a fool you've been.
There's a consensus model, with North Pole in the center, Antarctica on the edges..
.
Oh, I see. I asked because I'm aware of two models -- the one you describe, and another one called the "bipolar model" that has both a north and a south pole:
.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/c/c2/Altmap.png)
If the earth is flat then how do ships disappear from the bottom upwards (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#/media/File:Curvatura_2.gif) as they go over the horizon?
They don’t. It’s an optical effect. If you have a telescope or good camera, you can bring the entire ship back into view after it had appeared to go below the horizon. On the contrary, experiment after experiment has shown that there’s no curvature, including one by a guy who simply did not want to believe the results. We see way too far. That’s actually a major reason for the resurgence of Flat Earth. People can buy Nikon P900 or P1000 cameras and verify this themselves. Groups have spotted lasers from 25+ miles away when they should not have been visible due to earth curvature.Not to mention amateur balloons without fisheye lenses filming the lack of curvature at heights up to 120,000 feet. At the model of 8in/foot squared of curvature, you would see the earth curve outward from the balloon. Further, the angle of view would need to be adjusted as the horizon falls from view. Yet, this never happens. It remains flat and at eye level.
They don’t. It’s an optical effect. If you have a telescope or good camera, you can bring the entire ship back into view after it had appeared to go below the horizon..
Groups have spotted lasers from 25+ miles away when they should not have been visible due to earth curvature.
You're still repeating that garbage "science"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ookTfBP5sUU
What are the sizes and shapes of sun and moon, and how do they move to produce the phases of the moon and the well known shadows during eclipses? A simple question. And again no answer.
Ladislaus is creeping through the thread like a snake.
.
Oh, I see. I asked because I'm aware of two models -- the one you describe, and another one called the "bipolar model" that has both a north and a south pole:
.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/c/c2/Altmap.png)
Laws of physics demand that the earth's atmosphere would disperese into space and would not remain on the planet.
Flight paths and emergency landings give credence to the Antarctic ring.
It's clear from your [Ladislaus] other posts that responding to you is a waste of time. You bring up all sorts of nonsense but do not link to anything specific that could be refuted. It's as if you're afraid your "arguments" would be shown to be the nonsense that they are.
Sun and Moon are round, but that is all that's known. Not necessarily spherical ... could be convex or concave.
No they do not. That you even suggest it demonstrates again that you are scientifically illiterate.
The velocity it takes for an object to escape into space is called, not surprisingly, escape velocity. If an object goes above escape velocity, it can escape into space.
I heard someone in a trad cath group say this and an article from R.I. says this. He said those who believe flat Earth in face of the facts are liars.
This is really interesting, have a link on it? I can see this since PBS is just a propaganda arm.
You think you "win" simply be calling it "garbage" and linking to one "debunking" video. I've seen most of the debunking videos debunked. There was one program on PBS that purported to prove earth's curvature using a helicopter, but it was exposed as fake footage when an identical flock of birds and identical wave and cloud patterns appeared, demonstrating that the helicopter was superimposed on the exact same background both when it was going down and when it was rising up.
False. I reject your gratuitous assertion.
Gravity, apart from being a myth, is not strong enough to prevent the vaccuum of space from effectively sucking the atmosphere off the planet.
That's how it is. Lad is a conman, with no idea what he's talking about..
You admit that you can't even explain the phases of the moon, which are known to every interested observer on earth.
Why don't you simply shut up, instead of calling Galilei and the Church fools? You're the fool. You're an arrogant fool knowing nothing but pretending to know it all better!
.
Hey man, what's your deal? Is everything okay over there? :(
They're ludicrous: "Galileo was wrong, the Church was wrong, Eric Dubai is right".
They don't explain phases of the moon or shadows during eclipses, and don't even care to propose a concrete model, to avoid being debunked as wackos.
Says you, a scientific illiterate, and you provide ZERO evidence.
And neither do you. You just spew insults.
And neither do you.
That's how it is. Lad is a conman, with no idea what he's talking about.
On the contrary, I explained that specific point [why the atmosphere doesn't go away] to you correctly.
Ladislaus flat-tard still evading like flat-tards do. And insulting Galilei and the Church. And the Holy Empire.
On the contrary, I explained that specific point [why the atmosphere doesn't go away] to you correctly. I can provide further explanation if you ask. But if you choose to reject reality, that's your problem, not mine.
To be fair, I don't think Lad is a conman. I think he's unable to see the errors in some of the people he follows. Some of them are conmen; I think Dubay falls in that category.
He is unable to see the errors because he doesn't appear to have any scientific training. That may not be his fault. He went to college for humanities, so he probably never studied any science beyond high school. And science education in the US is abysmal. But people who don't know a field should have at least some level of humility and defer to people who actually do know that field. That's one place where Lad could do better.
So unfortunately, Lad didn't see the errors in various "arguments" he heard about FE. And that being a while ago, he probably can't actually remember any of these "arguments" with any detail. Notice that the most detailed "argument" so far is a reference to an unspecified PBS show that allegedly "faked" some images. Even if everything Lad said about that were true, it would only mean some people made a bad argument - it wouldn't prove the earth is flat.
And so now he believes several false "arguments". If anyone were to refute an argument, he would just bring up another "argument", and another, and eventually circle back to the first one as if it had not been refuted.
You're clearly losing it. You clearly have some emotional attachment here above and beyond any scientific reasons.
and which no scientific writing I've ever seen used to explain why the atmosphere doesn't leave the earth. They use a combination of air pressure and gravity.
Please, show us your flat earth model, with sizes, shapes, and trajectories of sun and moon, resulting in the expected moon phases and eclipse shadows.
Or please, shut the Brandon up!
"Air pressure and gravity" would be equivalent, though arguably involving more difficult concepts.
Still, other than helium and hydrogen, most molecules in the atmosphere do not achieve escape velocity, and that is why they don't escape.
If you have any questions, ask.
Ridiculous. You just make stuff up. Where's your math? They don't need to achieve escape velocity. Air Pressure would push/force them out into the vacuum. "Force" of gravity is not strong enough to counteract the air pressure pushing out into the vacuum. Helium balloons effortlessly counteract the "force of gravity" as do butterflies.
There is no such thing as gravity...
What quibble are you making now? You experience gravity all the time.
We experience a phenomenon, but science has been all over the map attempting to explain it. Gravity per se has never been proven to exist. Latest attempt was Einstein's characterizaton of it as a bending in space-time. Tesla held it to be a combination of electromagnetism and the pressure of ether.
Airy's "Failure":
Please, show us your flat earth model, with sizes, shapes, and trajectories of sun and moon, resulting in the expected moon phases and eclipse shadows.I have no horse in this race, I could care less if the earth is flat or a globe, that said, you ask for detailed information above, but I have a simple question that will convince everyone without a doubt:
Please, show us your flat earth model, with sizes, shapes, and trajectories of sun and moon, resulting in the expected moon phases and eclipse shadows.Such models exist. For the third time now, they don't explain everything, but neither does the globe model.
The globe model does explain the well known moon phases and eclipse shadows.
I have no horse in this race, I could care less if the earth is flat or a globe, that said, you ask for detailed information above, but I have a simple question that will convince everyone without a doubt:
Show me a real picture of the round earth. The USA has supposedly gone to Mars, but they took no pictures of Earth? Thanks and God Bless.
No it doesn't. There are lots of phenomena regarding eclipses and the moon phases that do not make sense with the globe model. As I mentioned, the prevailing theory regarding eclipses is the one that ancient people held, that there's another body, in addition to the sun and the moon, that does not give light, but sometimes ends up between the sun and the moon or else in front of them. I've said this before.
There are lots of phenomena regarding eclipses and the moon phases that do not make sense with the globe model.
Show me a real picture of the round earth.
The fact that people get so angry over this subject made me look into it. And, well, there's some good questions raised.Well, it still doesn't prove that earth isn't a globe. It just raises doubts over whether or not those pictures are real. It's like photoshopping 8 pictures of the empire state building. When a person notices differences, it doesn't prove that the building doesn't exist, just the doubt of the pictures themselves being real or not.
Want space photos, well, here we have inconsistencies with supposedly "real" photos of the earth (note not just the colors, but the size of the continents vary too):
(https://assets.change.org/photos/3/lb/nt/ypLBNTQezJiKmBi-800x450-noPad.jpg?1527256386)
Well, it still doesn't prove that earth isn't a globe. It just raises doubts over whether or not those pictures are real. It's like photoshopping 8 pictures of the empire state building. When a person notices differences, it doesn't prove that the building doesn't exist, just the doubt of the pictures themselves being real or not.Of course it doesn't prove the shape of the earth, the point here is that even appeals to the supposed centers of scientific dogma cannot be trusted to be consistent or correct. I think there's some interesting proofs in favor of FE, but also a lot of valid problems as Stanley has been pointing out. I went through a phase of interest in FE and came away seriously not caring about the shape of the earth because my time should be spent on better things.
One thing I find hilarious about Cathinfo is the fact that subjects get derailed left and right. This is a thread asking if denial of a fact is a lie and we are now arguing about the shape of the earthI know, right? I'm surprised Matthew hasn't shut it down or moved it to the FE ghetto :laugh1:
That's a whole different topic which has nothing to do with flat-earth-tards. You're just sidetracking and obfuscating the real topic. Who cares what the USA supposedly did? Whether they took pictures, took no pictures, faked pictures or whatever. Whatever they did or didn't doesn't prove that the earth is flat.I take it that that means you have no pictures, moreover, I take it that you do not believe NASA went to the Moon or Mars. This is no sidetrack, you claim you've seen the Lochness Monster and I am asking you for photos, not theories about water temperatures and lifespans of dinosaurs.
I take it that that means you have no pictures, moreover, I take it that you do not believe NASA went to the Moon or Mars. This is no sidetrack, you claim you've seen the Lochness Monster and I am asking you for photos, not theories about water temperatures and lifespans of dinosaurs.Fun Fact: Saint Columba saw the Loch Ness monster. It's one of the first recorded sightings of the creature
I take it that that means you have no pictures, moreover, I take it that you do not believe NASA went to the Moon or Mars. This is no sidetrack, you claim you've seen the Lochness Monster and I am asking you for photos, not theories about water temperatures and lifespans of dinosaurs.
Globe-earthers can predict eclipses, and have done so for thousands of years, while lunatic flat-earthers can't. And you obviously don't even have a clue why that is how it is.You'll earn a lot of friends with your attitude.
Fernão de Magalhães, by sailing around the globe earth, proved that globe earth navigaton techniques work very well. Including the fact that he counted one sunrise less than folks at home.
Globe-earthers can predict eclipses, and have done so for thousands of years, while lunatic flat-earthers can't. And you obviously don't even have a clue why that is how it is.This is false. It's too bad globe believers fall for the most elementary falsehoods and repeat them over and over. Mankind in general, has been able to determine the cycles of eclipses for thousands of years, to include the majority of civilizations that were flat earthers.
You'll earn a lot of friends with your attitude.
Listen, I told you clearly, and I'll repeat it again, I don't give a hoot if the Earth is a globe or flat.
You didn't answer my question, so that's the end of that.
[The question: I take it that that means you have no pictures, moreover,]
Circuмnavigation is as easily accomplished on a flat plane as it is on a globe. And he would have counted fewer sunrises because of the directon of the sun's rotation over the earth.
Marion is more worked up about this issue than if I had blasphemed or been promoting heresy.
Gravity per se has never been proven to exist.
Marion is more worked up about this issue than if I had blasphemed or been promoting heresy. Why should you care so much?
How does the sun move in your model? Which trajectory? How many fewer sunrises?
As far as predicting eclipses, that was being done a long time before anyone had any conception regarding the size of the world or distance from the sun (which has been revised multiple times from about 2 million all the way up to 93 million miles) ... simply because eclipses appear with regularity. You simply have to plot them in a table and you can easily calculate future eclipses to within minutes. Ancient cultures predicted them.The question is does your FE model predict eclipses using the model?
A journey to Tristan da Cunha is always by ship. The 2810 km or 1750 mile journey from Cape Town harbour will normally take six days.https://www.tristandc.com/shipping.php
RV Lancehttps://www.tristandc.com/shipping/news-2021-06-12-lance.php
Cruising Speed: 12 Knots
Maximum Speed: 14 Knots
Marion is more worked up about this issue than if I had blasphemed or been promoting heresy. Why should you care so much?
What makes people so interested in defeating the FE position if it's so easy to destroy? What can we make of this?
What's FE?
I fight against it for the reason given in my previous post. Flat-earthism is a variant of postmodernism. Vitriolic, alchemical, destroying common sense and thereby the basis of the Faith.
What makes people so interested in defeating the FE position if it's so easy to destroy? What can we make of this?
There's more to your vitriol and animosity than just that.
In fact, if you study the history of science, from the rejection of geocentrism to evolution, the Big Bang, etc. ... it was entirely driven by an atheistic agenda. So I think it's exactly the opposite of what you say.
Very few subjects are censored by Big Tech more than Flat Earth. There's definitely something to it that the establishment fear and despite. It's easier to find 9/11 Inside Job videos that it is Flat Earth. Several FE proponents have had their Youtube channels deleted ... multiple times. When you search for Flat Earth proofs, etc. on Google, you get nothing but debunking sites. You have to go to an offbeat search engine like Yandex to find anything. Among other things, FE prove that NASA is nothing but a massive fraud, with hours of video proving that things like astronauts floating on ISS are fake, that spacewalks are fake, etc.
But who knows, perhaps Big Tech is now on the side of the anti-postmodernism, a partisan of truth and goodness ... just this one time.
[color=var(--sub-header)]6. Ride a plane[/color]If you’ve ever taken a trip out of the country, specifically long-distance trips, you could notice two interesting facts about planes and the Earth:
- Planes can travel in a relatively straight line for a very long time and not fall off any edges. They can also circle the Earth [color=var(--link-color)]without stopping (http://www.didyouknow.cd/aroundtheworld/flight.htm/)[/iurl].[/size][/font][/size][/color]
- If you look out the window on a trans-Atlantic flight, you can, most of the times, see the curvature of the Earth on the horizon. The best view of the curvature used to be on the [color=var(--link-color)]Concorde (https://www.intrepidmuseum.org/The-Intrepid-Experience/Exhibits/Concorde/)[/iurl], but that plane’s long gone. I can’t wait to see the pictures from the new plane by Virgin Galactic—the horizon should look absolutely curved, as it actually is from a distance.[/size][/font][/size][/color]
But, now that you bring up planes. Going at the speed the travel, they would constantly have to correct for the curvature ever few minutes to avoid inadvertently increasing altitude as the surface falls beneath them. They have to do nothing of the sort. All the pilot training manuals clearly state that the principles therein are predicated upon a "flat nonrotating earth". I've seen interviews from professional airlines pilots and even a former F-16 pilot who have confirmed that the earth is flat. That F-16 pilot explained the various targeting systems in the plane and described how they could not work if there were any curvature of the globe.Great point and makes sense.
Here are 10 Irrefutable Proofs the the Earth is not Flat,:facepalm: Xavier attempts no critical thinking but posts a link to an establishment website. :jester:
Now you come up with flat earthism, claiming that Gallilei was wrong and the Church was wrong.:confused: A flat earth, globe atmosphere model actually supports the Church's original view and matches with Scripture. It destroys the Copernican lie of satanic sun-worship. I don't understand your comment.
Um, I've actually seen this numerous times with my own eyes. You can stand on the shore of any large body of water with large ships on it and see it for yourself. As they are sailing away, the water moves up from the bottom of the ship to the top blocking it from view.Yeti, just because you can see something doesn't mean it's not an optical illusion. Our eyes were designed primary to see colors and shapes; they are horrible judges of perception, depth, and distance. What you describe is just your eyes reaching the limit of depth perception and not being able to relay a coherent picture back to your brain.
Yeti, just because you can see something doesn't mean it's not an optical illusion. Our eyes were designed primary to see colors and shapes; they are horrible judges of perception, depth, and distance. What you describe is just your eyes reaching the limit of depth perception and not being able to relay a coherent picture back to your brain.
There are dozens of videos out there showing that a boat appears to disappear, but then using a zoom camera like the Nikon P900 / P1000 you just zoom in a bit and it returns to ful view. That camera is one of the biggest reasons for the resurgence of Flat Earth. There was a movement in the late 19th century as well ... many books written on the subject.Can we just send a camera attached to a parachute + hot air balloon and just see the shape of the earth like that.
There are so many videos demonstarting that we can "see too far" ... but one could argue they were faked ... except there are photographs taken by disinterested third parties who aren't Flat Earthers per se, such as this one.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=554945265254988
One of these days, I'll go out and try it myself.
Really the only comeback is a magical "refraction" which bends light exactly around the curvature of the earth, but I've seen books and papers that did the refraction math and ruled it out. I also saw a 20+ mile laser experiment, where they calculated the temperature/humidity differences all along the route of the laser and did the math, again ruling it out.
I was skeptical at first myself, but the more I dug and the more I dug, the more that the start realization hit me about how much we've been lied to, about everything.
Can we just send a camera attached to a parachute + hot air balloon and just see the shape of the earth like that.
In fact, if you study the history of science, from the rejection of geocentrism to evolution, the Big Bang, etc. ... it was entirely driven by an atheistic agenda. So I think it's exactly the opposite of what you say.
So it's good to entertain a decent leeriness against modern science. But why against St. Thomas or Aristotle? (Or Walter van der Kamp?)
It's a simple fact that there are dozens upon dozens of experiments out there ....
Going at the speed the travel, they would constantly have to correct for the curvature ever few minutes to avoid inadvertently increasing altitude as the surface falls beneath them.
There are so many videos demonstarting that we can "see too far" ... but one could argue they were faked ... except there are photographs taken by disinterested third parties who aren't Flat Earthers per se, such as this one.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=554945265254988
I was skeptical at first myself, but the more I dug and the more I dug, the more that the start realization hit me about how much we've been lied to, about everything.
In the globe earth model, earth is just another planet among many, even though it is obvious that it is special in that it can support life.
It is far more obvious, with the FE model, that God created the Earth for humans, and that He did so with great care and love for us.
It is your assertion that "they would constantly have to correct for the curvature..." No, that's not how flight works.Oh, are you an aeronautical engineer? If so, then you could certainly explain the centuries-old, technology-challenged engineering of railroads. Can you please explain to us why railroads aren't build using the curvature of the earth, as was quoted by that engineer? This should be easy to explain from someone of your caliber.
engineering of railroads. Can you please explain to us why railroads aren't build using the curvature of the earth, as was quoted by that engineer?The "curvature of the earth" is not a grade up or down. It's the same "level" if it's at the same distance from the (gravitational) center of the earth.
The "curvature of the earth" is not a grade up or down. It's the same "level" if it's at the same distance from the (gravitational) center of the earth.Stanley, your explanation does not address the engineer's concern. Read again, below.
We choose a model because of evidence, right? Because it corresponds to reality?
Not because we may think it would be convenient for apologetics.
All navigators, pilots, snipers and civil engineers and use a flat earth model as a basis
for what they do.
The Panama Canal would be a mile underwater if they calculated in the curvature of the earth. (8 " per mile squared)
Snipers do not calculate in the Coriolis effect either
Stanley, your explanation does not address the engineer's concern. Read again, below.Actually it does.
If the prescribed curvature was indeed as represented, the central stations at Rugby or Warwick ought to be close upon three miles higher than a chord drawn from the two extremities. If such was the case there is not a driver or stoker within the Kingdom that would be found to take charge of the train.
Snipers do not calculate in the Coriolis effect either
Actually it does.Gravitational level? Do you guys just make this stuff up? This premise is an insult to rational thinking because a train travelling for extended distances (on the actual level) would, given a ball earth, be "grade down" in the middle as the track cuts through the ball and therefore, the train would not operate without extreme input of power going one way, but also it would need to brake half to compensate going the other. This problem would only not apply, if the train is going perfectly around the exact "gravitational level" at all times. Since gravity has never been, nor can it be, measured, there's absolutely no way to build a track that is "gravitationally level" through various terrains. In the real world, the way we actually experience it, after the train gets going on a level track, it takes minimal energy to keep it going over the track and force is only needed to get the train started or stopped.
The first sentence is true. A chord (line) drawn between two points on a circle will be inside the circle.
However, the second sentence does not follow.
The force of gravity increases with decreasing distance from the center of gravity. Gravity is lower at higher altitudes and higher at lower altitudes.
But every point on a circle is the same distance from the center of the circle. If the earth were exactly a sphere, then every point on earth would be the same distance from the center of the earth and experience the same magnitude of gravity though the direction would be toward the center of the earth.
Thus the engineer's concern is mistaken. All points at the same distance from the center of the earth are at the same gravitational "level". There is no grade up or down.
However, if you did have a straight line tunnel (a chord) running between two distant cities, points in that tunnel would be closer to the center. Travelling that tunnel would involve a grade down to the midpoint, and then a grade up, as far as gravity is concerned.
Gravitational level? Do you guys just make this stuff up? This premise is an insult to rational thinking because a train travelling for extended distances (on the actual level) would, given a ball earth, be "grade down" in the middle as the track cuts through the ball and therefore, the train would not operate without extreme input of power going one way, but also it would need to brake half to compensate going the other. This problem would only not apply, if the train is going perfectly around the exact "gravitational level" at all times. Since gravity has never been, nor can it be, measured, there's absolutely no way to build a track that is "gravitationally level" through various terrains. In the real world, the way we actually experience it, after the train gets going on a level track, it takes minimal energy to keep it going over the track and force is only needed to get the train started or stopped.Your statements don't make sense. The track is not flat, it follow the curvature of the ball. The train thusly also follows the curvature. And yes, if it were in a zero-gravity environment, with no atmospheric pressure, you probably wouldn't need any energy keeping the train in motion. But here on Earth, there's friction due to the downwards force (gravity), air resistance and all the moving parts that consume energy, so to keep the train in motion you need energy.
You can precisely calculate and measure this force that attracts every mass to every other mass in the universe.
Gravity can't be measured? What do you mean? You can precisely calculate and measure this force that attracts every mass to every other mass in the universe.
Your statements don't make sense. The track is not flat, it follow the curvature of the ball. The train thusly also follows the curvature. And yes, if it were in a zero-gravity environment, with no atmospheric pressure, you probably wouldn't need any energy keeping the train in motion. But here on Earth, there's friction due to the downwards force (gravity), air resistance and all the moving parts that consume energy, so to keep the train in motion you need energy.Train track is flat according to ball earthers, yet they also think it bends to follow the curvature of the earth somehow. Either it's level or it bends, ball earthers want it both ways. They can't have it both ways. My explanation is exactly as I meant it to be and if read as it is stated, without prejudice, makes perfect sense as an answer to someone. Atmospheric pressure has no bearing here. We're talking about level and curve which ball earth people somehow equalize. If a train track is truly level, as in straight and flat and without bend, it cannot extend for hundreds of miles on a ball without exceeding the "gravitational level" pretense, nor would said track stay on the ground but wind up miles above ground because the track is straight but earth is curved. But that never happens because earth is not curved. I said it every way possible before, this is just another way of stating facts. Gravity cannot be measured, even according to authorities. They have theories according to "planetary" objects, but even then, it isn't consistent because certain bodies defy "gravity" and there's no explanation for why. In other words, "gravity" is a seriously flawed theory. I'm not saying things don't fall at a certain rate, they do. But that is totally different than the said gravity that attracts celestial objects together. Even then, with all the lies coming out of the scientific community, we really don't know how that works, or if it even exists.
Gravity can't be measured? What do you mean? You can precisely calculate and measure this force that attracts every mass to every other mass in the universe.
Isn't is another unproven fallacy that gravity comes from the center of the earth? Round earth depends on this foundation.I always was told the spin provided "gravity", so who knows with these ridiculous scientists always spouting contradictory things and floating them as fact. The whole Rona, mask and jab debacle is clear evidence this kind of bait and switch nonsense is practically a given.
the globe model is the tool of the Atheistic Elites..
In addition to her work with the Universal Zetetic Society, she was also poet, songwriter and wrote pamphlets on a wide variety of subjects. Blount was a progressive thinker and humanitarian. She was a vegetarian and – like Marjory Johnson – an anti-vivisectionist, often using the Earth Not A Globe Review to “cover these subjects in flowing prose and verse, alongside references to her work as president of the Society for the Protection of the Dark Races”..
(which is what Tesla held).
How does that fact work on your fantasy flat earth with the semispherical dome? What's the trajectory of the moon on your fantasy flat earth, and how does it correspond to observation?
.
You have this backwards. The globe model has been accepted as a simple fact by the entire weight of western civilization for 2500 years.
.
Well, here on earth you can quite precisely calculate and measure gravity.
Nobody knows.
It's not a spherical rock as scientists claim.
Isn't is another unproven fallacy that gravity comes from the center of the earth? Round earth depends on this foundation.
Nobody knows. My opinion is that the moon is in or above the firmament and is in fact not a sphere but, rather, is concave, or at least it appears concave when shining on the firmament, which in general would be concave from our perspective.Prof. Foster in 1965 speculated that the moon was a plasma, and not rock, as mainstream science claims.
Simple fact is that stars can be seen THROUGH the moon, and it appears translucent. It's not a spherical rock as scientists claim.
You're a flat brain fool, Ladislaus, who doesn't know what he's talking about! Wake up!"But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
:jester: :jester: :jester:
But you know that the earth is flat. :fryingpan:
And after Walter van der Kamp you dishonestly (or ignorantly and foolishly?) misuse Nicola Tesla as a witness for your flat heap of dung.
Which ones? Nicola Tesla? Walter van der Kamp?
SOMEthing can be measured, but even scientists admit that they have no idea WHAT is that they're measuring. Nobody knows what it is. It used to be a "force" but that's now rejected. Latest is Einstein's claim that it's just a bending of time-space.
The sheer vitriol lobbed at anyone who suggests other than the mainstream narrative on the shape of the earth is mind-boggling to me.
Yes, I know that the earth is flat. There's plenty of evidence for it. Simply because I don't have millions of dollars to go send something up to the moon to investigate its true nature does not mean that there's nothing I can know.
Yes, I know that the earth is flat. There's plenty of evidence for it.
Simple fact is that stars can be seen THROUGH the moon, and it appears translucent.
Except that nobody's ever measured any force of gravity between two non-planetary objects. It was invented precisely to back the heliocentric theory. What we experience here on earth is most likey due to the fact that the earth is negatively charged and/or the pressure of ether (which is what Tesla held).
Either it's level or it bends, ball earthers want it both ways. They can't have it both ways.
:jester: :jester: :jester:.
But you know that the earth is flat. :fryingpan:
And after Walter van der Kamp you dishonestly (or ignorantly and foolishly?) misuse Nicola Tesla as a witness for your flat heap of dung.
:laugh1:
Using simple binoculars, people observe that the moon shows always the same face to anyone, wherever he may be on earth.
Prove it. This sounds like nonsense.
And the only answer consistent with all experiments is that there is no luminiferous ether. [That doesn't rule out certain other types of "ether" that don't interact with light.)
Enjoy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy1Sz6jEz0s
To claim a wave without a medium is pure nonsense.
:jester::jester::jester:
:fryingpan::fryingpan::fryingpan:
What do you say LastTradhican? Here's an image. Is the moon flat, a sphere, a hollow sphere, full of holes to see stars through, ... ? :popcorn:
Enjoy!
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=404885936925227
Pay attention beginning at 2:00 into the video.
Yeah, the face of the moon is the same precisely because it's NOT A ROTATING SPHERE. It's utterly ridiculous that the moon's rotation is perfectly sychronized ...
Enjoy!
And, BTW, it's been proven false that the speed of light doesn't change ... as assumed by Einstein et al.
Correct. And light is a wave. It's precisely the reason scientists believed in the ether. But then Michelson-Morley demonstrated that the earth doesn't move, so they had to get rid of the concept ASAP. Thus the mythical unproven Lorentz contraction.
And, BTW, it's been proven false that the speed of light doesn't change ... as assumed by Einstein et al.
Yes, I'm glad you bring it up. It's amazing that people can use "simple binoculars" to see 85-km wide features on a moon that's allegedly 263,000 miles away.Yep, makes no sense.
Find something on Google Earth that's about 50-miles in diameter. Now move the camera back out. By the time you get to about 10,000 up, it becomes a tiny dot that you can't make out anymore. Now take the distance out to 263,000 miles. (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/laugh1.gif) And it can be seen with a "pair of binioculars".But, but, but, that would require "thinking"...:confused: My science book told me...:jester:
Even if you don't believe that the earth is flat, just do a simple thought experiment. Just imagine that it IS flat, that you just discovered that the earth is flat and covered by a firmament ... and that everything you thought you knew was a lie. It's a bit painful to think about.What's ironic is that those who claim to defend "science" have an emotional connection to any theory. The entire purpose of science is to follow the facts, wherever they lead. The true scientific mindset is that every theory is wrong, until proven; that every idea is possible.
The entire purpose of science is to follow the facts, wherever they lead.That's misleading. Every endeavor follows the facts, but not every endeavor is scientific, because what makes something scientific is its use of the scientific method, the crucial element being the scientific experiment.
“I should know better than to say anything” … J … But, here goes, keeping it simple.There is no "edge" per se, as if one could fall off into oblivion. Rather, without the ability to study it with the resources NASA has, there is evidence that the dome of the sky (which Scripture calls the firmament) meets up with extremities of the earth in mountainous areas. Some say an ice shelf surrounds the entire earth but since the Antarctic Treaty in the late 50's early 60's, governments are united against any of us setting foot anywhere in the outer regions to investigate. However, it seems that some people may have seen where the earth and sky/dome come together prior to the treaty. Here is a reference in a 1958 encyclopedia that describes it in the southern regions.
If the earth were flat it would have an edge. Let’s consider the great seafaring explorers, beginning with Leif Erikson (970-1020), followed by Christopher Columbus (1451-1506), Vasco da Gama (1460-1524), Ferdinand Magellan (1480-1521), and Juan Sebastian Elcano (1486-1526), to name just a very few of the most notable. It seems surprising that NONE of them would have discovered this “edge”, considering how much of the planet they traveled across.
Juan Sebastian Elcano is recognized at the first person to circuмnavigate the earth, and was recognized as such by the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (1500-1558). I’m not sure how one would circuмnavigate the earth if it wasn’t a globe.
The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Regions of the world experience rotational climatic seasons and changing length of daylight, depending on the time of year and their location relative to the equator (or the north or south poles). It seems to me that these observations are logically understood from a globe earth model, the theories being consistent and generally accepted based on the preponderance of observable data. I don’t find this with the “flat earth” model, or “models”, as there seem to be several. Does the sun set in the west and then travel under the earth to rise again in the east on another day … which can’t be true as some part of the earth is always illuminated by the sun at any given time …? Does the sun “somehow” slide “in and out” of its distance from earth, causing the observable changes in day length and the seasons? What “mythical power” causes this? And, the speculations never seem consistent with observable changes in the seasons across the world.
There have been satellites in earth orbit since 1957 (Sputnic 1, USSR) and 1958 (Explorer 1, USA). Today there are many satellites, several launched and maintained by independent private companies, so I don’t think the “deep state conspiracy theories” apply here. If it were physically and honestly possible for one of these independent entities to produce satellite pictures of a “flat earth” they would have done so by now, becoming more “rich and famous” than they already are. None of them have.
But, let us go back before satellites. If the earth is “flat” it has an edge. Why has this “edge” not been discovered? Why has no one traveled to the edge to describe it, produce drawings, take pictures even? Why isn’t Elon Musk now offering tours there? Inquiring minds wish to know.
No edge because we have a treaty that eliminates the possibility of getting there. Antarctica ice wall is the inside edge, but no one is allowed to go past it per international treaty. Antarctica surrounds the flat earth like a piecrust. The piecrust" however may extend into large land masses as Admiral Bird described....There is so much we are not "allowed" to know.
Speaking of light and ether, we have actual stars as they are, not worlds as NASA pretends, but rather, lights. Maybe Scripture got it right after all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8p5Dk-Aof4&t=130s
Good video. Stars do appear to emit their own light.
If the earth is “flat” it has an edge. Why has this “edge” not been discovered? Why has no one traveled to the edge to describe it, produce drawings, take pictures even?As others have said, the key is Antarctica. Why do world leaders secretly visit there? What's to see? Why are there multi military bases there? What is being explored? What is being kept secret?
As others have said, the key is Antarctica. Why do world leaders secretly visit there? What's to see? Why are there multi military bases there? What is being explored? What is being kept secret?Yea, didn't Francis visit Antarctica recently? Of all people. Definitely makes you go hmm.
A few things i've run across that *might* be true (I have no way to prove):
1. The Book of Enoch (was considered part of Old Testament in Christ's day but post Jerusalem destruction in 70AD, it's texts were lost, so it was left out of canon).
a. Enoch describes a place geographically similar to Antarctica where the "fallen angels" of Noah's days were chained in the center of the earth. These are not devils but the "evil spirits" who roam the earth, when God allows.
b. The point is, I believe that part of Christ's allowance for the devil's "100 years of power" in Pope Leo's vision was to allow these "fallen angels" to communicate with men directly, so to advise them on how to build satan's kingdom (if God so allows it).
c. Such communication happened in the day's of Noah, which led to the Nephalim, and also post-Flood, when the "Giants" roamed the earth and which led to the construction of the Tower of Babel (one of the first attempts at building satan's kingdom on earth).
2. Antarctica is very mysterious and off-limits. Why?
a. Antarctica is supposedly very mineral-rich and might not be as cold as we are led to believe. Some scientists say that there are tropical like conditions in the lower regions of the ice, with warm waters, which is one reason why the "polar ice caps" melt on a normal, routine basis.
b. There are military bases in Antarctica (that we know of) - what else was built there that we don't know about? Imagine what could've been built there in the last 70 years, with a combination of money, effort and planning between every major nation on earth? The possibilities are staggering.
c. I think this is where the elites keep all the super-high-technology that they've been working on. I think "Area 51" was invented (with the alien story) to make people focus on this area, while forgetting all the vast regions of Antarctica, and why the elite global leaders travel there multiple times a year (probably to communicate with devils).
d. Antarctica being off-limits also hides the flat earth, which if people found out, would make the entire scientific house-of-cards-community of the past 150 years (going back to evolution) to implode. People would immediately realize that almost everything they've ever been taught is a lie and society would return to truths which were commonly accepted back in the 1700s, before technology replaced common sense.
As others have said, the key is Antarctica. Why do world leaders secretly visit there? What's to see? Why are there multi military bases there? What is being explored? What is being kept secret?
A few things i've run across that *might* be true (I have no way to prove):
1. The Book of Enoch (was considered part of Old Testament in Christ's day but post Jerusalem destruction in 70AD, it's texts were lost, so it was left out of canon).
a. Enoch describes a place geographically similar to Antarctica where the "fallen angels" of Noah's days were chained in the center of the earth. These are not devils but the "evil spirits" who roam the earth, when God allows.
b. The point is, I believe that part of Christ's allowance for the devil's "100 years of power" in Pope Leo's vision was to allow these "fallen angels" to communicate with men directly, so to advise them on how to build satan's kingdom (if God so allows it).
c. Such communication happened in the day's of Noah, which led to the Nephalim, and also post-Flood, when the "Giants" roamed the earth and which led to the construction of the Tower of Babel (one of the first attempts at building satan's kingdom on earth).
2. Antarctica is very mysterious and off-limits. Why?
a. Antarctica is supposedly very mineral-rich and might not be as cold as we are led to believe. Some scientists say that there are tropical like conditions in the lower regions of the ice, with warm waters, which is one reason why the "polar ice caps" melt on a normal, routine basis.
b. There are military bases in Antarctica (that we know of) - what else was built there that we don't know about? Imagine what could've been built there in the last 70 years, with a combination of money, effort and planning between every major nation on earth? The possibilities are staggering.
c. I think this is where the elites keep all the super-high-technology that they've been working on. I think "Area 51" was invented (with the alien story) to make people focus on this area, while forgetting all the vast regions of Antarctica, and why the elite global leaders travel there multiple times a year (probably to communicate with devils).
d. Antarctica being off-limits also hides the flat earth, which if people found out, would make the entire scientific house-of-cards-community of the past 150 years (going back to evolution) to implode. People would immediately realize that almost everything they've ever been taught is a lie and society would return to truths which were commonly accepted back in the 1700s, before technology replaced common sense.
As others have said, the key is Antarctica. Why do world leaders secretly visit there? What's to see? Why are there multi military bases there? What is being explored? What is being kept secret?
A few things i've run across that *might* be true (I have no way to prove):
People were definitely fighting against the globe indoctrination in the 19th century. This is free to read online, laid out in convenient chapters where you can find experiments, authoritative commentary from experts of the day, and an extensive amount of information on the subject to include the math of a ball earth compared to what we actually experience. Covers the stars, sun and moon and the "edge" and most questions a globe believer may ask.Indoctrination? I thought people have believed in a globe for hundreds of years.
Train track is flat according to ball earthers, yet they also think it bends to follow the curvature of the earth somehow. Either it's level or it bends, ball earthers want it both ways. They can't have it both ways. My explanation is exactly as I meant it to be and if read as it is stated, without prejudice, makes perfect sense as an answer to someone. Atmospheric pressure has no bearing here. We're talking about level and curve which ball earth people somehow equalize. If a train track is truly level, as in straight and flat and without bend, it cannot extend for hundreds of miles on a ball without exceeding the "gravitational level" pretense, nor would said track stay on the ground but wind up miles above ground because the track is straight but earth is curved. But that never happens because earth is not curved. I said it every way possible before, this is just another way of stating facts. Gravity cannot be measured, even according to authorities. They have theories according to "planetary" objects, but even then, it isn't consistent because certain bodies defy "gravity" and there's no explanation for why. In other words, "gravity" is a seriously flawed theory. I'm not saying things don't fall at a certain rate, they do. But that is totally different than the said gravity that attracts celestial objects together. Even then, with all the lies coming out of the scientific community, we really don't know how that works, or if it even exists.If you are on a sufficiently large ball, you won't notice the difference between "ortographically flat" and "sticking to the curvature". The train tracks are sticking to the curvature. How would you expect to see this with your measly 2m vantage point above the balls surface? You can't.
Indoctrination? I thought people have believed in a globe for hundreds of years.Globe indoctrination has been around since the beginning of time. Pagan philosophies and sciences have always been at odds with early civilizations and later, the Church. Most ancients believed earth to be like a terrarium, mountains, hills and valleys over a flat terrain with celestial sun moon and stars in the firmament, and the heliocentric model didn't quite take serious foothold until the 16th and 17th centuries. Still, in the 15th century Columbus suffered major persecution for suggesting earth was not a globe. The powers that be are still after him, tearing down statues and defaming him. Of course, the elite prior to these times were always serving up their versions of globe earth, but the pressure began to ramp up when Galileo came up against Robert Bellarmine and the Pope. The biggest and most effective indoctrination started in the 20th century with mass production of the classroom globes and television when NASA supposedly sent a man to the moon and showed for the first time, pictures and video of a globe earth from space, seemingly proving their case. A closer look reveals that all of their "photos" are cgi renderings and NASA admitted all of the "photos" are photoshopped.
Globe indoctrination has been around since the beginning of time. Pagan philosophies and sciences have always been at odds with early civilizations and later, the Church. Most ancients believed earth to be like a terrarium, mountains, hills and valleys over a flat terrain with celestial sun moon and stars in the firmament, and the heliocentric model didn't quite take serious foothold until the 16th and 17th centuries. Still, in the 15th century Columbus suffered major persecution for suggesting earth was not a globe. The powers that be are still after him, tearing down statues and defaming him. Of course, the elite prior to these times were always serving up their versions of globe earth, but the pressure began to ramp up when Galileo came up against Robert Bellarmine and the Pope. The biggest and most effective indoctrination started in the 20th century with mass production of the classroom globes and television when NASA supposedly sent a man to the moon and showed for the first time, pictures and video of a globe earth from space, seemingly proving their case. A closer look reveals that all of their "photos" are cgi renderings and NASA admitted all of the "photos" are photoshopped.Columbus believed the earth was round. His entire trip was to go around the world and go to India from behind. The Heliocentric model doesn't prove that the earth is round or flat. NASA's CGI doesn't prove either way either, it just means the photos are faked.
If you are on a sufficiently large ball, you won't notice the difference between "ortographically flat" and "sticking to the curvature". The train tracks are sticking to the curvature. How would you expect to see this with your measly 2m vantage point above the balls surface? You can't.
Also, you're talking like we'd be laying a straight steel beam with hundreds of miles in length to the Earth's surface, but this isn't the case. If it was, that'd be a fun experiment to show how it would behave like a see-saw above Earth's surface :laugh1:
But we can't produce beams with that much structural integrity (yet?).
Well, they lay straight track for literally thousands of miles, piece by piece, and never account for the curve, which after only 100 miles is over a mile of curvature that must be accounted for. The USA takes up a decent chunk of globe yet all individual pieces of track are level except when accounting for elevation changes. Many civil engineers have testified to this over the centuries.
Columbus believed the earth was round. His entire trip was to go around the world and go to India from behind. The Heliocentric model doesn't prove that the earth is round or flat. NASA's CGI doesn't prove either way either, it just means the photos are faked.Columbus was an expert plane sailor and knew the earth was flat because his sextant could not operate on a globe because it's an instrument that employs straight lines and angles exclusively.
Columbus was an expert plane sailor and knew the earth was flat because his sextant could not operate on a globe because it's an instrument that employs straight lines and angles exclusively.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sextant
I’ve never heard this before, do you have a reference to support this?
Thus the possibility of antipodes in the southern hemisphere … became a stumbling block with some of the sages of Salamanca.
https://dhayton.haverford.edu/blog/2014/12/02/washington-irvings-columbus-and-the-flat-earth/“The idea of the roundness of the earth,” he adds, “was the cause of inventing this fable of the antipodes with their heels in the air….”
Well, they lay straight track for literally thousands of miles, piece by piece, and never account for the curve, which after only 100 miles is over a mile of curvature that must be accounted for. The USA takes up a decent chunk of globe yet all individual pieces of track are level except when accounting for elevation changes. Many civil engineers have testified to this over the centuries.They don't lay straight track. They lay straight track elements which precisely follow the shape of the ground they're laid on. Simplified, this is what a train track on a curved ball looks like, viewed from a profile:
They don't lay straight track. They lay straight track elements which precisely follow the shape of the ground they're laid on. Simplified, this is what a train track on a curved ball looks like, viewed from a profile:
(https://i.imgur.com/ozenswG.png)
It's not flat at all. You also don't need to account for this, the curvature is so subtle that you don't need to.
However, it seems that some people may have seen where the earth and sky/dome come together prior to the treaty. Here is a reference in a 1958 encyclopedia that describes it in the southern regions.
(https://i.imgur.com/A7gxEpU.jpg)
No, that "dome" is an ice dome, a hill in a glacier.
The 1958 encyclopedia says the "dome" in question is 13,000 ft high and located at about 80o S, 90o E.What is an ice dome then? 13,000 feet at the point of contact of the firmament with the mountain reflects what we know about flat earth. How does that jive with the ball earth?
That's probably dome B, an ice dome.
Dome B is 3809m (=12,500 ft) high and located at 79o S, 93.6o E.
Looks like a curved track leading round the equator on a flat earth. ::)They do lay straight track. It is always level and is never curved downward whatsoever. Have you ever seen rail road track?
What leads you to think the "dome" mentioned there is a sky "dome" over a flat earth? And that this would be stated in a 1958 encyclopedia?The graphics provided do not show a dome structure. Sorry, not buying.
No, that "dome" is an ice dome, a hill in a glacier.
Here's a map showing Domes A, C and F. There are many more ice domes in Antarctica.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-Map-of-Antarctica-with-locations-of-Dome-A-Dome-C-Dome-F-and-Vostok-B-surface_fig3_263441612
As others have said, the key is Antarctica. Why do world leaders secretly visit there? What's to see? Why are there multi military bases there? What is being explored? What is being kept secret?
A few things i've run across that *might* be true (I have no way to prove):
1. The Book of Enoch (was considered part of Old Testament in Christ's day but post Jerusalem destruction in 70AD, it's texts were lost, so it was left out of canon).
a. Enoch describes a place geographically similar to Antarctica where the "fallen angels" of Noah's days were chained in the center of the earth. These are not devils but the "evil spirits" who roam the earth, when God allows.
b. The point is, I believe that part of Christ's allowance for the devil's "100 years of power" in Pope Leo's vision was to allow these "fallen angels" to communicate with men directly, so to advise them on how to build satan's kingdom (if God so allows it).
c. Such communication happened in the day's of Noah, which led to the Nephalim, and also post-Flood, when the "Giants" roamed the earth and which led to the construction of the Tower of Babel (one of the first attempts at building satan's kingdom on earth).
2. Antarctica is very mysterious and off-limits. Why?
a. Antarctica is supposedly very mineral-rich and might not be as cold as we are led to believe. Some scientists say that there are tropical like conditions in the lower regions of the ice, with warm waters, which is one reason why the "polar ice caps" melt on a normal, routine basis.
b. There are military bases in Antarctica (that we know of) - what else was built there that we don't know about? Imagine what could've been built there in the last 70 years, with a combination of money, effort and planning between every major nation on earth? The possibilities are staggering.
c. I think this is where the elites keep all the super-high-technology that they've been working on. I think "Area 51" was invented (with the alien story) to make people focus on this area, while forgetting all the vast regions of Antarctica, and why the elite global leaders travel there multiple times a year (probably to communicate with devils).
d. Antarctica being off-limits also hides the flat earth, which if people found out, would make the entire scientific house-of-cards-community of the past 150 years (going back to evolution) to implode. People would immediately realize that almost everything they've ever been taught is a lie and society would return to truths which were commonly accepted back in the 1700s, before technology replaced common sense.
1) This is a bit fantastical, I know, but hear me out. Going off the "tropics under the ice" idea, perhaps there could be some creatures living down there that the elites don't want people to have access to, mainly thinking here supposedly long extinct animals like dinosaurs. If there is some method of lighting down there, which perhaps some kind of crystals or plant may provide, it would create the conditions necessary (alongside the water and heat) for lush jungles to exist, which would be an environment suitable for the continued existence of those creatures.It would prove evolution to be false if there were prehistoric creatures around. I beleive there are some in the amazon jungles somewhere.
It would prove evolution to be false if there were prehistoric creatures around. I beleive there are some in the amazon jungles somewhere.(http://м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α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αyHBG/wDXzoiHoXWDGsMkU0SNIzu0tlO2FCj1MFbJx7DH7edTfruFUV3ZaOAdjZY9Tz/xHf2f6ok/UIoTBHys5+JHpymH9PbGdoyOMtnAGfOuw3O5XZ6Yy+xzghyNpPHyGuM6Y1OtYSr02NhHDfSv1G1KqmeyYAGYDJysYJPzPH156O1bQqNxKxmRHWJf7ydSVi5+S8868fiHXNlKotL4dfU+A9+UZjDIgLGz7+pg3WLzxLDVqqhjsKWmfbkBYnwwyRtxwTn3xxpTFuZBsyY43q7jgα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м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)(https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th/id/OIP.R2Pc4wWl0O6drBk4XAYRVAHaDW?w=306&h=158&c=7&r=0&o=5&dpr=1.25&pid=1.7)(https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th/id/OIP.WVN2tjgJJsvb841XtwVVuQHaE8?w=236&h=180&c=7&r=0&o=5&dpr=1.25&pid=1.7)
(http://єω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мcjVhajhNdZa7yPYjaRdk8kartkEYUBk3ZOc/y1xyYEygjr/kwuxzMhsRpYkVkkksiZAIWybNwFtoZeVTZkAf+HQNmagk8v3cjuQrgNIqQ4YDb4Ac/wAvOvWt01+H2VbZeVtsqFirxtgNsBfAJ/XWadRokQs9OdBI7qMzM4yH2KqlFILH3/bTNadoX+XzizifTREo13akKxuIlM3CxOis5wpILKM/udBQVo0ks7WxvleeyXskIpZyoZ5McDwABzptHYotNWjkjeNLAJєω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α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αyHBG/wDXzoiHoXWDGsMkU0SNIzu0tlO2FCj1MFbJx7DH7edTfruFUV3ZaOAdjZY9Tz/xHf2f6ok/UIoTBHys5+JHpymH9PbGdoyOMtnAGfOuw3O5XZ6Yy+xzghyNpPHyGuM6Y1OtYSr02NhHDfSv1G1KqmeyYAGYDJysYJPzPH156O1bQqNxKxmRHWJf7ydSVi5+S8868fiHXNlKotL4dfU+A9+UZjDIgLGz7+pg3WLzxLDVqqhjsKWmfbkBYnwwyRtxwTn3xxpTFuZBsyY43q7jgα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мKrLtVAuRkZ+uk9qPPUAa9iEpHHRdyZNszwhZnIaNc8ZZcHaM/ppGVWu+kbjIqr3jMdLtWVmQRhI2USr3JQibN4Yetm5I8nn2/fW3Thhq1u7QkuRQtjt1LSV43ErHaXlVlYhfOM/TVgl3p33slaxLG9YK7kRRwxSM+xUXYSxPPn30LaW7elqKnSy8Lz01sTLMg7HblAfeGIfcy/gA/y1o7g3G8OtW4O00jq9NM7xV4kigSnUSHaNrlO3hkeRQCQPYZ41hLWqQzhO0siwMrV9zOQjmDYHznJxk+c/y1si9VM1eAizgTxRpG+QpVPVN6SpB45J/nomWvDLJaDko0UStCoEI3s6kZBlkTBGc6iwgtgUk+cY3dyfKLP+rJVD2ikmUBj3K5DDBxuO0keR40PEvXfh60djplomOQvJiatCiLCzMjRIJgPZTjHzPPgtR0bp9VZ7EdpXMciPGPiIkklAAVgY1Lge+Bk5x7Z4x3VdwAj6kQD/GKsa/q4Q5H5D9tYLWN1A8o0ouJ6NSRCxSWBH45B3DJyRxrQKBqvTll+CrLudyibXYALkjPkLxrQ4Da9RZ5h5yADXN/aSnatT05qkLGagkTb0LF8TGVQ+0AjAwRkj2AyONdGS3sNIb8d+bqdCVQVgjj7VrbJtJQM7jjyeSM86TxDMmMsvMRmIAtRi+SCy3UK1kSh4q/Sun9GikkmkEu9YwZCqEBgCdxznzj56y6f9lrSyzy/CxWZI5pZI55rMkbLCqYMbqR+IYPgc6YFGklfam9gisAAcjOFJGPz1tPTt7IJDVcFxgYO8OcZO0gnGOOCf8AaftyVHnKzhRSPKLbFGGavFJDSptYKQ5knsdonsTpNjBX/CCmC3OfYryLH/ZuYbKVSUVzXSaN3aHfKVda7ugX1RjIHJ4xx76Zx1rckaMleR1IUhxtC8cEeo6Do16lSjfr9UPUT1BbEEleH4hpYIVIjlXuBAkQY++Ax8c+2mqxL79DFsB2YrwjH7PXI47NmnHAkMEmNgjkmkHe9RVm3jAyBj6kD5ab9ejElGe9HBHNNXizLDIxQOkfqIbaCfTyRwfy5zrxeo9LsmRLHT3rwptaCSKxuklbjBKqUZcce5zn92sMsNhDIuTHOCvqGGWVeNUmiakgvnPnPTerzs8vwXSq2Ai7+zJaA8+nIaJR89TXUS0mrySI/UZHZpZWKSlnkiiG1YdrHjDDdkfMZ99TQmifhhi6+KdS7xosjuyoiKWd24VVHuTrlepdVe401eD0VNu0H1K8pwRvJGOOeB9ProLr32irmWnFMr/2e8jkiMqTuTG2SVWwD74Gfb91tvqdZo6xpNBK0u5ncHIWNOArKMEEn5j+uq2YSZVmaWuv0w8MsXxcZjKJcgYd1CeC0qAZ8fIeffWNewPRsaeMshlwwYhQuc9zOQD74P8A5aRdTKkd2Bl/7oTuH/8AFsH+ejJLHTr6RpLJGjLH2YmLGKUxsx87x8yeOf56Ud+RjOXSUikm7vdWFJ5nEcQ2Ah2xuCquMjPJ9tEvP1CJer16UZr2Y65WTAXvl5FIleLBxwMAHz78eBWGnJRaeUNJJYqTwBMOAyq7q7oNp2+oL5+R+uvZHsyT9ZmkWKtN1SoAkYdmESkGIbsj6sPqRqdn1d0dDGAVvCbhhi6i9l2ZHeNgiOGCFZaywkg49sn30BYtvUrdNj9RinsdYilaNtkRjuFpQeMj0YxyOfb6EdbuxwrWjZofhVnpR/FSlswxNFEJcBTg8tn/AN3Gq1LX2d+PYyTQMaMFeOrPuYSSF1ZbA2htuFOB44zrMWMvfaDf8iczaT3TIjBu2Ek8r4CFiwOOBoqah1TsWsU7pLwymIrWk5+7IAGPPOt6d6OSa7FaNRVh7JgmgR1SZJELkDvZOV4Dc+daWoKtqJ4/7RMaOFWTaVAMYbcy+RjI988aScG9jeUjOaowXo9uLqNHmCwtmmIq99JJGjkjsLGpcqu7gZz8vB+WnirKq4jty4OAO31MnH/h3PrGHspGEYdOmOBukkqASyHnDPIjhifrnQs9SWRwYJKMKbMMqic+vJ5zJI30GmkP/wCRFgp/6MNKW5GrSLZ6mTAzvGyXlZSXjMe78Zz74/5gfqFqzRqzzburzyIIwIK6RTTuWO3IDKRgeTrE0rKqgRqrhVUEkyLggAewPH7ag76W6FOJqUk5SxYnRmfaYkxGAQCMHcy/pnWDV/ck7u/2tKd+9BSSyst5rV+xVdqsjyqsU9mMKwdgCQiY59PA/LXsMtm8s63TWMladoFjtFrdd5BEjFopMoxUbscD2P6CwdWr9+wlmnKMXHqQyKl5KrEMK52zRHZ+PIXJ9v3Ji6bWhaGstC8lWGGQrLFcisMJN59AEzBufOc6IBbuj95hLAVf4m8VSL4awsidKFnGIJasUyDBwN0vckY7hyRgkeB7at8M4G1zXEZUsTA71phGMjKSxKHHnxu1q1b7OwExyy2u4BhsSykhtu8qVSFlyBz51Q9N7Eta7Sh6hIzwyoqzmEwmNmDCWOOUjBwOcgfz1ruibzkR2FdINdt9ZuLLB05Kd+k0lindkMgrSwyoQjdoFipHOfw/66XdPacJ1DpdqpdrN0+B2kVJ2kW2VBnDd1MJnOBgZxjyNOnSeRUFhDWhkcyFlYQSlj5crTzISfrjPn20HPFUrQWbT9TvXpY1aGWlGCkNcW4ZVieJGUSHdt5y2eCeDgks3FtnwMiiuvzmJg7Jwx9Igbrlp7/TZZJLRqzV02RtK6I80wcB3xnK5AJH/AfBcmsVRYJbetgw7H2RtMm8Y2vOBkAMCCB7Y+uuQ6pdr1+qw9qCUQ0R05JsgqyCE/h2kn2wPI5/fXettmpdLkdSN0MbokmMxLJGG2gEnH11nFOrY00ryXf1uWDTbDVvq29KgJksGZ1igmaJJYvvO5X7TIxGXyvqP1Xgj56IQXC4GycrkH0VJRxnyZD6MflrBIwUgZVw5t7fSOWXeRnA+gzo57nUKypGOoSV4/4UlMiIff0AyKM68sG4wxpXykUYMbZKhgGDo2G55XGdTJ3edY0J5Z4mkezLM28qJC7E4AGAOfb21uyLnPJPk8+deqjagDPLddJInoJ1ZY1Z1DAer0/vxqoUcauOCCPYg/tzphAMEGpzTvLGbXbKBzGsatI+wI+9WVxwTxj5cefbBw6Vf6zJDFNI0M8amzKzXpHnmLIGC5kgZY9vOMYBGp1ZuzctuB6IhYndORviVHcpn6+NBCevBa+z4HT+087U5FYCCeGrDI+MMZYO7u/xfeY51Hw9AURvcszgkivCY2eodSWSsILFuCL7pXWDqENaEb0SY5SyTn8R/Djx8znRU6dRlipTpHYsdyW9JKVkZ+3BFNBGZZtvoxyCOT5x7ZKPra7rYirpMSsULzjsRzR5bKIED+AFA/c/LJ6OLrLU+lJST4tYZg9WwsixWd8zEDbudQ6xjyvJx40/IQGEUgJU1K1+m9cnNgS9PswVt/cilMk8rWE3mVGHaQ4Xxnn3096BH1Kutmnbh2JIe/XZEubVkXG4M1iJVGeMc/PQkP2wfuVukwLYFlWhpK0lOIwkjbH6ZN37HH110HVOodS6ZUks3VQw768DFI4ye9K21Pwke/k6wWWO0E8hZmfUoLthIJKV+5RkyyyNUaNWcD+BxIrDg+OPf66miK9gOqzruMdhFkK4BZJPByB/P8tTR1F2RtOHdIpEaGRI5EHpeNwrjPyYcjOgx0OsUlNNewFDSSgyDau4hQyo+WPOBgH3z7aWRzVvTkPGx9yCDnz5XR8FqwobtWmZMepGIZWAP4W98e/nTS17QaI5QaWtcp57izSRekK8Y7i++c7Rkftp30Xp8thq9yZO2ndVIO4p3KyHvdx0b2PAH0OsPjJVjzNEvcbOxImwe2FbLuHHGcekZ58/LLmGcM1JVMg7P/WPEP7uXuVVjjDMTnA9RPtyNK1DWB4whyszG3Iosfaiy5Iji6xUyVDEiNFlTwvPt8tLl6tcsCde0hhwcNv7cjrGxA3HafHOBnj9dHdS3xTdThd9nx8jzFwME96N1BUkY/jb/g0i7kdcyQfe4ih7e/YeSpOSSP56lZWonmCf2H8SjGRdGM1syLPW3wOGhBsROZI5e0SNhZVkjxnREsr2YWrSmLZJtQutet3UG4NuV9gbPv8AiGffzrPp5o2WmeQd9lRVWKR3jCIykZ2qQSMn56ZLb2Sqz9MrF1dAJXrQSH0jggL6sjjyNJ1EURtKaB85aCh0Ou5FuxYkwjARyNFXDA+GAD7yfoGOqNL0yLqLxRwV5a0sUXZisr3imI2ZzOrnOG4C+fcao3Uw81lZFOTJckLlFCxLCCpVQi45ILA5z7fla3bvfB2nWWX7mMTRkCMECN1dgHT1YwCDkj34+fXfzmVDT1CWZ+xHVgiV2RWkjqxxwqvjcH/Ecfl/uvknruFkF9TGzrXgkjglKSO0gjXG8A8n5r4HtnWgKPOoD2HZnRlhCkIvqBDltnj/AN79NaL1mnZnSWKvKiRQ/wAblzKz5wSoTcMEY4P14zp2BuYYxOVeRUQgjp8ELyXor6dp55Y1EsMhkWPhWVa659WeAfGtyfs6ZHMTyiWH7kzxRmRsMElKEykN8s/loC/Jbs07deIoj2IZIw8iO+3eB49xj6aytbppqBUPFAi2hd+H+6lkZo1WJlKjyCDnnVDILvHtEhr+MTSxTdxTg6fNVam915raTSxVmjIbviRonfnL88aMFPqQDlr8I2Y3YsV2cjySoZwuB5OWH66TUDQSdtptWqiVuyslxhNYa0JnL5ZMcBdoU50e/wDYhidJquyud5m3l0QoVw+8bvGPOt746zO4TsISeqyKa9eOrSaLa5uZmmEsiqhWPcEfJBOd3z1y8KdUnKGe28cXbMpSuFJZc8R9wKpH1GDwPOrLd6bJNFFK1OImOSUxTtBlGhn2IGk34zjkDb75zratWt2IKzwX3SM1EMZVY3kk7gLEziRSp/7SAMD56hJaqMsUL0jdZ4o61ib4iGExs0shnMkaCFUGSCils/kNYRUIYqNmFI61cNLHZihoWZ2YyjJ3zNLEqfmobHPnQYg+GkiEdiSeWR1iljtWHnijQlDJ6f8AFj8PB+Wt+kyRTQVQrzPtVmPxOWkxFIQS7YAJOOPz+msItNBnVTapx/X4Oxa+0yMfVJD0eeM7R61OxWI28cE4/TX0OS0nTGje3GthGzFGkkEsixFFBJ2wgn9xrmvtD06Tq/VukSpXZY4UqV53KMyODYZyH2/wqPJ+uusvWumwGNraSSF+6YvhnTAHG7ub8fTH5aszgLjAMlxHU5qBSdf6fKESKnUgkeWMGZqliMQpnc7l3jwMAHBHOiab2be74e9UmVKkdpnklOwxEue4WsxKc425wg8ePngOo9DeSRY+jdQnhaAAM02Nsh3q2NisngjyPfUg6bXeLZ/ZvVypqfB87VYQkYADCvnIBxqZX0jT4ygrZvwh0MVtQJJzGWmAkUK6SDaAFHKce2rMDnJxyfA4GqVYUqpFAK9isgQKr3HLF9gCADEY5+fGtXOCuHR+Mnt7sD6eoDVOIrQqTZLBNyvIxqjSFf8Ay1pzj2/XVHTIPjxp5i4luQUrxsxySPWnlaVBKazziWGSv2ig2EY2nJ4+eucmi6LNNWsP9qKAlqxwRQOnRZ8xrB+DbknxrsIo2W1E7xnZG/dLjPpG0oc/nkftr5432c+0O9wKhILPgmWMcEnBwTqbhMGriMiZH0rQI5dbvmD5RmXJ3FIFmN+t0emrVrdSgZbpkVIALFKVmK7nYbuxKACPntwQfbGNBxWI5VMdkunqmeFYQVIdHiX70fi28DGddPL0KxL0itBYhBrCioO127iSiwrxlSMe2Q2ucm6bbjE0XwlwrXIeF1lCGRmIaR2lk3ZGMDBx+HWgmrbx/eEo3oQK1PHF1ScNKikTtgd65uDMoAwoUxj/AJ8tEw9R6RPHDD1K51NrIsEssNuy0AfcFX+9Q8cfPHOtZ6VyW6ZPheotDuWVWW9D8PJtQEL2NmQpIwedbVeg9QsLFcZb1eKS08TRf2krvHj1HbElYoV+Q3jTNQDG52glAY9+zfV+llrtWGxb2hviz8WwdkM2MqjBQu04yBz7/PU1RPsULk8jxN1BSsMET9tqa7mjXG5m8EnOScf7TTAjEAiTs6g0Yjk6VTfLx74WySVUsUOR/hY8fpqtbpcryshjV4+3IWy5AkKDubOPVyAc/wC+sa0tsZdp3+GjIDBtrNI5yRFFuB5PufYc/IFv0+1MEsuVhE4kSKudrMFaaKRVyueR/wA99Ky5dK2OfsQlSzK9coS1brTRFBVtu3aUMzOGSvllc4wDuzgZ8D21p1FpYBSCvGqWYum1pOdrMUrxl1Pjg5Hj/Lm+2AV+m9KrpK00FuS/Grlf7iSCRXaRpGyGJ5xjU6c3ev1GCK7IXDCzEkqCEpl/S+R4UfsPloQFy5QQa8vWEQUWjvNftDbWS7D06L4dbdaulg2rTFa4TusOxsBHJ4bO721l0mTph+Lsz/CV7/cnqOYZzGJo4mGxsO5OGIyDj/dJ1VeodQs2b9Cs9qvJJZhiath0MXMahed3AA9tAy0Os97P9k3WVoI0J+GdsbY8gZGfHj9PpqhMdA6RALaiLM7PuSWIlWdYS8m+Gb4OZpYVGCQElOH8fz1ZKqJjYmBgYOX3fkef89Kej1bopOzVrVd0v1/u3rTKXQx4JGAOB9dPu2zBfTOjEDykgQ/XkY0krq3Ijg2na4TBNaRWZPigiqMsjlVH0OT5+mNYyGGWt9oUMthxYXpwkjbZwEI3bSpwdwznOhG7yHaWcpnfxOyR7vGSoI5/TWfehV7atMsaSIjSxphmcRYYEO5OMcZ0KgDmJpJPWHiZ8RxpiKBSo2puZyoPhnb2/TWq0+ni1ViFmZEkinaR27rspZi23cSWxzgY4/LQJeHdzIzEHO0udq/XGRoBr0Y+PZZxNJVFiIxqrsA6n0xbtuNx98DA99ctA0wmtZ3E6WR6oitywtFbStPPC6RGeJx2cKwy6kkqQ2cDnIx40qr/AGi6dYtR1q1R1siSMMrzOGG78I2yKBhuMfnrarUlSs7VVmEVlprDYDk77BJc8jI5PHA1g1Gyf7MoFo0p0zVkWWxJGjmxEGSKAD+9YnyQF/bGiIVhYYwASpqrjuObutHHLQtQxFgZDHGJBgnJwvbHP66Fah07q0Z2zdXqI7TIIWqIsz1xlD3WsxtGM+QNvj88iSULUALSTU1GAcd5BI35Rht2oqTRK0rFpEXhkiewmS3j1jjj89ZpRd2NgTWLNsBRhH9j9FhVQ1azYkMYXuTQVGc9pCSxP3a5OOePyGlSyfZF4oFSXqbJHA6kTdOsJLvCgoI0WFiVPOcE+PfRa3kYhRWvryAWee0qr9cyenW9Xp3VkmvWfj6pS9PDNEXtMhQCFIQp3R8nj2+f7mrJkJ0DaDT4xud5lVaxLVmbp9NFQwd5KlFZMlFjOHk+IG8O/JAIGAozyeR6tZ6bJWkI7kaKJNu0LvYB2wAPOSc/XW9qFBmazLMjdNtQGV4uqrSg+HYq8m7tDDZ48/lre58M9gTQ9tHOWm7dv4pnPGOMDH5Y1IV0Pt537+spbI2RRfSWRNpH4ePPjSv7QSwRVo5pU3LCwdFHh5c5EbHB9JxhuNN1gsRo7GPK49TSKGAGfIz+2sLPTWnigksVYpoJXZYu8sRhMjD07VJGDwefpprtrFDlEJ3TcV36xghHZ63RhFpYYVq9iYL8Q53BThD+Ieg+y8H3yM5nuiQ/eThScjNO1NnPOFePj9xql9YDb3P2z8LDO9SMM3cScRGN3fyuANuAT/sXHd6nHFXWPqAXEEQXuTyqrAIBuTa44/fUZawAJYARZMJ6YZFD91ZxxgNMjpu5GCA4HPnP9NMCU+n6aEoSz2TbM1mSZoQjJvdpI0LnawAfI54wedGOGfaDsGM42oq+fntGrsJ7orlI8vxTwYxqDXgXHz/XXoGqImWQKWUezeg/k3Gq9tc44znGMHz417g/6azv25KMQuRxwyOZqqos5YRlpnC+xHPy0p+7uIS7mpusLSxukbL6oxCxV1DZPG08/locVjNWDFE3TQTgAMhJdVZSACc+QfbSWdo+48pkkj7srMTGqExg5bcgY43D2zqy9Ujqy2Ja++aIxNCe9shZsw+MgMV5yfS4/bUo4gk8pWeG25xp06k8lCk5iA3RMcnA4VmBJ5/fWB6hWge1XsQSSQpYkapJWj7n4AI3EoBAznO1h7aEq/aKxDSiqDtLsrnsyxFS7SSSBm7quCNuCwGP8+AzaVGllijcxKSfGFVWOAGIyPy51md7NCbgxkDUYfbk6L1ERrZikcRF8GwJomyOPSUfJGppJUux3EefdFGxllRlU4X0sVBX6amhGbSKo/WG2KzdzRW6FE3TnWvMz0oZ0Ut2jvllORIxJ5K84/P9hoezFWmh3Pukmqy9wBQR2gyleSfOfnq4sRqSwqUgSc/3APP0ycazZy0yuRGI1UfcpFGIi4yd7DGc/PnXsNhDc544yETyMMlg2xZkMxCqDtixsGRtPPjGB+mrGS0LVi1DbMHeJLRJDVeFD49AcFgP11r3yQcRVgOBxWhHB4/w69NqQfww/hCnMMJ4Hgfh0K8MofWBvNOckUYU/Uoym2NYI33KS/ahc4HkYYY5+erx9WrKFV4azMBgtkpk+2FTjQHxcoxhYhjgYhg//wCNWF20CCGUEeCI4gR+y6d2cX2saDqsGMLVGecbXl/0OvR1V+Slb0+ciSwRyfmBjQA6v1f2vWR+TnVR1HqYzi3YGfIWRgD+g1nZmd2ojD+2JxgBE8cZac8fqde/2vaPiGM5+aSt/XSwXb3H383y4Y+Plr34y9/6xP8A/Ef/AF1vZTO2jP8AtS4fNWI+/NaRgPf30NB1BjOLFKGqJU7hPwtdRvd+WZguSW+uhhcu/wDrE/8A8R/9dWr/ABM8yJHJIJG9KsCcqD5IwdCcQG5hDMTsI8fq/WNoBirFHC4ElVhI231c4YDPnPGl8j2bnZmkpsxR1lhKROiqyqVDBQfkf56x6u0Njt0QGNeqyYy53PKhB3llPnP10P3p/wD8yTH/AImx/XQLw4K7wjxBU7RnE3UYmZl6az7+D3apkUYOcjdnB1q8nW5AQKbAEklEiRM/UqzD+mk3cl/xt+7a83yf4m/c679MvlB/UsecZySdYjVnlp2QsY3EiEEDHyCk6iX+szdnENjEc4aMS1ggWVGBB2yqPf6aWbn+Z/fXpeQ/xN+50wYAvKYeIJ5xtYXq9x5har9xpo37qFK6KyRLuOVQBfbWaHqZIkSJgVyA2IQRvXBxu+Y0t3N8zqZJ+eg/T72a+k39SareMyetewcfrB/prGwOphZJZllZICkhwIH9X8JRQCxIz7aBy2vMn20TYLGx+0wcR4wwpcYODG7Bj3ZABHhmIwSfTydE16PU7ETGOOEJEo9NiaugIC5URow+mNKhuz769G4H8/prBw9f6m/qI0h/tMwpYqzwSwSvJEpgsQkhoiQysq8jB1qr9cAZd3Defv4s/wA9JlUKMKoUZJwqgDJOSeNW9X1/bRjFUE541z1r2kIJ4x8Ugx9deFeueROwPvi3Fj+eleD8v5arg/8ABruymdt5RsF67/FO363Ys/y15IOsiPfLOzRow2qLiMwZSCMKBn340r9XuD+2qnf7Z/bWDDtuYXa30jAf2u6K4hkYE4AMse4fmDrSO/1Gn6JKURDguFs9t/w8Ert/10rXJLZH7jWsEpjZlFetJkhszR7mHGMKykHGlnCa7sauYf3Qn+1ZcGV2KqV3BVWIqFPsBs0OOo1rCMonn7cbAkKMDcpznbjnUsNW+HcfAwIVUBe29gAAEcYLkaBrvUDdQ31N+6eQrid4gqlR6QsQI1JnZ8V2B6ynCEyUATCqt+nIrrUuWQqs24CGEHcWOeWjz5+uppb0qfpbiz8N014tsjK++9PLk5PPKjU0h85DEWPoZSuBSOv1E1Gvfc6mpr2Z4s1TxJ/4DrNvJ1NTTBBMqNW1NTWzDPRq3vqamugSw17qamsmSD20w6R/9oVfzb+h1NTQP8JjMXxCCP8A3kv/AO4//wAx15qamjEE85B7frqf66mproMmpqamtmz0antqamsnT0a9Gpqa2bL/AOurL5Gpqa6FNV9tar7amprp009hqe36jU1NdOk+f56h9/11NTQzRBLH4x+WsIP70/lqamuHOc3KXs/3Mn5D+o0qh/Fc/wDaJtTU15v/ACP/AFz0P+O/7RAOg+L/AP7Q/wD8x1NTU14mb4zPcxfAJ//Z)(https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th/id/OIP.R2Pc4wWl0O6drBk4XAYRVAHaDW?w=306&h=158&c=7&r=0&o=5&dpr=1.25&pid=1.7)(https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th/id/OIP.WVN2tjgJJsvb841XtwVVuQHaE8?w=236&h=180&c=7&r=0&o=5&dpr=1.25&pid=1.7)Good one! :laugh1:
Amazon jungle.
I mean, dude, there has to be dinos here somewhere.
I mean, dude, there has to be dinos here somewhere.
Well, dinos per se were too big to fit on the ark, and were likely all wiped out in the flood. But Noah took some smaller types of related animals on the ark. Recall that Noah was commanded to take two of each TYPE (or genus) onto the ark. He didn't necessarily take a couple of every species.
Why are chemtrails level for miles and miles? Shouldn't they look like rainbows over a curved earth?It takes 70 miles for the earth to curve 1o, and you're looking at contrails from the side.
Well said. Globe earth is an invention of an atheistic agenda, but if people do not take the time to research this [...]
Looks like a curved track leading round the equator on a flat earth. ::)No matter how subtle, sheer distances proves accounting for curvature must be done. A mere 50 miles of track must curve downward about 1/2 mile. That's approximately 2500 ft. Each piece of track would have to compensate a fraction of that total, yet it would be necessary to ensure each piece of track is bent in order to maintain curvature of what is said to be the globe. Conversely, unbent track, the way it's manufactured now, can never wrap around a curve or follow the contours of a ball shaped earth.
Looks like a curved track leading round the equator on a flat earth. ::)
No matter how subtle, sheer distances proves accounting for curvature must be done. A mere 50 miles of track must curve downward about 1/2 mile. That's approximately 2500 ft. Each piece of track would have to compensate a fraction of that total, yet it would be necessary to ensure each piece of track is bent in order to maintain curvature of what is said to be the globe.
Conversely, unbent track, the way it's manufactured now, can never wrap around a curve or follow the contours of a ball shaped earth.
1) This is a bit fantastical, I know, but hear me out. Going off the "tropics under the ice" idea, perhaps there could be some creatures living down there that the elites don't want people to have access to, mainly thinking here supposedly long extinct animals like dinosaurs. If there is some method of lighting down there, which perhaps some kind of crystals or plant may provide, it would create the conditions necessary (alongside the water and heat) for lush jungles to exist, which would be an environment suitable for the continued existence of those creatures.All of this is possible, really.
2) Ruins of antediluvian civilizations under the ice or on the surface of Antarctica. I imagine that since the antediluvian civilizations were possibly far more advanced than our own in terms of technology, these ruins would portray a style of architecture so advanced it would seem...alien. TPTB don't want people to think that there were civilizations more advanced than our own in the past, because that would ruin their idea of human "progress" ascending constantly upwards throughout history, which they take from Darwinism. It would also make the masses question the "official history" they were told in a major way if this information was leaked to the public. I think they have a contingency plan, maybe even a slight of hand in place for this if these ruins actually exist. They will market them to the public as being the remains of an advanced "alien" civilization, and hide all evidence that would indicate humans actually built them.
People also claim to have found Pyramids from overhead pictures of Antarctica. Was there a civilization there that got covered up and then frozen by the flood? We had Mammths that were flash-frozen in Siberia with food in their mouths.Connecting to what Ladislaus said,
It takes 70 miles for the earth to curve 1o, and you're looking at contrails from the side.
Could you see a 1o bend in a broom handle or rod from the side?
No matter how subtle, sheer distances proves accounting for curvature must be done. A mere 50 miles of track must curve downward about 1/2 mile. That's approximately 2500 ft. Each piece of track would have to compensate a fraction of that total, yet it would be necessary to ensure each piece of track is bent in order to maintain curvature of what is said to be the globe.It's not that rail can't be bent because clearly it takes turns on the x axis, but that it is not bent on the y axis, that is, downward to compensate for earth curvature. Rail road track is mostly level, or the train cannot traverse it. Small climbs are accounted for on the y axis for certain, as needed, but in the smallest increments because of the great need for power to overcome incline, or to inhibit too much decline. The argument isn't that rail cannot be bent to suit, but then, that is obvious and to retreat to that argument is a waste of time. Point being, track is never bent to take into account earth's curvature.
Let's say more than 1/4 mile per 50 miles of track.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.wisegeek.com%2Frailway-construction.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
:jester::jester::jester:
1 percent of 50 miles is half a mile.He wrote 1 "degree" not percent.
He wrote 1 "degree" not percent.
All of this is possible, really.
Connecting to what Ladislaus said,
1) we know that Noah's flood caused the earth's land mass to separate all over the globe. Antarctica was probably a similar tropical climate before it broke off from the mainland.
2) I watched a video where a guy pulled up maps from the Middle Ages and Antarctica was actually connected by a small group of islands to the tip of Africa. It has gradually been separated by thousands of mini-earthquakes in the area for the last 500 years. The proof is 1) the maps, 2) the penguins (and other birds) on antarctica are also in southern africa. How did the same exact bird get on both continents if they were never connected?
3) ...this is totally conjecture but maybe Antarctica has connections with Atlantis? Or some other high-tech, satanic city of the past? The satanists are obsessed with Atlantis and I think it was a precursor to Babel and a new-age, occult city center. This would explain why these occult psychos go to Antarctica so often.
No matter how subtle, sheer distances proves accounting for curvature must be done. A mere 50 miles of track must curve downward about 1/2 mile. That's approximately 2500 ft. Each piece of track would have to compensate a fraction of that total, yet it would be necessary to ensure each piece of track is bent in order to maintain curvature of what is said to be the globe.
Let's say more than 1/4 mile per 50 miles of track.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.wisegeek.com%2Frailway-construction.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
:jester::jester::jester:
Pretty sure that's not a track for an actual train. Maybe some sort of light rail or something similar.
but if people do not take the time to research this
It's not that rail can't be bent because clearly it takes turns on the x axis, but that it is not bent on the y axis, that is, downward to compensate for earth curvature. Rail road track is mostly level, or the train cannot traverse it. Small climbs are accounted for on the y axis for certain, as needed, but in the smallest increments because of the great need for power to overcome incline, or to inhibit too much decline. The argument isn't that rail cannot be bent to suit, but then, that is obvious and to retreat to that argument is a waste of time. Point being, track is never bent to take into account earth's curvature.
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:Clearly you did not read my post. Rail can be adjusted any which way for immediate terrain. It is NEVER conformed to take in account earth curvature.
That's near Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle, capital of the Empire of Charlemagne):
(https://www.eisenbahn-stolberg.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2014_04_21_BfKohlscheid_Knick_Thalys_4305_x3_F.jpg)
https://www.eisenbahn-stolberg.de/fototagebuch-2014/fototagebuch-42014/
Clearly you did not read my post. Rail can be adjusted any which way for immediate terrain. It is NEVER conformed to take in account earth curvature.
Not true. Freight train rail cannot go more than 2% above grade. You are not showing freight train rail. Passenger trains are lighter and don't need to take the flat earth into account. They carry people - not heavy freight.This is also true. Sadly, with preconceived notions, people are not able to discern. Either that, or their fear of reprisal for true consideration is too overwhelming. The fact that they do conform rail to accommodate low grades, but never add to that to adjust for earth curvature also shows earth is not a globe. They even cut into mountains and raise trestles to keep the train as level as possible.
:laugh1:
When the Challenger disaster happened, teachers rolled TVs into the classroom to further indoctrinate the kids. Do you know that most of the "astronauts" that were "killed" in that disaster are still alive. Amazingly, 3-4 of them had "identical twins" and the others either slightly changed their names (started using their middle names) and went about their lives (after undoubtedly taking a huge payoff).
2) Could you find that video? I'd be interested in watching it. The detail about the penguins makes a lot of sense, and though the penguins in Antarctica and South Africa belong to different subspecies of penguin,It was on YT but I’m not sure where. A few years ago.
This is my favorite video on why we can't "go back" to the moon....Elon is kind of on his own boat, at least that's my impression of him. Jeff Bezos hates his guts because one of his satellites blew up that was on one of Elons rockets.
Don Pettit is hysterical. But it seems that the technology to go to Mars is no problem....Did Elon get the memo?
Satellites don't "orbit". They are usually carried by balloons. Yes ,seriously. Most communications technology is land based anyway.NASA also has one of the largest helium budgets out there
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwKgHuqu5Fw
Thar she blows
It was on YT but I’m not sure where. A few years ago.Ok, I'll see if I can find it or something like it.
n reply #159 I asked an honest and simple question regarding why the “edge” of a flat has not been discovered, described, nor pictured, given the amount of exploration that has occurred.Because there isn't an "edge" as if the water just pours off into open space. There is a 100-ft ice wall on the circuмference of the plane. You're asking simple questions that have already been covered by countless FEarthers.
I cited explorers such as Leif Erikson from the 11h century and Columbus, da Gama, Magellan and Elcano from the 16th century. To this list can be added James Cook (1773). Within a year's time in 1820 the Russians Fabian von Bellingshausen and Mikhail Lazarev, the British explorer Edward Bransfield, and the Americans Nathaniel Palmer and John Davis all saw or set foot on Antarctica. The Norwegian Roald Amundsen reached the South Pole in 1911. U.S. Admiral Richard Byrd (1888-1957) is another noted Antarctic explorer.
The only answer my honest, sincere, and simple question received was that because of “the treaty”, and no one could be bothered to even cite its actual name, nor when it was signed, nor by how many countries.
The Antarctic Treaty was signed on December 1, 1959 by 12 countries, but did not enter into force until June 23, 1961. There are now 50 nations that have signed or accept the treaty. This treaty that supposedly prevents us from finding the “edge of the earth meeting the dome of the firmament” did not come into existence until years, decades, or even centuries after the explorers I cited. This pretty much tells any thinking and rational person all they need to know about the credibility of the “flat earth fantasy”. “If” the earth were flat someone would have been to the edge by now.
Here is the actual text of the Antarctic treaty https://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/antarct/anttrty.jsp (https://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/antarct/anttrty.jsp)
The fact that they do conform rail to accommodate low grades, but never add to that to adjust for earth curvature also shows earth is not a globe.
If the earth is round, nothing would be needed to adjust rails for the earth's curvature.Hey, I don't care what you believe. But if the earth is a sphere, as opposed to a plane with mountains and valleys, then the difference from reality should be accounted for. Telling me all points on a circle are the same distance from the center does not explain anything about railroads. All I'm saying is that there is a problem with what we've been told about the globe. Take your time and investigate before you try to defend the indefensible. I'm not here to argue. God bless.
This does not require you to believe the earth actually is round. It's really basic physics.
Draw a circle on a piece of paper. Are all points on the circle the same distance from the center of the circle? Yes. Is the circle curved? Yes.
Telling me all points on a circle are the same distance from the center does not explain anything about railroads. All I'm saying is that there is a problem with what we've been told about the globe.
But I'm trying to explain to you why this is not a problem. They may be other problems with a globe earth, but this isn't one.The problem Tradman has with rails on a globe Earth is that of straight beams on a curved surface. This is because he assumes that rails are perfectly straight for hundreds of kilometers on end, like a perfect, idealized straightness with zero deviation.
A railroad rail on a globe earth lies on a circle on that globe. It is like the points on a circle. Just like all the points on a circle are the same distance from the center, every point on the rail is the same distance from the center of the earth. It is therefore at the same "grade".
Gravity always points to the center of the earth. Thus it is always perpendicular to any tangent to the circle of the earth. Each segment of rail is a short tangent on the circle. Thus a rail along the earth's curve is always perpendicular to gravity. Any movement on the rail is perpendicular to gravity, thus at the same grade.
They do lay straight track. It is always level and is never curved downward whatsoever.
Have you ever seen rail road track?
unbent track, the way it's manufactured now, can never wrap around a curve or follow the contours of a ball shaped earth.
Clearly you did not read my post. Rail can be adjusted any which way for immediate terrain. It is NEVER conformed to take in account earth curvature.
This silly meme is one of those things that actually kind of makes me lean more in the FE camp:While I agree that something about the Challenger disaster is once again fishy (pity on you NASA), the FE meme supposes that we're on a spinning ball hurling through space, which may very well not be the case with Geocentrism which has a perfectly still Earth in the absolute center of the Universe. This makes most of the points in the meme pointless. Apart from that, most points come from a mind with very little imagination. "Jesus sees the whole world" - almighty God would be limited to a flat disc? Come on. "Sun, Moon and stars in the firmament" - on a globe Earth there is no firmament? Ridiculous. And stars/meteorites falling to Earth works on a globe Earth just as well, trust me :laugh1:
[FE meme]
[challenger inconsistencies]
[...]Good points and very cool video Marion, this should really conclude the "railway tracks on a globe Earth" argument here for good.
Tradman seems to be unaware of the fact, that steel bars of whatever size and profile, bend like spaghetti, if their length is sufficently greater than the dimensions of the transverse section.
C'mon, you're trying to take the mickey of the readers. Rail is laid curved on curved terrain, but it won't adapt to globe earth curvature, which is virtually zero for any 120 meters rail unit?
https://youtu.be/XwiNaHmOscU
Please wind to 2'40", or use this link: https://youtu.be/XwiNaHmOscU?t=160
Rail bending in y-direction. (Note that the steel rail is flexible like spring steel.)
Go to 8''15" to see the steel rail swinging like spring steel: https://youtu.be/XwiNaHmOscU?t=495
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/3e/58/f2/3e58f2210fafe2d44c6814d08f636d2c.jpg)
Not true. Freight train rail cannot go more than 2% above grade. You are not showing freight train rail. Passenger trains are lighter and don't need to take the flat earth into account. They carry people - not heavy freight.
Refuted using two images.
You have not provided a single image or argument to refute the fact that each piece of railroad track is level and collectively cannot curve around a ball, and your lack of explanation for what you do think shows you are incapable of understanding the simplest facts without resorting to ridiculous argumentation and personal attacks. Haven't got the time.
THIS^^^ right here is the primary go-to "argument" against flat earth ... ridicule. And that by itself speaks volumes. People have been progammed into believing it. 95% of the population, if asked to provide evidence for why the earth is a globe, come up empty. At most you'll get the old "ships disappear over the horizon" and "NASA has pictures of the earth", but that's only in the 5% who have any answer at all.
without resorting to ridiculous argumentation and personal attacks.
They do lay straight track. It is always level and is never curved downward whatsoever. Have you ever seen rail road track?
The problem Tradman has with rails on a globe Earth is that of straight beams on a curved surface. This is because he assumes that rails are perfectly straight for hundreds of kilometers on end, like a perfect, idealized straightness with zero deviation.J.C. Bourne in his book, “The History of the Great Western Railway” stated that the entire original English railroad, more than 118 miles long, that the whole line with the exception of the inclined planes, may be regarded practically as level. The British Parliament Session in 1862 that approved its construction recorded in Order No. 44 for the proposed railway, “That the section be drawn to the same HORIZONTAL scale as the plan, and to a vertical scale of not less than one inch to every one hundred feet, and shall show the surface of the ground marked on the plan, the intended level of the proposed work, the height of every embankment, and the depth of every cutting, and a DATUM HORIZONTAL LINE which shall be the same throughout the whole length of the work.”
This however is not the case, as the picture that Marion posted, of Helsinki Metro Heavy rails shows. These beams are not perfectly straight, they just bend. Given the sheer size of the globe, this is a non issue in railway planning. It's 0.667 feet of curvature per mile on an idealized perfect globe with an even surface. We can safely disregard that, that's probably less than the height of such a steel beam itself.
You started off asking whether I have ever seen rail road track.Calm down. You have not shown that railroad track is designed to take into account the supposed curvature of earth. I've yet to find railroad track fabricators or engineers who think railroad track is made to bend downward to accommodate earth curvature. Just to be sure you understand, I'll repeat my last quote.
I showed you some images and a video which show facts known by most people with any minimum interest in things railroad.
Stop whining and face facts!
Good points and very cool video Marion, this should really conclude the "railway tracks on a globe Earth" argument here for good.I've already stated that extended railroad track bends, as in sideways, but only in the smallest increments up and down because the train cannot traverse track bending up or down as it has to be 1/2 mile for the first 50 miles. Returning the opposite direction no train would be able to climb back up such a slope. Not only that, the bend of each track would have to increase over more length in order to accommodate a ball earth. Otherwise, extending the 1/2 mile to 50 ratio, you only have a slope.
While I agree that something about the Challenger disaster is once again fishy (pity on you NASA), the FE meme supposes that we're on a spinning ball hurling through space, which may very well not be the case with Geocentrism which has a perfectly still Earth in the absolute center of the Universe. This makes most of the points in the meme pointless. Apart from that, most points come from a mind with very little imagination. "Jesus sees the whole world" - almighty God would be limited to a flat disc? Come on. "Sun, Moon and stars in the firmament" - on a globe Earth there is no firmament? Ridiculous. And stars/meteorites falling to Earth works on a globe Earth just as well, trust me :laugh1:The firmament is a dome. Scripture describes the firmament as a vault and like a tent and that it is bound to the edges of earth. You can't cover a globe with a dome. If somehow earth was a ball and the dome covered 1/2, the stars would only be on one side of earth, not the other because scripture says the stars are in the firmament. If the dome was actually an outer ball wrapping around the globe, it would have to be a structure that extended out over 93,000,000 miles to accommodate the sun. None of these are compatible with reason or scripture.
Speaking of the firmament, as of yet no flat earther could present a credible model how it is that there are two hemispheres of the firmament depending on which hemisphere of the Earth you're watching from. How does that work on FE, how can it magically switch from the northern firmament with Polaris at the top to the southern firmament with Sigma Octantis at the top, depending on your longitude on the FE disc? I'd love to hear some explanations for this.
But even for me, there was initially huge skepticism regarding flat earth due to the programming. But I decided to give it a chance and start looking at the evidence. It got to a point that it was basically impossible to refute.
One could go on for hours and hours about the phenomena that simply don't add up if we truly live on a spinning ball hurtling at breakneck speeds through the solar system, galaxy, and universe.
I had already come to the conclusion that the earth was stationary and at the center of the universe. But flat? Yes ... flat, with a solid firmament dome over the top. Add that to the other scientific hoaxes like evolution or the Big Bang ... all calculated to promote their atheistic agenda.
And now of course we're faced with the COVID hoax. Follow the "science" they keep telling everyone. Yeah, sure, the "science".
It's one hoax, lie, and deception after another.
But I'm trying to explain to you why this is not a problem. They may be other problems with a globe earth, but this isn't one.Meanwhile, the train stays on the tracks while the earth spins at 1,037 mph. :laugh1:
A railroad rail on a globe earth lies on a circle on that globe.
Readers want to hear, what exactly does Ladislaus deem impossible to refute, with respect to flat earth?
Because there isn't an "edge" as if the water just pours off into open space. There is a 100-ft ice wall on the circuмference of the plane. You're asking simple questions that have already been covered by countless FEarthers.
https://tv.gab.com/channel/yafer/view/sorry-antarctica-is-closed-60bb158d366ab51bb7dc9a81
Meanwhile, the train stays on the tracks while the earth spins at 1,037 mph. :laugh1:Miraculous!
Meanwhile, the train stays on the tracks while the earth spins at 1,037 mph. :laugh1:
Miraculous!
Earth spins at over 1000mph
Barrels around the sun over 550,000,000 miles per day
Explodes another direction through space at 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 (oops I think I exaggerated that one)
And wobbles.
4 different directions and speeds, all at the same time.
Thank you NASA, we never would have known.
Oh yes, sorry.This was in response to
One degree of latitude equals approximately 364,000 feet (69 miles)
It takes 70 miles for the earth to curve 1o, and you're looking at contrails from the side.But there was no response.
Could you see a 1o bend in a broom handle or rod from the side?
I'm a fool.
The flat-earthers are sidetracking about Geocentrism/Heliocentrism, and I fall for it. :facepalm:
On the other hand: Their sidetracking shows that they're not able to defend their false ideas. All they got are their convictions indoctrinated and readily consumed, filled in their throats by agent of the devil Eric Dubay and his minions.
THIS^^^ right here is the primary go-to "argument" against flat earth ... ridicule. And that by itself speaks volumes. People have been progammed into believing it. 95% of the population, if asked to provide evidence for why the earth is a globe, come up empty. At most you'll get the old "ships disappear over the horizon" and "NASA has pictures of the earth", but that's only in the 5% who have any answer at all.
You see that with other deceptions: 9/11 and also the h0Ɩ0h0αx. With the latter they also tack on "guilt", claiming that if you don't believe that 6 million tribesmen were slaughtered in gas chambers by the nαzιs, it means that you favor the extermination of Jєωs.
For prudential reasons, if I were a Catholic prelate, such as Bishop Wiliamson, I would avoid the subject of flat earth because the ridicule you'd receive could be an impediment to winning souls to the faith and to Tradition. Yet His Excellency has give sermons on Oklahoma City and 9/11 ... and also famously got into trouble regarding the Holohaux. He has not avoided these subjects because, as he's said, the truth matters and these are all part of the grand deception.
In any case, I too was very skeptical at first due to the programming since infancy. You go from planet mobiles in your crib ...
(https://cb.scene7.com/is/image/Crate/SolarSystemMobileSHS18/$web_pdp_main_carousel_med$/190411135436/solar-system-mobile.jpg)
... to your first ever science project in school consisting of making a solar system model with styrofoam balls. Every teacher has a globe on her desk. You see the stuff about the "space program" all over TV, in the media, in movies (with one of the movie companies having the globe for their logo). You see this nonsense everywhere.
Every kid wants to grow up to be either a President or an astronaut (as you're indoctrinated through the education system).
When the Challenger disaster happened, teachers rolled TVs into the classroom to further indoctrinate the kids. Do you know that most of the "astronauts" that were "killed" in that disaster are still alive. Amazingly, 3-4 of them had "identical twins" and the others either slightly changed their names (started using their middle names) and went about their lives (after undoubtedly taking a huge payoff).
Hitler bad, Uncle Joe Stalin and the chubby loveable Churchill good ... and it goes on and on and on. We've been lied to about EVERYTHING. Moon Landing was a hoax precisely in order to perpetuate the myth of our living on a spinning ball and to further instill the propaganda.
But here's the thing. I think that my eyes were opened to the grand deception on 9/11. From there you start digging and digging. I listened to a lot of Alex Jones. Now, he's a gatekeeper on certain issues, but he also exposes a lof of the evil out there.
Then it took me a bit longer to wake up to the moon landing Hoax.
But even for me, there was initially huge skepticism regarding flat earth due to the programming. But I decided to give it a chance and start looking at the evidence. It got to a point that it was basically impossible to refute. One could go on for hours and hours about the phenomena that simply don't add up if we truly live on a spinning ball hurtling at breakneck speeds through the solar system, galaxy, and universe. I had already come to the conclusion that the earth was stationary and at the center of the universe. But flat? Yes ... flat, with a solid firmament dome over the top. Add that to the other scientific hoaxes like evolution or the Big Bang ... all calculated to promote their atheistic agenda.
And now of course we're faced with the COVID hoax. Follow the "science" they keep telling everyone. Yeah, sure, the "science".
It's one hoax, lie, and deception after another.
Flat earthers, ever heard about Vendée Globe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vend%C3%A9e_Globe)?
Are they all French NASA agents? Or are they just sailing around Antarctica?
https://youtu.be/lPfCvZLWKCA
The routes on globe earth and on flat earth are shown at 2'00". Wind forward, or see there: https://youtu.be/lPfCvZLWKCA?t=120
The sudden rise of this FE stuff is to try and muddy the waters so that people don’t take a critical look at Geocentrism or the fake Moon landings.I've asked Marion this question now, twice, and he's ignored it. Ladislaus also asked a similar question, but he also ignored it. So i'll ask you.
Meanwhile, the train stays on the tracks while the earth spins at 1,037 mph. :laugh1:
I've asked Marion this question now, twice, and he's ignored it. Ladislaus also asked a similar question, but he also ignored it. So i'll ask you.
FE supports Geocentrism and absolutely destroys the idea of a moon landing, so what's the issue?
FE supports the Church model from the Middle Ages/Scripture and is completely at odds with the masonic Galileo and Copernicus, so what's the issue?
The real issue is the misinterpretation/mis-explanations of FE out there, done by the typical media/"expert" cabal, who twist the idea of FE into some conspiracy, tin-foil hat, uneducated daydream. A true, rational understanding of FE, based on unbiased, catholic scientists of centuries ago, makes a lot of sense.
Statements in this thread about water curving remind me of the Newfie* who wanted to water ski but couldn't find a lake with a slope.
* Newfie is someone from Newfoundland. It's the Canadian version of a blonde joke.
Stanley called me a "Newfie"!!!
Oh no!
I'm melt innnnnngggggg.
How exactly are you able to know that there "is a 100-ft ice wall on the circuмference of the plane", if at the same time your link says "sorry-antarctica-is-closed"?So, in your utter adherence to truth and objectivity you simply looked at the name of the video rather than actually watch it? :facepalm:
Strange sort of discourse. Sounds rather imbecile to me. Am I missing something? And how brazen is such an answer to the post of moneil, that you dismiss?
I'm happy you found the joke amusing, but I didn't call you a Newfie.
The Antarctic Treaty was signed on December 1, 1959 by 12 countries, but did not enter into force until June 23, 1961. There are now 50 nations that have signed or accept the treaty. This treaty that supposedly prevents us from finding the “edge of the earth meeting the dome of the firmament” did not come into existence until years, decades, or even centuries after the explorers I cited. This pretty much tells any thinking and rational person all they need to know about the credibility of the “flat earth fantasy”. “If” the earth were flat someone would have been to the edge by now.
Here is the actual text of the Antarctic treaty https://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/antarct/anttrty.jsp (https://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/antarct/anttrty.jsp)
In any case, shortly after they closed off Antarctica, the US started this nuclear program ...
Shortly thereafter they hastily created NASA and the "space" program, etc. ...
Why do you feel you need the FE model to make your case?I don't need FE to prove that geocentrism is true, but it does help. But the real reason is, i'm undecided on FE, but i'm also not scared to explore the possibility. I'm open to where the truth leads. I'm open to believing that centuries-old scientists (most of whom where catholic and who described some variation of FE) were WAY more knowledgeable than our current, social media indoctrinated, public school educated, fast food eating, tv watching avg american. Seems to me that most people ignore FE simply due to intellectual laziness and also fear of the unknown.
Glad to hear it, Stanley, but I just posted the question of water curving.
So now I'm curious - are you blonde?
--
You've probably heard the story of the blonde flight attendant who got stuck in her hotel room. It had two doors - one went to the bathroom and the other had a sign saying "Do Not Disturb".
--
A passenger asked a flight attendant why their flight was delay two hours. "The pilot heard some weird noises and saw smoke from the engine and it took us a while to find another pilot willing to fly the plane."
I'm open to believing that centuries-old scientists (most of whom where catholic and who described some variation of FE) were WAY more knowledgeable than our current, social media indoctrinated, public school educated, fast food eating, tv watching avg american. Seems to me that most people ignore FE simply due to intellectual laziness and also fear of the unknown.
Oh the humanity!!!Oh, I have more!!!
Oh, I have more!!!
--
The flight attendant asks a passenger if he wants a drink.
The passenger asks what are my options.
"Yes or no".
FE supports the Church model from the Middle Ages/Scripture and is completely at odds with the masonic Galileo and Copernicus, so what's the issue?
The Church model at odds with Galileo and Copericus was a stationary spherical earth. This form of geocentrism corresponds to the dominant historical Catholic belief.Honestly, a lot of the debate is due to semantics. Sphere/flat/globe can mean many things to many people. I define "flat earth" (and I might be wrong) in a catholic way - a sphere shape, flat terrain, with a "atmosphere dome". You could call it a "flat earth with dome" or a "globe shape, with flat earth" or a "sphere shape earth with flat terrain".
Honestly, a lot of the debate is due to semantics. Sphere/flat/globe can mean many things to many people. I define "flat earth" (and I might be wrong) in a catholic way - a sphere shape, flat terrain, with a "atmosphere dome". You could call it a "flat earth with dome" or a "globe shape, with flat earth" or a "sphere shape earth with flat terrain".
I am not aware of any precedent for using the terms the way you do. Personally, I prefer to describe the earth as a sphere since that is the main Catholic practice historically.
I am not aware of any precedent for using the terms the way you do. Personally, I prefer to describe the earth as a sphere since that is the main Catholic practice historically.Ok, but the problem is most people don't know the history. All they know are the current terms being used. So it's necessary to "update" the historic terms to combat the modern/erroneous/confusing ideas. Kinda how the Church "defines" a doctrine to make it clearer. So let's define "church-approved, scripture supported" flat earth to include more details so that it makes more sense. That's the way I see it.
Honestly, a lot of the debate is due to semantics. Sphere/flat/globe can mean many things to many people. I define "flat earth" (and I might be wrong) in a catholic way - a sphere shape, flat terrain, with a "atmosphere dome". You could call it a "flat earth with dome" or a "globe shape, with flat earth" or a "sphere shape earth with flat terrain".(http://<a href=)(https://i.ibb.co/SBpNWm1/692160bc5cdc72ef.jpg)
The point is, I reject the atheistic definition of "planet earth" where earth is a ball and the terrain actually curves and the earth moves.
Ok, but the problem is most people don't know the history. All they know are the current terms being used. So it's necessary to "update" the historic terms to combat the modern/erroneous/confusing ideas. Kinda how the Church "defines" a doctrine to make it clearer. So let's define "church-approved, scripture supported" flat earth to include more details so that it makes more sense. That's the way I see it.
I don't need FE to prove that geocentrism is true, but it does help. But the real reason is, i'm undecided on FE, but i'm also not scared to explore the possibility. I'm open to where the truth leads. I'm open to believing that centuries-old scientists (most of whom where catholic and who described some variation of FE) were WAY more knowledgeable than our current, social media indoctrinated, public school educated, fast food eating, tv watching avg american. Seems to me that most people ignore FE simply due to intellectual laziness and also fear of the unknown.Wow, honesty at it's finest. *This* is the most excellent approach, but how few employ it.
I don't think using the word "flat" is a clear way to convey the historical Catholic understanding of the earth, no matter how much one qualifies it. Catholics of the past used the word "sphere" and I think that we should too.Some Catholics did use sphere, but not all. That's why we have to rely on description, context and other criteria. One can see how the word became interchangeable with circle. A delve into that subject would be profitable simply because the Evil One relies on obfuscation and manipulation on the unsuspecting to deceive.
The Church model at odds with Galileo and Copericus was a stationary spherical earth. This form of geocentrism corresponds to the dominant historical (non-dogmatic) belief of Catholics.Samuel Rowbotham, a science-based observer of all things regarding earth, was born in the 19th century, quite a bit prior to Eric Dubay. No Catholic takes much time with that little pagan, except for where the science cited assists in discerning truth. Just like Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine probed the minds of pagans like Aristotle and expounded on their writings to verify Catholic teaching. Truth is truth no matter where it's found.
Current belief in flat earth can usually be traced to Protestant heretics or occultists like Dubay. In terms of history, one can make a good case for traditional geocentrism, but not for flat earth.
Spherical earth is not a masonic idea. Masons, however, are a major source of the falsehood that Catholics historically believed the earth was flat.
Some Catholics did use sphere, but not all.As I said, there are records of a few Church Fathers who may have believed in flat earth, but there is no question that this idea had virtually disappeared from Catholic thinking from the time of St. Bede on. If you know of some medieval flat earth believers, please give me more information about them. I would like to find out more about something so unusual.
As I said, there are records of a few Church Fathers who may have believed in flat earth, but there is no question that this idea had virtually disappeared from Catholic thinking from the time of St. Bede on. If you know of some medieval flat earth believers, please give me more information about them. I would like to find out more about something so unusual.It may have virtually disappeared, but that doesn't make it false. Seems there is enough of a difference of models to bother to find out such details.
Samuel Rowbotham, a science-based observer of all things regarding earth, was born in the 19th century, quite a bit prior to Eric Dubay. No Catholic takes much time with that little pagan,
In 1856, Rowbotham married for a second time and had two children, one of whom died in infancy. In 1861 when he was 46, Rowbotham married a 15 year old girl (with whom he was living at the time of the marriage) and settled in London, producing 15 known children, of whom only four survived. He was named in numerous cases of wrongful deaths, including a "death by misadventure" for accidentally poisoning one of his own children. He was named responsible for other deaths using his quack cures of phosphorus. He was also alleged to be using the name "Dr. Samuel Birley", living in a beautiful 12-roomed house, selling the secrets for prolonging human life and curing every disease imaginable.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Rowbotham#cite_note-6) Augustus De Morgan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_De_Morgan) refers to him as S. Goulden.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Rowbotham#cite_note-demorgan-3) He patented a number of inventions, including a "life-preserving cylindrical railway carriage". He is not known to have held any medical degrees and his professions are named at different times "chemist, physician, journalist, soap boiler".
It may have virtually disappeared, but that doesn't make it false.It does not not necessarily make FE false, but there is no basis for claiming that it is a historically Catholic belief. That claim is provably false and originated from anti-Catholics.
Samuel Rowbotham, a science-based observer of all things regarding earth, was born in the 19th century, quite a bit prior to Eric Dubay. No Catholic takes much time with that little pagan, except for where the science cited assists in discerning truth. Just like Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine probed the minds of pagans like Aristotle and expounded on their writings to verify Catholic teaching. Truth is truth no matter where it's found.
I don"t know that Rowbotham is much better than Dubay. They both seem to be charlatans.Yea, he was a Prot. Still, his scientific acuмen has merit independent of all that. Again, like Plato and Aristotle.
Yea, he was a Prot. Still, his scientific acuмen has merit independent of all that. Again, like Plato and Aristotle.Rowbotham's ignorance of science led him to accidentally poison multiple people, including one of his own children. I see no reason to put him in the same class as Plato and Aristotle. I think that even to say that "his scientific acuмen has merit" is giving him more credit than he is due.
I don't think using the word "flat" is a clear way to convey the historical Catholic understanding of the earth, no matter how much one qualifies it. Catholics of the past used the word "sphere" and I think that we should too.You are still missing the problem with all of the descriptions. When you say "sphere" are you talking about
Perhaps the expressions "stationary sphere" or "geocentric sphere" would work.
I agree. Truth is truth no matter where it is found, since even pagans can sometimes discern the Natural Law.Yea, pagans can see natural truth. We still need to be careful about research, mistakes are easy to make. I also rely on other clues independent of any particular source. Like the checklist for each model. For instance, I cannot ever find anything of substance in the globe model, no verifiable facts, no repeatable experiments, no support from scripture, nothing reasonable. They have curved water, the illusory vacuum of space, fake astronauts, ridiculous "proofs" like the coreolis effect, they deny the horizon, deny sea level, deny the firmament, or at least attempt to explain those things away. Flat earth information can be elusive, but not having all the info does not affect the info we do have, all of which makes way more sense than believing there are upside down people on the other side of earth. :facepalm:
Rowbotham's ignorance of science led him to accidentally poison multiple people, including one of his own children. I see no reason to put him in the same class as Plato and Aristotle. I think that even to say that "his scientific acuмen has merit" is giving him more credit than he is due.Did not know that. Do you have the source and details?
Yea, pagans can see natural truth. We still need to be careful about research, mistakes are easy to make. I also rely on other clues independent of particular source. Like the checklist for each model. For instance, I cannot ever find anything of substance in the globe model, no verifiable facts, no repeatable experiments, no support from scripture, nothing reasonable. They have curved water, the illusory vacuum of space, fake astronauts, ridiculous "proofs" like the coreolis effect, they deny the horizon, deny sea level, deny the firmament, or at least attempt to explain those things away. Flat earth information can be elusive, but not having all the info does not affect the info we do have, all of which makes way more sense than believing there are upside down people on the other side of earth. :facepalm:
So what? The earth rotates at about .0007 RPM.
honestly can't tell whether you're serious or joking.
--
I was driving on the highway recently. The speedometer said I was going 100 kph, but I had a cup of coffee in the beverage holder, and the coffee wasn't jumping out of the cup.
So my car must have really been stationary and the earth moving under me at 100 kph.
Fortunately for me, the earth stopped just as I drove into my garage.
It must have been really difficult for you with the earth moving under you at 100 kph and suddenly stopping. Sorry about that.
--
Statements in this thread about water curving remind me of the Newfie* who wanted to water ski but couldn't find a lake with a slope.
* Newfie is someone from Newfoundland. It's the Canadian version of a blonde joke.
You are still missing the problem with all of the descriptions. When you say "sphere" are you talking about
1) the shape of the physical land/terrain?
2) Or are you talking about the shape of the physical land + atmosphere?
3) Or are you talking about the shape of the physical land, when viewed from above (i.e. looking down from the heavens, viewing land like a map)?
4) Or are you talking about the shape of the physical land + atmosphere + what's below the land (i.e. inner core)?
Most people that i've run across use "flat earth" to ONLY describe the physical land mass that we stand on. They aren't talking about the atmosphere or the shape of the earth BELOW the walking-surface (i.e. inner core).
Based on my limited knowledge, the old "sphere" description is based on a side-view of the earth, including 3 things - physical land + atmosphere + inner core. Like all the pictures that DigitalLogos posted. That is a "sphere" shape of the WORLD, which includes flat land.
Conclusion: The modern-up-to-date description of the old, catholic, view should be re-named something like:
a) (viewed from the side) Sphere-shaped world, with a flat land terrain
b) (short expression) Sphere world, flat land
The earth rotates at about .0007 RPM.Seems that heliocentrists love to hide behind non-speed measurements, such as the earth rotates at "x degrees" or "rpm's". This is just a clever way to hide the illogical idea of an earth spinning at over 1,000 mph.
The speedometer said I was going 100 kph, but I had a cup of coffee in the beverage holder, and the coffee wasn't jumping out of the cup.Your car is going the same direction/speed as the coffee. This is not an apples-apples comparison of an earth rotating one direction (at over 1,000 mph) and a train going the opposite direction (at 60 mph). It makes no sense that this could work. The train going WITH the rotation of the earth (1,000 + 60 mph = 1,060) would have totally different physics than the train going AGAINST the rotation (-60mph vs 1000 mph = 940 mph). The train going against the rotation wouldn't be able to move and would be pushed backwards at a very high speed.
I can't state often enough that a flat disc Earth is unscientific and unbiblical.Again, most people don't define "flat earth" as a flat disc. To most people, a flat earth = flat terrain/land that people walk on. They aren't talking about the earth's inner core or atmosphere. When you include these latter features, then you have a sphere WORLD, and a flat terrain/land.
Nicely stated. Yes, we do have to be careful about research, since, as you say, mistakes are easy to make.Well, I agree with others here: the prospect of dealing with a lie this big is so terrifying they resort to anger, spin and criticism to avoid facing it.
You mention a checklist for each model. It's quite telling that you cannot find anything of substance regarding the globe model, such as verifiable facts, no repeatable experiments, no support from scripture. And yes, they have to then try to explain away all of the problems that you cite for a supposed globe earth.
I agree that not having all of the info does not affect what we DO have, which, IMO, doesn't seem like anything of real substance to them. But if it isn't anything, then why do they spend so much time trying to fight against a flat earth?
So, in your utter adherence to truth and objectivity you simply looked at the name of the video rather than actually watch it? :facepalm:I skimmed through it. It's about that treaty, I found no info about the ice wall.
You can lead a horse to water...
Did not know that. Do you have the source and details?It was in the quote I just posed in reply #277. Didn't you read it the whole post? You replied to it.
You are still missing the problem with all of the descriptions. When you say "sphere" are you talking about
1) the shape of the physical land/terrain?
2) Or are you talking about the shape of the physical land + atmosphere?
3) Or are you talking about the shape of the physical land, when viewed from above (i.e. looking down from the heavens, viewing land like a map)?
4) Or are you talking about the shape of the physical land + atmosphere + what's below the land (i.e. inner core)?
Seems that heliocentrists love to hide behind non-speed measurements, such as the earth rotates at "x degrees" or "rpm's". This is just a clever way to hide the illogical idea of an earth spinning at over 1,000 mph.While I'm currently holding heliocentrism and geocentrism to be equal from a scientific point of view (just two different conventions regarding two different coordinate systems), the idea of a moving and spinning Earth is not illogical. As you only feel a change in velocity, it's entirely plausible to not feel a thing while standing on a rotating ball that's whizzing through space, as long as the ball doesn't suddenly change it's direction, speed or rate of rotation.
Your car is going the same direction/speed as the coffee. This is not an apples-apples comparison of an earth rotating one direction (at over 1,000 mph) and a train going the opposite direction (at 60 mph). It makes no sense that this could work.
The train going WITH the rotation of the earth (1,000 + 60 mph = 1,060) would have totally different physics than the train going AGAINST the rotation (-60mph vs 1000 mph = 940 mph). The train going against the rotation wouldn't be able to move and would be pushed backwards at a very high speed.You don't seem to have grasped the concept of relativity. If I'm standing on a ball that's moving with 1,000 mph and start to walk in the same movement direction with say, 5 mph, I now have an absolute speed of 1,005 mph as viewed from an absolute frame of reference. However from my frame of reference, I only changed my speed by 5 mph, which is quite different. If I now stop and turn around, then happen to start walking against the direction of the ball with the same speed of 5 mph, I'll still only feel the change of speed and I won't feel that my absolute speed is now only 995 mph.
Hi JayneK!Hi Josepha.
I think you would have a really strong grasp of exactly what the historical Catholic understanding of spherical earth is,You're still missing the point. Calling it "sphere earth" is outdated because unless someone has read what you've read, and knows history, the phrase doesn't give an accurate description, based on the confusion of terms today.
To all you flat Earth smarty pants, please explain how this works on a flat Earth disc:Oh you silly! The north star is just an illusion caused by the moon reflecting off an Englishman's monocle at a 75 degree angle back up into the firmament so It can only be seen by people of english decent except Australians.
(https://i.imgur.com/KRQyoYh.png)
Because in the "outer half" of the supposed disc, you can't see Polaris. Ask people in the "outer half", also called southern hemisphere. They'll tell you that they see an entirely different firmament than the people in the "inner half", also called northern hemisphere, depending on their longitude.
How do you explain that?
It's easy in the freemasonic antarctica conspiracy model :jester:
(https://i.imgur.com/wK4YMp3.png)
Hi Josepha.
I saw that a Flat Earth discussion had escaped from its proper subforum and I couldn't resist. I had to hurry up and post before Matthew chases it back in. :laugh1:
You're still missing the point. Calling it "sphere earth" is outdated because unless someone has read what you've read, and knows history, the phrase doesn't give an accurate description, based on the confusion of terms today.I agree with you about the importance of clear communication but I don't see how it applies here.
If I want to historically accurate, i'd call my car a "motor carriage" but then nobody would know what i'm talking about. In an exchange of ideas, isn't understanding the idea the point?
It was in the quote I just posed in reply #277. Didn't you read it the whole post? You replied to it.Yea, I read Garwood some time ago and found it to have several errors. Also, Rowbotham is not the same as deMorgan or whatever his name is. Not sure why someone thinks they are the same person.
I gave a quote from Wikipedia, since that is easily accessible. For more details you could read Christine Garwood's Flat Earth:History of an Infamous Idea. She has a whole chapter about Rowbotham. It is quite well researched, using lots of original sources.
Yea, I read Garwood some time ago and found it to have several errors.If you read Garwood then you should have come across the information about his responsibility for multiple deaths due to his "quack cures". Why did you say that you did not know about it?
Also, Rowbotham is not the same as deMorgan or whatever his name is. Not sure why someone thinks they are the same person.Nobody thinks they are the same person. You seem to have misunderstood the Wikipedia article. De Morgan is an author who wrote about Rowbotham.
If you read Garwood then you should have come across the information about his responsibility for multiple deaths due to his "quack cures". Why did you say that you did not know about it?Ah
Nobody thinks they are the same person. You seem to have misunderstood the Wikipedia article. De Morgan is an author who wrote about Rowbotham.
One of the broadsheets fell into the hands of mathematician Augustus De Morgan, who explored unorthodoxies of science and scholarship in a weekly column “A Budget of Paradoxes” [note 1.8] (https://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/ebooks/PlaneTruth/pages/Notes.html#com_01_08) in the magazine. As it happened, De Morgan could shed light upon what happened at the Royal Astronomical Society. Quoting Rowbotham’s claim, he commented:https://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/ebooks/PlaneTruth/pages/Chapter_01.html (https://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/ebooks/PlaneTruth/pages/Chapter_01.html)
No account of such a paper appears in the for that month: I suspect that the above is Mr. S. Goulden’s way of representing the following occurrence: Dec. 8, 1848, the Secretary of the Astronomical Society (De Morgan by name) said, at the close of the proceedings,—“Now, gentlemen, if you will promise not to tell the Council, I will read something for your amusement:” and he then read a few of the arguments that had been transmitted by the lecturer. [ref. 1.18] (https://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/ebooks/PlaneTruth/pages/References.html#ref_01_18)
As far as I can tell, what most people understand by "sphere earth" is pretty much what historical Catholics meant by it.
THE EARTH A SPHERE. -- That the earth, too, is round is shown thus. The signs and stars do not rise and set the same for all men everywhere but rise and set sooner for those in the east than for those in the west;So, a "sphere earth" describes the shape of the earth, as a whole (i.e. land + oceans), as looking at it from above, as one looks at a map.
So, a "sphere earth" describes the shape of the earth, as a whole (i.e. land + oceans), as looking at it from above, as one looks at a map.
Typically, "flat earth" is ONLY describing that the land mass is flat, from a horizontal view. Since 99% of flat-earthers aren't Trads, they wouldn't refer to the "sphere earth" idea.
Conclusion: These 2 descriptions aren't mutually exclusive, as they talk about 2 different things. The former concerns itself with the entire globe; the latter concerns itself with simply the land.
This is just a clever way to hide the illogical idea of an earth spinning at over 1,000 mph.What is so "illogical" about 1000 mph? So what?
Your car is going the same direction/speed as the coffee. This is not an apples-apples comparison of an earth rotating one direction (at over 1,000 mph) and a train going the opposite direction (at 60 mph). It makes no sense that this could work. The train going WITH the rotation of the earth (1,000 + 60 mph = 1,060) would have totally different physics than the train going AGAINST the rotation (-60mph vs 1000 mph = 940 mph). The train going against the rotation wouldn't be able to move and would be pushed backwards at a very high speed.
As I understand it, the most common flat earth model is a flat land mass with a dome over it. I do not see how this can be reconciled with the historical Catholic view.Because the "sphere earth" is describing how the earth looks from above, while the "flat earth" describes how the earth looks from the side view. You could have a flat land mass that is also in the shape of a sphere.
Because the "sphere earth" is describing how the earth looks from above, while the "flat earth" describes how the earth looks from the side view. You could have a flat land mass that is also in the shape of a sphere.
In the historical Catholic understanding, the earth does not look like a sphere; it is a sphere.Are you saying that the land mass (the surface dirt we walk on) of the earth has a slope/curvature in the shape of a sphere? Because I keep talking about the LAND (the surface dirt we walk on) and you keep referring to the earth (which includes the earth's surface but much, much more).
In the historical Catholic understanding, the earth does not merely look like a sphere; it is a sphere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B5rijDdxn4
Are you saying that the land mass (the surface dirt we walk on) of the earth has a slope/curvature in the shape of a sphere? Because I keep talking about the LAND (the surface dirt we walk on) and you keep referring to the earth (which includes the earth's surface but much, much more).In the De Sphaera passage i quoted there are a couple of references to the "bulge of the earth". This means that the surface of the earth is curved in the shape of a sphere. This also means the land that is at the surface of the earth is curved.
This is not dogmatic teaching so we are not bound to believe it.
Pffft. You spent untold amounts of time explaining that we needn't take the Church Father's scientific observations as theological (per Leo XIII) and now you're claiming that there's a "Catholic understanding" that the earth is a sphere.I have been very clear that I am talking about the historical but not dogmatic understanding of Catholics from the time of St. Bede on. You are educated enough to know that I am right about this. It needs to be said due to the widespread misconception that Catholics historically believed the earth was flat.
Hogwash.
Sacred Scripture is very clear about its description of the earth, the firmament, etc. Church Fathers all believed in the firmament, but you dismiss that ... yet now you're promoting some other Catholic standard.
Yes, the "earth" is a sphere. But it's a sphere the same way that a snow globe is a sphere, with a domed firmament on top.
It's not ANY kind of "teaching," much less is it dogmatic. It opines (incorrectly) regarding the shape of the earth.It is what was taught to virtually everyone attending a Catholic university as long as there have been Catholic universities. It was not taught as a matter of faith but of science. It is what Catholics thought.
I have been very clear that I am talking about the historical but not dogmatic understanding of Catholics from the time of St. Bede on.Ok, so St Bede died in the mid 700s.
In the De Sphaera passage i quoted there are a couple of references to the "bulge of the earth".This book was written in the 1200s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B5rijDdxn4This dude in the video is either a troll or a complete moron.
Ok, so St Bede died in the mid 700s.St. Bede's writing was copied and widely dispersed because it had practical applications for things like determining the date of Easter. This is what put it in a position of influence. The Catholic university system had not been established yet, so monasteries were the main centers of learning.
This book was written in the 1200s.
1. Why was this so influential, if it said the same thing that St Bede said, 500 years earlier?
2. Why is this book said to have been influenced by Ptolemy and not St Bede?
Either St Bede and the "De Sphaera" taught the same thing or they didn't. You say they are part of the same, consistent "teaching" but the facts don't seem to prove this.
It just seems odd for "De Sphaera" to ignore St Bede and to be influenced by Ptolemy. If St Bede's views were the same, we would assume St Bede was also influenced by Ptolemy, so "De Sphaera" could ignore Ptolemy and simply quote St Bede. That didn't happen.
It is not odd at all. At the time, Ptolemy was considered a greater science authority than St. Bede. By our standards, most of us would probably prefer a Christian source to a pagan one, but that is not they thought of it.But you said that St Bede had the same views as "De Sphaera", no? You said there was a consistent teaching since St Bede?
But you said that St Bede had the same views as "De Sphaera", no? You said there was a consistent teaching since St Bede?I do not understand what point you are making. Yes, St. Bede and Sacrobosco and Ptolemy all wrote that the earth is sphere.
The monk Bede (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede) (c. 672–735) wrote in his influential treatise on computus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computus), The Reckoning of Time, that Earth was round. He explained the unequal length of daylight from "the roundness of the Earth, for not without reason is it called 'the orb of the world' on the pages of Holy Scripture and of ordinary literature. It is, in fact, set like a sphere in the middle of the whole universe." (De temporum ratione, 32). The large number of surviving manuscripts of The Reckoning of Time, copied to meet the Carolingian requirement that all priests should study the computus, indicates that many, if not most, priests were exposed to the idea of the sphericity of Earth.[77] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#cite_note-77) Ælfric of Eynsham (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ælfric_of_Eynsham) paraphrased Bede into Old English, saying, "Now the Earth's roundness and the Sun's orbit constitute the obstacle to the day's being equally long in every land."[78] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#cite_note-78)
Bede was lucid about Earth's sphericity, writing "We call the earth a globe, not as if the shape of a sphere were expressed in the diversity of plains and mountains, but because, if all things are included in the outline, the earth's circuмference will represent the figure of a perfect globe... For truly it is an orb placed in the centre of the universe; in its width it is like a circle, and not circular like a shield but rather like a ball, and it extends from its centre with perfect roundness on all sides."[7 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#cite_note-Russell-79)
Yes, St. Bede and Sacrobosco and Ptolemy all wrote that the earth is sphere.Is this the only thing they agreed on? Is this the only detail which you base you "consistent teaching" comment on?
Is this the only thing they agreed on? Is this the only detail which you base you "consistent teaching" comment on?St. Bede wrote a practical treatise on calculating the date of Easter in which he mentioned, almost in passing, that the earth is a sphere. De Sphaera is a detailed account of the principles of astronomy for academics, in which the sphericity of the earth is one of the main points. They are different kinds of writing, but using the same basic assumption - geocentric spherical earth.
St. Bede wrote a practical treatise on calculating the date of Easter in which he mentioned, almost in passing, that the earth is a sphere. De Sphaera is a detailed account of the principles of astronomy for academics, in which the sphericity of the earth is one of the main points. They are different kinds of writing, but using the same basic assumption - geocentric spherical earth.Ok, that's what I thought.
Ok, that's what I thought.
1. For St Bede to mention something "in passing" is not a detailed explanation, thus it cannot be considered a teaching because he didn't explain anything.
2. "De Sphaera" is based on Ptolemy but St Bede did not base his comment on Ptolemy, so again, no consistency.
3. A "consistent teaching" presupposes that both teachers believe the same for the same reasons.
4. Since St Bede didn't explain his reasons, all we know is his conclusion.
5. 2 people having the same conclusion does not mean they agree on "why the conclusion is correct".
6. Since St Bede wasn't influenced by Judaic-islam, then his reasons cannot be the same as in "De Sphaera".
7. Since "De Sphaera" didn't reference St Bede, then their reasons aren't proven to be similar.
8. Thus, you should stop saying there is a "consistent teaching" but must treat St Bede as having an isolated opinion, from which we don't know the origin.
Since you present yourself as a semi-expert on this issue, you should know all of the above. If you don't know the above, then you should stop posting about the topic.
St Bede's proofs of the earth being a sphere... are similar to those used by Sacrobosco
At the time, Ptolemy was considered a greater science authority than St. Bede.
If I'm standing on a ball that's moving with 1,000 mph and start to walk in the same movement direction with say, 5 mph, I now have an absolute speed of 1,005 mph as viewed from an absolute frame of reference. However from my frame of reference, I only changed my speed by 5 mph, which is quite different. If I now stop and turn around, then happen to start walking against the direction of the ball with the same speed of 5 mph, I'll still only feel the change of speed and I won't feel that my absolute speed is now only 995 mph.
Spherical earth is not any kind of Catholic "teaching". It's an opinion that some Catholics have held, likely due to following Aristotle. Aristotle gave the example of the boat sinking beneath the horizon. Well, neither Aristotle nor those who followed him, had a Nikon P900/P1000 camera or a telescope so they could easily bring the entire boat back into view.Something I've been thinking more and more on is that, if we follow ancient cosmology, the "Universe" (the Sphere of Creation) before and after The Great Flood is probably drastically different. It was thought that there was water above IIRC. There's some interesting implications here, Earth could also have drastically changed as well.
This is a matter of science, and I don't need to follow the scientific opinions of even a St. Thomas Aquinas (whose science caused him to misfire a bit on the Immaculate Conception). There are no theological reasons to believe that the earth is a sphere, and so whatever opinion certain Catholics held about the matter isn't worth much more than that of my next-door neighbor.
There's solid Scriptural support for a physical firmament. There's lot of Scripture which suggests that the earth is flat, although admittedly it could be explained as a bit more figurative. But there's no explaining away the firmament. But that's as far as it goes.
It just seems a bit inconsistent, even hypocritical, to dismiss the opinions of the Church Fathers regarding the Genesis account of creation due to supposed "advancements" in science but then claim it's consistent "Catholic teaching" that the earth is a sphere.
Evidence is mounting that the earth is flat.
Atheistic modern "Science" rejects much of Sacred Scripture, which clearly teaches, for instance, that the earth was made before the sun and the moon, that there were waters above and below the earth, that man was made from the dust of the earth, etc. "Science" rejects all that too ... but we know they're dead wrong.
(http://<a href=)(https://i.ibb.co/sJRWmT8/Andrea-Previtali-Salvator-Mundi-1519-oil-on-poplar-61-6-x-53-cm-National-Gallery.jpg)
A flat earth-plane encapsulated within a watery "globe", with a solid Firmament overhead.
How could Atlas hold a globe rotating at 1,000 miles per hour? And how do you hold something that’s also supposed to be orbiting the sun? :jester:
There's lot of Scripture which suggests that the earth is flat, although admittedly it could be explained as a bit more figurative.
Qui sedet super gyrum terræ, et habitatores ejus sunt quasi locustæ: qui extendit velut nihilum cœlos, et expandit eos sicut tabernaculum ad inhabitandum.
It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
Stop sidetracking!If you quit posting pagan garbage, I’ll quit making fun.
It just seems a bit inconsistent, even hypocritical, to dismiss the opinions of the Church Fathers regarding the Genesis account of creation due to supposed "advancements" in science but then claim it's consistent "Catholic teaching" that the earth is a sphere.
I have never claimed that spherical earth was "Catholic teaching" in the sense of a Church teaching concerning faith. I have been saying that historically Catholics taught and believed this, as a matter of science, ever since St. Bede, with virtually no exceptions. And that is what I believe too. The medieval case for spherical earth still seems like good science to me. And I want to be on the same side as Doctors of the Church, not people like Dubay and Rowbotham.
Your story is bunk. Just because two people, 500 years apart, used the word “sphere”, one of whom didn’t explain what he meant, you say it’s a “consistent teaching”. :jester: Ridiculous!
You should be ashamed for comparing St Bede with a heliocentric, Islam-loving infiltrator.
But did they require, as you do, that everyone must accept what they taught, regarding the shape of the earth? I don't believe that they did.Where did I require that everyone must accept that the earth is a sphere? People are free to follow the science and reach whatever conclusions can be supported by reason. They may not, however, claim that flat earth was the main position among Catholics in the past (an idea fabricated by anti-Catholics) because that is a lie.
Where did I require that everyone must accept that the earth is a sphere? People are free to follow the science and reach whatever conclusions can be supported by reason. They may not, however, claim that flat earth was the main position among Catholics in the past (an idea fabricated by anti-Catholics) because that is a lie.
Yes, and Jayne would have us believe that a ball earth was universally and consistently taught in the Catholic universities, but I don't believe this. And thus, since it was supposedy universally taught in universities, it was something that all Catholics everywhere believed. As if universities have always and everywhere been who Catholics look to teach the Faith, rather than local churches and dioceses.
You insinuate that there is a requirement, since it was the Doctors of the Church whom you say universally taught the ball earth (I don't agree that they universally taught this), and that's what we should believe.
During the medieval period, universities where religious institutions, usually operating under papal charters. Typically those who achieved high office in the Church (popes, bishops, etc.) had a university education, as well as many priests. It is a matter of record that these universities taught sphere earth. Those interested in the truth can confirm this for themselves.
Those not interested in the truth can dismiss facts they don't like, the way that Meg does.
There is nothing at all inconsistent in my views. You are misrepresenting them.
This is the context of a few Fathers teaching the earth is flat. The traditional Catholic flat earth site is able to come up with four (as I recall) Fathers. There was no consensus among the Fathers on this. This is not only the understanding of historians, but the teaching of St. John Damascene. When there is no consensus there is no reason to consider it part of Church teaching. This is the reason that I dismiss the opinions of those few Fathers who taught flat earth. It has nothing to do with advancements in science.
...
I have never claimed that spherical earth was "Catholic teaching" in the sense of a Church teaching concerning faith. I have been saying that historically Catholics taught and believed this, as a matter of science, ever since St. Bede, with virtually no exceptions. And that is what I believe too. The medieval case for spherical earth still seems like good science to me. And I want to be on the same side as Doctors of the Church, not people like Dubay and Rowbotham.
but Aristotle's major proof for the spherical earth was boats disappearing bottom-up over the "horizon" when that is clearly shown to be mistaken with simple cameras today like the P900. When those boats "disappear" you need simply zoom in on them to bring them back into full view.
Wow, 24 pages. Truly, if you want to upset people tell them you think the earth is flat.Or tell them the earth is round.
It appears with this wind farm, you can't "simply zoom in on them to bring them back into full view".
Wow, 24 pages. Truly, if you want to upset people tell them you think the earth is flat.
Indeed, this makes them more upset than blasphemy or heresy.Well, it blasphemes the modern scientific dogmas, so of course it would.
Or tell them the earth is round.I'm not upset though. I only get upset at the devilish mockery coming from supposedly pious Catholics.
Once St. Augustine's idea was accepted, all Catholics treated the question of the shape of the earth as a matter of science. St. Bede taught, as a matter of science, that the earth is a sphere and his writing on this was widely dispersed. It seems to have been the accepted scientific position throughout Christendom from this time forward. Once the Catholic university system developed, all students were taught, as a matter of science, that the earth is a sphere. The greatest Catholic minds, like St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Robert Bellarmine, accepted and taught that the earth is a sphere, as a matter of science.You act as if all these people taught "sphere theory" in the exact same way. But they didn't. That's dishonesty through defect. You're not telling the whole story.
With regard to the first statement, there was no consensus one way or another among the Fathers about the shape of the earth. That leaves it an open question. Nevertheless, I recall your arguing at one point (from Leo XIII) that even if there WERE a consensus among the Fathers about something scientific, well, since it's science, it could be mistaken. But in either case, the point is that this is not a matter of doctrine, but of science ... except perhaps some details, like the firmament, which all the Fathers unequivocally believed in, since it's clearly taught in Sacred Scripture. Do you believe that there's a solid firmament above the earth?
You did refer to spherical earth as Catholic teaching, but then added the qualification that it's not "dogmatic". My point is that it's not Catholic teaching in any sense, dogmatic or otherwise. Historically, SOME Catholics believed this. Even above you say that Catholics "taught" this. No, they didn't "teach" this. Xavier here does the same thing, use the term "teach" loosely. But when we speak of Catholic "teaching", that has a different sense than if, say, a Catholic were "teaching" a science class in school vs. Catholic "teaching" in the strict sense, so it's important to distinguish.
Do Catholics look to Catholic universities to teach them about the Faith? Have they always been the main teaching source for all Catholics? If so, then there's no need to have the local churches teach anything. Only the universities should be allowed to preach the Faith, if what you contend is true.
I contrasted this with "historical" to express that this was something generally taught and believed by Catholics of the past as a matter of science. ..This is especially true after the time of St. Bede.This is just not true. You're like a bad infomercial - you keep repeating the same half-truths over and over again.
Once the Catholic university system developed, all students were taught, as a matter of science, that the earth is a sphere.There's no evidence for this. There is evidence that sphere-earth was discussed at catholic universities. But a discussion about a theory (and we must assume there were contrary theories discussed, because that's how the Scholastic theory works) is not a teaching (which implies a fact). You throw around the word "teaching" in a dishonest way. You imply it was considered a fact and not just a theory. That's why Galileo got in trouble. :facepalm:
You act as if all these people taught "sphere theory" in the exact same way. But they didn't. That's dishonesty through defect. You're not telling the whole story.You have no idea what all these people taught. You have not read the source materials. You have taken my comments about them and twisted them to claim that there were significant differences between them. You are the one being dishonest by stating your wild suppositions and assumptions as if they were facts.
Glad to know I can write you off as a untrustful source. Too bad too many others will be confused by your hazy history.
For the purposes of this discussion, they all would be on the "sphere earth" side of this debate.And you falsely imply that there is one, singular theory which EVERYONE at a university was taught. You imply that there was no discussion, no debate, no disagreement among anyone as to how sphere earth worked.
Wow, 24 pages. Truly, if you want to upset people tell them you think the earth is flat.What upsets me is people claiming that flat earth was the historical Catholic position. That is an outright falsehood fabricated by anti-Catholics in order to defame the Church.
And you falsely imply that there is one, singular theory which EVERYONE at a university was taught. You imply that there was no discussion, no debate, no disagreement among anyone as to how sphere earth worked.
Almost everyone was taught from the same textbook for centuries.The Church never considered it a fact, so it's wrong to use the word "teaching". It was a theory open for debate. The Middle Ages was all about the Scholastic Method and debate. Something which is debated is not a "teaching".
What upsets me is your claiming St Bede mentioning sphere earth "almost in passing" is a teaching (which implies an undebatable, you-have-to-accept-this, fact). Instead of the word "teaching" you should use the phrase "proposed theory". Even then, a theory which is only mentioned in passing is quite worthless as a teaching tool.Why are you being so insistent about what St. Bede wrote when you have not actually read it? Unfortunately I have never been able to find an online English translation. If your Latin is good enough, I could give a link for the Latin version.
Because "teaching" implies I have to accept it. Which we don't. It's a theory. Stop using the word "teaching"; it's dishonest.There is no obligation of any sort to accept things taught about science in universities, even medieval Catholic universities, or by Doctors of the Church. You are imagining this implication.
God is both omnipotent and yet geniusly simple. He would create a system that is dazzlingly easy to understand yet complex enough to work. What you describe is full of inefficiency and wasted speed/force.The universe is in some ways geniously simple and efficient, but for us humans it is immensely complex to grasp, we may never even be able to fully understand all of the inner workings of the universe with our limited human mind.
Wiki also shows us that several prominent Catholics to include saints, as well as those who wrote the Apostolic Constitutions, seem to favor flat earth as seen in this footnote.
*Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Methodius, Ephrem Syrus, Gregory of Nyssa, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Procopius of Gaza all offered an intriguing exegesis of the Tabernacle," in relation to the earth and cosmos.
Gregory of Nyssa believed that the earth is a sphere, so "intriguing exegesis of the Tabernacle" cannot be assumed to show support for flat earth.Providing information as I come across it. Perhaps there is more to know about the flat earth and the beliefs of earlier Christians.
There is no obligation of any sort to accept things taught about science in universities, even medieval Catholic universities, or by Doctors of the Church. You are imagining this implication.:facepalm:
:facepalm:
1. You don't understand the english language and that words have meaning. The word "Teach" implies a communication of truth/fact. If something is only a theory, then using "teach" is incorrect. This is why Galileo got in trouble. You don't know anything about him?
2. Most women don't use precise language for a variety of reasons. This is why they shouldn't be in the business of educating anyone over 10.
3. You completely ignore the Scholastic Method of learning in the Middle Ages and you act as if a "university book" means there was consistent agreement of it. This is completely false. A university book means it was a starting point for debate, for deeper understanding, for improvement, for testing.
It's apparent you have an agenda and are very biased.:pray:
But, are you over 10?I remember in 5th grade, our Trad teacher told us that modern science believes in an earth spinning over 1,000 mph and also revolving around the sun at a whopping 67,000 mph. :laugh1: I remember thinking "how stupid". This gentlemen then told us true, catholic science. God rest this man's soul - a patriot and real catholic.
:facepalm:
1. You don't understand the english language and that words have meaning. The word "Teach" implies a communication of truth/fact. If something is only a theory, then using "teach" is incorrect. This is why Galileo got in trouble. You don't know anything about him?
3. You completely ignore the Scholastic Method of learning in the Middle Ages and you act as if a "university book" means there was consistent agreement of it. This is completely false. A university book means it was a starting point for debate, for deeper understanding, for improvement, for testing.
Also, the fact that this book was used for centuries, is a pretty good indication of the respect in which it was held. It was not just any "university book".
I remember in 5th grade, our Trad teacher told us that modern science believes in an earth spinning over 1,000 mph and also revolving around the sun at a whopping 67,000 mph. :laugh1: I remember thinking "how stupid". This gentlemen then told us true, catholic science. God rest this man's soul - a patriot and real catholic.
Yes, St. Bede and everyone else I have mentioned teaching spherical earth were communicating truth/fact....They were not proposing theories.
in the case of De Sphaera, there was consistent agreement with the idea of spherical earth.1. Consistent agreement means there's still disagreement. It means it's not a fact. Unless you don't know what "fact" means?
Also, the fact that this book was used for centuries, is a pretty good indication of the respect in which it was held.Now you further water down your original statement by saying the book's use was a "good indication" of its acceptance.
Are you suggesting, that your "Trad teacher" was a flat-earth-tard, was teaching flat-earth as "true, catholic science"?Actually, looking back, he was kinda practicing the Scholastic method. We used "conservative" science books which talked about creationism instead of evolution, but he gave us both sides. He taught us about evolution and where it didn't make sense. He taught us Church history and Scripture on creation. He MADE US THINK. He challenged us. He did the same thing with geocentrism vs heliocentrism.
Wow! Saying that there is "consistent agreement" means that there is disagreement.That's obvious. Consistent means "generally", "mostly", "typically". It does not mean fully, completely, or all.
That's obvious. Consistent means "generally", "mostly", "typically". It does not mean fully, completely, or all.
You said yourself St Bede's writings are in latin, so how do you know they exactly agree?I'm a Latin teacher. (While my students are over ten, it is an all-girl school, so perhaps it will not be too harmful.)
I would like more opinions.
Medieval manuscripts blog (https://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/index.html)
24 May 2018
‘The Earth is, in fact, round’
It’s a major peeve of many medieval historians: the popular belief that people who lived before Christopher Columbus thought that the world was flat. It is actually rare to find groups in the classical, Late Antique and medieval eras who believed in the flat Earth. On the contrary, numerous ancient thinkers, navigators and artists observed that the Earth was round.
(https://sarahjbiggs.typepad.com/.a/6a013488b5399e970c0223c849068a200c-500wi) (https://sarahjbiggs.typepad.com/.a/6a013488b5399e970c0223c849068a200c-popup)
Miniature of the Earth in a circle, with personifications of the four cardinal points, made in England in the 3rd quarter of the 13th century: Egerton MS 843 (https://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMIN.ASP?Size=mid&IllID=10143), f. 23r
The first recorded, unambiguous European references to a spherical Earth are found in the work of ancient Greek philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle. By the time the Roman writer Pliny the Elder was writing the first part of his Natural History around AD 77, the fact that the Earth is a sphere was treated as common knowledge: ‘We all agree on the earth’s shape. For surely we always speak of the round ball of the Earth’ (Pliny, Natural History, II.64).
(https://blogs.bl.uk/.a/6a00d8341c464853ef0224e037aac4200d-500wi) (https://blogs.bl.uk/.a/6a00d8341c464853ef0224e037aac4200d-popup)
Opening page of a much later copy of Pliny’s Historia naturalis, made in Rome in 1457 or 1458: Harley MS 2677 (https://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMIN.ASP?Size=mid&IllID=27022), f. 1r
These views continued into the medieval period, since even the changing hours of daylight throughout the year made it evident that the Earth was round. Around 723 or 725, the monk Bede (https://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2016/05/bede-the-greatest-hits.html)explained to his students:
‘The reason why the same days are of unequal length is the roundness of the Earth, for not without reason is it called ‘‘the orb of the world’’ on the pages of Holy Scripture and of ordinary literature. It is, in fact, a sphere set in the middle of the whole universe. It is not merely circular like a shield [or] spread out like a wheel, but resembles more a ball, being equally round in all directions ...’ (Bede, The Reckoning of Time, translated by Faith Wallis (Liverpool University Press, 1999), p. 91).
(https://blogs.bl.uk/.a/6a00d8341c464853ef0223c84906af200c-500wi) (https://blogs.bl.uk/.a/6a00d8341c464853ef0223c84906af200c-popup)
Explanation of the Earth as a sphere, from a copy of Bede, De Temporum Ratione, made in England or Normandy, late 11th or early 12th century: Royal MS 13 A XI (https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=royal_ms_13_a_xi_f062r), f. 62r
This belief was also reflected in many medieval maps. Round diagrams of the Earth were included in the works of Isidore of Seville. Meanwhile, a map that was often circulated with the work of the 5th-century writer Macrobius showed the climate zones of Earth divided into northern and southern hemispheres.
(https://blogs.bl.uk/.a/6a00d8341c464853ef0224e03b97b5200d-500wi) (https://blogs.bl.uk/.a/6a00d8341c464853ef0224e03b97b5200d-popup)
Diagram of the habitable zones of the Earth, from Macrobius, Commentarii in Ciceronis Somnium Scipionis, France or England: Add MS 11943 (https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=add_ms_11943_f038v), f. 38v
The idea that the Earth was round was not limited to tracts on science and natural history. Much medieval art also depicted the Earth as a sphere. For this reason, depictions of God the Creator often show him holding a compass, a tool used to draw round objects.
(https://sarahjbiggs.typepad.com/.a/6a013488b5399e970c0223c84cefbd200c-500wi) (https://sarahjbiggs.typepad.com/.a/6a013488b5399e970c0223c84cefbd200c-popup)
Depiction of God creating the Earth with a compass and scales, from the Tiberius Psalter, Winchester, mid-11th century: Cotton MS Tiberius C VI (https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=cotton_ms_tiberius_c_vi_f007v), f. 7v
(https://blogs.bl.uk/.a/6a00d8341c464853ef0224df349dc5200b-500wi) (https://blogs.bl.uk/.a/6a00d8341c464853ef0224df349dc5200b-popup)
Depiction of God the Creator holding a compass, from a Bible historiale made in Paris and Clairefontaine, 1411: Royal MS 19 D III (https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=royal_ms_19_d_iii_f003r), f. 3r
Many writers also assumed the Earth was a sphere. Dante’s Divine Comedy even discussed how the shape of the world created different time zones, and how different stars were visible in the southern and northern hemispheres.
Of course, even though earlier thinkers knew the world was round, they did not fully understand how it worked. Without a theory of gravity, Pliny struggled to understand how people who lived in the southern hemisphere did not fall off the world, while Bede denied that anyone lived in the southern hemisphere at all. (Bede was wrong, as you can see in the British Library’s summer 2018 exhibition, James Cook: The Voyages (https://www.bl.uk/events/james-cook-the-voyages).)
(https://sarahjbiggs.typepad.com/.a/6a013488b5399e970c0224e037ab10200d-500wi) (https://sarahjbiggs.typepad.com/.a/6a013488b5399e970c0224e037ab10200d-popup)
Diagrams using human figures to show the round shape of Earth, from a copy of Gossuin de Metz’s ‘L’Image du Monde’ made in Bruges, 1464: Royal MS 19 A IX (https://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMIN.ASP?Size=mid&IllID=44154), f. 42r
Nevertheless, there is one thing on which most human thinkers, for most of history, have agreed — as Bede put it, 'the Earth is, in fact, a sphere'.
Actually, looking back, he was kinda practicing the Scholastic method. We used "conservative" science books which talked about creationism instead of evolution, but he gave us both sides. He taught us about evolution and where it didn't make sense. He taught us Church history and Scripture on creation. He MADE US THINK. He challenged us. He did the same thing with geocentrism vs heliocentrism.
Most people don't give kids enough credit. They can see stupidity and lies if you give them a proper comparison. The govt knows this...that's why they ban creationism and geocentrism in schools.
Here is a blog article:Is this what you mean by "consistent agreement"? Lots of pictures and the word "sphere" being used?
Did everyone who mentioned "sphere" explain it the same way? THAT is the key thing. Just mentioning "sphere" doesn't show the same understanding of the how the world is laid out and operates.The two main sources of spherical earth cosmology influencing Christendom were Ptolemy and Aristotle. There were some differences between their cosmologies but they agreed that earth is a sphere and on what was meant by "sphere". De Sphaera is a combination of their ideas. Just about anybody talking about spherical earth in the medieval period would have used "sphere" in the way that these "authorities" used it.
*sigh* But St Bede wasn't from Medieval times, but 500 years before.
In the history of Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Europe), the Middle Ages or medieval period lasted approximately from the 5th to the late 15th centuries,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages)
Or...could one interpretation of "sphere" refer to the atmosphere dome?
*sigh* But St Bede wasn't from Medieval times, but 500 years before. What evidence is there to suggest he viewed sphere earth in the same way as Aristotle or Ptolemy?
Or...could one interpretation of "sphere" refer to the atmosphere dome?
Thirdly, what evidence is there to suggest that St Augustine viewed "sphere" in the same way as Aristotle? Further, Did St Bede reference St Augustine?
Just because they used the word "sphere" doesn't mean they meant the same thing.
You cherry pick this one but ignore the HUNDREDS of others where the person gave precise measurements, showed the math, calculated atmospheric conditions (in various places around the world), etc. There are literally hundreds of videos out there showing precisely that. Oops a boat disappears. Now zoom in. Oh, it's back. This guy in the video just showed one perspective, no zooming.
So the fact that you cherry pick this one and ignore the hundreds of others showing the exact opposite simply shows your intellectual dishonesty.
the earth is similar to a globe.Of course. But it depends how you define globe/sphere. The below picture easily fits the description of a sphere.
Has anyone responded to the constellation obection? How you can only see the northern star in the northern hemisphere and constellations that can be seen in Aussie land can't be seen from the USA or Europe.Because the stars are much, much closer to earth than we think. And telescopes aren't as powerful as we think. So stars in the southern hemisphere can't be seen by the northern hemisphere because...they are too far away.
Has anyone responded to the constellation obection? How you can only see the northern star in the northern hemisphere and constellations that can be seen in Aussie land can't be seen from the USA or Europe.This is my understanding: Australia is on the outer edge of the earth, far enough that the stars that sit low on the horizon, are too low in the firmament for the eye to resolve for the angle of resolution. It's the same reason we can't see across Kansas.
Because the stars are much, much closer to earth than we think. And telescopes aren't as powerful as we think. So stars in the southern hemisphere can't be seen by the northern hemisphere because...they are too far away.Why are people at the equator able to see the northern star near the horizon.
Because the stars are much, much closer to earth than we think.
What is your evidence for this statement?What is the evidence that they are millions of "light years" away? How does one measure millions of miles, much less "light years"? The same people who peddle these lies work for the devil - they are out to elevate humanity, elevate science, elevate human knowledge - all in opposition to Faith, Scripture and common sense. They create complex lies so they can control knowledge, control education and control the people. They hate God and they hate Truth.
What is your evidence for this statement?Probably conjecture. Like the dark celestial bodies and such.
What is the evidence that they are millions of "light years" away? How does one measure millions of miles, much less "light years"? The same people who peddle these lies work for the devil - they are out to elevate humanity, elevate science, elevate human knowledge - all in opposition to Faith, Scripture and common sense. They create complex lies so they can control knowledge, control education and control the people. They hate God and they hate Truth.That isn't what he asked
Probably conjecture.:confused: Which came first - flat land/sphere earth model of all ancient civilizations, or... the 15th century, atheistic, planetary lie?
The title of the chapter of Bede's work on these topics says: the earth is similar to a globe.The blog article that I posted up thread (and Pax Vobis dismissed) had a quote from Bede that made it very clear just what he meant by "sphere".
Around 723 or 725, the monk Bede (https://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2016/05/bede-the-greatest-hits.html)explained to his students:
‘The reason why the same days are of unequal length is the roundness of the Earth, for not without reason is it called ‘‘the orb of the world’’ on the pages of Holy Scripture and of ordinary literature. It is, in fact, a sphere set in the middle of the whole universe. It is not merely circular like a shield [or] spread out like a wheel, but resembles more a ball, being equally round in all directions ...’ (Bede, The Reckoning of Time, translated by Faith Wallis (Liverpool University Press, 1999), p. 91).
*sigh* But St Bede wasn't from Medieval times, but 500 years before. What evidence is there to suggest he viewed sphere earth in the same way as Aristotle or Ptolemy?.
Or...could one interpretation of "sphere" refer to the atmosphere dome?
Thirdly, what evidence is there to suggest that St Augustine viewed "sphere" in the same way as Aristotle? Further, Did St Bede reference St Augustine? Just because they used the word "sphere" doesn't mean they meant the same thing..
..He also does not know what the word "consistent" means or what the phrase "medieval period" refers too.
The word "sphere" has a single, universally understood meaning. You are the only person in this thread who seems to have trouble understanding the meaning of such common words as "earth", "air", "atmosphere", "flat", "round" and "sphere".
Almost everyone was taught from the same textbook for centuries. De Sphaera was that popular. Earth being a sphere was not controversial. Discussion and debate centered on movement of celestial bodies. Copernicus is an example that most are aware of.
What is the evidence that they are millions of "light years" away? How does one measure millions of miles, much less "light years"? The same people who peddle these lies work for the devil - they are out to elevate humanity, elevate science, elevate human knowledge - all in opposition to Faith, Scripture and common sense. They create complex lies so they can control knowledge, control education and control the people. They hate God and they hate Truth.
Still waiting for you to prove that it was used for centuries. Please explain when, where, and by whom it was used; otherwise, I assume that you are just are just making it up.Any article about De Sphaera Mundi will give you this information. Just go look it up. If I tell you, you will just make excuses to dismiss it.
Any article about De Sphaera Mundi will give you this information. Just go look it up. If I tell you, you will just make excuses to dismiss it.
Any article about De Sphaera Mundi will give you this information.You've proven no connection between this and St Bede, or St Augustine, other than they used the word "sphere". In fact, if this guy who wrote this book was an infiltrator (as I suspect) because his book led to Galileo and Copernicus, then such infiltrators often use the same words as catholic saints/doctrine, but change the meanings. Just look at V2. You have the original meaning of "ecuмenism" and you have the V2-one-world-religion version of "ecuмenism". The enemies of the church have long used jooish tactics of co-opting words, institutions and movements.
All of you are interpreting "sphere" to mean what you want it to mean. St Bede did not describe it as concretely as you imagine. These 2 images also fit into his description. Again, when one view the world FROM THE SIDE VIEW (i.e. horizontally), this also looks like a sphere.St. Bede said the earth is a sphere that is a ball that is equally round in all directions. Something that has a side view different from its top view is not what he is talking about.
‘The reason why the same days are of unequal length is the roundness of the Earth, for not without reason is it called ‘‘the orb of the world’’ on the pages of Holy Scripture and of ordinary literature. It is, in fact, a sphere set in the middle of the whole universe. It is not merely circular like a shield [or] spread out like a wheel, but resembles more a ball, being equally round in all directions ...’ (Bede, The Reckoning of Time, translated by Faith Wallis (Liverpool University Press, 1999), p. 91).There is nothing in this description that could not fit into this picture, with the atmosphere/firmament being part of the sphere shape.
I heard Dr. Marshall mention this passage from Isaias while listening to his (good) video on the location of Hell. He made it in passing reference to his opinion that the earth is a globe, and not flat. And, from a cursory search at least, it is the only passage in the Douay-Rheims that uses the word "globe" in reference to the earthQuoteIsaias 40:22:
It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
Qui sedet super gyrum terrae, et habitatores ejus sunt quasi locustae; qui extendit velut nihilum caelos, et expandit eos sicut tabernaculum ad inhabitandum;
Interestingly enough, though, while the translation selected globe for gyrum; gyrum itself is defined as meaning "circle, ring; circuit; course; circular course for training horses" Which does not necessitate "globe" in the modern understanding of spherical geometry. And, given how the FE model establishes the sun and moon as running a circuit of sorts over the planar earth, it is still possible to view this within the position of FE. It undoubtedly solidifies the position of the earth as the center of the universe, wherein all the stars and planets orbit it in a circuit or course.
And interestingly enough, many of the Protestant translations take "gyrum" as "circuit" or "circle". And this seems to stem from the Hebrew word ח֝֗וּג "ḥūḡ", which is translated to mean "a circle".
We can further see a declension of the word "gyrus", as "gyro" utilized in Proverbs 8:27:QuoteWhen he prepared the heavens, I was present: when with a certain law and compass he enclosed the depths:
Quando praeparabat caelos, aderam; quando certa lege et gyro vallabat abyssos;
Which is speaking of the glory of the creation of the world by God. The English Dictionary has one definition of "compass" as such: "a passing round; circuit". And in the Hebrew it utilizes the sameword ח֝֗וּג "ḥūḡ", which, again, means "a circle".
Does this prove the Biblical FE model? Not necessarily, as a "globe" could still be defined as a planar land mass enclosed within a spherical firmament.
He also does not know what the word "consistent" means or what the phrase "medieval period" refers too.The medieval period has multiple naming conventions. The "Dark Ages" commonly referring to the period when St Bede lived.
I suppose it depends upon whether Bede or St. Augustine utilize the Latin word "gyro" or "gyrum" in their original texts. As this term is often modernized to correspond to the current conception of the world.Agree. We really have to go back to ground-zero and see how all these terms are defined. That's the only way to see where agreement actually is.
It appears with this wind farm, you can't "simply zoom in on them to bring them back into full view".Very good material there, especially the second one for people with an understanding for the technical aspects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKQI18jr8Oc
And here's one of those "long-distance" photos that "proves" the earth is flat. Watch to the end.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK93TfSYeQU
It's laughable how we've arrived at hairsplitting the definition of "sphere" and "teaching" etc. while even the most basic common sense observations can't be explained by your flat Earth disc model.
- the changing firmament depending on latitude
- tied into the above, why people on the "southern hemisphere" can't see the North Star whatsoever, and vice versa for the "northern hemisphere"
- the rotating face of the moon depending on latitude
- solar and lunar eclipses
- loads of visual proofs of things disappearing below the horizon, even when viewed with the strongest lenses
- the sun literally shining through from below the cloud layer, then disappearing below the horizon
- a lot of other inconsistencies
I haven't seen a single plausible explanation for any of these here, except for solar eclipses, but that explanation says that the moon is consists some kind of translucent cheese or something.
Come on, what are we even discussing here?
Still, the only consistency is the use of the word "sphere". It's not been proven that the definition of sphere is the same..
For example, the angle of the shadow on the moon varies with latitude! (at half moon, for example, I'm not talking about an eclipse). But not longitude! And the standard cosmological model, a globe earth with a tilted axis, explains that.!! Maybe the moon moves, just the sun would, if the earth were the center of the universe.
.
I looked up the definition of the word sphere and got: A three-dimensional surface, all points of which are equidistant from a fixed point. This is exactly what I understand the word to mean. I have never heard anyone use that word with any different meaning. If you think there is some other definition for this word, then can you please tell us what it is?
I looked up the definition of the word sphere and got: A three-dimensional surface, all points of which are equidistant from a fixed point. This is exactly what I understand the word to mean. I have never heard anyone use that word with any different meaning.It doesn't matter how we define it TODAY. What matters is, what was the original word/definition used by Scripture, St Augustine, St Bede, etc.
!! Maybe the moon moves, just the sun would, if the earth were the center of the universe.
So then it becomees a question of science, and I'm following the scientific evidence.
Doesn't matter how the sun or moon may or may not move - this is about how the moon is observed by humans on earth.
Though FE proponents rarely say anything specific, nearly everything FE I've seen proposed would mean the moon would be observed differently at different longitudes, as well as differently at the same location at different times during the night. Have you ever seen that?
Except that it's not a sphere and is much closer to the earth than claimed.
On top of that, people have repeatedly measured the temperature in moonlight and it's always cooler in moonlight than in moon shade. Full moon is spotted visible at the same time as the sun, and eclipses take place with the sun in the sky. All of this demonstrates that the moon isn't reflecting sunlight but gives off its own light somehow.
That's the problem, Lad. If the moon were "much closer" to a "flat earth", then it would look different during the night as the moon "moves" over the "flat earth".
Have you ever seen that?
That would depend entirely on what it is that we're seeing
But we can see stars through the darkened part of whatever it is.Assumes facts not in evidence.
Come out of it, Flat-Earthers! The Infant Jesus of Prague shows you clearly that the Earth is a Globe, as Sacred Scripture and the Church Fathers have taught, and you Flat-Earthers are clearly mistaken and completely clueless for denying this.
(https://i.imgur.com/TSERVzd.png)
If Jesus were holding the earth alone, this depiction would be false because the heavenly part of creation would be missing. Jesus holds the globus cruciger, the entirety of creation, to include heaven, hell and flat earth in the center.
You're claiming the moon is some object that looks the same from different directions?
If it were a featureless sphere, OK. But, it has features.
But it's unknow what the features are or what causes them. And there is in fact some change due to perspective, referred to as lunar libration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86YLFOog4GM
Laughable, embarrassing, juvenile. Only a programmed indoctrinated fool would believe this "live" view of earth is reality. These are photos over which the mechanical show-arm passes to give the impression the shot is live. The clouds never move. The water is plastic looking, as if at times they are gliding over a model. Consider the curve itself. If you complete the "sphere" by tracing the missing circle, the earth turns out to be the size of a model.
Globers be like, "Proof!"
:laugh1:
The monk Bede (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede) (c. 672–735) wrote in his influential treatise on computus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computus), The Reckoning of Time, that Earth was round. He explained the unequal length of daylight fromThe latin word that Bede uses is "pila". It can mean ball, sphere. It can ALSO mean mortar, pier, pillar, pile.
"the roundness of the Earth, for not without reason is it called 'the orb of the world' on the pages of Holy Scripture and of ordinary literature. It is, in fact, set like a sphere in the middle of the whole universe." (De temporum ratione, 32)
Mm hmm.
Your try to appear wise is called strawman fallacy. Typically applied by wounded and threatened animals with no other way out.
You present your own idiot ideas as if they were arguments of the opponents, to then try and destroy them.
Are you aware how ridiculous this is? I tell you: As ridiculous as your railroad expertise shown a few pages ago.
The latin word that Bede uses is "pila". It can mean ball, sphere. It can ALSO mean mortar, pier, pillar, pile.
The point is, this is not very descriptive. But if we look for other parts where St Bede describes roundness, he envisions that the heavens (i.e. atmosphere) make up part of this sphere, not simply the land mass. See below, he uses the word "gyrum":
Ch 16: He says "the gyre of the heavens, perfectly round at every point, is bound by the line of the zodiacal circle...adjacent to each other on a sort of girdle wrapped around a very large sphere."
Seems to me, he's including the heavens in the overall globe sphere, and the zodiac circle wraps around the heavens.
http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/xanfang.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&corpus=2&allow_download=0&lang=0
(http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/pictures/CC.png) (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/index.php) (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/pictures/uzh_logo_e_pos_web_main_zone.jpg) (http://www.uzh.ch/index.html)
Beda, De natura rerum, p1, CAPUT XLV. Terrae positio. <<< (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/text.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&rumpfid=Beda_cps2, De natura rerum, p1,) >>> CAPUT XLVII. De Circulis terrae. (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/text.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&rumpfid=Beda_cps2, De natura rerum, p1,) hide dictionary links (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/text.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&rumpfid=Beda_cps2, De natura rerum, p1,)
PRAEFATIO. (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=PRAEFATIO&tree=caput)
(PL 90 0264A) CAPUT (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=CAPUT&tree=caput)XLVI. (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=XLVI&tree=<unknown>)Terram (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=Terram&tree=terra)globo (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=globo&tree=globus)similem. (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=similem&tree=similis)
Orbem (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=Orbem&tree=orbis)terrae (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=terrae&tree=terra)dicimus, (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=dicimus&tree=dico)non (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=non&tree=non)quod (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=quod&tree=qui)absoluti (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=absoluti&tree=absolvo)orbis (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=orbis&tree=orbis)sit (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=sit&tree=sum)forma, (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=forma&tree=forma)in (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=in&tree=in)tanta (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=tanta&tree=tantus)montium (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=montium&tree=mons)camporumque (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=camporumque&tree=campus)disparilitate, (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=disparilitate&tree=<unknown>)sed (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=sed&tree=sed)cuius (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=cuius&tree=qui)amplexus, (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=amplexus&tree=amplector)si (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=si&tree=si)cuncta (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=cuncta&tree=cunctus)linearum (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=linearum&tree=lineus)comprehendantur (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=comprehendantur&tree=comprehendo)ambitu, (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=ambitu&tree=ambitus)figuram (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=figuram&tree=figura)absoluti (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=absoluti&tree=absolvo)orbis (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=orbis&tree=orbis)efficiat. (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=efficiat&tree=efficio)(0265A) Inde (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=Inde&tree=inde)enim (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=enim&tree=enim)fit (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=fit&tree=fio)ut (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=ut&tree=ut)septentrionalis (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=septentrionalis&tree=septentrionalis)plagae (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=plagae&tree=plaga)sidera (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=sidera&tree=sidus)nobis (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=nobis&tree=nos)semper (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=semper&tree=semper)appareant, (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=appareant&tree=appareo)meridianae (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=meridianae&tree=meridianus)nunquam; (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=nunquam&tree=nunquam)rursusque (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=rursusque&tree=rursus)haec (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=haec&tree=hic)illis (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=illis&tree=ille)non (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=non&tree=non)cernantur, (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=cernantur&tree=cerno)obstante (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=obstante&tree=obsto)globo (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=globo&tree=globus)terrarum. (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=terrarum&tree=terra)Septentriones (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=Septentriones&tree=septentrio)non (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=non&tree=non)cernit (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=cernit&tree=cerno)Troglodytice, (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=Troglodytice&tree=<unknown>)et (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=et&tree=et)confinis (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=confinis&tree=confinis)Aegyptus, (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=Aegyptus&tree=Aegyptus)nec (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=nec&tree=nec)Canopum (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=Canopum&tree=<unknown>)Italia: (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=Italia&tree=Italia)quamvis (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=quamvis&tree=quamvis)eiusdem (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=eiusdem&tree=idem)orbis (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=orbis&tree=orbis)pene (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=pene&tree=penis)dimidio (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=dimidio&tree=dimidius)maior (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=maior&tree=magnus)pars (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=pars&tree=pars)ab (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=ab&tree=ab)oriente (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=oriente&tree=oriens)ad (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=ad&tree=ad)occasum, (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=occasum&tree=occasus)quam (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=quam&tree=qui)a (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=a&tree=a)meridie (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=meridie&tree=meridies)ad (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=ad&tree=ad)septentrionem (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=septentrionem&tree=septentrio)habitetur: (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=habitetur&tree=habito)hinc (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=hinc&tree=hinc)calore, (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=calore&tree=calor)illinc (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=illinc&tree=illinc)rigore (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=rigore&tree=rigor)prohibente (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=prohibente&tree=prohibeo)accessum. (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=accessum&tree=accessa|accessus)
84w 0.45170187950134 s
Come out of it, Flat-Earthers!Xavier, either get back to work, or go study. You shouldn't have time for anything else.
The Infant Jesus of Prague shows you clearly that the Earth is a Globe, as Sacred Scripture and the Church Fathers have taught
CAPUT (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=CAPUT&tree=caput)XLVI. (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=XLVI&tree=<unknown>)Terram (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=Terram&tree=terra)globo (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=globo&tree=globus)similem. (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=similem&tree=similis)(http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=similem&tree=similis)Wrong chapter. We're talking about Chapter 32.
(http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=CAPUT&tree=caput) (http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/info_frame.php?tabelle=Beda_cps2&w=similem&tree=similis)Wrong chapter. We're talking about Chapter 32.:fryingpan::fryingpan::fryingpan:
Since we are on the subject of the usage of "sphere", I just want to point to an interesting declension regarding Isaias 40:22 that I have in a different thread (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/isaias-4022/):
Interestingly enough, though, while the translation selected globe for gyrum; gyrum itself is defined as meaning "circle, ring; circuit; course; circular course for training horses" Which does not necessitate "globe" in the modern understanding of spherical geometry. And, given how the FE model establishes the sun and moon as running a circuit of sorts over the planar earth, it is still possible to view this within the position of FE. It undoubtedly solidifies the position of the earth as the center of the universe, wherein all the stars and planets orbit it in a circuit or course.
And interestingly enough, many of the Protestant translations take "gyrum" as "circuit" or "circle". And this seems to stem from the Hebrew word ח֝֗וּג "ḥūḡ", which is translated to mean "a circle".
We can further see a declension of the word "gyrus", as "gyro" utilized in Proverbs 8:27:
Which is speaking of the glory of the creation of the world by God. The English Dictionary has one definition of "compass" as such: "a passing round; circuit". And in the Hebrew it utilizes the sameword ח֝֗וּג "ḥūḡ", which, again, means "a circle".
Does this prove the Biblical FE model? Not necessarily, as a "globe" could still be defined as a planar land mass enclosed within a spherical firmament.
I suppose it depends upon whether Bede or St. Augustine utilize the Latin word "gyro" or "gyrum" in their original texts. As this term is often modernized to correspond to the current conception of the world.
I don't think Scripture asserts the Earth is a globe.:confused: Isaiah 40:22: It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
And in the Hebrew it utilizes the sameword ח֝֗וּג "ḥūḡ", which, again, means "a circle".As DigitalLogos pointed out earlier, in this verse from Isaiah, the word "globe" comes from the word hebrew meaning "circle". A circle, including the heavens/firmament, is awfully similar to what St Bede described.
Here is the Latin:
Causa autem inaequalitatis eorundem dierum terrae rotunditas est; neque enim frustra et in scripturae divinae et in communium literarum paginis orbis terrae vocatur. Est enim re vera orbis idem in medio totius mundi positus, non in latitudinis solum giro quasi instar scuti rotundus sed instar potius pilae undique versum aequali rotunditate persimilis;
but rather like a ball/sphere/mortar/pier/pillar, turned on all sides by an equal and round shape
The description of the heavens as perfectly round refers to the universe as a whole. In this cosmology the earth is a sphere set at the center of the larger sphere of the universe. We know that earth only refers to the land mass because of the bit just after what I quoted, "... the enormous distance of mountains and valleys neither adds to it nor diminishes it any more than a finger would a playing ball." He is explaining why mountains and valleys do not affect the sphericity of earth.
You are talking about the red excerpt; I am talking about the blue. "Pilae/pila".but rather like a ball/sphere/mortar/pier/pillar, turned on all sides by an equal and round shape
If you include St Bede's description of the heavens (ch 16) being perfectly round, then an argument can be made that he was INCLUDING the heavens in his description of the sphere earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86YLFOog4GM
Laughable, embarrassing, juvenile. Only a programmed indoctrinated fool would believe this "live" view of earth is reality. These are photos over which the mechanical show-arm passes to give the impression the shot is live. The clouds never move. The water is plastic looking, as if at times they are gliding over a model. Consider the curve itself. If you complete the "sphere" by tracing the missing circle, the earth turns out to be the size of a model.
Globers be like, "Proof!"
:laugh1:
Come out of it, Flat-Earthers! The Infant Jesus of Prague shows you clearly that the Earth is a Globe, as Sacred Scripture and the Church Fathers have taught, and you Flat-Earthers are clearly mistaken and completely clueless for denying this.
I have no horse in this race, since it doesn't mean too much to me if Venerable Bede thought the earth was a sphere, but in reading the passage, I have to agree with Pax that the description sounds more like the globe in the sense of putting the vaulted dome on top ... like the old snow globe.
This can be known not only from the orbit of the Sun, but also from the location of all the stars which take their courses beneath the different regions of the pole. Indeed, it is because of this same sphericity of the Earth that many of the most brilliant stars of the southern region are never seen by us. On the other hand, our northern stars are to a large degree concealed from them. Hence, the Trogodyte and his Egyptian neighbour do not see those polar stars which are straight over our heads, and which never set. In fact, not only we in Britain, but even the Italians cannot see their brightest star Canopus, which once was worshipped under the name of a god. This is not because the light of the stars is withdrawn by gradually fading, and fails entirely for those at a greater distance, but because the mass of the Earth standing in the way prevents our seeing.
Again, it's a question of what Bede means by a "sphere". In the passage cited by Pax, it does in fact seems as if his notion regarding the sphere includes the dome.Given the way that the passage I quoted is sandwiched between two large citations from Pliny (which St. Bede alludes to as "in a book which is non-religious, yet not to be condemned") it is quite clear that St. Bede means by "sphere" what Pliny means by "sphere". There is no question that Pliny does not include a dome.
As I said, though, I'm not too concerned about it. People can have different opinions regarding matters of science, provided they maintain their reverence for Sacred Scripture and uphold its inerrancy.
Come out of it, Flat-Earthers! The Infant Jesus of Prague shows you clearly that the Earth is a Globe, as Sacred Scripture and the Church Fathers have taught, and you Flat-Earthers are clearly mistaken and completely clueless for denying this.
I have trouble seeing how anyone could get that interpretation, even looking at the passage in isolation,Honestly, it's not clear either way. I have no idea what he's describing. If I knew more about St Bede's time period and who he studied, we might have a better grasp.
I have to ask, could not "sphere" be used even to describe a dome?That's been my point all along, but there's not enough info to determine.
Isaiah 40:22: It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earthEven this is not descriptive enough. If you use the Hewbrew gyrum/hug = circle, that's not clearer.
Scripture may be parabolic about the description of earth, but not exactly silent.Good points. Now we just wait until someone dismisses them all as allegory
It tells us there is a dome over the earth
That the dome is like a vault
That there is water above the dome/vault/firmament
That the dome has windows
That the dome is a physical thing, like crystal or beaten metal
That earth has edges
That earth has corners
That it has ends
That the dome above earth is bound to the edges of earth
That the earth has a foundation and can never move, forever
That earth has pillars that make up the foundation
That earth has cardinal directions and that God's mercy separates us from sin as far as east is from west
That heaven is above earth
That hell is below earth
That earth is like God's footstool.
Funny how all these descriptions describe the earth in such a way that both independently as well as together, the reasonable picture of a flat earth is drawn but, without extreme mental scrambling and a good dose of mental gymnastics, zero of them work to describe a globe.
That the earth has a foundation and can never move, foreverOn the other hand, "pila" can also be translated as pillar or pier. So St Bede might have been describing what you wrote.
That earth has pillars that make up the foundation
...
That earth is like God's footstool.
I have to ask, could not "sphere" be used even to describe a dome?In general, Latin is not a precise language when it comes to describing shapes. As we have seen, pila, orbis, and gyrus have multiple possible meanings if we see them in isolation. Part of the job of a translator is to figure out what they mean from context. One can't simply stick in a possible meaning because one likes it. (This issue comes up in errors in Protestant Bible translations.)
Scripture may be parabolic about the description of earth, but not exactly silent.
It tells us there is a dome over the earth
That the dome is like a vault
That there is water above the dome/vault/firmament
That the dome has windows
That the dome is a physical thing, like crystal or beaten metal
That earth has edges
That earth has corners
That it has ends
That the dome above earth is bound to the edges of earth
That the earth has a foundation and can never move, forever
That earth has pillars that make up the foundation
That earth has cardinal directions and that God's mercy separates us from sin as far as east is from west
That heaven is above earth
That hell is below earth
That earth is like God's footstool.
Funny how all these descriptions describe the earth in such a way that both independently as well as together, the reasonable picture of a flat earth is drawn but, without extreme mental scrambling and a good dose of mental gymnastics, zero of them work to describe a globe.
In general, Latin is not a precise language when it comes to describing shapes. As we have seen, pila, orbis, and gyrus have multiple possible meanings if we see them in isolation. Part of the job of a translator is to figure out what they mean from context. One can't simply stick in a possible meaning because one likes it. (This issue comes up in errors in Protestant Bible translations.)
Since St. Bede is talking about pila and orbis in the middle of quoting and agreeing with Pliny, it seems to me that the most reasonable way to understand this is that the earth is a sphere in the way that Pliny used the word. That means that it is not a dome.
He wrote that it is incorrect and of no spiritual benefit to use such statements as the basis of a cosmology. And this is not simply an opinion of a Father of the Church; it was incorporated into magisterial teaching by Leo XIII. We cannot simply ignore it.:facepalm:
You are doing exactly the opposite of what St. Augustine taught. He wrote that it is incorrect and of no spiritual benefit to use such statements as the basis of a cosmology. And this is not simply an opinion of a Father of the Church; it was incorporated into magisterial teaching by Leo XIII. We cannot simply ignore it.So, are you going to cite those claims or just leave it at that?
This approach to Scripture is essentially Protestant and should not be practiced by Catholics.
You are doing exactly the opposite of what St. Augustine taught. He wrote that it is incorrect and of no spiritual benefit to use such statements as the basis of a cosmology. And this is not simply an opinion of a Father of the Church; it was incorporated into magisterial teaching by Leo XIII. We cannot simply ignore it.
This approach to Scripture is essentially Protestant and should not be practiced by Catholics.
It is Anti-Catholic Protestants, Atheists and Agnostics, who began the Flat-Earth Lie, to Discredit the Roman Catholic Church. Please educate yourselves and do the research. It's very easy these days.
We are Traditional Catholics. Not Protestant.Then act like it.
Here is the passage from St. Augustine that I mentioned upthread. It is taken from DE GENESI. AD LITTERAM:
It is also frequently asked what our belief must be about the form and shape of heaven according to Sacred Scripture. Many scholars engage in lengthy discussions on these matters, but the sacred writers with their deeper wisdom have omitted them. Such subjects are of no profit for those who seek beatitude, and, what is worse, they take up very precious time that ought to be given to what is spiritually beneficial.
What concern is it of mine whether heaven is like a sphere and the earth is enclosed by it and suspended in the middle of the universe, or whether heaven like a disk above the earth covers it over on one side?...
Hence, I must say briefly that in the matter of the shape of heaven the sacred writers knew the truth, but that the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men these facts that would be of no avail for their salvation.
You are doing exactly the opposite of what St. Augustine taught. He wrote that it is incorrect and of no spiritual benefit to use such statements as the basis of a cosmology. And this is not simply an opinion of a Father of the Church; it was incorporated into magisterial teaching by Leo XIII. We cannot simply ignore it.So you're saying do not read with understanding? Understand the opposite of what the words in scripture say for fear of seeing? Why would I do that?
This approach to Scripture is essentially Protestant and should not be practiced by Catholics.
Then act like it.
Because I'm going through Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus now, and he states that we must the guided by the Fathers and the Church in interpretation and not stray from the definitions provided by the Church.
To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.
19. The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith-what they are unanimous in. For "in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,"(55) according to the saying of St. Thomas. And in another place he says most admirably: "When philosophers are agreed upon a point, and it is not contrary to our faith, it is safer, in my opinion, neither to lay down such a point as a dogma of faith, even though it is perhaps so presented by the philosophers, nor to reject it as against faith, lest we thus give to the wise of this world an occasion of despising our faith."(56) The Catholic interpreter, although he should show that those facts of natural science which investigators affirm to be now quite certain are not contrary to the Scripture rightly explained, must nevertheless always bear in mind, that much which has been held and proved as certain has afterwards been called in question and rejected.
No, it isn't. You are ignorant of history, especially recent history. What I said about what Anti-Catholic Protestants, and then Atheists and Agnostics, is 100% accurate and I proved it.
You are doing exactly the opposite of what St. Augustine taught. He wrote that it is incorrect and of no spiritual benefit to use such statements as the basis of a cosmology. And this is not simply an opinion of a Father of the Church; it was incorporated into magisterial teaching by Leo XIII. We cannot simply ignore it.What exactly did Leo XIII incorporate into magisterial teaching about this?
This approach to Scripture is essentially Protestant and should not be practiced by Catholics.
I already proved the Prophet Isaiah, Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, St. Augustine, St. Bede and St. Thomas taught the the Earth was a Globe. You've had no answer to that.
Kindof. St. Robert Bellarmine addressed this during the Galileo situation. Some scientific matters could be matters of faith to the extent that they uproot the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. That is in fact why the Holy Office condemned heliocentrism as HERESY.
St. Robert said that they are not matters of faith ex parte objecti but they are ex parte subjecti ... if I recall the exact Latin phrases. So the object of the propositions isn't a matter of faith (i.e. the configuration of the cosmos), but the inerracny of Holy Scripture (the subject) turns it into a matter of faith.
This passage from St. Augustine is way overused ... and leveraged by Modernists, eventually morphing into the suggestion that Sacred Scripture can err except when it's teaching about matters of faith, etc.
What exactly did Leo XIII incorporate into magisterial teaching about this?If you carefully read the excerpt that I posted from Providentissimus Deus you can see how he is quoting, affirming and even extending the application of St. Augustine's teaching.
I already proved the Prophet Isaiah, Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, St. Augustine, St. Bede and St. Thomas taught the the Earth was a Globe. You've had no answer to that.
It is true enough that Augustine's teaching could be (and has been) abused. They might be applied to issues they shouldn't be or used to erode our belief in the errancy of Scripture. But we are discussing the issue of cosmological models which is the exact question that he was addressing.One minute you ignore or deny flat earth science, deny the Fathers that do believe flat earth in favor of one who doesn't, then deny whether scripture says anything about it, then you deny that it matters. This is a sure sign such a chaotic position will never arrive at truth.
When he wrote "What concern is it of mine whether heaven is like a sphere and the earth is enclosed by it and suspended in the middle of the universe, or whether heaven like a disk above the earth covers it over on one side?" he was writing about the very same models that we have been - the classical/medieval model of a spherical earth within a spherical universe as opposed to the dome over a flat earth.
If you carefully read the excerpt that I posted from Providentissimus Deus you can see how he is quoting, affirming and even extending the application of St. Augustine's teaching.I did. It says nothing of the kind.
There is no way to come to the conclusion or understand the modern pagan science that earth is a globe.Virtually all medieval Catholic scientists (including Doctors of the Church) came to the conclusion and understood that the earth is a globe. These were all men who accepted the inerrancy of Scripture and the authority of the Church. It is not correct to identify this model only with "modern pagan science".
:confused: Which came first - flat land/sphere earth model of all ancient civilizations, or... the 15th century, atheistic, planetary lie?Well, the ancient greeks believed the earth was round. They were the first to calculate the diameter-circuмference of the earth using 2 cities at the same time at a particular date. So several ancient civilizations believed in the round earth
Which came first - the idea of a (relatively speaking) small sun/moon/stars, which rotated above the earth...or the modern, atheistic, freemasonic "light years away" heliocentric lie?
Modern astronomy made most of this crap up, but I have to "prove" it's wrong? :jester:
But I know Dr. Marshall made a Good Video on it.:jester: Thank you for the laugh.
Well, the ancient greeks believed the earth was round. They were the first to calculate the diameter-circuмference of the earth using 2 cities at the same time at a particular. So several ancient civilizations beleved in the round earth.Yes. Pliny writes that at his time, not only the educated but even the common people knew that the earth is a sphere.
One minute you ignore or deny flat earth science, deny the Fathers that do believe flat earth in favor of one who doesn't, then deny whether scripture says anything about it, then you deny that it matters.Yeah, this is weird. Does Jaynek have multiple people using her account?
Virtually all medieval Catholic scientists (including Doctors of the Church) came to the conclusion and understood that the earth is a globe. These were all men who accepted the inerrancy of Scripture and the authority of the Church. It is not correct to identify this model only with "modern pagan science".As has been shown, many Catholic scientists believed earth is flat and based it on scripture.
Yes. Pliny writes that at his time, not only the educated but even the common people knew that the earth is a sphere.Pliny. Another pagan, upon which the modern pagans happily rest.
It is also frequently asked what our belief must be about the form and shape of heaven according to Sacred Scripture. Many scholars engage in lengthy discussions on these matters, but the sacred writers with their deeper wisdom have omitted them. Such subjects are of no profit for those who seek beatitude, and, what is worse, they take up very precious time that ought to be given to what is spiritually beneficial.St Augustine was addressing those who thought that the shape was a doctrine. That's why he used the phrase: "what our belief must be". He says it's a waste of time, when viewed from the angle of doctrine or sanctity, because the topic concerns neither.
What concern is it of mine whether heaven is like a sphere and the earth is enclosed by it and suspended in the middle of the universe, or whether heaven like a disk above the earth covers it over on one side?...
Hence, I must say briefly that in the matter of the shape of heaven the sacred writers knew the truth, but that the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men these facts that would be of no avail for their salvation.
Pliny. Another pagan, upon which the modern pagans happily rest.As I've already mentioned, St. Bede described Pliny's books as "non-religious, yet not to be condemned" and quotes him extensively.
St Augustine was addressing those who thought that the shape was a doctrine. That's why he used the phrase: "what our belief must be". He says it's a waste of time, when viewed from the angle of doctrine or sanctity, because the topic concerns neither.
But it's inaccurate to say St Augustine didn't care, or thought it was a waste of time from a curiosity/science standpoint. He wrote extensively about the topic in 3 different books. It seems he studied it for a long time, wrote about it, then stopped. Then later in life, he revisited the topic in 2 of his other writings, including "city of God". He flipped back and forth between Plato's flat earth/dome model and the the pagan-style sphere model.
We are at 35 pages and still counting on a thread about "Is not accepting an obvious truth a lie" and we are arguing about the shape of the earth.There's no difference between 1 thread of 35 pages and 35 threads of 1 page. The debate over flat earth isn't going away. You are free to leave anytime.
There's no difference between 1 thread of 35 pages and 35 threads of 1 page. The debate over flat earth isn't going away. You are free to leave anytime.I am saying its quite pointless to argue about this, no one is going to change their minds, at least have Matt move it.
35 pages isn't even getting started on CI, Romulus ;).
We are at 35 pages and still counting on a thread about "Is not accepting an obvious truth a lie" and we are arguing about the shape of the earth.
Leave this thread to die and let it rest in the deep, forgotten chambers of old topics.
35 pages isn't even getting started on CI, Romulus ;).Right? And besides, it is in the divergence of various positions where truth is made manifest. Most people are quite decent about their differences, so what's the harm? The more division of opinion, the more information that flows. Flat earth thrives in opposition. For those who want to know, or for those who have questions, this hot topic is good for Cathinfo.
I am saying its quite pointless to argue about this, no one is going to change their minds, at least have Matt move it.No one is forcing you to visit this thread. If you don't like it, then don't click on this link. Why are you trying to micro-manage other people? :confused:
35 pages isn't even getting started on CI, Romulus (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/wink.gif).Yeah, it was quite an accomplishment for me to be involved in that 100+ pg Sede thread a few years ago. :jester:
You are doing exactly the opposite of what St. Augustine taught. He wrote that it is incorrect and of no spiritual benefit to use such statements as the basis of a cosmology. And this is not simply an opinion of a Father of the Church; it was incorporated into magisterial teaching by Leo XIII. We cannot simply ignore it.
This approach to Scripture is essentially Protestant and should not be practiced by Catholics.
Sorry, but that's starting to sound pretty Modernist. Leo XIII said that about the Fathers, that their interpretations with regard to scientific matters don't necessarily constitute a consensus dogmaticus. This does not mean that Scripture can err with regard to historical or scientific matters. Again, the quote from St. Robert Bellarmine that a scientific matter can be heretical if it contradicts Sacred Scripture. Reducing the inerrrancy of Scripture to matters of "spiritual benefit" is Modernist and, according to St. Robert Bellarminea and the Holy Office in his day, heretical due to impugning Sacred Scripture. Argue if you will about the interpreation of things, whether some things can be metaphorical language, but you really need to stop spouting this Modernist "spiritual benefit" nonsense. Yes, everything in Scripture is taught vis-a-vis the spiritual benefit, but when Scripture teaches something about creation, it does not and cannot err.
And yet another straw man argument. I did not say that.
Anyhow I'm done with the thread. I think that Romulus was right.
Well, the ancient greeks believed the earth was round. They were the first to calculate the diameter-circuмference of the earth using 2 cities at the same time at a particular date. So several ancient civilizations believed in the round earth
Even if it were appropriate to use Scripture to support cosmology,So you're saying it's NOT appropriate to use Scripture to support cosmology. That's stupid and wrong. Your interpretation of what St Augustine was saying is way off.
Globers really have to stop using Eratosthenes. His experiment was badly flawed. He made assumptions about the distance between the earth and the sun (which ended up wildly wrong by modern calculations. I think he said one million miles) and also made no account of the possibility of atmospheric refraction. I love how the globers constantly pull the "refraction" rabbit out of their hat when it's convenient but then they completely ignore the notion that failing to take it into account invalidates Eratosthenes. Double standard.The experiment wasn't the point of my statement, rather, the greeks believed in a globe earth. It's not a 15th century invention.
Do you believe that Scripture is inerrant even scientific matters?
No one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold;
Globers really have to stop using Eratosthenes. His experiment was badly flawed. He made assumptions about the distance between the earth and the sun (which ended up wildly wrong by modern calculations. I think he said one million miles) and also made no account of the possibility of atmospheric refraction.
I had started out by wondering why, with the “flat earth” hypothesis, no one has yet discovered the “edge” or the “wall of the firmament dome”, whatever you want to call it. And yes, even with an ice wall or firmament dome there would still necessarily be an “edge” or “terminus” with the flat earth model. I cited explorers going back to the 10th century, half a millennium before Columbus, and a very abridged list at that. All manner of new lands and new peoples were discovered by these explorations, and the explorers’ chartings and navigational prowess largely described our current understanding of the earth’s land mass.It's more than likely, that in large part, the ends of the earth are beyond land masses and outlying oceans and only a few people have seen where the earth and firmament meet. Who knows, perhaps NASA has mapped it entirely? This is one of those questions many flat earthers really don't have specifics on because none of us have been there to verify. With information we have, we know that earth and sky meet (according to scripture) and that those features likely remain in the more extreme parts of earth where conditions are very inclement and specifically, just so happen to be under lock and key with the Antarctic Treaty.
Yet no one, as far as I am aware, has been to “the ends of the earth” to describe what is there, what it looks like, provide navigational aids and drawings, perhaps establish a settlement, and etc. This does seem rather odd. In answer to my query the ONLY response was that this is because of “The Treaty”, from two responders as I recall. There were no references to what this treaty was about, or where it fit into a chronological spectrum, but I looked into it. I discovered that the reference was to “The Antarctic Treaty”. The original 12 nations agreeing to the treaty signed it on December 1, 1959 but it did not take effect until June 23, 1961. Today there are 50 nations that agree to the terms of the treaty, representing two-thirds of the world’s population. U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Richard Byrd's (1888-1957) explorations to the “South Pole” (placed in quotes as proponents of the Flat Earth hypothesis don’t believe in a “South Pole”) have been mentioned. It is to be noted, from my research, that Rear Admiral Byrd was last physically present on the “Antarctic continent” (placed in quotes as I don’t think proponents of the Flat Earth hypothesis believe Antarctica is a continent, but rather the “rim” of the flat earth) on February 3, 1956, nearly three years before “The Treaty” was signed and nearly half a decade before “The Treaty” took effect. Of course there have also been hundreds of centuries of global exploration before this “The Treaty”. I do not believe that “The Treaty” can be used as an excuse for why the “edges” of the “flat earth” cannot be explored, let alone even discovered. “The Treaty” also stipulates the area it covers, so if one is exploring any area outside of “the area south of 60o South latitude, including all ice shelves” “The Treaty” wouldn’t apply and wouldn’t present any hindrance to finding “the ends of the earth” as envisioned in the “flat earth” hypothesis. As far as I can find, there is NOTHING in “The Treaty” that precludes private scientific investigation, though that claim in made by one of the forum’s most vigorous apologists for the “flat earth”. ACTUAL citations would be helpful.
There is a REALLY EASY solution to sorting this out which doesn’t involve satellites (I have the impression that some proponents of the “flat earth” hypothesis don’t believe in satellites, nor the pictures they transmit back to earth).
- Pick a “terra firma” location. I’ve chosen Australia for my example as it seems “near the edge”, though I note that not all “flat earth maps” seem to agree as to exactly where Australia is.
- Charter a jet liner. There are still plenty of Boing 737 Max’s and Airbus 380’s in storage, one of these models, and others no doubt, should be available at a reasonable cost.
- There are plenty of eccentric wealthy who enjoy seeing their names highlighted, so funding should be available, Donald Trump comes easily to mind.
- Take off from Australia and head … we “global earth” types would say due east, I am uncertain how “flat earth” types would describe the direction.
There would seem to be only two possible results:
If the airliner arrives at the earth "edge, terminus, ice wall, firmament dome” the explorers can take pictures (“flat earth” believers seem to have a special affinity for a particular Nikon camera and the model number has been mentioned in this thread). The explorers should also be able to note the “coordinates” which would allow a sea fairing expedition to be launched for further exploration. As long as they stay above or north of “the area south of 60o South latitude” the vaunted “Treaty” would offer no hindrance.
OR
The other possible outcome might be that the airliner continues on its “due east” linear flight path and arrives, not at “the edge of the earth” but rather on the west coast of Chile. Wow, what a disappointment that would be. Presumably they would refuel and continue their flight in the same linear direction, to arrive back at Australia, approaching its western coast, having circuмnavigated a global earth (as in a "ball shape").
The above approach seems much more logical than arguing about why my morning coffee isn't flying out of its cup because of the rate of speed that the earth supposedly rotates, or why people in the southern hemisphere don't fall off the planet (as some believe "gravity doesn't exist"), or why railroad tracks aren't curved.
I believe all true seekers of the truth will be waiting with great anticipation for such an expedition to take place.
…only a few people have seen where the earth and firmament meet.
This is one of those questions many flat earthers really don't have specifics on because none of us have been there to verify.
… those features (where earth and sky meet) likely remain in the more extreme parts of earth where conditions are very inclement and specifically, just so happen to be under lock and key with the Antarctic Treaty.The ONLY place where “those features” can possible be is at the “edge”, “rim” or “terminus” of the earth’s plane (if we are assuming it is flat) and “those features” would necessarily comprise the circuмference of the level (i.e., not rounded) earth area, that seems to be pretty defined, no need to say “likely”.
Only a few people have circuмnavigated the (as in ball shape) earth, but those explorations are described and docuмented, as well as those expeditions to space, but “flat earther’s” arbitrarily deny that such explorations have even occurred. WHERE are the docuмents, journals, charts, navigational references, or descriptions from the “few people (who) have seen where the earth and firmament meet”? This is what has been asked for, but there is never an answer.
No one denies circuмnavigation explorations have been docuмented and have occurred, what globe thinkers don't realize is that it can all take place on a flat plane, circling around the outside areas. I provided one docuмent, the encyclopedia reference to the 13,000 foot dome near New Zealand. But, even if that weren't what it appears, and even if no one at all saw and edge/firmament, we do know that there are efforts to prevent such exploration by the general public since the treaty. I don't personally think there is definitive proof available, but neither is there proof that earth is a globe.
Why don’t they go? In this day and age it should be as simple as chartering a jet liner, as I already explained. There are also over 1,000 private commercial satellites “orbiting” the earth, not controlled by governmental entities, though some “flat earth” proponents arbitrarily (and without proof) deny that such exist. Surly though one of those commercial entities could be contracted with to provide pictures and coordinates to prove the “flat earth” hypothesis.
It is absolutely certain that the outer regions of earth are off limits to the general public due to the Antarctic Treaty.
Chartering a jetliner and following the flight path I described previously would seem simpler and harder to refute, one wonders why that hasn’t already happened, or won’t soon.
The ONLY place where “those features” can possible be is at the “edge”, “rim” or “terminus” of the earth’s plane (if we are assuming it is flat) and “those features” would necessarily comprise the circuмference of the level (i.e., not rounded) earth area, that seems to be pretty defined, no need to say “likely”.
That's right, the edges where they come together with the firmament comprise the outer edge of flat earth, but again, we have a puzzle here and some pieces are not readily available for scrutiny. We do have other information, for instance, there are no cardinal directions on a ball. No east or west, or north or south, because no definitive thing exists on a ball. So how is it that the east is east? East of what? More east? A little west? East of north, but then how is north, north? Scripture speaks of ends, edges, and that east and west do not meet up. That is impossible on a ball.
Exactly HOW is the earth’s rim (under the “flat earth” hypothesis) “under lock and key with the Antarctic Treaty”? Firstly, the treaty has only been in effect since 1961, there have been THOUSANDS of years of earth exploration that predate the treaty and were unhindered by it or any other treaty. Secondly, NOTHING in the treaty puts anything “under lock and key” (PLAIN FACT!), but rather provides for orderly and environmentally sensitive exploration without any one country claiming dominance. Thirdly, the treaty specifically defines the territory it covers, which DOES NOT include the entire circuмference of the earth area, if we are conceptualizing it as a flat plane.
No, it is def under lock and key. Now, it is a fact that they do have an area in the south where the public are permitted to peruse, but it is quite limited and highly guarded.
Exploration at the edges has taken place. There are numerous expeditions prior to the Treaty, but then, as technologies advanced and the need to keep the narrative going, they had to limit snoops. I gave a link to the book, free to read online, Earth is Not a Globe in another post. You can google it and there is a lot of information about circuмnavigation of explorers and the scientific measurements they took which prove earth cannot possibly be a globe.
I have already posted the link to the actual text of the Antarctic Treaty, and here it is again https://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/antarct/anttrty.jsp (https://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/antarct/anttrty.jsp). Read it for yourself and please do not post misinformation (otherwise known as lies). Let us stick to the observable and verifiable facts.
Sadly, the truth is getting buried as fast as we can uncover it. There are people or websites, possibly even Youtube videos (although most have been expunged) which will clear up the specifics of how the Treaty really works. I believe Ladislaus posted something on the consequences of crossing the line down south earlier in this thread.
Globers really have to stop using Eratosthenes. His experiment was badly flawed. He made assumptions about the distance between the earth and the sun (which ended up wildly wrong by modern calculations. I think he said one million miles) and also made no account of the possibility of atmospheric refraction. I love how the globers constantly pull the "refraction" rabbit out of their hat when it's convenient but then they completely ignore the notion that failing to take it into account invalidates Eratosthenes. Double standard.You can still conduct just the same experiment today with the same simple tools and the correct assumption for the distance between Sun and Earth and you'll find that the shadows are still pointing in two different directions, which cannot happen on a flat plane that is lit by a large lightsource (anything but a point-light or similar).
However, if you measure the angles in the real world, the sum always turns out to be larger. This can only happen on a sphere. If you cover a full quadrant of the sphere (an octant, actually), you'll get three nice 90 degree angles.
(https://i.imgur.com/l8Genwd.png)
I'm curious to hear what you think about this argument.
Flat Earthers have done a lot of study regarding the flight routes in the Souther Hemisphere and they are in fact quite bizarre. But if you flatten out the map to the Azimuthal Equidistant (aka Flat Earth) map, they suddenly make a great deal of sense. I heard an interview from a professional pilot would would fly from Austrlia to the U.S. West Coast, and he could never figured out why it would always take him very close to Alaska ... until he saw a flat earth map.
Which one makes more sense?
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/DKyW9l6L24wxltfpotQ5mokTzMvS5c_Hr2YbTdz0sOwJiwVwGhHGVg83otXNN1p9IUMVQFHa0MCV2usobU7DIGFuSSyR_OcdjIesJvgi_j8x7BEzEbaAYKoLZKsBbbeZylwh0diQV346R4zd6F0bcIoqpSUvSUyiAaU)
Oh, and another thing. Have a look at the jet stream on a globe.
(https://media.sciencephoto.com/c0/21/63/53/c0216353-800px-wm.jpg)
Now look at jetstream on a flat map.
(https://i.imgur.com/97SjwUq.jpg)
Which one makes more sense?
Furthermore, under penalty of excommunication latae sententiae to be incurred ipso facto, should anyone thus contravene, we strictly forbid all persons of whatsoever rank, even imperial and royal, or of whatsoever estate, degree, order, or condition, to dare, without your special permit or that of your aforesaid heirs and successors, to go for the purpose of trade or any other reason to the islands or mainlands, found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered, towards the west and south, by drawing and establishing a line from the Arctic pole to the Antarctic pole, no matter whether the mainlands and islands, found and to be found, lie in the direction of India or toward any other quarter whatsoever, the said line to be distant one hundred leagues towards the west and south, as is aforesaid, from any of the islands commonly known as the Azores and Cape Verde; apostolic constitutions and ordinances and other decrees whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding.
Moreover, since, some time ago, it had come to the knowledge of the said infante that never, or at least not within the memory of men, had it been customary to sail on this ocean sea toward the southern and eastern shores, and that it was so unknown to us westerners that we had no certain knowledge of the peoples of those parts, believing that he would best perform his duty to God in this matter, if by his effort and industry that sea might become navigable as far as to the Indians who are said to worship the name of Christ, and that thus he might be able to enter into relation with them, and to incite them to aid the Christians against the Saracens and other such enemies of the faith, and might also be able forthwith to subdue certain gentile or pagan peoples, living between, who are entirely free from infection by the sect of the most impious Mahomet, and to preach and cause to be preached to them the unknown but most sacred name of Christ, strengthened, however, always by the royal authority, he has not ceased for twenty-five years past to send almost yearly an army of the peoples of the said kingdoms with the greatest labor, danger, and expense, in very swift ships called caravels, to explore the sea and coast lands toward the south and the Antarctic pole.
Back on topic, this whole thread proves that the shape of the earth is not an "obvious fact". As normal observation, as proved by the various ancient cultures including the Hebrews, shows that many perceived it as a flat plane with a dome overhead. And yet modern science claims it is spherical. And appeals to technological marvels available only to the few does not make the supposedly spherical shape an "obvious fact", but an occult (hidden, exclusive, etc.) statement.
Therefore, it is not sin of "lying" to believe the earth is either flat or a ball, or a pear, or "oblate spheroid" because immediate observation does not make any of these apparent or an "obvious fact".
You are intellectually dishonest. You omit the fact, known to you, since you read this thread, that long before godless modern science globe-earthism was the overwhelmingly predominant world view.Whatever. You've proven with this thread what an insufferable jerk you can be.
toward the south and the Antarctic pole.There are still 2 poles in a flat earth model, are there not? The pope's quote has nothing to do with this. If St Augustine couldn't figure out the shape of the earth, and he wrote about it extensively, then this pope, (who you think comments on the shape but doesn't), hasn't figured it out either...especially in 1455. Columbus hadn't even discovered America yet!!
Flat earthers sin, making Pope Nicholas V a laughingstock:
You are intellectually dishonest. You omit the fact, known to you, since you read this thread, that long before godless modern science globe-earthism was the overwhelmingly predominant world view.False. It is a known fact that all ancient civilizations and many since, were flat earthers. In fact, I have a Catholic bible with the flat earth pictured in it.
False. It is a known fact that all ancient civilizations and many since, were flat earthers. In fact, I have a Catholic bible with the flat earth pictured in it.
Do your research first.
Dear Friends, please stop discrediting Christianity. The Earth is NOT Flat. It is roundThis proves you have not fully investigated flat earth but defend pagan NASA and the power broker globalists who control the media. Not even one of the list above holds up to scrutiny, let alone can pass for true.
He's not intersted in "research" or else being intellectually open and honest about it. His only argument is his buffoonish ridicule. This guy doesn't even try to make a rational argument. At least Stanley puts some stuff out there for consideration. All this guy has is an array of "laughing" smilies.Yea, the ridicule is in itself a sign of weakness and an argument devoid of content.
Dear Friends, please stop discrediting Christianity.
Yea, the ridicule is in itself a sign of weakness and an argument devoid of content.
Of course you are discrediting Christianity, which is Perfect Truth, with your Flat-Earth rubbish, which is an Anti-Christian lie that has been promoted by Atheists. It may hurt you to hear that Truth, but sometimes the painful Truth is what sets you free, and must be preached as clearly as possible, as the Lord and the Apostles did it, to the Pharisees and the Jєωs.
Answer the Ten Points in Logical Order, if you think Flat-Earthism is supposedly true. Here are points 10-6 for you again.
1. "Number ten. All the other planets and stars we've ever seen are round, and there's no reason to indicate that the earth should be any different." How do you explain why all other planets that we observe are Round?
"Planets" are not worlds, they are stars. Videos of "real stars" are available on Youtube, and one was provided in this thread. Stars are lights, as scripture tells us, and the video proves it. Look if you care to really know what is Catholic.
2. "Number nine. Time zones. Day and night happen at different times at different places on earth. In fact it's always day somewhere and night somewhere else." Why do day and night alternate as they do in different places at the same time, if the Earth isn't Round?
The sun is relatively local and lights approximately 1/2 the earth at any one given time.
3. "Number eight. The Coriolis Effect means freely moving things like cannonballs or hurricane winds are deflected to the right, but only if you're north of the equator. If you're south of the equator, they're deflected left." Why do flying objects like canon balls deflect differently to right or left depending on the Equator?
The "coriolis effect" has long since been debunked. Look it up with the intent to find the truth and maybe the lights will go on.
4. "Number seven. Triangles. If you walk 10,000 kilometers straight along the earth's surface, turn 90 degrees to your right, walk 10,000 kilometers more, turn right again and walk another 10,000 kilometers, you'll be back to where you started, having successfully made a triangle with three 90 degree angles. As any geometry student can tell you, this is impossible on a flat surface." How do you answer this Incontrovertible Mathematical Proof that Flat-Earthism is ABSOLUTE RUBBISH. Go back to High School if you think otherwise.
Triangles and triangulation, prove earth is not a globe. Lines coming off of angles are straight and do not curve. Theodolites, sextants, , gyroscopes, compasses, and light houses all operate by angles and/or line of sight. None of them operate on a globe.
5. "Number six. The sun in general gets lower and lower in the sky as you travel away from the equator, and you can use this to directly measure the earth's curvature. Pick two places a few hundred miles directly north and south of each other, and at noon measure the shadows cast by a vertical meter stick at each location. You can use the shadow lengths to figure out the angle between the sticks, and once you add in how far apart they are you can calculate the earth's curvature." Yet another CLEAR SCIENTIFIC POINT YOU CAN'T ANSWER.
This is patently false. The sun gets lower in the sky because of perspective. I've personally chased the sun while in a plane and it never actually lowers. And again, there are plenty of videos, (although many have been expunged from the internet) that show the sun, at certain angles, gets smaller and smaller and smaller as it retreats. Not possible on a globe unless the 93,000,000 miles increases by billions of miles in the time it takes for the sun to set.
Of course those promoting Flat-Earthism discredit Christianity. Good Job to Marion and others for answering the objections calmly and methodically, and showing that the Earth is Truly Round, as St. Thomas taught.
Those promoting globalism have the same religion as the globalists who rake in billions via NASA to indoctrinate everyone to believe earth is a globe. If you don't research with the intent to totally understand, you are subject to that indoctrination.
Flat earth is Catholic and is proof against evolution, million years old earth, relativism, global warming, aliens and the Big Bang,
It is reported that Karl Marx even acknowledged his indebtedness to Copernicus, without whom Marx believed that his ideas would not have gained much acceptance..."It is thus a small step to total rejection of the Bible and the precepts of morality and law taught therein."
Of course you are discrediting Christianity, which is Perfect Truth, with your Flat-Earth rubbish, which is an Anti-Christian lie that has been promoted by Atheists.
Good Job to Marion and others for answering the objections calmly and methodically, ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUmhLaYPrX0
The sun getting smaller as it sets. Not possible on a globe earth.
Indeed, the sun should not get any smaller if it were 93 million miles from the earth. At those distances, a few hundred miles' difference translates to a tiny fraction of size change. Now, the globers use some videos where it does not get much smaller, but Rob Skiba performed an excellent demonstration that when viewed through water, an object doesn't change size when moving away. So in the event of high atmospheric moisture between you and the sun, it may not shrink very much. But I have yet to see an explanation of situations where it DOES get smaller. Instead, those videos are ignored by the globers.Excellent video with even greater detail. Rob Skiba made several on all topics fe. His recent death is a great loss.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg4ZeGJiyNA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUmhLaYPrX0This, plus the fact that Antarctica is claimed to sit at the same angle as the Arctic during its summer season, yet has nothing even remotely close to a similar climate, works in favor of the FE model. Otherwise, the sun's light magically lack efficacy when directed at the Antarctic in summertime.
The sun getting smaller as it sets. Not possible on a globe earth.
An engraving from Imago primi sæculi Societatis Iesu (Antwerp: Moretus, 1640) referring to the Jesuit missionary enterprise.
No one is denying that people have believed in a globe earth.
No, but you've certainly shown yourself to be a posterior orifice.
There is in fact a southern magnetic pole on a Flat Earth model beyond Antarctica. Nevertheless, are you suggesting that the Pope was teaching Magisterially that there's an "Antarctic southern pole"? Maybe that statement meets the notes of infallibility too.
Stop for a second and think about what ANTarctic region means, eh? It's simply the area opposite to and away from the Arctic circle. There's an Arctic and an ANTarctic on a flat earth too. When in the souther hemisphere, thiings rotate the other way due to perspective, which is why it's called ANT.
That art proves nothing but the conceptions of the artist about the world.
This Right there - the Globe-Earth at Our Lady's Immaculate Feet - should show the absurdity of Flat-Earth once and for all.
No one is denying that people have believed in a globe earth. That art proves nothing but the conceptions of the artist about the world.
OK, this has been explained a couple times now. Earth is in fact shaped like a globe, but we live inside the globe not on the surface of it.(http://<a href=)(https://i.ibb.co/x3CQtjX/20211210-124222.jpg)
Don't let simple logical distinctions get in the way.Yeah, I forgot. We're going off of art and what the high priests of science tell us.
[...] that in our times especially the Catholic faith and the Christian religion be exalted and be everywhere increased and spread, that the health of souls be cared for and that barbarous nations be overthrown and brought to the faith itself [...] Christopher Columbus, a man assuredly worthy and of the highest recommendations and fitted for so great an undertaking [...]
This Right there - the Globe-Earth at Our Lady's Immaculate Feet - should show the absurdity of Flat-Earth once and for all.Everything about this picture shows clues to a flat earth. The pillars of the earth, the dome, the windows, the Church which is a foundation firmly fixed, and Mary holding all of creation.
Tabernacle shaped like a globe on the main altar of the abbey church, Duernstein, Wachau valley, Waldviertel region
(http://<a href=)(https://i.ibb.co/x3CQtjX/20211210-124222.jpg)
I PROPOSE WE LET THIS THREAD DIE.Then you'll need to start another thread about this thread ending. :laugh1:
No one is going to change any minds. We are at 35 pages and still counting on a thread about "Is not accepting an obvious truth a lie" and we are arguing about the shape of the earth. And this is making us look like idiots to everyone reading this forum.
Leave this thread to die and let it rest in the deep, forgotten chambers of old topics.
(http://<a href=)(https://i.ibb.co/x3CQtjX/20211210-124222.jpg)
I'm not sure how one would go about measuring this really. You'd be basing it on a compass, and the moment you make the turn around one of the corners, you'd at that moment be making a 90-degree turn, when you shrink the perspective down.Yes, you could use a compass, star alignment, GPS or any other way of accurately positioning yourself. And no, you wouldn't necessarily make a 90-degree-turn. As long as you accurately spade three points on the surface, you'll be able to exactly measure the distances and the angles. There's no perspective, no limited human sight and brain involved in this calculation.
Flat Earthers have done a lot of study regarding the flight routes in the Souther Hemisphere and they are in fact quite bizarre. But if you flatten out the map to the Azimuthal Equidistant (aka Flat Earth) map, they suddenly make a great deal of sense. I heard an interview from a professional pilot would would fly from Austrlia to the U.S. West Coast, and he could never figured out why it would always take him very close to Alaska ... until he saw a flat earth map.So they all make a great deal of sense - except for the ones that intentionally fly over and/or land on one of the countless bases in Antarctica? ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route
Oh, and another thing. Have a look at the jet stream on a globe.I don't get your argument here, this is basically just mapping movements of the jet stream onto different cartographical projections.
[...]
Now look at jetstream on a flat map.
[...]
Which one makes more sense?
On the obverse, Pope Gregory XIII is depicted bare-headed, clothed in an ecclesiastical cope (piviale) decorated with an abstract design. We once again have GREGORIVS XIII PONT[IFEX] MAXIMUS, as with the Trajanic medal; however now with the year added (AN[NO] XIII = year 13) of Gregory’s reign. This corresponds to the year 13 May 1585-12 May 1586.villaludovisi.org (https://villaludovisi.org/2019/05/29/some-papal-medals-of-gregory-xiii-boncompagni-1572-1585-trajanic-influences-cosmic-aspirations/)
On the reverse is the inscription NON EST QVI SE ABSCONDAT A CALORE EIVS, which is taken from Psalm 19:6. The phrase, from David’s description of the sun’s daily course, is to be translated “there is no one who could escape from its heat”. As for the medal’s image itself, we see the sun illuminating the Earth from below. The Earth is round, and it looks as if the sun is traveling around it.
Flat earthers finally stopped to comment.
Hopefully, they realized that they appear as enemies of the Church. There was a 1000 year Catholic empire from Christmas A.D. 800 until Christmas A.D. 1800, a Holy Roman Empire, wholly Catholic, where "latinos" proved the earth to be round. Navigators using their instruments to detect curvature. Jesuits were missionaries travelling around the globe.
Popes decreeing bulls about territories on globe earth with arctic and antarctic poles.
Flat earth tards try and want to sell the Church to you as a bunch of idiots, decreeing about territories defined by a huge circular magnetic south pole. That's ridiculous and lightyears distant from true history and facts.
Other flat earth tards try and deny that St. Thomas Aquinas defended globe earth. They watch all sorts of tard videos on youtube, while the works of St. Thomas are available online even in English. (e.g aquinas.cc)
Bye bye, flat deniers of truth.
it’s not necessary to call them “tards”
Got to wake them up.That you do. :laugh1:
Flat earthers finally stopped to comment.Uh, no we didn't, McMegaTard.:clown:
Other flat earth tards try and deny that St. Thomas Aquinas defended globe earth...the works of St. Thomas are available online even in English.
The followers of charlatans Rowbothham and Dubay don't even have a model describing the movements of sun, moon, and stars.
I possess many of them in both Latin and English, can read both languages, and that he wrote "...terra est rotunda..." proves absolutely nothing.
You don't realize it, of course, but you are embarrassing yourself.
I have never heard of the first person mentioned, only recently heard of Dubay and have relied upon neither in my search for the truth. What is more, FE most certainly does have an explanation for the movement of the sun, moon, etc. Just because your ignorant, close-minded self hasn't seen it or given it consideration means absolutely nothing.
Thanks for telling the readers about your lack of education, and that you didn't even read this thread, Mr Flat Tard!
You prove one thing: You didn't even took note of, much less understand, what he wrote.
I mentioned nothing about my education which, by the standards of the modern world, is notable. So what if I didn't read all 40 pages of a thread that didn't even begin with this topic? Nothing shocking or blameworthy in that.
You prove your grasp of English is lacking. No biggie.
I have never heard of the first person mentioned, only recently heard of Dubay and have relied upon neither in my search for the truth. What is more, FE most certainly does have an explanation for the movement of the sun, moon, etc. Just because your ignorant, close-minded self hasn't seen it or given it consideration means absolutely nothing.most certainly - so as you're defending FE I take you are supporter of this belief, however you don't know if there are explanations in the FE model for the daily natural phenomena we can observe with our very eyes?
All navigators, pilots, snipers and civil engineers and use a flat earth model as a basis
for what they do.
GeodeticCalculator.java
/**
* Performs geodetic calculations on an {@linkplain Ellipsoid ellipsoid}. This class encapsulates a
* generic ellipsoid and calculates the following properties:
most certainly - so as you're defending FE I take you are supporter of this belief, however you don't know if there are explanations in the FE model for the daily natural phenomena we can observe with our very eyes?
I will be conducting my own experiments along these lines, as a P1000 camera might be arriving for Christmas this year :confused:Have you gotten a ham radio license yet? If you have a General Class license or better multiple forum members could do NVIS/NHIS experiments. I think NHIS/NVIS could potentially move the arguments on this forum forward one way or the other.
Have you gotten a ham radio license yet? If you have a General Class license or better multiple forum members could do NVIS/NHIS experiments. I think NHIS/NVIS could potentially move the arguments on this forum forward one way or the other.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/OxIHjjhI3rhh/
Have you gotten a ham radio license yet? If you have a General Class license or better multiple forum members could do NVIS/NHIS experiments. I think NHIS/NVIS could potentially move the arguments on this forum forward one way or the other.
A ham radio operator explains why the map of the flat earth crowd is flat wrong. Maybe some CI members can verify what he says.
The flat earth: what ham radio operators know by WF6I (a.p.o.i.)
https://youtu.be/9hCdrmxydv0
A ham radio operator explains why the map of the flat earth crowd is flat wrong. Maybe some CI members can verify what he says.
The flat earth: what ham radio operators know by WF6I (a.p.o.i.)
https://youtu.be/9hCdrmxydv0
It's interesting that in the first 90 seconds, he handily demolishes all the facile globe-earth arguments that you and your cohorts have already tried. :laugh1:. So I'll give him that much. I'll listen to the rest later.
At the same time, Exalt wireless a couple years ago boasted of a record microwave transmission of over 100 miles across the Mediterranean. But ... microwave is known to be line of sight, which is why this record is so impressive (vs. radio waves which can travel thousands of miles). They forgot to do the curvature math that would have show this to be impossible on a globe (their towers were 50 feet high).
It's interesting that in the first 90 seconds, he handily demolishes all the facile globe-earth arguments that you and your cohorts have already tried. :laugh1:. So I'll give him that much. I'll listen to the rest later.
At the same time, Exalt wireless a couple years ago boasted of a record microwave transmission of over 100 miles across the Mediterranean. But ... microwave is known to be line of sight, which is why this record is so impressive (vs. radio waves which can travel thousands of miles). They forgot to do the curvature math that would have show this to be impossible on a globe (their towers were 50 feet high).
You and most globers simply take it for granted that various "phenomena we can observe with our very eyes" prove their position. But these are entirely falsified by actual experiments conducted by the Flat Earthers. I don't see the globers going out making videos by the hundreds, taking measurements, etc. They just beg the question and take it for granted that the "phenomena" back up their position. They're content with statements like yours above.No, I was stating that there are no explanations for certain observations in the FE model. This makes globe Earth the better model, and FE the worse one in these regards.
Just one example. Glober after glober starts with the old "ships disappearing over the horizon" nonsense as their first go-to proof. But the FEers actually go out there and demonstrate that even when they might APPEAR to disappear, they immediately return to view when you zoom in with a good camera, like a Nikon P900. I have yet to see a video by a globe earther demonstrating the contrary. There was one attempted by (I think it was) PBS or National Geographic, using a helicopter descending below the horizon, and that was proven to be a fake. They simply reversed the film, as the FE group pointed out that an exactly identical flock of birds flew by both when the copter was going "down" and when it was coming back "up". Why did they have to fake the video?They do disappear. While idealistic calculations might be off by a few miles due to refraction and what not, all objects do in fact disappear in the distance. That's why you can't see Mt. Everest from New York even with the strongest telescope (one that can resolve craters on Mars, for example, or distant nebulae), or see a ship sailing across the atlantic.
All globers would have to do is to convincingly falsify something like the Rowbotham experiment. Track a small boat on film and watch it disappear when globe math indicates that it should. Then zoom in to maximum magnification to show that despite the magnification it's still gone. But the FEers have literally hundreds of videos which show the opposite result, that they remain visible for miles and miles after globe math indicates they should have disappeared.
Do you think you can see the socket of those pylons that disappear below the water line when you zoom in? You can't. Do you think you can see the full body of a ship that's far out? You can't, it's partially occluded by the curved water surface, as clearly shown in this video. This is not perspective, because if it was, zooming in / magnifying would reveal the full object again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_TpeNZYTmw
So claiming that ham operators have "direct" experience is silly. They operate their equipment even if they don't understand how it works exactly.
At the end of the "ground wave" section, as far as I've gotten, he claims that ground wave "follow the ground" and so they don't prove flat earth. What, so these waves can now bend around the curvature of the earth? I didn't know that radio waves could bend magically. Is it gravity that keeps them hugging the ground?
He also opened the article talking about "luminiferous ether", which nearly all scientists today reject. Because of Michelson-Morley, they had to reject the notion of light travelling through a medium, creating the myth of the only example of waves that do not required a "medium" in which to travel. But that's a side issue.
So, in terms of ground waves, please explain why they hug the earth around a curve. He simply assumes that because they're called "ground" waves. Maybe they're "ground" waves only because they travel straight and therefore stay near the ground ... on a flat earth. I'll listen to the rest later.
Do you know that amateur radio operators have done experiments bouncing radio waves off the moon (and received them back)? How does that happen from 260,000 miles away? I've seen the math done. By the time these waves COULD come back, assuming it were possible, the earth would have rotated many miles and therefore the waves would not have come close to their return target.
LORAN was a line-of-sight navigation system developed during WW2 and it worked over many hundreds of miles, when it shouldn't have. nαzιs had a line-of-sight targeting system that the lead British scientific advisor stated could not work due to the curvature of the earth and given that they were line-of-sight. Well, they got bombed by the nαzιs with this targeting system.
Sidetracking, sidetracking, sidetracking.
Why not first watch the whole video, and then address the main points? You didn't even get what the main points are!
Not sidetracking. I'll watch it when I have time. But I noted that it's of interest that he himself debunks the same crap arguments you and your buddies have started with, agreeing that they don't prove globe earth. I'll get to the rest later.
BTW, have any of you guys viewed the "Mountain of Evidence" video I posted?
As is typical of the intellectually dishonest, you ignore all the evidence against it and simply try to post your evidence, and then demand that everyone watch it and refute it or else they declare victory.
What about watching OUR videos, of which there are literally hundreds?
And you don't see the wavy blurring of the image right out of the gate? There's obviously high water vapor and moisture impeding the view. There's no indication of how far out they are and what the limits of the magnification are for whatever it is that they're using to view it. Even video equipment has limits. Unless there's data regarding things like distance, moisture/humidity, the equipment they're using, etc. ... it's totally useless. Flat Earthers are usually careful to docuмent all these details. So another epic fail.I dunno Lad, 15 years ago I spent 2 weeks with my boss at his condo right on the beach in Melbourne Beach, FL. He was on the 2nd floor so he was well above the water and he had a really, really nice telescope. I remember a few times looking through it and seeing things very blurry like the video, but I also saw large freighters that were far out there very clearly disappear under the horizon.
I could find an post 100 where they docuмent everything they're doing, from how high the camera is off the ground, use maps to show how far the target object is away, do the curvature math, and often take temperature and humidity readings, and objects are clearly visible way past what earth curvature would allow.
Have you gotten a ham radio license yet? If you have a General Class license or better multiple forum members could do NVIS/NHIS experiments. I think NHIS/NVIS could potentially move the arguments on this forum forward one way or the other.
Marion,
When you see holy pictures which show the world as a globe, have you ever asked yourself these questions?
1. If the earth is round and if this sphere is meant to represent all of God's creation and His dominion over it, then where are the heavens/firmament/universe?
2. Didn't God also create the heavens/firmament/universe? So why does the sphere only represent earth alone?
3. Or...does the sphere represent ALL of creation: earth, heavens, firmament, planets?
4. Why does Scripture refer to earth by saying "on earth" (i.e. as in, "on land")? Why does Scripture always refer to "in heaven" (i.e. heaven is above land)?
5. Why does Scripture refer to the "firmament of heaven"? Is it implying that heaven is part of the earth (i.e. flat land/dome model)?
6. Does God have no dominion over the heavens? Does God have no dominion over the universe/planets/stars?
7. If He does have dominion over these, why are they never shown in drawings, paintings, descriptions? Why is only the earth shown?
Or...is it possible that when people say that the world is a sphere (not that the earth is a sphere), that the word "world" includes a flat land, the heavens, the firmament, planets and stars...all in one dome-shaped, sphere-shaped, globe-shaped environment created by God?
If the earth is flat, then the whole earth should be dark after sunset.
:laugh2: This makes it clear you don't have the first damn clue about what FE's actually claim.
They claim anytime anything to defend their ideas.
Feel free, and go ahead, and explain how on a flat earth, after sunset, the whole earth isn't dark.
This has been demonstrated by Flat Earthers. Has to do with the size of the sun, its distance from the earth, and to some extent the shape of the sun. You beg the question regarding the nature of the sun.
Feel free, and go ahead, and explain how on a flat earth, after sunset, the whole earth isn't dark.
And you don't see the wavy blurring of the image right out of the gate? There's obviously high water vapor and moisture impeding the view. There's no indication of how far out they are and what the limits of the magnification are for whatever it is that they're using to view it. Even video equipment has limits. Unless there's data regarding things like distance, moisture/humidity, the equipment they're using, etc. ... it's totally useless. Flat Earthers are usually careful to docuмent all these details. So another epic fail.
I could find an post 100 where they docuмent everything they're doing, from how high the camera is off the ground, use maps to show how far the target object is away, do the curvature math, and often take temperature and humidity readings, and objects are clearly visible way past what earth curvature would allow.
But you see, refraction and visual distortion due to humidity, etc. only exist when it's a Flat Earther making the case, never when a Glober is doing it. I've seen FEers actually show examples of exactly this kind of distortion due to humidity levels but then showed the distortion go away on a different day when there was lower humidity. FEers take the time and the effort to docuмent things, while the globe earth stuff, the little there is, is lazy and makes all kinds of assumptions.
The sun never "sets" as you understand it. You can find the FE explanation easily enough. Your laziness is not my problem.
The sun never "sets" as you understand it. You can find the FE explanation easily enough. Your laziness is not my problem.
If they lied about COVID and the jab ...
If they lied about 9/11 ...
If they lied about the h0Ɩ0cαųst ...
If they lied about JFK ...
If they lied about just about everything we know of WW2 and other history ...
If they lied about evolution ...
If they lied about geocentrism ...
If they lied about the moon landing ...
Why would they be above lying about flat earth?
PS ... this is an incredibly short list and could have gone on for pages.
Ladislaus, is this your comment before you watched that ham radio operator video entirely, or after?
I've finally finished the video. Not sure about his assertions about the different angles, but he's incorrect about there not being two paths on a flat earth. Flat Earthers don't believe in an ionosphere bounce (think it's most likely made up), but do think that there's a "firmament" bounce. Not all FEs believe in a firmament, but most do. I do, because of Sacred Scripture. So you can easily bounce radio waves off the firmament. So it would come down to studying the various angles, etc. And I don't have the time, nor really the expertise to confirm or deny the different angles he alleges would be needed. If I have time I'll try to break that down.
In the meantime, have a look at the videos on this channel here. And, have you looked at "Mountain of Evidence" yet?
In any case, Taboo Conspiracy III ... called that because he's already had two Youtube channels deleted, and this is his third attempt. And it's nearly impossible to find him with a search engine even putting in the exact name of his channel. Typically, the better the channel is, the more they hide and ban it.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3Z5IVoNE5cP2kka5svUEBw/videos
This also includes proof that PBS / Discover faked their "helicopter" video.
Here's the bottom line. When people likeMarion or StanleyLadislaus have dug their heels in, it's probably a fruitless argument. Nothing we say will ever convince them. You have to have an open mind and then honestly look at the evidence. If not, you just filter stuff out based on confirmation bias.
Your laziness is not my problem.
If they lied about COVID and the jab ...
If they lied about 9/11 ...
If they lied about the h0Ɩ0cαųst ...
If they lied about JFK ...
If they lied about just about everything we know of WW2 and other history ...
If they lied about evolution ...
If they lied about geocentrism ...
If they lied about the moon landing ...
Why would they be above lying about flat earth?
PS ... this is an incredibly short list and could have gone on for pages.
Oh, that's a good one. Mind if I use that line?
Here's another good channel ... yet hard to find.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCz6s_ScG0PZThdwhKsUFSRw
Yes they lie, they lie about most everything, but that isn’t proof of anything. As you know, a round global Earth has been believed for millennia, everything you listed above is recent history with the exception of geocentrism.
If they lied about COVID and the jab ....
If they lied about 9/11 ...
If they lied about the h0Ɩ0cαųst ...
If they lied about JFK ...
If they lied about just about everything we know of WW2 and other history ...
If they lied about evolution ...
If they lied about geocentrism ...
If they lied about the moon landing ...
Why would they be above lying about flat earth?
PS ... this is an incredibly short list and could have gone on for pages.
Its shape must necessarily be spherical. For every portion of earth has weight until it reaches the centre, and the jostling of parts greater and smaller would bring about not a waved surface, but rather compression and convergence of part and part until the centre is reached.
Either then the earth is spherical or it is at least naturally spherical. And it is right to call anything that which nature intends it to be, and which belongs to it, rather than that which it is by constraint and contrary to nature. The evidence of the senses further corroborates this. How else would eclipses of the moon show segments shaped as we see them? As it is, the shapes which the moon itself each month shows are of every kind straight, gibbous, and concave but in eclipses the outline is always curved: and, since it is the interposition of the earth that makes the eclipse, the form of this line will be caused by the form of the earth's surface, which is therefore spherical. Again, our observations of the stars make it evident, not only that the earth is circular, but also that it is a circle of no great size. For quite a small change of position to south or north causes a manifest alteration of the horizon. There is much change, I mean, in the stars which are overhead, and the stars seen are different, as one moves northward or southward. Indeed there are some stars seen in Egypt and in the neighborhood of Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions; and stars, which in the north are never beyond the range of observation, in those regions rise and set. All of which goes to show not only that the earth is circular in shape, but also that it is a sphere of no great size: for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be so quickly apparent.
Also, those mathematicians who try to calculate the size of the earth's circuмference arrive at the figure 400,000 stades. This indicates not only that the earth's mass is spherical in shape, but also that as compared with the stars it is not of great size.
Yeti, you seem like a down to earth guy but I think you've gone too far. Based on your posts of the last year or so, during the pandemic, you see no possibility of conspiracy ANYWHERE. You seem to question alternative views simply because you can't figure out how people could lie and get away with it. It's kinda short-sighted..
95% of the alleged evidence for globe earth comes from NASA and the other affiliated Satanic space agencies..
If they lied about COVID and the jab ....
If they lied about 9/11 ...
If they lied about the h0Ɩ0cαųst ...
If they lied about JFK ...
If they lied about just about everything we know of WW2 and other history ...
If they lied about evolution ...
If they lied about geocentrism ...
If they lied about the moon landing ...
Why would they be above lying about flat earth?
PS ... this is an incredibly short list and could have gone on for pages.
but actually they are in fact probably destructive of health, and moreover that such destruction of health is clearly of deliberate intent on the part of the powers forcing these drugs into the population.Ok, good to know. I just remember a year ago you were questioning "how" the elites would remain in control if this was a depopulation program.
it is easily verifiable by the average person, without access to any advanced technology, to understand that the earth is a sphere, so much so that even the greatest philosopher of all time, Aristotle himself in the 4th century before Christ, was able to explain and prove quite simply from a few simple observations that the earth is spherical.The WORLD is a sphere, which includes the earth/heavens/firmament/planets. The earth itself, that which we walk on, is flat.
Either then the earth is spherical or it is at least naturally spherical. And it is right to call anything that which nature intends it to be, and which belongs to it, rather than that which it is by constraint and contrary to nature. The evidence of the senses further corroborates this. How else would eclipses of the moon show segments shaped as we see them? As it is, the shapes which the moon itself each month shows are of every kind straight, gibbous, and concave but in eclipses the outline is always curved: and, since it is the interposition of the earth that makes the eclipse, the form of this line will be caused by the form of the earth's surface, which is therefore spherical. Again, our observations of the stars make it evident, not only that the earth is circular, but also that it is a circle of no great size. For quite a small change of position to south or north causes a manifest alteration of the horizon. There is much change, I mean, in the stars which are overhead, and the stars seen are different, as one moves northward or southward. Indeed there are some stars seen in Egypt and in the neighborhood of Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions; and stars, which in the north are never beyond the range of observation, in those regions rise and set. All of which goes to show not only that the earth is circular in shape, but also that it is a sphere of no great size: for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be so quickly apparent.Aristotle presumes that the moon/stars orbit around the earth, instead of over it. He also assumes the moon/stars are much further away (which is why he assumes the earth is small). If one assumes the moon/stars are much, much closer to the earth that we've been told (i.e. the universe is NOT vast, NOT far, and NOT unknown), this explains why a shift from north-to-south hemisphere provides a different viewpoint of each.
If one assumes the moon/stars are much, much closer to the earth that we've been told (i.e. the universe is NOT vast, NOT far, and NOT unknown)
I'm glad you're clear that you're making an assumption the moon is "close".And I'm glad you're open about your assumptions as well - that you follow pagan greeks, who ALSO assumed the moon rotated around the earth, instead of over it, as St Bede describes.
The distance to the moon can be measured a couple ways with parallax using ordinary equipment
And I'm glad you're open about your assumptions as well - that you follow pagan greeks, who ALSO assumed the moon rotated around the earth, instead of over it, as St Bede describes.
If you change the assumption, you change the math, which changes the distance.
.
This is false and absurd.
What gives with the . before every single paragraph,Matthew updated the site software a few months ago. Before that, there was a bug which didn't recognize spaces between paragraphs, so the "." made sure the post had proper spacing.
Matthew updated the site software a few months ago. Before that, there was a bug which didn't recognize spaces between paragraphs, so the "." made sure the post had proper spacing.
Measuring distance by parallax would still be valid in a flat earth cosmology.It's not valid at all. Because a parallax requires 1 distance (to either a star or the sun) to be known, in order measure the 2nd object. That's a false assumption. I think ALL measurements of planets, stars, etc are debatable because those that measure use foundational errors of heliocentrism.
That "pagan Greeks" figured something out doesn't mean it's wrong.True, but their findings have to be taken with a grain of salt, because 1) they don't care about religion/genesis, 2) most of them are heliocentrists. Same approach to reading a protestant commentary on Scripture...you have to assume they're wrong because their foundation is wrong.
Matthew updated the site software a few months ago. Before that, there was a bug which didn't recognize spaces between paragraphs, so the "." made sure the post had proper spacing.Oh, so that problem has been fixed? Great! Now I can stop putting in that stupid . between paragraphs. Let's see if it works ...
Oh, so that problem has been fixed? Great! Now I can stop putting in that stupid . between paragraphs. Let's see if it works ...
Hey, it worked! All right. Thanks, guy!.
It's not valid at all. Because a parallax requires 1 distance (to either a star or the sun) to be known, in order measure the 2nd object.
For parallax in astronomy, you need to know the distance between two observers.My point exactly. What planet/star/sun/moon (i.e. observers) do we know the distance from earth?
My point exactly. What planet/star/sun/moon (i.e. observers) do we know the distance from earth?
t's like saying you can calculate the depth of a lake using some distance calculation. Water magnifies and distorts how things look. How come it is assumed that outer space doesn't distort distance in some way? That's kinda naive.
That means, in this case, that light travels more or less straight. Atmospheric refraction adds experimental uncertainty to the result, but repeated observations have shown the results are fairly consistent, so this is not a large uncertainty.Fairly consistent with what? If I repeatedly measure a piece of wood with a faulty 11inch ruler (which I think is 12inch), I will repeatedly get the wrong result...and not realize it. How is this experiment double-checked in any way?
Fairly consistent with what? If I repeatedly measure a piece of wood with a faulty 11inch ruler (which I think is 12inch), I will repeatedly get the wrong result...and not realize it. How is this experiment double-checked in any way?
isn't the atmosphere MADE OF WATER? Yes. :laugh1:
Assumptions, uncertainties, etc. Sounds like a whole ball of circular reasoning.
Other people doing the same experiment with different equipment or circuмstances.It's still not verifiable science because, as you admitted:
Other experiments using different methods getting the same results.
The main atmospheric components are Nitrogen and Oxygen. Water vapor is a small percent.There's a difference between low atmosphere and high atmosphere. Also, how does one measure light in the vacuum of space? I don't believe there's such a vacuum but you do. And to suggest that space can be measured the same as the atmosphere is nonsense. How do you shine a light which travels through 2 different mediums (atmosphere, vacuum) and think you could adequately measure this?
You're assuming the world is set up so anything we observe could be wrong?No, i'm assuming the world is setup to observe those things ON EARTH alone. We can't know those things "in the heavens" because a) they don't work the same way as things on earth, b) too many assumptions involved, c) most assumptions start from a heliocentric view, d) I don't think God wants us to know all these things because it inflates our pride.
You're essentially arguing we can't know anything.
The main atmospheric components are Nitrogen and Oxygen. Water vapor is a small percent.What about rain clouds? What about regular clouds? The water in those don't refract light? What about the water in the firmament, which Scripture tells us infallibly exists? Can we just ignore this reality?
It's still not verifiable science because, as you admitted:
1. The "assumption" here is that the geometric abstraction is sufficiently close to reality.
2. That light travels the same in low atmosphere as it does at a) high altitudes and b) in space
Those are HUGE assumptions and make any conclusions suspect.
OK, you're hypothesizing that light travels significantly differently in the "low atmosphere" vs "high altitudes" and "space".How could it not travel differently? We see that headlights from a car are better or worse, just in simple weather variations (rain, sleet, heavy fog, etc). This we can SEE, yet we don't even know what high altitude is like (and by this, i'm talking about miles above where planes fly). You assume that modern science "knows" about super-high altitude or even space vacuum and that's ridiculous. How do you do tests on high-altitude or space when we can't replicate it in a lab? How do you replicate something you can't even explain, except using assumptions of "small uncertainties".
Since according to you we can't know about anything that passes through the atmosphere, we can't know that the Sun, moon, or stars or sky even exist, let alone what they might look like or where they might be.Yes, I agree with you that modern science doesn't know much as a certainty. Most of modern science is based on assumptions but because (they say) multiple people use flawed-tests and the same assumptions, then modern science labels things as "facts".
Since the atmosphere makes everything suspect, we also can't know for sure there are cars, or houses, or other people, or any other objects. We just can't be sure.
:facepalm: Or...a crow’s nest helps you to avoid large waves which might obstruct one’s view, like being on a mountain helps you to see over rolling hills.
Ships had a crow's nest, some do still today. The higher up, the better. That's because the earth isn't flat. If the earth were flat, one could see as far from the deck. From the crow's nest, staff sees other ships or land earlier.
The crow's nest allows to see other ships and land earlier.Duh?? This is why castles on built on hills...to see one's enemy earlier. This has nothing to do with flat earth. :jester:
How much earlier, according to globe math? 10 seconds? What is the point of that?
Ships had a crow's nest, some do still today. The higher up, the better. That's because the earth isn't flat. If the earth were flat, one could see as far from the deck. From the crow's nest, staff sees other ships or land earlier.
It's common sense that the higher up you are, the farther you can see due to perspective --
Just because I don't believe in aliens from outer space, or time travel, or anti-gravity technology, or mind control, or laser plasma weapons, or various other strange ideas you have discussed in other threads, doesn't mean I believe in whatever mainstream culture believe in. Quite the contrary. :cowboy:
On a globe earth, there is a horizon. On a flat earth, there isn't.
Sez you. Oh, that's a slam-dunk argument right there!
Yes there most certainly would be a horizon on a flat earth. Think about it some more.
But from what I've seen in this thread, you're not going to take that advice. You seem to have taken some kind of guardian role in defending the globe earth paradigm. For whatever reasons (I won't care to speculate), you feel very strongly about this issue. So anyone looking for the honest, evidence-based truth of the matter should steer clear of you and any other zealots like you. You come across extremely biased.
So what's the problem? Do the flat earthers come aross less biased?
Ladislaus, is this your comment before you watched that ham radio operator video entirely, or after?
Where is the link to the video in question? I'd like to watch it, since I'm a Ham Radio guy myself.https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/is-refusing-to-accept-an-'obvious-fact'-a-sin-of-lying/msg792091/#msg792091
If the earth were flat, you wouldn't have to climb to double height to see farther.
Is that your attempt at a "strawman"?Well, there's a bit of history here and I can't remember all of it. I was responding to what Pax said about me, that I dismiss cօռspιʀαcιҽs or something to that effect. He was referring to a discussion he and I had a few months back involving something that sounded something out of an episode of Star Trek. I don't remember now what it was about, exactly. No, it wasn't aliens or time travel, but it was something like mind control or anti-gravity machines or something similar. I asked for evidence of such extraordinary claims, and when there wasn't any forthcoming, I dismissed their existence due to lack of evidence and inherent unlikelihood. Pax disagreed and said he was more likely to believe such things, etc.
Where on CathInfo does ANYONE discuss time travel, aliens, or anti-gravity as serious possibilities? Maybe I missed something in my moderation work.
Every time I've seen those topics on CathInfo, it's been to debunk their very possibility from a Catholic perspective.
I know of only one person who pushes what I repeatedly called "tinfoil hat cօռspιʀαcιҽs": mind control, graphene, AI, all that. But I came out openly and strongly against it, so you can't pin that on me OR CathInfo.
Along with time travel and aliens, "AI" is another impossibility once you understand Catholic dogma and traditional metaphysics.
As for advanced weapons -- I don't think that's crazy. Of course they're developing lasers and other weapons. Do you think they have no interest in advancing the state of the art in weapons technology? If that's your opinion, YOU'RE the crazy one.
No, it wasn't aliens or time travel, but it was something like mind control or anti-gravity machines or something similar.I was not defending such ideas just arguing against your logic, which *sometimes* starts with, "I can't see how that works", or "I see no reason to believe x, y or z". Obviously if one doesn't know about such subjects, then you can't believe it or understand how it works.
I don't understand, Matthew.
I know of only one person who pushes what I repeatedly called "tinfoil hat cօռspιʀαcιҽs": mind control, graphene, AI, all that. But I came out openly and strongly against it, so you can't pin that on me OR CathInfo.
Along with time travel and aliens, "AI" is another impossibility once you understand Catholic dogma and traditional metaphysics.
If the earth were flat, you wouldn't have to climb to double height to see farther.False. The reason you have to climb higher is to raise the angle for your eye to be able to see. If the starting angle is small, 1 degree for instance, even if there was nothing in the way, you couldn't see very far because the angle of resolution is too small. Climb higher, the angle increases and the distance one can see increases. Flat earth.
How arrogant is that, gladius_veritatis? You're not even able to check out and calculate an example, but you react as if you believe that the engineers, who built the ships shown above, were idiots.
They aren't. They built and build useful ships with useful crow's nests.
:jester::facepalm::jester::facepalm:
False. The reason you have to climb higher is to raise the angle for your eye to be able to see. If the starting angle is small, 1 degree for instance, even if there was nothing in the way, you couldn't see very far because the angle of resolution is too small. Climb higher, the angle increases and the distance one can see increases. Flat earth.
I don't understand what you are talking about. What is an angle of resolution? Shouldn't a person be able to see anything that is in front of him if there isn't an obstacle in the way? Why would it matter what angle he is looking at the object with in relation to the earth?You are right.
If the earth were flat, you wouldn't have to climb to double height to see farther.I disagree with this your opinion.
I think if the Earth was actually flat, if you were in a crows nest on a ship and were approaching land, you wouldn’t necessarily see it before the people on the deck. If the Earth is actually curved then a crows nest would be a necessity, especially in olden times.I agree. What Trad said was If the starting angle is small, 1 degree for instance, even if there was nothing in the way, you couldn't see very far because the angle of resolution is too small. I find this statement bizarre since a person can see anything in front of him if there is nothing in the way, regardless of what angle he is looking at it from. I have also never heard of an "angle of resolution", so I hope he can explain what that means.
There is absolutely no reasonable explanation from FE theorists, that I’m aware of, for seeing a ship disappear on the horizon from the bottom up.
On a globe earth, at 5 meters above the water, you got a horizon. A circle around you, how far you can see. Objects behind the horizon disappear or partly disappear like the setting sun. If you climb up to 20 meters above the water, the radius of your horizon circle increases. You can still see the whole sun, or at least more of the disappearing setting sun.
There is absolutely no reasonable explanation from FE theorists, that I’m aware of, for seeing a ship disappear on the horizon from the bottom up.The ship disappears because of the limits of the human eyeball, which is designed to see colors/shapes and has limitations on depth and distance.
I don't understand what you are talking about. What is an angle of resolution? Shouldn't a person be able to see anything that is in front of him if there isn't an obstacle in the way? Why would it matter what angle he is looking at the object with in relation to the earth?If you lay on the ground, the angle between the ground and your eye is to small too see very far because your eye cannot discern things as they run together and become indistinguishable even at 100 feet away. Open the angle by getting up on your feet and you can resolve things, the angle of resolution, for quite a distance, yet limited to about 3 miles. Use a zoom camera to see further because the camera can resolve specific details much better than the eye. Climb up on a mountain and see for miles and miles even without a camera because the angle between your eye and the ground is much larger and plenty is visible because the open angle allows a lot more light into the eye.
On a globe earth, the horizon should FALL as one ascends. You should have to look lower and lower to see the horizon. This is never observed, at whatever altitude man tries to go. Even airplanes -- the horizon is always at eye level. It never falls down (as it should) in a globe earth situation.
Instead, you just see more and more, further and further away, since your perspective changes.
The angle "falls" (you look more downward), while the radius grows.
Said no human ever in real life. This does not match experience. Sorry.
If a skyscraper were super tall and very far away, to your left OR right, and part of the "missing bottom" was below the horizon, you wouldn't just have half of the skyscraper sticking up straight perpendicular to the ground, as it was when it was 20 feet in front of you! If the explanation was "the earth's curvature made the bottom half disappear from view" then the other half would be leaning one direction or the other -- certainly "backwards" away from you, but also to the left/right unless the skyscraper was RIGHT IN FRONT of you.
Get out a globe and test it. Think about it.
If you lay on the ground, the angle between the ground and your eye is to small too see very far because your eye cannot discern things as they run together and become indistinguishable even at 100 feet away.
On a globe earth, the horizon should FALL as one ascends. You should have to look lower and lower to see the horizon. This is never observed, at whatever altitude man tries to go. Even airplanes -- the horizon is always at eye level. It never falls down (as it should) in a globe earth situation.
Remember, the number of scientists trying to figure out how Flat Earth works is almost non-existent. Just a few laymen (amateurs), really. So having an unresolved mystery, an unanswered question or 100 should NOT be a dealbreaker, logically speaking. It is logical to have many unanswered questions, given the resources, time, and personnel being thrown at this subject at present.
How do you want to explain that on a flat earth, when you're higher than the waves? How can you see farther when you add 10 meters of height or 100 meters?Because waves can be VERY tall, and if a ship is at the bottom of a wave, it's line of sight will be reduced. Also, if a storm is in the distance, a crow's nest rises above long-distance waves.
Shouldn't the horizon "fall" as you say on a "flat earth" as well?
It's also quite likely that a few untrained layman/amateurs are going to come up with a lot of nonsense.
If you don't have some solid data, then how did you come to your conclusion that these few laymen/amateurs are right?
I don't think this is true. Putting my face near the ground doesn't make it any harder for me to see distant objects. Can you explain why you think it would?Standing up one can see approximately 3 miles uninhibited. You cannot see 3 miles while on the ground, even if line of sight is totally uninhibited. The angle of resolution is too small and the distant details become muddled even before 100ft. Again, from the mountain you can see for 50 or more miles.
It's also quite likely that a few untrained layman/amateurs are going to come up with a lot of nonsense.
I'm sure it does lean a little to the side from your point of view as it moves away, but not enough to be visible. You would probably have to get hundreds of miles from the skyscraper before it was leaning so differently from you that its lean would be visible, by which time it would long since have gone out of sight.
I don't think this is true. Putting my face near the ground doesn't make it any harder for me to see distant objects. Can you explain why you think it would?Well no, Tradman has got a point. There's an angle of resolution, if you look at a far away object which is relatively flat, it will be harder to make out with increasing distance. There's a point where you won't see it from a low angle of resolution, but will see it from a high angle.
Standing up one can see approximately 3 miles uninhibited. You cannot see 3 miles while on the ground, even if line of sight is totally uninhibited. The angle of resolution is too small and the distant details become muddled even before 100ft. Again, from the mountain you can see for 50 or more miles.
All of what you are saying proves that the earth is curved ... :laugh1:Not quite. One could not see much from the mountain as the horizon drops from view at about 3 miles on a globe. Otherwise, it isn't a globe. Since it doesn't do that, and one can see for miles from a mountain, we know that earth is not a globe.
These people who defend globe earth don't even know their own "scientific facts" about the earth's curvature. :facepalm: On the one hand, they say the "earth is too big" to notice the curve; on the other hand, using their own calculations, such curvature isn't seen in experiments. It's quite the con game.That's because the globe only exists within the sphere of the mind. :laugh1:
No, it should not.
Well no, Tradman has got a point. There's an angle of resolution, if you look at a far away object which is relatively flat, it will be harder to make out with increasing distance. There's a point where you won't see it from a low angle of resolution, but will see it from a high angle.Cool video, but we're not talking about how much of a flat object you can see from various angles. Trad said you can see objects better if you are higher off the ground. We are speaking of things that are fairly vertical, or that we are not trying to see the tops of, such as ships or skyscrapers. I submit that Trad's claim is false, that it is not more difficult to see objects at a distance, in general, when one's point of view is near the ground than when it is higher up.
I made a little demo for how the field of view changes with height. The ball is the viewer, the red object is being looked at. You're exposed to much more of the object when you get higher.
However, this does not prove the Earth is flat. It was just about angle of resolution. If you take a telescope, your angle of resolution will not be a problem anymore. And in practice you don't see across the complete Earth, because the far away parts of the world are always disappearing below the horizon. You can't see the skyscrapers of Manhattan from, say, Lisbon, across the Atlantic in Europe, with a telescope that can resolve details of far away celestial bodies. That makes you think ::)
(https://i.imgur.com/sQ1THFI.gif)
Since we are supposedly hurtling through space at thousands of miles an hour, rotating on our axis at 1000 mph, while orbiting around the sun at 10,000 mph, pray tell, why are the constellation of stars always the same, or at least in the same predictable pattern? Shouldn't we be seeing aconsistently different star formation rambling through space? (Or are the star/ luminaries "contained" somehow in our realm?Do you mean this?
These people who defend globe earth don't even know their own "scientific facts" about the earth's curvature. :facepalm: On the one hand, they say the "earth is too big" to notice the curve; on the other hand, using their own calculations, such curvature isn't seen in experiments. It's quite the con game.
Cool video, but we're not talking about how much of a flat object you can see from various angles. Trad said you can see objects better if you are higher off the ground. We are speaking of things that are fairly vertical, or that we are not trying to see the tops of, such as ships or skyscrapers. I submit that Trad's claim is false, that it is not more difficult to see objects at a distance, in general, when one's point of view is near the ground than when it is higher up.Right, skyscrapers. As long as the object doesn't grow bigger from your perspective while going up, you are exactly right - it doesn't matter from where you view it.
Cool video, but we're not talking about how much of a flat object you can see from various angles. Trad said you can see objects better if you are higher off the ground. We are speaking of things that are fairly vertical, or that we are not trying to see the tops of, such as ships or skyscrapers. I submit that Trad's claim is false, that it is not more difficult to see objects at a distance, in general, when one's point of view is near the ground than when it is higher up.If meditating on it doesn't help, go experiment.
I said that an object moving off to the side is too close to see it appear to tilt away from you. That's a different thing from having the horizon come between you and a distant object.I'm talking about the video, not your comments.
The ship disappears because of the limits of the human eyeball, which is designed to see colors/shapes and has limitations on depth and distance.I don't know about that Pax, I remember a few different times when I was looking through the telescope at a ship disappear under the horizon, the telescope was definitely more than powerful enough to see well past the 100 miles or however far away the ships were. Which to me means that it seems if we have a FE, then from where I was, I should have easily been able to see well past those ships and see Europe or Africa or some other major land mass, or some evidence, even hazy evidence of some other land on the other side of the Atlantic ocean from Melbourne Beach, Florida - no?
if we have a FE, then from where I was, I should have easily been able to see well past those ships and see Europe or Africa or some other major land mass, or some evidence, even hazy evidence of some other land on the other side of the Atlantic ocean from Melbourne Beach, Florida - no?
Heck, from where we were to the Bahamas is what, only about 300 or 400 miles away, but we couldn't even see them with a telescope, which seems like we should have been able to with FE.
I can field that one, even though I've only watched a few videos.I don't know much about telescopes either, but like everything my millionaire boss had, it was definitely a high end telescope, it was a spectacular thing to see when he zoomed it into the sun and moon, it would even automatically move with them, otherwise they would rotate right out of view and you'd have to keep moving the telescope.
There IS water vapor in the atmosphere, especially when you're over water. Your view will "blur out" before you can ever hope to see that far away. It's the cuмulative effect of all the water droplets in the air.
Interesting you bring up telescope; usually these horizon tests are done with a Nikon or other high-zoom camera. I wonder what the difference is. Maybe a telescope isn't made for the 30-100 mile range? I'm not a telescope guy; you tell me.
The ship disappears because of the limits of the human eyeball, which is designed to see colors/shapes and has limitations on depth and distance.
Pax, this doesn’t make any sense. How come you can still see the top of the ship then? How come you can still see the moon and the stars? Even on the FE model, the moon and the stars must be many miles away, they have to be way farther than the ship.
h = 2m => d = 5.05km
h = 5m => d = 7.98km
h = 10m => d = 11.29km
h = 20m => d = 15.96km
On a spherical earth the visual range of a sailor is limited due to the curvature of the water. On a flat earth, the water is plane, and the visual range of the sailor is not geometrically limited.Again, these are deceptively applied mathematical equations that only work within the sphere of the mind. None of this actually works to prove what you're attempting to prove in the real world, but then, globe believers never do their own experiments, they copy and paste what appears to be a working conclusion. This is actual working math coupled up with a scenario on earth to appear to prove something it doesn't prove. I'm not blaming you for being deceptive, just for falling for the deception by posting what you obviously do not understand.
Pax, this doesn’t make any sense. How come you can still see the top of the ship then? How come you can still see the moon and the stars? Even on the FE model, the moon and the stars must be many miles away, they have to be way farther than the ship.There's more water vapor/humidity right over the ocean (plus waves) vs land, that can obscure long-distances.
Here is the video with the mountain experiment. The curvature of the earth doesn't exist.(https://www.bitchute.com/video/OxIHjjhI3rhh/)Quo Vadis and Stubborn, I'm not an expert on any of this. But if you want an intro to globe-earth lies, watch the above video. You can watch on 1.5 or 1.75 speed. It's well worth it.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/OxIHjjhI3rhh/ (https://www.bitchute.com/video/OxIHjjhI3rhh/)
There's more water vapor/humidity right over the ocean (plus waves) vs land, that can obscure long-distances.
But your argument wasn’t that, it was how far the human eye can see. That is why I mentioned Pikes Peak, there is no water to contend with. Someone else on the forum suggested water vapor and waves already.There is humidity in the air, more or less, depending on the day. More humidity over an ocean than over land. More humidity in the air in a tropical jungle vs a dry desert. This affects what the human eye can see; it also affects what a camera can see.
I accept the possibility that I could be wrong, but I have not found a convincing argument yet.Well, there is no "convincing argument" but more like 1,000 arguments. It requires a study/understanding of how science works, a knowledge of many things. I'm not the one to explain it; i'm only pointing out errors in globe earth and i'm learning as I go.
I think that a lot of FE adherents are almost taking their position as an article of Faith. I think they need to step back and reevaluate or at least have an open mind to the possibility that they could be wrong.Both FE and GE take their position as an article of faith, as each presupposes various things about the earth.
I accept the possibility that I could be wrong, but I have not found a convincing argument yet.
(https://www.bitchute.com/video/OxIHjjhI3rhh/)Quo Vadis and Stubborn, I'm not an expert on any of this. But if you want an intro to globe-earth lies, watch the above video. You can watch on 1.5 or 1.75 speed. It's well worth it.
If you don't want to watch the video then it's kinda lazy to be asking people a lot of questions to "prove" this or that. Experiments prove what words do not.
Again, these are deceptively applied mathematical equations that only work within the sphere of the mind. None of this actually works to prove what you're attempting to prove in the real world, but then, globe believers never do their own experiments, they copy and paste what appears to be a working conclusion. This is actual working math coupled up with a scenario on earth to appear to prove something it doesn't prove. I'm not blaming you for being deceptive, just for falling for the deception by posting what you obviously do not understand.
I think that a lot of FE adherents are almost taking their position as an article of Faith. I think they need to step back and reevaluate or at least have an open mind to the possibility that they could be wrong.
I accept the possibility that I could be wrong, but I have not found a convincing argument yet.
He makes a decent point, but there are too many variables that he admits to, especially at the 43 minute mark.?? What variables? A difference of 20-30 ft of a mountain's height in no way explains the missing curvature of 770 feet! You obviously missed the point of the video.
Well, there is no "convincing argument" but more like 1,000 arguments. It requires a study/understanding of how science works, a knowledge of many things. I'm not the one to explain it; i'm only pointing out errors in globe earth and i'm learning as I go.
But Pax, you’re learning from people like that Dubay freak not some knowledge Catholic who is a scientist or has a science background. Why do you give these unknown nobodies so much credibility?You don't know anything about me. First time I've ever heard about Dubay was on this thread. He has nothing to do with that guy's video on the lack of curvature. I'm open to flat land/dome earth because of the following reasons:
But Pax, you’re learning from people like that Dubay freak not some knowledge Catholic who is a scientist or has a science background. Why do you give these unknown nobodies so much credibility?"But Thomas, you're learning from people like that Aristotle freak and Plato, not some knowledge [sic] Catholic scientist or has a science background. Why do you give these pagans so much credibility?"
"But Thomas, you're learning from people like that Aristotle freak and Plato, not some knowledge [sic] Catholic scientist or has a science background. Why do you give these pagans so much credibility?"
You and Marion have heard of Dubay, and keep pointing at him, obviously he isn't a "nobody". No one here has pointed to him as an authority on anything. He simply puts together some good proofs in favor of FE. Stop using him as a strawman.
What I haven't seen is a convincing refutation of the Flat Earth position from the globe believers.
So what don't you find unconvincing about "Mountain of Evidence"?
99% of the glober "refutations" were unconvincing, involving all kinds of logical fallacies: straw men, appeals to authority, etc.Would it surprise you that that description sounds a lot like FEers?
Also, there are essentially no Catholic scientists who have sincerely researched FE, that I know of.Sugenis is as close as we get, and I hesitate to call him a Catholic since he defends V2
I did the same experiment here, where I live. Behind my house I look from 70m above the water at a bay. At a distance of 13km there is a small flat island (200m x 50m). If I go down to the beach, the island is at 12km, and I am 2m above the water. From the beach, I can't see the island. This corresponds to the calculated numbers in the above example calculation. From the beach, the visual range is just 5km.I don't understand the purpose of your experiment? There's no curvature at 70m so what are you trying to prove?
I don't understand the purpose of your experiment? There's no curvature at 70m so what are you trying to prove?
I don't understand the purpose of your experiment? There's no curvature at 70m so what are you trying to prove?He can see an island that's 13km away from a height of 70m above the water while he can't see the same island from 12km away and a height of 2m above the water.
Sugenis is as close as we get, and I hesitate to call him a Catholic since he defends V2
Yes, and as such, he takes a view that a flat earth is an appalling idea. He wouldn't be able to research it with an open mind. He would (or always has) had a pre-conceived notion that the earth is a ball.I have yet to read his refutation of the idea, "Flat Earth Flat Wrong", but I'm sure I'll post what I think when I do.
I have yet to read his refutation of the idea, "Flat Earth Flat Wrong", but I'm sure I'll post what I think when I do.
He spends over 700 pages on the subject, so, maybe he has some good points.
For what it's worth, I'll attach Sungenis' refutation of flat Earth here.
He explains very well the problems and shortcomings of this model and disproves it. I'd advice all convinced Flat Earthers here to have a good read and either refute his arguments or start to question their own beliefs in that regard.
He can see an island that's 13km away from a height of 70m above the waterok.
while he can't see the same island from 12km away and a height of 2m above the water.2m above water?? That's 6 feet, haha. Can waves not obstruct one's view? Of course! I've seen 10 foot waves hit a beach and there was no storm. How big do you think waves are when you go out over 7 miles? Hint: bigger than 6 ft.
Yes, and as such, he takes a view that a flat earth is an appalling idea. He wouldn't be able to research it with an open mind. He would (or always has) had a pre-conceived notion that the earth is a ball.
Agreed. Sungenis had made up his mind beforehand, just like some posters here. Many of his arguments are dismantled and shown to be dishonest by Edward Hendrie here ... https://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Lie-Earth-Expanded-Moving/dp/194305603X/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=greatest+lie+on+earth&qid=1639509184&sr=8-1
I listed to part of the Biblical debate between him and Skiba, and Skiba demonstrated that Sungenis was (deliberately?) mis-representing the Hebrew terms he was arguing from. I don't feel that Sungenis is looking at all the evidence openly, but merely trying to explain it away.
I see hundreds of arguments and demonstrations from Flat Earthers that are not refuted. Meanwhile, 90% of glober arguments are easily debunked as not being cogent ... and often times openly dishonest. There are a handful of issues out there, but the massive preponderance of evidence is on the side of the Flat Earthers ... if you're willing to look at it with an open mind.
2m above water?? That's 6 feet, haha. Can waves not obstruct one's view? Of course! I've seen 10 foot waves hit a beach and there was no storm. How big do you think waves are when you go out over 7 miles? Hint: bigger than 6 ft.
ok.
2m above water?? That's 6 feet, haha. Can waves not obstruct one's view? Of course! I've seen 10 foot waves hit a beach and there was no storm. How big do you think waves are when you go out over 7 miles? Hint: bigger than 6 ft.
I don't see how this proved anything other than the poster didn't think it through.
I see hundreds of arguments and demonstrations fromFlatGlobe Earthers that are not refuted. Meanwhile, 90% ofgloberflatter arguments are easily debunked as not being cogent ... and often times openly dishonest. There are a handful of issues out there that take some knowledge to explain, but the massive preponderance of evidence is on the side of theFlatGlobe Earthers ... if you're willing to look at it with an open mind.
There, fixed that for you, Lad.
Can you at least grasp that someone might have looked into FE - possibly more deeply than you - and came out considering it a combination of unconvincing, incoherent, and simply wrong?
Do YOU find it correct and convincing?
If mistakes were pointed out to you, would you argue that they are not mistakes? or even if they were, there are still 100 other "proofs" you find totally convincing but won't bother telling us about in any detail?
"99% of the glober "refutations" were unconvincing, involving all kinds of logical fallacies: straw men, appeals to authority, etc."
Would it surprise you that that description sounds a lot like FEers?
You need to have an open mind, too, Lad. That includes admitting - at least to yourself - that you may have been duped by "FE" arguments. It's OK, it happens, especially outside one's field.
Can you answer this: Do you or do you not believe that the "Mountain of evidence" video is correct and conclusive? Why or why not?
It's about the only specific "evidence" you've provided.
Can you answer this: Do you or do you not believe that the "Mountain of evidence" video is correct and conclusive? Why or why not?
It's about the only specific "evidence" you've provided.
Marion, I admire you for doing some personal testing but what you described is not a scientific experiment, which must be reproducable. Water complicates things because it moves; it's best to use mountains or landmarks in distance calcs.
globe believers never do their own experiments, they copy and paste what appears to be a working conclusion.
Does Stanley strike anyone as having an open mind?
You assume you've looked at the evidence better, you might have not.
Besides, Lad and I are both neck-deep in computer science.
I wasn't presenting my observations to provide proof for globe earth to others. Rather I just was telling Tradman, who said ...Good to hear you did an experiment. The reason you saw further from higher up is because you're on a flat earth. You would not be able to see further from a mountain on a spherical earth because the horizon would drop lower and lower the higher you ascended. Trying to see what is disappearing behind the curve as you climb would be an exercise in futility as earth drops away from view to form the spherical shape. Coming to the conclusion that you must be on a ball because you saw further is clearly wrong. The opposite is reality.
... that I personally verified that I can see further from higher up. The whole bay is very quiet, a few meters deep only, more like a lagoon. You need a storm to get higher waves.
I managed to convince my wife, who sees that island every day with her own eyes. We can see it from higher up, but not from down below. We also see small boats, who don't disappear behind waves. And we've cruised the bay in small boats.
That's why we're convinced that the surface of the water in the bay is curved, not flat.
Then provide the evidence. Convince me.
Flat or round, mind if I come for a visit, Marion? When I look in my backyard all I see is snow. :cowboy:
(https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/is-refusing-to-accept-an-'obvious-fact'-a-sin-of-lying/?action=dlattach;attach=16761;image)
Good to hear you did an experiment. The reason you saw further from higher up is because you're on a flat earth. You would not be able to see further from a mountain on a spherical earth because the horizon would drop lower and lower the higher you ascended. Trying to see what is disappearing behind the curve as you climb would be an exercise in futility as earth drops away from view to form the spherical shape. Coming to the conclusion that you must be on a ball because you saw further is clearly wrong. The opposite is reality.
Another thing you may not have noticed is that no matter how high up you'd go up on the mountain, the horizon rose to your eye level. That is impossible if earth is a ball because the horizon has to fall away as you ascend in order to conform to the shape of a sphere. The horizon is irrefutable proof earth is not a globe.
You would not be able to see further from a mountain on a spherical earth because the horizon would drop lower and lower the higher you ascended. Trying to see what is disappearing behind the curve as you climb would be an exercise in futility as earth drops away from view to form the spherical shape.
You'll forgive my saying so, but your pretended "openness" comes across extremely forced and fake. You're not open at all.
Could you please make a drawing for me, showing how that works?!
Here again my understanding:
(https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/is-refusing-to-accept-an-'obvious-fact'-a-sin-of-lying/?action=dlattach;attach=16755;image)
Your drawing doesn't quite show that your visual is greater on a flat earth from the crow's nest, so I would extend the top line. Both views will naturally become limited at some point, due to perspective at least, but will be worse from the deck for two reasons. On the sea you're battling the angle of resolution being lower from the deck and thus limiting your view, from physical things like mist, waves, some of which are pretty high in the distance. With wave on wave on wave over distance it is going to be the equivalent of trying to see through a brick wall. Higher up, you'll have the same problems, just less so because you're higher than many of the waves and even much of the mist and atmospheric muddling so you'll see farther, which is why there is a crow's nest on a ship in the first place. Make no mistake, it will eventually be limited due to angle of resolution shrinking in relation to distance, which is why you can't see forever. The second picture depicts reality in the sense that it shows the horizon falling away, yet both positions are more immediately truncated on a globe because the horizon has to fall away shrinking angle of resolution and everything disappears, especially as you go higher, since the horizon drops away to conform to a sphere. The higher you go, the more your view falls off. If you read the phrase for each drawing, they are true. Visual range for flat earth is not as geometrically limited, but the visual range for a sphere is more immediately limited because the drop off leaves nothing to see the higher you go. A crow's nest wouldn't be much help on a sphere.
I'm not talking religious topics. I mean natural things, like 9/11, Oklahoma city, JFK, Elvis, covid, reptilian elite, Area 51, and so on.
Why is it so important to you that we question or change our belief? I mean, if you want to believe the earth is a ball, that's fine. The Church hasn't ruled on the subject.Did you even take a look at the attached file? You can completely ignore my words if you like.
I'd advice all convinced Flat Earthers here to have a good read and either refute his arguments or start to question their own beliefs in that regard.Why did you leave out the first part I marked in bold?
Nice touch there -- putting all those in the same breath.
My point is not what you think about each topic (we largely agree on those), but that you have already considered some of those topics and already formed an opinion. You're not coming at them "open minded" as if ignorant and tabula rasa.
Could you please make a drawing for me, showing how that works?!
Here again my understanding:
(https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/is-refusing-to-accept-an-'obvious-fact'-a-sin-of-lying/?action=dlattach;attach=16755;image)
Your drawing doesn't quite show that your visual is greater on a flat earth from the crow's nest, so I would extend the top line.
Your drawing doesn't quite show that your visual is greater on a flat earth from the crow's nest, so I would extend the top line.You can see mountains because the angle of resolution is probably 30 or more degrees between your eye and the top of the mountain which means nothing obstructs the view and the eye can resolve for enough detail to see it. When that angle gets smaller, as the object viewed is closer to the ground along with the viewer, one can no longer see the object(s) so the mountain is not a great example because it is so large. The fact that you can see buildings is a sure sign earth is not a globe because at 30 km or 18 miles, most, if not the entire building would be below the curve about 250 feet below the line of sight. That is how much curvature must be accounted for at that distance, if earth were a globe.
It shows that a flat earth doesn't geometrically limit the visual range.
I can see mountains, which are more than 30km away. And I can see the same mountains from the beach, in equally dark color. If it starts raining in the area of these mountains, then they get lighter, until one can't see them anymore. Then there's a "white wall" of rain in the distance.
If the weather is sunny and dry, there is no noteworthy mist above the water. If there were such mist, and the surface of the water were flat, then I couldn't see the buildings at the shore several more miles behind the island. But I can.
Marion, here's a simple test to prove that a higher viewpoint has nothing to do with globe earth.
1. Imagine your house and your surrounding yard and your neighbors houses ....Let's say, an area of a couple hundred feet.
2. Is this area large enough to be impacted by the curvature of the earth? No.
3. If you stand at your back door, how much of your neighbor's back yard can you see? Most of it or all of it.
4. If you go to your upstairs bedroom and look out the window, how much of your neighbor's back yard can you see. DEFINITELY all of it, and more.
5. Conclusion - the higher up you go, your vision distance increases because you've increased your field of view, since you can look OUT and DOWN. It's a bigger angle of view than just looking OUT (i.e. when you're on the ground).
This has absolutely nothing to do with globe/flat earth.
Your drawing doesn't quite show that your visual is greater on a flat earth from the crow's nest, so I would extend the top line.IF the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circuмference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in the following diagram:
It shows that a flat earth doesn't geometrically limit the visual range.
I can see mountains, which are more than 30km away. And I can see the same mountains from the beach, in equally dark color. If it starts raining in the area of these mountains, then they get lighter, until one can't see them anymore. Then there's a "white wall" of rain in the distance.
If the weather is sunny and dry, there is no noteworthy mist above the water. If there were such mist, and the surface of the water were flat, then I couldn't see the buildings on the shore several more miles behind the island. But I can.
P.S.: You wrote into the quote of mine, so my answer doesn't provide a link to your post.
Curvature | in | 1 | statute | mile | 8 | inches. |
" | " | 2 | " | " | 32 | " |
" | " | 3 | " | " | 6 | feet. |
" | " | 4 | " | " | 10 | " |
" | " | 5 | " | " | 16 | " |
" | " | 6 | " | " | 24 | " |
" | " | 7 | " | " | 32 | " |
" | " | 8 | " | " | 42 | " |
" | " | 9 | " | " | 54 | " |
" | " | 10 | " | " | 66 | " |
" | " | 20 | " | " | 266 | " |
" | " | 30 | " | " | 600 | " |
" | " | 40 | " | " | 1066 | " |
" | " | 50 | " | " | 1666 | " |
" | " | 60 | " | " | 2400 | " |
" | " | 70 | " | " | 3266 | " |
" | " | 80 | " | " | 4266 | " |
" | " | 90 | " | " | 5400 | " |
" | " | 100 | " | " | 6666 | |
" | " | 120 | " | " | 9600 | " 2 (https://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm#fn_1) |
You can see mountains because the angle of resolution is probably 30 or more degrees between your eye and the top of the mountain which means nothing obstructs the view and the eye can resolve for enough detail to see it. When that angle gets smaller, as the object viewed is closer to the ground along with the viewer, one can no longer see the object(s) so the mountain is not a great example because it is so large.
The fact that you can see buildings is a sure sign earth is not a globe because at 30 km or 18 miles, most, if not the entire building would be below the curve about 250 feet below the line of sight. That is how much curvature must be accounted for at that distance, if earth were a globe.
I see a mountain of 1200m height at about 10km. That's about 5°, not 30°.Ok, my bad, we didn't identify all the things we should have. You'll naturally see less buildings at the lower levels because the eye is unable to resolve the details because the angle is so low. However, if you get out a zoom camera like the p900, the buildings will assuredly be visible and not behind any curve. I bought a p900 several years ago and whatever is too low to identify with the eye will come into view, like boats and stuff, with that assistance.
The buildings are built on a hillside. I even recognize that from the beach I see less buildings, the lower ones hidden behind earth curvature.
Here a section of the same image again.Mist, water movement, light refraction all change. I'm not sure what your point is. Still, a good p900 will bring those buildings into full view. If earth were a globe the buildings would not be visible at all because they would be below 250 feet of curvature at 18 miles away.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/is-refusing-to-accept-an-'obvious-fact'-a-sin-of-lying/?action=dlattach;attach=16763;image)
You can't see much, but some light pixels, because it is low quality digital image, on a not so perfect day. The light pixels are buildings, each of which I can see using quality field glasses.
No mist above the water inhibits the view.
Mist, water movement, light refraction all change. I'm not sure what your point is. Still, a good p900 will bring those buildings into full view. If earth were a globe the buildings would not be visible at all because they would be below 250 feet of curvature at 18 miles away.
Question: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?
Answer: Not necessarily; If you're really blinded by "cognitive dissonance," what is an "obvious fact" to others cannot be perceived as the same by you. As a Trad, I suffered with this problem until July 16th of this year.
What happened on July 16th of this year?On July 16th of this year, I read Traditionis Custodes and realized that I was refusing to accept the "obvious fact" that the Sedes were 100% correct the entire time.
On July 16th of this year, I read Traditionis Custodes and realized that I was refusing to accept the "obvious fact" that the Sedes were 100% correct the entire time.
I'd say: wait for more obvious facts to become obvious to you. At least that's my experience.Thanks for the reply and that's good advice.
Hey Tradman80, July 16th is the feast of Our Lady of Carmel. She pulled you out of error! Deo Gratias!Deo Gratias, Indeed!
Full of tradmen here now. I didn't even realize that the last tradman post wasn't Tradman but TradMan80.
This guy here, who has one of the best sites out there on the subject, "Taboo Conspiracy III" ... called that because I and II got deleted by Youtube for no reason. He started out as a guy who would argue on forums that the moon landings were fake. Then a buddy of his brought up flat earth. He concluded that FE was a psy-op to discredit arguments against the moon landings. So he deliberately set out to debunk and discredit it. But at some point, he realized he was losing the argument and eventually gave in and became convinced of Flat Earth.Another very simple, easy to understand, and easy to replicate experiment (even for science noobs). Yet still no explanation from globe tards. These people are using globe calculations and they don't work. :jester:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3Z5IVoNE5cP2kka5svUEBw/videos
Here's the story of how he came to believe in Flat Earth after being a skeptic and setting out to expose and debunk it, believing it to be a psyop, in an attempt to "save" his "fellow truthseekers" from it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLhSLpuPlT0
1) Why can it be predicted where the ISS can be sighted and when anywhere in the world? If the earth is flat the ISS would not appear from under the horizon, cross the sky perfectly visible with my eight inch reflecting telescope and then clearly disappear over the horizon again. Surely on a flat earth it would just traverse an arc around the sky.
2) What makes a lighter thing rise, and a heavier thing fall if there is no such thing as gravity?
3) If I drill all the way through the disk what would l see or find on the other side?
4) Why has no one ever drilled or tunnelled through to the bottom of flat earth?
5) Why are all of the other planets different from our planet?
6) What makes the sun move?
7) What makes the stars move?
8) If water finds its own level how do you explain the tides?
9) Can you please explain how thick is the disk, and what is on the other side?
10) You tell us that there is no gravity, and you tell us that everything can be explained by density and buoyancy, but how do they work without gravity?
11) 10 ) What holds the moon up in the sky and why do the sun and the moon never collide as they are circling in the sky over the flat earth?
12) Can you please explain why a flat earther has never ever gone to the edge of the flat earth and taken pictures to prove that there is an edge?
13) To use a map you need a scale, or some way of working out the distance between two points, why is there never a scale on a flat earth map? It does make them very hard to use :-(
14) How did the Japanese air force manage to fly from Japan to Pearl Harbour for the attack on Sunday, December 7, 1941, this flight would need 4 times the fuel any of the planes could carry so how did they do it
15) We know that volcano's spew out molten magma but where does all of that hot magma live when it’s not actually blowing out of a volcano and what heats it up so that the rocks melt?
16) What explains the phases of the moon and why does the moon go through the different phases every 28 days?
17) Why do stars rotate counter-clockwise around Polaris in the UK and clockwise around the Southern Cross in Australia? If we are on a flat plane surely the firmament or the stars can only rotate one way ?
18) How come all of the other planets look like round globes, and their rotation can be observed even through a small telescope such as the two I have?
19) Simple mathematics and geometry for you here, at sea level at 6 ft tall the horizon is 2.98 miles away, with a telescope it is still 2.98 miles away, just enlarged, at 250 meters above sea level the horizon is 30 miles away, this alone shows curvature surely?
20) What holds up the sun so that it can go around in a circle above the flat earth?
21) If the moon is close to the earth would people, in different locations not see different views of the moon. We could not see the same spherical moon over a flat earth if it were close to us surely?
22) Can you tell me about the other planets, are they also flat?
23) How do we get seasons?
24) Why do we get leap years if the earth is flat?
25) If the sun and the moon are small, and local and at the same height how do we get solar and lunar eclipses,
26) Why are there no aerial photographs of the flat earth?
27) Why is there not a single photograph of the Ice Wall?
28) The dome or the firmament, there is not a single photograph of it, why not?
29) What is the dome made from?
30) Where do meteors and meteorites come from?
31) The sun rises from behind the horizon and sinks behind the horizon, the size of the sun does not change as it rises or sets, but if it were moving away from us a massive change in size would be noticed!
33) Size of the Earth: not measured / calculated, unknown.
34) Mass of the earth: not measured / calculated, unknown.
35) Existence of firmament / dome: no evidence / unverified.
36) Distance to/height of dome: not measured / calculated, unknown.
37) Edge of the Earth: no evidence / unverified.
38) Distance to the sun: not measured / calculated, unknown.
39) Size of the sun: not measured / calculated, unknown.
40) Mass of the sun: not measured /calculated, unknown.
41) Energy output of the sun: not measured / calculated, unknown.
42) Force that holds the sun above the earth: no evidence / unverified, not measured / calculated, unknown.
43) Force that creates the sun's circular movement above the Earth: no evidence / unverified, not measured / calculated, unknown.
44) Distance to the moon: not measured / calculated, unknown.
45) Size of the moon: not measured / calculated, unknown.
46) Mass of the moon: not measured / calculated, unknown.
47) Force that holds the moon above the earth: no evidence / unverified, not measured / calculated, unknown.
48) Force that creates the moon's circular movement above the Earth: no evidence/unverified, not measured/calculated, unknown.
14) How did the Japanese air force manage to fly from Japan to Pearl Harbour for the attack on Sunday, December 7, 1941,
31) The sun rises from behind the horizon and sinks behind the horizon, the size of the sun does not change as it rises or sets, but if it were moving away from us a massive change in size would be noticed!
Here's a list of questions concerning the flat Earth model that have been answered for the globe Earth model. Let's see if we can come up for answers for just a few of them.
Pick some, and let's have a discussion about it.
3) If I drill all the way through the disk what would l see or find on the other side?
4) Why has no one ever drilled or tunnelled through to the bottom of flat earth?
1) Why can it be predicted where the ISS can be sighted and when anywhere in the world? If the earth is flat the ISS would not appear from under the horizon, cross the sky perfectly visible with my eight inch reflecting telescope and then clearly disappear over the horizon again. Surely on a flat earth it would just traverse an arc around the sky.
2) What makes a lighter thing rise, and a heavier thing fall if there is no such thing as gravity?
Lets just get some cameras on a balloon, send it up and end this argument. If we get shot down or bump into a star than the FE guys are right. If we see a round earth and get go into a weightless state , then the "globetards" are correct.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3vr_f3_SAg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3vr_f3_SAgI shall use FE logic: Its clearly photoshopped
It was done, and there is no curve.
According to Black Science Man, you can't see the curve from that height anyway. But, you know, somehow we can supposedly see it on solid ground. :jester:
I shall use FE logic: Its clearly photoshoppedHa.
Here come the downvotes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnZtstDDQ3s
Some takeaways:
- The viewpoint stated in the Mountains of evidence video would show a different order for the peaks
- The actual viewpoint is North of his stated position
- The level line appears to be tilted in a way that makes the more distant peaks appear higher
Since he was wrong about his viewpoint, he could be wrong about his elevation.
Since Fryingpan is so close, a small change in viewing elevation would make a big difference.
Just as I suspected, ...
IF the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circuмference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in the following diagram:(https://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig01.jpg)Let the distance from T to figure 1 represent 1 mile, and the fall from 1 to A, 8 inches; then the fall from 2 to B will be 32 inches, and from 3 to C, 72 inches. In every
[size=-3]FIG. 1.[/font][/size]
p. 10
mile after the first, the curvature downwards from the point T increases as the square of the distance multiplied by 8 inches. The rule, however, requires to be modified after the first thousand miles. 1 (https://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm#fn_0) The following table will show at a glance the amount of curvature, in round numbers, in different distances up to 100 miles.
The chart will help. It shows how much curvature must be accounted for at x distance.
Stanley, this chart shows how much curve should be accounted for when viewing chemtrails. Planes flying over the "curve" of the earth, if there was one, would have to continually adjust the nose downward but they don't. Chemtrails 70 miles long would be shaped like rainbows with 3266 feet of (over half a mile) of curve to reflect the earth below. That would be visible from the side. They would look like the diagram above.
There is no curve whatsoever in chemtrails. They are flat, level, reflecting the earth below.
The last few days of responses here suggests that flat earth belief is not really about evidence. Sure we discuss evidence because it's fun, but I don't get the sense it matters much.
I think it has more to do with distrust of "science", much of which is justified. In a sense "science" tells us "this is how reality works", which can be imposing, take away one's voice, marginalize, disenfranchize, and isolate. Thus the tendency to group together with like-minded people, to feel less isolated.
Calculations were done that, at its top speed, it would have to correct down an insane 6,000 feet per minute to keep the same altitute above ground on a globe.
First lie in the "debunking" video (about 15 seconds in) is "He claims to be skeptic, but he's not."
Just as I suspected, “Mountain of Evidence” was filled with deception and inaccuracies.
Even if it were, the earth curves 1 degree per 70 miles. Would you notice that? I doubt it. In low visibility conditions, pilots who ignore their instruments can make perception errors sufficient to destroy a plane. 1 degree is nothing.Stanley, you use these abstract terms (degrees) and get lost in la-la land. Bring it back to reality.
And at say 2500 mph, the SR-71 would go 42 miles in 1 minute. Your "drop" calculator would give 1176 ft / min.
That's not how flight works.
I wouldn't go so far as calling it "deception". That requires intent.
I love it how you constantly pontificate like this. I guess you're an expert in aviation ... vs. the half dozen professional aviators I've seen give interviews about a flat earth, one who runs a flight school, another a retired F-16 pilot, and a bunch of commercial pilots.
You said that 70 miles, or 1 degree, is "nothing" and one "wouldn't notice it". How does one not notice an approx quarter of a mile difference? They'd be flying towards space??
Chemtrails 70 miles long would be shaped like rainbows with 3266 feet of (over half a mile) of curve to reflect the earth below. That would be visible from the side. They would look like the diagram above.
There is no curve whatsoever in chemtrails. They are flat, level, reflecting the earth below.
OK, let's look at it your way.Your analogies are continuously vague and generic. You claim to be a scientist, but your analogies have no specific calculations or numbers. You aren't proving anything other than you either 1) can't or 2) won't provide specific, clear arguments. :jester:
The plane has instruments including a horizon indicator - a line that turns and goes up or down to tell the pilot where "level" is. There is also typically a reference line in the middle.
So I'm flying along and the line goes a tiny amount below the reference line. I would adjust without thinking of it. I'm already making other adjustments in flight (for wind gusts, etc) to maintain heading and level. A fraction of a degree change is quite small.
It's not a perfect analogy, but it's like driving a car down a nearly straight road. You occasionally drift left or right and adjust the car to stay in the middle of the road.
The road itself is practically straight but curves 1 degree in 70 miles. That would be entirely handled by the much larger and frequent adjustments you're making anyway.
OK, let's look at it your way.I provided clear facts based on standard mph and feet. Why do you go back to generic, ambiguous "degrees"? Because you can't explain things in real-life measurements?
The plane has instruments including a horizon indicator - a line that turns and goes up or down to tell the pilot where "level" is. There is also typically a reference line in the middle.
So I'm flying along and the line goes a tiny amount below the reference line. I would adjust without thinking of it. I'm already making other adjustments in flight (for wind gusts, etc) to maintain heading and level. A fraction of a degree change is quite small.
I asked Stanley: How does one not notice an approx quarter of a mile difference? (i.e. 1,320 feet)
Stanley's response: "A fraction of a degree change is quite small."
:facepalm: What a stupid, generic, dodgy response. You are no scientist. :laugh2: You make a mockery of science, which is all about facts, clear calculations and open numbers. :jester:
Stanley has been dodgy this whole thread. He's dishonest."He started it!" Lol.
FE proponents haven't explained yet, how the sun disappears below the horizon at sunset, and reappears at sunrise. How is it possible, that the whole flat earth isn't dark after sunset and before sunrise?
My answer: FE theory doesn't even explain the most basic phenomena. In my eyes FE is simply hilarious.
They think the sun and moon circle above a flat plane and disappear due to "perspective".
You're free to do what you want, but I think there are easier things to probe.
The most basic phenomena I would like to see explained at the same time are days and seasons.
We're getting close to the solstice. In Stanley, Falkland Islands the sun rose at 4:32 am and will set at 9:12 pm today, a 16 hr 40 minute day. Yet it was night the whole time in Barrow Alaska, no sunrise or sunset today.
While the sun is illuminating places in the southern hemisphere for well over half the day, at least part of the arctic circle gets no sun.
This is easily explained by a globe with a tilt. How does "FE" explain this?
They think the sun and moon circle above a flat plane and disappear due to "perspective".
You're free to do what you want, but I think there are easier things to probe.
The most basic phenomena I would like to see explained at the same time are days and seasons.
We're getting close to the solstice. In Stanley, Falkland Islands the sun rose at 4:32 am and will set at 9:12 pm today, a 16 hr 40 minute day. Yet it was night the whole time in Barrow Alaska, no sunrise or sunset today.
While the sun is illuminating places in the southern hemisphere for well over half the day, at least part of the arctic circle gets no sun.
This is easily explained by a globe with a tilt. How does "FE" explain this?
I asked Stanley: How does one not notice an approx quarter of a mile difference? (i.e. 1,320 feet)
Stanley's response: "A fraction of a degree change is quite small."
I wasn't presenting my observations to provide proof for globe earth to others. Rather I just was telling Tradman, who said ...
... that I personally verified that I can see further from higher up. The whole bay is very quiet, a few meters deep only, more like a lagoon. You need a storm to get higher waves.
I managed to convince my wife, who has seen that island for more than two decades every day with her own eyes. We can see it from higher up, but not from down below. We also see small boats, which don't disappear behind waves. And we've cruised the bay in small boats.
That's why we're convinced that the surface of the water in the bay is curved, not flat.
Marion, can you replicate the curve of the water in the bay on a smaller scale?
This part of your statement I agree with. There would be an obvious visible curve at that scale.Yep. And Stanley, who has labeled himself as an aviation expert, has dodged this question now MULTIPLE times.
At dawn or sunset I often see the sun illuminating the bottom of clouds.This the kind of circular conversation you get from Stanley, Marion and others. Ask them a real-life, concrete, solvable problem (i.e. how does a plane that flies over 2000 mph account for the curvature of the globe, which, at that speed, they would need to adjust every minute, DOWNWARDS, to not fly off into space?)
Not a problem on a globe.
But if the sun is ~6000 km above a flat earth, how does the sun shine on the bottom of clouds?
Marion, can you replicate the curve of the water in the bay on a smaller scale?
Consider a bucket of water that is half full. Tilt the bucket to the side.
Does the water curve?
Dave Weiss has videos that explain the seasons pretty well.
At dawn or sunset I often see the sun illuminating the bottom of clouds.
Not a problem on a globe.
But if the sun is ~6000 km above a flat earth, how does the sun shine on the bottom of clouds?
What are you guys babbling about? Suns rays would never be localized nor would you have hotspots on top of the clouds from 93 million miles away. Clouds don't go much higher than 20,000 feet.
You continue to operate from a position of ignorance and therefore use strawmen against the flat earth position.
Rays of the sun work against globe earth and not in favor of it.
Thanks for the nice pictures, and more unscientific and anecdotal "evidence".
F-16 pilot attests to the Flat Earth
F-16 pilot attests to the Flat Earth
Dave Weiss has videos that explain the seasons pretty well.Actually the flat earth sun/moon skyclock app is really worth it
:facepalm:
Actually the flat earth sun/moon skyclock app is really worth it
Look at the jetstreams on a globe and they look ridiculous, but you flatten them out onto a flat earth map (based on Azimuthal equidistant projection) and suddenly they're in nearly-perfect circles.
Luncar eclipses during the day.
:facepalm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2-KdUfcBx8
That's the "perspective matrix with conversion point at your horizon" he says! Really good! Sounds like a hotline response from Boing. Ticket closed.
:jester::jester::fryingpan::fryingpan:
Another buffoonish response. I've seen it myself. You watch a sunset near the ocean, and you can see the beam of light making a line from the sun directly to you. It's not actually there. If a guy 20 yards away looks at the water in front of you, there's no ray of light there.
See, THIS^^^ is how these guys roll. Facepalms, laughing smilies ridicule, etc.
Another buffoonish response. I've seen it myself. You watch a sunset near the ocean, and you can see the beam of light making a line from the sun directly to you. It's not actually there. If a guy 20 yards away looks at the water in front of you, there's no ray of light there.
Another interesting thing about these different images of the sun formed on the water’s surface is that they move along with the viewer. This is due to the fact that when sunlight falls on the ocean’s surface, it’s reflected in all directions, but you see the illuminated line due to the light rays that are specifically entering your eyes.
Hypocrite:
90% of your responses on this thread are nothing but ridicule and smilies. I'm talking about using that tactic to the near exclusion of anything else. Basically, you're just an a-hole:incense::incense::incense:
The sun is "above" water, OK.
How is it "below" clouds? The video seems to say it's a reflection from the water.
How does that work over land?
:incense::incense::incense:
90% ???
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Por_do_sol-Sambaqui_Florian%C3%B3polis_SC.jpg)
(https://i2.wp.com/umaturistanasnuvens.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/p%C3%B4r-do-sol-em-Santo-Ant%C3%B4nio-de-Lisboa-em-Florian%C3%B3polis.jpg?fit=1037%2C1296&ssl=1)
Hard to explain, even if theory were that the sun is 6000m (not km) above FE.
The sun is "above" water, OK.
How is it "below" clouds? The video seems to say it's a reflection from the water.
How does that work over land?
And here's a short one about that horizon "rising to eye level":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4SwHsv3bdw
90% of your responses on this thread are nothing but ridicule and smilies. I'm talking about using that tactic to the near exclusion of anything else. Basically, you're just an a-hole
:incense::incense::incense:
90% ???
CHAPTER XIX.(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fprofessorjohnston.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F06%2Fsacredheart.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
THAT THE MOST SACRED HEART OF JESUS, CONVERSING
WITH MEN, TEACHES US TO BEAR WITH
THE DEFECTS OF OUR NEIGHBOR.
1. The voice of Jesus.—My Child, so long as I was seen upon earth, and conversed with men, I was in the midst of a wicked generation.
How much pride and infidelity, how much uncleanness and iniquity, thinkest thou, did I behold,—I the Searcher of hearts,—in the hearts of men, to whom naught, save the world ; naught, except self-interest, was pleasing!
How was My Heart moved at the sight of men's sinful ignorance, unbridled licentiousness, forgetfulness of the things of heaven, anxiety for those of earth, neglect of virtue, the triumph of vice!
Compare Me, My Child, with such men : My humility with their conceitedness and vanity: My zeal with their indifference and obstinacy: My beneficence with their insensibility and ungratefulness: My charity with their listlessness and disregard: in short, all My virtues with their defects and vices!
Understand also, what disposition of Heart I displayed before them. Behold ! whatsoever they were, I continued to live with them, to converse with them, to stay among them,—without complaint or indignation of Heart,—yea, to show myself content.
If thou meditatest rightly upon this pattern of life, thou wilt learn to manifest similar sentiments of heart to thy neighbor.
2. Thou, My Child, and all thy neighbors, ye are conjointly children of the same heavenly Father; ye were conjointly ransomed at the same price of My life; ye are all to be united forever in fellowship, by the same bond of the love of the Holy Spirit.
Ye are all called to the same kingdom of heaven; that there ye may be made blissful in perfect peace, in the joy of an everlasting union. See, therefore, that thou agree with them on the way, lest thou be hereafter excluded from the heavenly abode of the Blessed, and delivered up to exterior torturers.
This is My example; nay more, this is My command, that, carrying each other's burdens, ye love one another, as I love you,—with a supernatural, universal, efficacious love.
If ye love Me, keep My command. If ye keep the same, ye will remain in My love. He that hates his brother is a murderer: he kills the very soul, and that his own. Whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be answerable before the judgment. He that forgives not, shall not be forgiven. He that forbears not, shall not be forborne. For with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3. Remember, My Child, that thou art living—not among Angels but among men, who cannot be here below without failings. Do not then wonder, if frail mortals err or fall: but wonder at this, that, whilst thyself thou hast many failings, with which others must bear, thou darest sometimes feel indignant at those of others.
If thou bearest not with another's defect, dost thou not by the very fact commit a fault and show it too? Know that I sometimes suffer well-meaning and virtuous men to be opposed to each other, that, without sin, there may be an opportunity of bearing with one another's defects, of practicing solid virtues, and of acquiring merits. Judge the things of thy neighbor by thy own.
As thou desirest to be dealt with, so deal thou with others : and do not to others what thou wouldst not have done to thyself. Hast thou not many things, My Child, from which thou wouldst gladly free thyself, and from which thou knowest, by thy own experience, that thou art unable to free thyself? What thou sufferest, therefore, in thyself, even against thy will, that do thou likewise tolerate in others; whom, if thou hast any humility and charity, thou wilt suppose to endure their own defects, in spite of themselves.
4. There are they who willingly enough bear with the defects of friends, and of those whom they find agreeing with themselves in taste and manners: but who take easily offense at the failings of all beside. Now, what virtue is there in this ? Do not the heathen do the same? Nay more, are not the very animals, devoid of reason, accustomed to act in the same manner?
How canst thou be My Disciple, if thou hast the feelings of a pagan : or, if thou followest simply an animal instinct? Be thou animated, My Child, with the supernatural charity of My Heart ; whereby I endured, and loved all, enemies as well as friends, even unto death.
Passing, therefore, over every merely natural consideration, endure thou all, love all ; make of no one an exception. Pray for them that persecute and calumniate thee ; bless them that revile thee ; do good to them that hate thee ; overcome evil by good.
Hate the evil which is done : but beware lest thouhate the man who commits the same. How much soever thou mayst detest the sin of a man, thou art bound to love the man himself.
5. The Saints, who followed not nature but grace, did so far clothe themselves with the sentiments of My Heart, that they endured and loved—not only all in general, but specially those that were opposed
to them. Yet, My Child, they too were men ; and, like thyself, had the feelings of nature : but they overcame nature; and, in spite of feeling, in their greatness of soul, emulated My example.
Come, Child, be courageous, and, as is becoming in a Disciple of My Heart, imitate those noble and generous souls. When thou feelest indignant at the faults of thy neighbor, keep silence ; neither suffer thou aught ill-ordered to escape thy lips,—whereby thou mayst harm thyself, as well as thy neighbor.
Pray for him in thy heart ; and steadily refrain thy mind from reflecting on his faults.
Never grow weary of pardoning thy neighbor, of bearing with his faults, of loving him with a supernatural affection ; if with thy heart thou desirest to follow My Heart.
If thou hast many and great things to endure in others, remember, Child, that T have undergone more and greater things for thy sake: nay, that I have borne with more and greater things in thee.
Behold ! I mercifully forgave thee a debt of ten thousand: shouldst thou not then have pity on thy fellow-servant, as I also had mercy on thee?
Call to mind, My Child, how long, and with how great a goodness of Heart, I have endured thee, and how I do even now endure thee : and learn thence, how and how far thou oughtest to bear with thy neighbor.
The result is the wind moves faster than the earth rotates so it moves from west to east (relative to us at the surface).
Many of these questions demonstrate how poorly informed you are about Flat Earth. You perpetuate the strawman hoax about the earth being a flat disc. It's notTo be quite honest with you, thee are not my questions, I found them somewhere else and thought they were interesting. Also I just briefly skimmed them myself.
And you claim these have been answered for the globe? Nonsense. That's an abject lie. The deepest anyone has ever drilled is 8 miles. Nobody knows what's down there. This stuff about there being some iron core somewhere is totally unproven hypothesis.
Earth is not a thin flat disk floating in space. We know only that that we live on a flat surface, but underneath we do not know the depth. We know that hell is somewhere down there, but no one knows how deep.
This is the kindof stuff which makes it clear that it's a wate of time to debate any issues seriously with you.
Scanning your questions briefly, 80% of them are equally as stupid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2-KdUfcBx8
The video shows a "Perspective Matrix":Nope. Try again
(https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/is-refusing-to-accept-an-'obvious-fact'-a-sin-of-lying/?action=dlattach;attach=16794;image)
In the image:
- The buildings shrink with distance.
- The clouds shrink with distance.
- The sun doesn't shrink with distance.
Q.: Why didn't he show the sun shrinking with distance? Why doesn't the sun shrink to zero size at the vanishing point?
A.: Because everybody knows that we can see the sun going down and disappear behind the horizon, while it's diameter is not only not shrinking to zero; rather, it's diameter virtually stays the same.
Flat-earth model debunked!
Nope. Try again
https://youtu.be/e1TUpNkHcAM
How do you suggest to measure the curvature/flatness of the water in the bucket?
For the 120m rail I calculated 1.12mm deviation from a straight line. For a 50cm bucket, that's less than 20 micrometers in first linear estimate. Probably really even less than 1 micrometer. I wouldn't know how to ensure that all sorts of effects and imprecisions can be excluded.
It's not just water; it can be any surface. Point is that when light gets concentrated at your eyes, as per the previous article, you can perceive a "reflection" when there isn't really one there, not the way you actually There are all kinds of things going on both optically and atmospherically.
..
So a picture of a cloud with light on the bottom doesn't prove anything by itself.
Well, try this. Fill the bucket a fourth of the way.
Now you can lean the bucket over very, very far.
No matter how far you lean the bucket, the water doesn't curve.
Well, try this. Fill the bucket a fourth of the way.
Now you can lean the bucket over very, very far.
No matter how far you lean the bucket, the water doesn't curve.
You can't see micrometer curvature.
You can't see micrometer curvature.
No matter how far you lean water over, it never, ever curves.
Water is always level.
Before anyone jumps on Marion... I'm not sure how you could measure micrometer-order distances in this context without equipment that I doubt any of us have at home.
There are devices we could use If we were dealing with solid objects, though.
Miser didn't even ask to use some device to measure.
People can just use their eyes, unless they have been blinded by scientism and pride.
Focus on the argument.
How do you propose measuring a difference in a water surface that's on the order of a millionth of a meter?
Focus on the argument.
How do you propose measuring a difference in a water surface that's on the order of a millionth of a meter?
No need for any magical "science" tools just eyeballs.
Is it possible for something to be so small we can't see it, but still exist?
You accept that atoms exist, right?
And a water level probably wouldn't work. A pen mark is at best a few hundred millionths of a meter.
And at that level we would need be concerned about water expanding or contracting due to small temperature differences. A 0.1 degree difference in a 1 meter tube of water would mean about 20 millionths of a meter change in the water "level". (The tube would also change some amount varying with material, but for most materials that expansion would be smaller than the water's expansion.)
Oh my.
I think this would be the perfect tool to aid our understanding of this very complex matter:
I can't afford one so I'll just have to rely on my eyeballs.How did you measure that? Can you prove that water doesn't curve, or is there an easy way to do it ourselves?
Water. Doesn't. Curve.
Every so-called "proof" of the globe earth by "scientists" is the equivalent of trusting medical advice from Fauci.
How can the lower part of this sailing ship disappear behind the water while the upper part stays perfectly visible, if the water is perfectly flat and does not curve?
Why are we still using that? Ships disappear from the bottom up as they reach the limits of visibility and begin blending in with the horizon. Video after video has been produced of that exact thing happening and then having the boat come back into full view when the zoom leve is increased.We are still using that because objects that disappear due to perspective get smaller as a whole until they are not visible at all anymore because the viewer cannot resolve them anymore. So if were/are able to zoom in, the complete object would reappear instantly (as in those famous Nikon P9000 videos of e.g. oil rigs reappearing, as a whole, with no part of them being obstructed).
I just thought of the following simple question: If the Sun starts getting smaller and completely disappears at dusk due to perspective, how is it that we can still see the stars and planets on the firmament with our bare eyes, although they are farther away?Let's get back to my rather simple point from above.
Oh and also, why can't the Sun be brought back into view with binoculars or a telescope when it disappears? This should be easy to do because it would just be hovering over the flat surface of Earth, right?
Is there an explanation for this?
I really don't get how the Sun would work like a spotlight, only lighting a specific conical area beneath it.
Stanley and Dankward,Water is made up of tiny molecules. It doesn't need to curve. It's like filling sand into a mold. It will fit. Pouring sand onto a ball that attracts the sand is the same as having water on a ball that attracts it.
If water curved this wouldn't be possible. They used water to level the Pyramids, the Roman aqueducts and countless buildings. It's more accurate than a laser.
You're completely missing the point.Most all of these curvature calculations are idealized and completely dismiss the fact that there's an atmosphere that bends light depending on density, temperature etc. That's why mirages / Fata Morganas exist and you'll constantly see all kinds of perturbations in such videos.
The curvature just isn't there. There are tons of videos where people bring boats back 100% (not partway occluded by "the bulge or curvature of the earth") many miles away -- when the curvature should have hidden the boats long ago. Using official calculations.
Is the Earth 250,000 miles in circuмference now, instead of 25,000? That would expose the whole mainstream science establishment to be a lie just as much as Flat Earth ever could. Everything, including calculations for "gravity", depends on that official size of the Earth. No one gets to weasel out of this.
Is the Earth, or is it not, 25K miles in circuмference? It's simple geometry. You have to have so much curvature per mile on a sphere. That can be observed and measured. It has not been. The truth is the truth. Whatever that means, is what it means.
Water is made up of tiny molecules. It doesn't need to curve. It's like filling sand into a mold. It will fit. Filling sand on a ball that attracts the sand is the same as having water on a sphere that attracts it.
Water is made up of tiny molecules. It doesn't need to curve. It's like filling sand into a mold. It will fit. Filling sand on a ball that attracts the sand is the same as having water on a sphere that attracts it.:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:...wait, :laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1:, on further consideration....:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:
Most all of these curvature calculations are idealized and completely dismiss the fact that there's an atmosphere that bends light depending on density, temperature etc. That's why mirages / Fata Morganas exist and you'll constantly see all kinds of perturbations in such videos.
The fact that all distant objects do in fact disappear from the bottom up until they're completely hidden all the time proves that the surface we're moving on is not level. Otherwise I could see your house in Texas with a telescope, Matthew.
Are you flippin' serious? Did someone hack your account?:laugh1:
You're making this too easy.It was not about the cointaining feature of the mold. it was about the fine-grained sand conforming to the shape of the mold, whatever that may be. It was an analogy for the water molecules conforming to the shape of the object that they're being pulled against by gravity.
1. Yes, it's like filling sand in a mold. A mold is a CONTAINER for the sand or water. A body of water needs a CONTAINER. That is common sense.
2. "filling sand" on a ball that "attracts the sand". When has this EVER been observed by ANYONE? You act like such proofs of "gravity" are all around us. No, they are actually completely absent.
3. For bonus points -- now spin that ball that somehow magically holds sand to its surface, all around (never been observed, but work with me). It would certainly fly off.Yes it would probably fly off if the force of attraction of that ball was too low. However the water that is on Earth never underwent the same treatment of suddenly going from 0 to 1470.2 km/h (the tangential speed of rotation for a point on globe Earth).
I just thought of the following simple question: If the Sun starts getting smaller and completely disappears at dusk due to perspective, how is it that we can still see the stars and planets on the firmament with our bare eyes, although they are farther away?
Oh and also, why can't the Sun be brought back into view with binoculars or a telescope when it disappears? This should be easy to do because it would just be hovering over the flat surface of Earth, right?
Is there an explanation for this?
I really don't get how the Sun would work like a spotlight, only lighting a specific conical area beneath it.
That’s because it gets far enough away and you throw atmosphere into the mix. Record photographs are about 300 miles away with the best equipment and even those are extremely blurry. If the sun gets a few thousand miles away, then you can forget about seeing it.There's actually some videos of ridiculous distances recorded in infrared to cut out some of the distortion you would have
Those mountains photographed from 300 miles away should have been hidden by about 40,000 feet of curvature ... higher than most airplanes fly.
1. Idealized? No, you're saying math is wrong. Where is the disclaimer by ANY globe-defending organization that those earth curvature calculations are "ideal"? Where does any mainstream scientist deny the curvature drop given by those calculations?So this is all about the "we shouldn't see this thing" argument.
2. Mirages are mirages. They aren't MAGIC like some kind of magic wand or photoshop tool, to magically erase the earth's curvature or bulge, bringing entire city skylines up a hundred miles around the "curved" earth, making them appear perfectly straight up, with no waviness or distortion. Sorry, I'm not buying the crap you're selling. There are no "Refraction Fairies" that magically make the globe earth appear EXACTLY as if it were flat. Give me a break.
3. "All distant objects", "all the time". How about we start with ONE bit of evidence for this. Nothing from NASA though, for they are proven liars. One of the reasons Globe Earth can't be true. Why would NASA lie so much and go through so much time/effort/expense to deceive us, if all they had to do was take real, honest pictures and tell the truth?
Did you ever want to walk around in a Flat Earth universe simulation?Funny. Because most videogames these days are made on a flat plane. Even ones like No Man's Sky which transfers spherical planets to flat maps once you load into the atmosphere. It's almost as if it's more logical to build on a flat plane.
Use this: https://www.glowscript.org/#/user/Bruce_Sherwood/folder/Pub/program/FlatEarth
Here's it's author, Bruce Sherwood, explaining the inconsistencies this has with real life observations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBhDP7IwkfE
This is what happens when you really take the flat Earth model views seriously (as opposed to the usual ridicule) and trace out the consequences. There are still tons of huge inconsistencies that cannot be simply laughed off.
Did you ever want to walk around in a Flat Earth universe simulation?
There's actually some videos of ridiculous distances recorded in infrared to cut out some of the distortion you would have
https://youtu.be/o2ZrKntK2Ec
Funny. Because most videogames these days are made on a flat plane. Even ones like No Man's Sky which transfers spherical planets to flat maps once you load into the atmosphere. It's almost as if it's more logical to build on a flat plane.Most but not all. Most video games don't need anything but a flat game world. Games like No Man's Sky and Elite Dangerous actually have spherical planets - do you have any more information on this regarding No Man's sky? It's for sure easier to do the required Maths on a flat plane, yes.
simulation???Did you even click on the video, Pax? It's evident that you're not very involved with scientific or software matters, but this is not Zuckerbergs bogus Metaverse, but a rather simple "physics" simulation, like the ones used to build car engines, jet engines and so on. You don't have to comment if you don't have anything constructive to say, you know.
Wow, that's some great stuff. I think it might be the same guy who did the following video (I posted it before). He used photogrammetry software (considered to be extremely accurate) here to show how the earth is perfectly flat.Incredible. Game over. No surprise. The earth is not a globe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXqb9Qykq3k
Incredible. Game over. No surprise. The earth is not a globe.
So in another video he says he was an engineer who worked on RF stuff dealing with satellites. So this guy knows his stuff.He really seems to be a bright guy in some regards, I definitely agree on that.
He really seems to be a bright guy in some regards, I definitely agree on that. This makes me wonder even more how he can fall for something like flat Earth.
Let's just start at the basics again. I won't answer to any other point in this thread except anything regarding the following. This video debunks flat Earth.
He really seems to be a bright guy in some regards, I definitely agree on that.
This makes me wonder even more how he can fall for something like flat Earth.
Let's just start at the basics again. I won't answer to any other point in this thread except anything regarding the following. This video debunks flat Earth. You can't explain our observations he references in the video using the flat Earth model. Every other point you bring up in support of flat Earth is moot if this single counterargument is true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bHqBy92iGM
Otherwise this will just be a constant waste of time in a pointless discussion filled with "whataboutism" with one strawman argument hunting the next.
Dankward (or anyone for that matter),
That's a pretty good "cut to the chase." So has no one here responded to this? I'm sure as hell not wading through 62 pages.
Thanks,
DR
Dankward (or anyone for that matter),
That's a pretty good "cut to the chase." So has no one here responded to this? I'm sure as hell not wading through 62 pages.
Interesting idea on how the phases of the moon may work over a Flat Earth.
Unfortunately, I don't think any anti-FE-ers really care what ideas or evidence is offered.
FWIW, the idea that a spherical moon sits there locked in the same exact position while everything else throughout the entire supposed system -- including the system itself -- is moving, spinning, orbiting, wobbling, etc. is utterly absurd.
Interesting idea on how the phases of the moon may work over a Flat Earth. Given that the sun and moon are set IN the Firmament (not floating IN the atmosphere), and as there are waters above the Firmament, the submersion of the moon may explain the various phases as opposed to the "shadow" of the globe.
That Prof. Dave guy is one of the first channels that comes up when searching YouTube and he has millions of views on the subject, while FE channels are banned left and right. Seems suspicious.
Also, why are we not addressing the most basic proofs such as the tests PROVING there is no visible curve from ground tests? The video Lad posted PROVES that there is NO curve with a visibility of 500 miles at 32,000 feet. Yet the moon keeps getting pointed at as the end-all, be-all argument in the face of these.
Could a concave object set in the Firmament explain why the face of the moon is visible at different angles?
Already in the little picture on the video it has the moon as a flat disc standing upright and vertical ... which is absurd.
So the globers argue that the curved shadow on the moon indicates that it must be cast by something that's curved. That's nonsense. Moon itself is alleged to be spherical so that shadows would be curved depending on the angle, etc. But the video you posted shows it with a cocave (vs. convex) model the the moon.If the moon is indeed a concave object (plasma or a solid mass), could not a lensing effect of the Firmament itself provide the supposed sphericity of the moon? Further, if it is a fixed concave object overhead, it would explain why we never see the other "side" of it and why the face appears to rotate in its course.
When you replied, the post had been here for all of seven hours, most of which almost all of us were likely sleeping. Perhaps the same vid was posted earlier in the lengthy thread? If so, it is understandable that some or even most people missed it, etc., as life rolls on outside CI, no matter how popular a discussion seems to be. I will watch it later, but there's only so much daylight and I gotta cut firewood and take care of real life obligations.
The "disk moon" was just one possibility examined in the video as an explanation for why, in a FE world, people see the same side of the moon from different directions or places on earth.
Guess one should not consider any possibilities that Lad might deem "absurd".
IBut given you you can see stars THROUGH the dark "face" of the moon, ..... Be we see stars through the "shadows".
No, it's not a given that stars are seen "through" the moon. It's been explained a couple times now that dust on the optics, and thermal noise, are two common reasons you might see bits of light in a dark area in a picture of the moon.
No, it's not a given that stars are seen "through" the moon. It's been explained a couple times now that dust on the optics, and thermal noise, are two common reasons you might see bits of light in a dark area in a picture of the moon.
And in case it's not clear why FE has a problem with no sunlight in the arctic simultaneous with long days in the southern hemisphere, it turns out "Professor Dave" talks about this in 2:45 to 5:00 of the following video. In particular, look at the map at about 4:45.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQl8h7Aa75s&t=284s
That arrogant baboon neglects to take into account reflection off the firmament. That picture is perfectly consistent with there being a firmament around the edges and reflecting light around the circle.
There are official reports out there by professional astronomers detailing their observations to that effect.
That arrogant millennial-hippie baboon neglects to take into account reflection off the firmament. That picture is perfectly consistent with there being a firmament around the edges and reflecting light around the circle.
90% of globers simply do not take into account the firmament because they simply assume it can't exist.
He opens the video with an idiotic rant bout there not being a "scale". "Scale" is that of the Azimuthal equidistant projection map. Many such exist and have scales.
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/91dvJ7hanLL._AC_SL1500_.jpg)
Behold the scale (righ there at the bottom).
Quote “The extorsion of the map from that of a globe consists, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich, the equator to the two poles.” —US Patent No. 497,917 by Alexander GleasonFrom the registered patent, he never mentioned that the Earth is flat. On the contrary, he said that he made the map from a globe, which explains how a north-pole centered azimuthal equidistant map is designed.”
I need to correct you here Lad. That map is a projection of a global Earth, not a map of a flat Earth.
"Professor Dave" has been debunked by numerous scientists even outside of FE ... as an ignorant delusional narcissist.
Here's a debunking of his anti-FE nonsense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8pyNHoh7FM
"Professor Dave" has been debunked by numerous scientists even outside of FE ... as an ignorant delusional narcissist.
Here's a debunking of his anti-FE nonsense.
That's precisely the dispute, whether this projection reflects reality or the globe projection does. Point is there there is a scale based on this projection. You are doing nothing more than begging the question that the earth is a globe. There are dozens of different competing projections that claim to be the most accurate. In fact, the common one that's probably still in most schoolrooms has been widely discredited.
It's easier to poke holes in a theory than defend them. Stop complaining about video lengths.
Why are many of these supposed great FE videos so ridiculously long? Over 3 hours! Shouldn’t he be able to debunk the millennial Dave in a bit less time? :facepalm:
You are absolutely wrong here. You presented that map as a map of the flat Earth to scale. You own it. It’s scale is blatantly wrong if the Earth is indeed flat. No flat map can ever be completely accurate if the Earth is actually a globe.
I already said he makes some mistakes. And sure, he portrays an attitude with the FE vids; perhaps he's found that some of his followers like that attitude. His other science videos are different.
So anyway, "globebusters" put out a THREE HOUR video in response to one of his.
Here's his response. At least it's only 45 minutes and seems to include the clips he's responding to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDy95_eNPzM
We're arguging that this IS perfectly accurate, precisely because the earth is a globe. Big difference is in the allegations regarding the Southern Hemisphere (otherwise the scales are pretty identical). And the flight paths in the Southern Hemisphere make no sense on a globe, but perfect sense on a flat earth map (just like this one). You're begging the question here.
45 minutes is still long. This twit has been exposed even by numerous non-FE scientists as ignorant and as constantly using strawmenand false arguments. Those two non-FE videos linked above completely rip the guy to shreds ... from people who are well trained and educated in their respective disciplines.
Fine DL, but 3 hours? Regardless, the map issue is a serious problem for the FE theory.That's fair, my apologies.
That's fair, my apologies.
Lad, is there a timestamp where they address the point in the 3 hour video?
I’ve noticed that the non-FE scientists don’t try to debunk Dave on his anti-FE videos. It seems to me that the reason they don’t is because they agree with Dave on this issue.
Sorry Lad, but I’m not begging any question. You claimed that the map you posted was an accurate, to “scale”, map of the world.
(https://i.gifer.com/origin/77/773f0a32d5f792573694ba87478883e0.gif)
No problem DL, you are a gentleman.
Sorry Lad, but I’m not begging any question. You claimed that the map you posted was an accurate, to “scale”, map of the world. That is impossible because the distances are so far off that a preschooler can see it.
I can stomach RL experiments more than multiple hours plus long vids on either side of the debate. I'm motivated to do tests, anyone else?
No, they are not off. You're begging the question. Flight paths in the Southern hemisphere make sense on THIS map and not on the globe.
I'm stunned that the silliness of this "astute observation" didn't register. Yikes!
That's fair, my apologies.
Lad, is there a timestamp where they address the point in the 3 hour video?
How about doing the Eratosthenes observation from all over the world?This is a good idea. This doesn't require us to leave our areas of residence either. I'm in. Perhaps start a new thread let's get the ball rolling. A gyroscope app+picture of the sun would be another way too.
https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/is-refusing-to-accept-an-'obvious-fact'-a-sin-of-lying/msg793417/#msg793417
Just pointing it out since many (willfully?) ignore simple observations.
How about doing the Eratosthenes observation from all over the world?How does Eratosthenes' observation matter when you have people showing there is no curve at ridiculous distances?
https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/is-refusing-to-accept-an-'obvious-fact'-a-sin-of-lying/msg793417/#msg793417
Um, Santiago-Sydney flight path is nowhere near a line on a FE map.
Most southern hemisphere flights make no sense on a FE map.
How does Eratosthenes' observation matter when you have people showing there is no curve at ridiculous distances?
No, they are not off. You're begging the question. Flight paths in the Southern hemisphere make sense on THIS map and not on the globe.
You appeal to "preschoolers" and that's your level of thinking at this time, accepting things you're told like a preschooler.
Have you gone out there to measure that these distances are correct or incorrect? I didn't think so.
These other scientsts were speaking of unrelated matters. POINT being made is that Dave lacks credibility. He does the same things in these other videos about other subjects that the FE folks accuse him of, being ignorant of what they actually say, producing strawman arguments, and make blatantly false statements.
45 minutes is still long. This twit has been exposed even by numerous non-FE scientists as ignorant and as constantly using strawmenand false arguments. Those two non-FE videos linked above completely rip the guy to shreds ... from people who are well trained and educated in their respective disciplines.
No, they are not off. You're begging the question. Flight paths in the Southern hemisphere make sense on THIS map and not on the globe.
You appeal to "preschoolers" and that's your level of thinking at this time, accepting things you're told like a preschooler.
Have you gone out there to measure that these distances are correct or incorrect? I didn't think so.
I like this thread, but, it seems to be repeating itself. We keep cycling between prove the curvature, present proof, prove the sun and moon, present proof, provide me a complete and total model, present WIP models, refute this Prof. Jєωey Jєωstein video, present videos refuting it, etc etc.
I think we're at a point where neither side is being convinced of the other.
Geocentrism is undeniable. As I've said ages ago in this thread, I believe the earth is a flat plane enclosed in a globe at the center of the universe (which consists of the heavens above the Firmament and the earth below). That's it.
I think you’re right DL. To be honest with you, the more I watch and read, the more I believe that the “traditional” geocentric model is correct.
I like this thread, but, it seems to be repeating itself.
I think we're at a point where neither side is being convinced of the other.
Lay down the law and the rules of the discussion, bro! Yessir! Show 'em you're in charge! That oughta make people interested in engaging you! :facepalm::laugh1:
There are plenty of videos debunking this or that. When offering some supposedly end-all-be-all vid, it might be wiser to NOT do so like a completely close-minded know-it-all. Doing so naturally and understandably makes most, if not all, people think that discussing anything with you is a complete waste of time. It doesn't help that the previous list you posted was mostly childish nonsense, but you likely thought it was rock-solid stuff. Oh well. Do as you must. Godspeed.
Lad, I didn’t downvote you. Please watch this 2 minute video:This video is gold, thanks for that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrd1RY-cZ-0
I like this thread, but, it seems to be repeating itself. We keep cycling between prove the curvature, present proof, prove the sun and moon, present proof, provide me a complete and total model, present WIP models, refute this Prof. Jєωey Jєωstein video, present videos refuting it, etc etc.Oh I totally agree with you DL!
I think we're at a point where neither side is being convinced of the other.
"Professor Dave" has been debunked by numerous scientists even outside of FE ... as an ignorant delusional narcissist.I'm about 2 hours in and they answer a lot of the counter-points being made here. The biggest issue seems to be a misunderstanding of the FE position from GE advocates.
Here's a debunking of his anti-FE nonsense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8pyNHoh7FM
You have not provided a single image or argument to refute the fact that each piece of railroad track is level and collectively cannot curve around a ball, and your lack of explanation for what you do think shows you are incapable of understanding the simplest facts without resorting to ridiculous argumentation and personal attacks. Haven't got the time.Tradman (https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/is-refusing-to-accept-an-'obvious-fact'-a-sin-of-lying/msg789987/#msg789987)
You have not provided a single image or argument to refute the fact that each piece of railroad track is level and collectively cannot curve around a ball
Tradman, I found another nice video (though nothing new with respect to railway curving):The rail bows because of the weight of the ties free-floating in the air, but that does not mean it wasn't level when affixed to the earth. Further, Tradman stated that they collectively cannot curve around a ball; this is because the point where each of those segments meet would not be flush after a certain distance and the rail would no longer be level.
Tradman (https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/is-refusing-to-accept-an-'obvious-fact'-a-sin-of-lying/msg789987/#msg789987)
https://youtu.be/NjWojWQ8kTM
Watch the first one minute, and then repeat what you said, without blushing:
120m of rail cannot curve 1.12mm?
:fryingpan::jester:
The rail bows because of the weight of the ties, but that does not mean it wasn't level when affixed to the earth.
Further, Tradman stated that they collectively cannot curve around a ball; this is because the point where each of those segments meet would not be flush after a certain distance and the rail would no longer be level.
It's the same issue that Edward Hendrie covered in his book The Greatest Lie on Earth when it comes to constructing skyscrapers. Each one of the steel beams must be machined to be flush with the others so that the structure is square, otherwise, the skyscraper will bow outward and be unstable. The slight variances in measurement, like the 1.12mm you so mockingly cite, can be catastrophic from an architectural standpoint over both horizontal and vertical distances.
How can a rail on a slightly curved surface be unstable? What does unstable in this context mean?A disparity in one rail from another may result in lifting or separation at the joint, which could be catastrophic for a train running over it. Hence why they try to make railways as straight as possible with minimal gradation.
Tradman, I found another nice video (though nothing new with respect to railway curving):To go down a hill, yes. The problem for you is that manufacturing engineers readily admit railroad track never allows for curvature of earth, only for hills and valleys. Hundreds of miles of track is laid level, something impossible on a globe. Keep trying guys, you're helping us educate a lot of people.
Tradman (https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/is-refusing-to-accept-an-'obvious-fact'-a-sin-of-lying/msg789987/#msg789987)
https://youtu.be/NjWojWQ8kTM
Watch the first one minute, and then repeat what you said, without blushing:
120m of rail cannot curve 1.12mm?
:fryingpan::jester:
A disparity in one rail from another may result in lifting or separation at the joint, which could be catastrophic for a train running over it. Hence why they try to make railways as straight as possible with minimal gradation.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2Fo9R7aP2nfWE%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
To go down a hill, yes. The problem for you is that manufacturing engineers readily admit railroad track never allows for curvature of earth, only for hills and valleys.
The blueprints of the WTC North Tower also prove that the earth cannot be a sphere and must be flat. How could blueprints of a building prove that the earth is flat? Because the blueprints show that the North Tower was built as a perfectly square cuboid (with each corner chamfered 6 feet 11 inches). The blueprints show that the horizontal width for each side of the building was precisely 207 feet, 2 inches. That dimension ran from the bottom to the top of the building.
The North and South World Trade Center Towers were sister towers, with exactly the same exterior dimensions. The North and South Tower buildings were both 110 stories tall. The North Tower rose 1,368 feet from the ground to its roof. Other than their corner chamfers, the Twin Towers were perfectly square cuboids. The North Tower had exactly the same dimensions, with each side of the building being 207 feet, 2 inches wide, at the 110th floor, 1,368 feet above the ground, as it did at the first flood at ground level. Such an occurrence would not be possible if the earth were a globe.
Using trigonometry, we find that if the earth were a sphere the 110th floor should have been splayed out from the base by .16 inches (almost 3/16 of an inch). One might think that 3/16th of an inch is not very much of a difference in width between the first floor and the 110th floor. But when one realizes that the tower was built using massive steel girders that were prefabricated offsite in uniform dimensions with preset holes, it becomes clear that the tower could not be built with any deviation in floor dimension. That is because the holes for the bolts and rivets must line up perfectly in order for the structure to be assembled. The holes on the girders would line up perfectly on the ground floor, but they would be almost 3/16 of an inch off center by the time the steel workers reached the 110th floor. Indeed, this problem would gradually manifest itself long before the steel workers ever reached the 110th floor. The girders could not be assembled, because the holes for the bolts and rivets would not line up and steel girders do not stretch. Indeed, this would be an issue for all four walls of the building, as the splaying outward of the walls and corners would be in all directions on each floor.
The 110 story World Trade Center Towers, with their perfectly parallel, vertically plumb walls, could not be built on a spherical earth. The architectural diagrams measure horizontally precisely 207 feet, 2 inches. There is no indication in the architectural drawings for a 3/16 inch allowance for the splaying out of the walls as the tower rose from the ground of a supposedly spherical earth to the 110th floor. The blueprints list the dimensions of every single one of the 110 floors as having a horizontal measure of precisely 207 feet, 2 inches. Such could only be the case on a flat earth.
-Hendrie, p. 210-211
:laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1:Spamming emojis is the practice of a child, not a grown man.
:fryingpan::fryingpan::fryingpan::fryingpan:
:jester::jester::jester::jester:
:incense::incense::incense::incense:
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:
Sure. Rails adapt to any curvature, if it ain't earth's curvature.
Are you really serious? Yes, we have to assume so. You said it several times.
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
A disparity in one rail from another may result in lifting or separation at the joint, which could be catastrophic for a train running over it. Hence why they try to make railways as straight as possible with minimal gradation.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2Fo9R7aP2nfWE%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
Spamming emojis is the practice of a child, not a grown man.
Tradman, regarding railway construction:Sorry, not buying. Too much information from engineering and governments who attest that no allowance for curvature is ever done for rail. Disinformation on top of disinformation does not add up to truth.
(https://i.imgur.com/dB8vs6q.png)
from https://flatearth.ws/railroads. It's a great resource.
Sorry, not buying. Too much information from engineering and governments who attest that no allowance for curvature is ever done for rail. Disinformation on top of disinformation does not add up to truth.It has been proven over and over again how the curvature of Earth is a non-issue in railroad engineering due to it's subtlety. Railroads are built in segments anyway. Those can curve quite extremely as demonstrated by the various pictures we have seen in these threads. These beams need to curve heavily to conform to the terrain they're built on. The curvature is so small (0,001% per mile) that it can safely be disregarded as compared to the quite harsh elevation changes of the actual terrain.
Here is the excerpt from Edward Hendrie's book The Greatest Lie on Earth, speaking of the construction of the Twin Towers:(https://i.imgur.com/JWX0QEA.png)
It has been proven over and over again how the curvature of Earth is a non-issue in railroad engineering due to it's subtlety. Railroads are built in segments anyway. Those can curve quite extremely as demonstrated by the various pictures we have seen in these threads. These beams need to curve heavily to conform to the terrain they're built on. The curvature is so small (0,001% per mile) that it can safely be disregarded as compared to the quite harsh elevation changes of the actual terrain.Subtlety? Not over a thousand miles it isn't. You don't just lay level track piece by piece and expect 15 miles of declination for curvature to magically appear. Level is level and curve is curve, even by incremental amounts. Engineers were so worried about it when they laid railroad for the US they complained to government officials and were told, 'do not adjust for curve, just make it level.' Why? Because they knew that earth is not a globe.
Still, there are theoretical materials (various books etc.) which talk about accounting for curvature for long tracks as dicussed in the link I posted above: https://flatearth.ws/railroads
To conclude this excessively discussed point, whether railway engineers account for curvature of the Earth or not does not at all pertain to the shape of the Earth. Let's focus on other points.
I was listening to jimbob here do one of his little "stream of consciousness" rants and he makes some good points about the whole FE vs GE fight that has really made me reconsider some things. Basically, neither position can make a positive claim about the earth being flat or globular, rather, the core issue here is with modern cosmology being built upon deception and lies. So, I think it's prudent that I should avoid being either a Flat earther or a globe earther and reside in what a friend on Gab called "true earther", as in accepting what is observable and true about the earth; based upon scientific and practical observation, plus what has been revealed by God through Scripture.
These threads are a good example of the problems associated with falling into yet another either/or dialectical argument to sow division.
Relevant part starts at 18:53-20:55
https://youtu.be/BpOLnrdNGA0