Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36

Author Topic: Flat Earth-curious  (Read 41050 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dankward

Re: Flat Earth-curious
« Reply #170 on: January 12, 2022, 07:17:25 PM »
Quote from: Anne Evergreen on January 11, 2022, 04:55:16 PM
Nifty, thanks! In the first calculater I have a question about the obscured object part. Is that referring to the bottom of the cruise ship, the first point of the ship that is visible to me, or ?
Yes, that number means how much the curvature will obstruct of an object from bottom up, viewed from this height over this distance.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Flat Earth-curious
« Reply #171 on: January 12, 2022, 07:46:49 PM »
Quote from: andy on January 11, 2022, 10:18:09 PM
You just fail to distinguish between the high and low energy physics. There is no need to prove theory of gravity in order to have very accurate formulas applicable here on the Earth. Or Solar System.

That's utrue.  It's precisely because their theory of "gravity" doesn't work out in the cosmos that there's the "crisis in cosmology" mentioned by Kaku.  That's why they had to invent the notion of "dark matter".
Logged

Offline Dingbat

Re: Flat Earth-curious
« Reply #172 on: January 13, 2022, 10:31:53 PM »
Quote from: Miser Peccator on January 09, 2022, 12:46:17 AM
I think the terms round earth and globe earth can also describe the flat earth.  Flat earth models are round and with the firmament can create a globe.  I think Ball Earth is probably a better term for globe.

Gravity works for large and small objects right?  So why can't we take a large ball and carve out a lake and a few ponds and fill them with water and spin it around?

Lol.  Me neither. :)

So how far out does a boat need to go to go over the curve?
When I think of the word "round" the first thing to pop to mind is a ball/sphere. I like the term "Disk Earth" instead of FE personally. ;)

I think you would have to start with a REALLY large ball for that to work :laugh1:

Gravity as RE defines it is determined by mass. Let's say we are doing our little experiment on earth. If we were able to get a ball that was even 1/10th the mass of the earth (impossible for us of course) and carve out some lakes, what would stop the earth from completely negating any gravitational pull that our ball had for the water? The earth would have 10x the gravitational pull that our ball did.

Now if we were to take our ball and launch it into space (as NASA defines it :cowboy:) and carve out some lakes and add some water.... I would imagine it would probably stick! Although I don't know how well lol. With no atmosphere and a significantly smaller gravitational pull, it would probably not stick as well as it does to Earth. Water likes to stick though! It sticks to itself even, which is how you get surface tension (which causes water to bead up into little balls)

Here's a question for you! Why aren't raindrops flat as they fall through the sky if water is always level? ;)

With the question of how far out it should take a boat to disappear over the water... I don't know! This is something the other RE leaning people seem to know more about. But my question is why do we always ask about distance over water? It always leads to the same arguments of refraction and distortion and waves and whatnot lol. There are some places on earth that are incredibly level! (Notice I don't say flat as we haven't proven that :laugh1:)

Think about the Salar de Uyuni salt flat for instance. According to RE, it should be almost perfectly level compared to the sea, meaning it follows the curve of the earth accurately. On FE, it should be super super flat. Why don't we talk about a place like that, maybe with buildings or something to compare to instead of talking about the sea?

Now, you might not want to show pictures when it's wet, as it acts as a giant mirror and allows for more refraction arguments (lol) but wouldn't this be better than testing over water? I suppose mirages are still a thing so maybe there is some refraction, but surely less than there would be over the ocean?
Logged

Offline Dingbat

Re: Flat Earth-curious
« Reply #173 on: January 13, 2022, 11:37:12 PM »
Quote from: Miser Peccator on January 09, 2022, 12:46:17 AM
Hmmm...okay, is there any proof for this? 


See to me, the "Wheel In The Sky" over flat earth explains this motion of the stars in the Heavens much better than this:

2:08



So not only is the earth spinning at 1000 mph but it's also:

"moving about our sun in a very nearly circular orbit. covers this route at a speed of nearly 30 kilometers per second, or 67,000 miles per hour. In addition, our solar system--Earth and all--whirls around the center of our galaxy at some 220 kilometers per second, or 490,000 miles per hour."

Zooming through the universe like a comet, always progressing forward (which is a Kabbalah belief--the solar system is a Kabbalah system), forward, but our zodiacs remain in the same rotation visible from earth for thousands of years?

Are the zodiacs zooming through space like comets too?  Always forward in the same exact trajectory as earth?

btw:  Know what else is based on Kabbalah?  Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ :O

I've never heard of flying parallel to the center of the earth.

I was a flight attendant and I asked pilots if the plane makes adjustments nose downward as we go over the curve and they told me no. 

You would feel it if the plane was tilting nose downward. It would feel strange while you try to eat or watch a movie.  You can feel when a plane leans back during takeoff and you could also feel when a plane heads nose down but they never do the entire flight (unless something goes wrong!) .  They lean back but never forward.  Even while landing it's leaning back not forward.

Planes fly straight across over the plane of the earth.  They "level out" at cruising altitude and fly a comfortable level path.  When you go to the bathroom you don't walk downward or back upward during the flight.  You don't lean forward in your seat during flight.  The plane is nice and flat---level.  The captain announces we are "leveling out".

And the nose down wouldn't be a subtle adjustment either.  Ships don't have to travel very far to "go over the curve" so the plane would be adjusting down the entire trip.  If you didn't, it would miss the curve and fly straight out into space wouldn't it?
As far as having proof for my level explanation, it wasn't meant to be an experiment or anything. It was simply an explanation for how gravity is supposed to work on the RE model. If you wanted to prove it, you would have to prove RE, and then you should be able to reasonably conclude that the level idea would work as described. 

Now on FE, all the levels should be at the same exact angle no matter where you were located :cowboy:

Hah, that video is pretty hard to believe! Actually I haven't seen that theory before and find it bizarre myself. The older heliocentric model makes more sense than that does imo :laugh1:

You know how galaxies look right? All swirly around a central point? One theory I have heard of is that everything moves around that central point (imagine all the planets swirling around the drain of a flushing toilet :laugh2:) and that the sun and stars move too, also following that point. Maybe that's correct, maybe not, but I find it way more compelling than the video linked above.

What would cause the sun to move in a straight line forever like that??? It reminds me of the UK/Flat Earth Society model for FE, where the Earth is supposedly constantly accelerating upwards (which is how gravity is explained in that model). Totally bananas lol. 

As far as not having to level out the plane, perhaps it is due to the air being thinner the further out from Earth (higher up) you go. You have to apply additional thrust in order to travel higher due to the air being thinner. If you were to try to move in a perfectly straight line above the earth (not following the curvature) you would be gaining altitude and thus be hitting thinner air. If you didn't apply additional thrust to maintain (or realistically, obtain) that higher altitude, I think you would stay at the original altitude. Wouldn't that make sense for why they don't have to correct to avoid space? Anyways, I don't think a plane has the power to ever get to space even if they tried ;)
Logged

Offline Dingbat

Re: Flat Earth-curious
« Reply #174 on: January 21, 2022, 11:09:59 PM »
Quote from: Miser Peccator on January 09, 2022, 12:46:17 AM
Also, how fast does the plane need to go to catch up with the 1000mph spin? 

In the other direction can it just hover and let the earth spin below until it gets to it's destination?

I can only make sense of this using the flat earth model.  The same one all the ancient civilizations used.  Have you seen those pictures Digital Logos posted?

Douay-Rheims Bible  Gen 1:6

And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters.

I can't see how the firmament would work with the solar system shooting like a comet through an ever expanding space like the video I posted above. ??

So they want to make Christians look crazy because modern science trumps the Bible and Christians need to get with the times?

Haven't we heard that one before?

I mentioned this somewhere but when I asked one of the pilots why I couldn't see the curve from the cockpit view over the ocean and why we were flying over the arctic and other questions he told me I'd have to be a Freemason to know about that.  Hmm???

I know they don't like their special "knowledge" getting out to the "profane" (loosers like us). :P
As far as catching up to the 1000mph spin, I am not 100% sure how it works. I believe the answer is probably somehow related to relative motion. To me though, I find it plausible that there is a real explanation. I bring back my point about Mars's dust storms. If the plane has to speed up an extra 1000mph to keep up with the spin, why isn't Mars always covered in complete clouds of dust? Remember, we can observe the rate at which it spins, which is over 500mph. 

Yes, I am familiar with the FE firmament models :)

They are definitely interesting, though to me it feels a little claustrophobic. I guess it seems like the night sky goes on forever! Picture this as a model for the firmament: imagine God creates the waters. Then, He makes a huuuuge border that divides the waters from the waters. He gathers the waters inside of this huge expanse together, and creates the Earth from those. But the Earth is really tiny compared to the border. Also within the border is everything else God created (the lights, the stars, the other planets and everything else). Outside the border is the other part of the waters, and also heaven! Does that make more sense as an idea now? 

Alternatively, if you WANT to think of space as an ever growing expanse, if some translations of the original word for firmament also mean expanse, this seems possible. Maybe it would be something like this.... The Earth is at the center, along with all the planets and lights around it. The firmament that keeps us from just physically traveling to heaven is actually just the ever expanding length of space. Personally I like the big border idea better myself but how can we ever know? I think it would be impossible to find the firmament, and that it's an unexplained mystery how it works.
 
Operation fishbowl is definitely a curious name, and makes you wonder, but I don't trust it as proof of the FE fishbowl firmament. I think government sources are suspect even when they seem to not want us to believe something... I definitely don't take that as a sign that it's true lol. A lot of the times it seems they want to intentionally divide people in new and surprising ways. 

For instance, if they do 9 bad things that they want to cover up, and one truthful thing... If they make sure that the general public knows that the last thing is truthful beyond reasonable doubt, and you deny that one truthful thing nobody will trust you when you bring up the 9 things they did wrong. I think they try to trick us to make us doubt the truth as well as their lies... It is guilt by association basically. 

Obviously we know the Catholic Faith is the truth. Everything else we have to discern. Anyone denying the Faith is wrong, but they can be right on unrelated matters. The Dimonds are wrong on a couple of big things, and right on most everything else, right? Just because they are wrong on some things doesn't mean we have to deny everything they say. Alternatively, I am sure you and I agree on a lot of things, but that doesn't mean we have to agree on everything :laugh1:

That being said, a lot of people are tempted to avoid anyone that isn't following mainstream opinion. They use our mistakes to reaffirm their confirmation in their own mistakes! That's why I worry about getting caught up in FE if it truly is false! What if it prevents someone from listening to me on something more important that I know is true, like the Catholic Faith? 

Alternatively, if you are right and FE is the truth and you convince others that it is, they are more likely to listen to you about the Catholic truth. You definitely have to go with what you think has the best evidence here! I could be wrong, and I admit that. 

Lol, I think that pilot may have been pulling your leg. Definitely a weird joke. He may have been a freemason himself, or maybe not. Hard to know. But do you think that a freemason high enough on the chain to know the truth about FE would be working as a pilot? I think he would be living the easy life.  :laugh1:
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36
« previous next »