With regard to working for NASA, they also employ janitors and security guards, so it actually means very little. Then, even if you are closer to the aerospace projects, very rarely does anyone actually work on something other than just a very small piece of something. I and about half dozen people worked on a device that was the size of a large microwave oven, that in turn fit into a rack system with about a half dozen other things of similar size. I'd say maybe .1% of people who work there get anywhere close to any kind of "big picture" perspective on anything. Having worked for NASA, by itself, is neither here nor there.
I just don't think the physics that are at the heart of the controversy are particularly difficult, so that someone who had even taken a Physics class in High School, or mathematics through trigonometry (since part of it is just mathematical in nature)
Given basic trigonometry and accepting what NASA and mainstream science tell us regarding the circuмference of the globe, the rule of thumb formula (simplified) indicates that there should be 8 inches times distance away from you in miles squared. So, after 1 mile, 8 inches of drop following the curvature, after 2 miles 2 x 2 x 8 = 32 inches, etc. Now, there's actually a precise trig formula for this, and it's slightly different, but I've seen charts which show that it's only off by a couple inches out to 100 miles, so it's just a quicker calculation. Nevertheless, there are online calculators that actually execute the genuine trig formula. Of course, you can't really come to any conclusions over land, since any kind of variations in toplogy would upset, either increase or decrease these numbers, offset them or aplify them. That's why most experiments are conducted over water, or else frozen water in the Winter ... as water tends to find its level (that's where the term sea-level comes from).
Insurmountable problem for the NASA(-sized) ball is that there are countless examples not only of experiments conducted by FEs, but of things like record long distance photographs that were taken by non-FE types who were interesed in the photographs and were paying no attention to their implications toward this particular debate, where objects are seen, videotaped, photographed, etc. at distances FAR beyond what the curvature of the ball should permit. There's one award winning photograph that shows a lighthouse that stands about 150 feel above sea level (at its peak), taken from a specific location with a known elevation, from about 240+ miles away ... when it should have been hidden by many miles of curvature, and not even close to being visible.
Now, the response to this tends to be that those are illusions caused by refraction, a known phenomenon by which changes in density can cause light to bend. But refraction invariably results in blurry, distorted images (for reasons I'll explain in a second), and it's very inconsistent, depending on time of day, temperature / humidity, etc. You can't just show up somewhere and have any realistic chance of filming some refractive phenomena. Now, the farther you get from the viewer, the less possible it would be to obtain any kind of clear, not-blurry, on-distorted image ... and that's because the index of refraction will NOT be consistent across the entire distance between you and the target object. If I'm seeing something from 150 miles away that should be hidden by miles of curvature, in order for refraction to explain it, the index of refraction between miles 150 and 149 needs to be the same as between 149 and 148 as between 148 and 147, and so on and so forth ... but that's nearly impossible in nature (despite such observations being made with great regularity). You'd have some variation in the refractive index that would cause some images to refract into and/or away from other images that are refracting at different rates, so that by the time the images had traveresed 150 miles, you'd see very little detail and nothing but a vague blurry outline of something AT BEST. Nor can the refraction be always downward toward the globe, due to increasing density, since after 150 miles of that same increasing density, you'd require such a huge increase in density that you'd need deep sea diving gear on the other end. Finally, there have been two-way laser experiments conducted where the lasers pointed in different directions (over 10 miles of water) were each / both seen from the other side, which is simply impossible, for if one of the lasers were refracting down due to increasing density, then the laser moving in the other diretion would need to refract up due to decreasing density, and so it would not be visible. You can't have both.
At that point, in order to maintain a belief in a globe, you'd either have to 1) hypothesize that the circuмference of the earth is MUCH bigger than what they say, meaning that the 8 inches per mile squared math (and longhand trig formula) are just plain wrong, 2) hypothesize some other explanation (not refraction) that might explain this phenomenon, e.g. a flow of ether, or some other such "force".
Then we factor in that Sacred Scripture would appear to be much more consistent with an FE view, and that the modern globe cosmology cannot be reconciled with the firmament as described by the Bible, and as unanimously interpreted by the Church Fathers.. That's where you'd need a theory such as the one that Dr. Sungenis has put forth ... but that too flies in the face of modern atheistic "Big Bang" cosmology, and you would then not escape subjecting Trad Catholicism to ridicule anyway, one of your chief goals in rejecting FE apparently. I suspect that it's why Dr. Sungenis and Kolbe Center stopped their "How God Made the World in Six Days" series after Day 2. Dr. Sungenis had introduced his giant cosmic ice ball theory, and I'm certain that they pulled the plug after receiving truckloads of derision and ridicule over it.
Finally, Catholics who reject the evolutionist narrative actually believe that Adam and Even had perfect knowledge of the natural world, and that if early cultures scattered around the world all have an FE cosmology, then ... well, it's not because they were a bunch of morons who had just crawled out of the primordial soupl and had not yet learned applications and uses for fire, but because it was likely knowledge handed down, i.e. what they refer to as "primitive revelation".
Topic: Flat Earth is a Psyop (Read 4326 times)