Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: Neil Obstat on May 09, 2018, 01:09:28 PM

Title: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 09, 2018, 01:09:28 PM
.
Anybody who gives the flat earth idea the slightest amount of critical examination will realize that it's complete balderdash.  
.
Saying that 6 miles at sea should account for 24 feet of drop is nonsense: a sight line 6 feet above the water would meet the top of another 6-foot pole at 6 miles' distance if the earth were "flat."
.
Here is a video of a large ship quite clearly going over and behind the curvature of the sea:
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUgKxxR9XkU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUgKxxR9XkU)
.
The container ship starts quite visible with most of its hull in view, but sailing away for an hour appears to sink gradually into the sea.
Eventually the containers on deck and the ship's superstructure are all hidden behind the apparently rising water level of the sea.
The smaller boats in between the container ship and camera are not rising and falling over huge waves, so the swells are quite small, about 2 feet.
Can you refute this simple evidence?
.
The website page below compares views of Polaris from various latitudes on a "flat" earth vs. a spherodial earth.
The angle of sight from earth to Polaris is identical to the viewer's latitude on earth!
All viewers are seeing the sun at the same time, so the sun must be located in the same place, consequently all viewers must be looking in the same direction to see the sun there.
.
Does this support flat-earthism or is it rather supportive of a spheroidial earth?
.
http://i.imgur.com/CPU63Tm.jpg (https://www.youtube.com/redirect?redir_token=MExjDG2_srJMBqgi0xEaN0vZXWF8MTUyNTk2MzQyM0AxNTI1ODc3MDIz&event=comments&q=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCPU63Tm.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/CPU63Tm.jpg)
.
Can you refute this evidence that the sun is much further away from earth than the moon is?  
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVgx0Eio2Mg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVgx0Eio2Mg)
.
An excellent response to flat earth nonsense. 
Numbers and simple math disproves all their childish yammering.
.
It's painfully obvious that the sun doesn't twirl around above the earth the way flat-earthers claim.
How would Antarctica get 24 hour sun if it did?
.
https://vimeo.com/136977957 (https://www.youtube.com/redirect?redir_token=MExjDG2_srJMBqgi0xEaN0vZXWF8MTUyNTk2MzQyM0AxNTI1ODc3MDIz&event=comments&q=https%3A%2F%2Fvimeo.com%2F136977957)

And no, Polaris has not always been the Pole star in the past, nor will it be in the future.
.
Essentially, belief in the silly idea the earth is "flat" relies solely on ignorance.
For at least some, their ignorance is willful and impudent, therefore quite repulsive.
.

Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 09, 2018, 01:38:56 PM
An excellent response to flat earth nonsense.
Numbers and simple math disproves all their childish yammering.

Well, you would have more credibility if you would avoid the frequent emotional outbursts.  Given your obvious emotional attachment to a globe earth, it's difficult to take you seriously as an objective source of information or argument.  So I tend to dismiss what you have to say as biased out of the gate.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: happenby on May 09, 2018, 02:18:58 PM
.
Anybody who gives the flat earth idea the slightest amount of critical examination will realize that it's complete balderdash.  
.
Saying that 6 miles at sea should account for 24 feet of drop is nonsense: a sight line 6 feet above the water would meet the top of another 6-foot pole at 6 miles' distance if the earth were "flat."



There is no curve to the sea because water surface doesn't magically hump-up higher in the center between two shores, nor does the surface of water ever curve.  Water can slosh, but it always settles flat by nature.  Everyone knows that 'sea level' is the horizontal foundation of measurement used in determining elevation of land height.  It's how we know Mt McKinley is 20,310 feet tall. It certainly isn't a 'sea curve' based measurement, or there could be no certain measurement regarding the height of land.  Level is level on a flat earth.  Curve is curve.  But on a globe, you relativists insist the terms are interchangeable, a proposition without foundation.  Earth is not a globe.    
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: noOneImportant on May 09, 2018, 06:20:10 PM
Well, you would have more credibility if you would avoid the frequent emotional outbursts.  Given your obvious emotional attachment to a globe earth, it's difficult to take you seriously as an objective source of information or argument.  So I tend to dismiss what you have to say as biased out of the gate.
hear hear.:applause:
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Truth is Eternal on May 09, 2018, 09:50:32 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/3nlDhCY.jpg)
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Truth is Eternal on May 09, 2018, 09:51:31 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/nAB2tEm.jpg)
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Truth is Eternal on May 09, 2018, 09:52:41 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/iKSvp4E.jpg)
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Smedley Butler on May 10, 2018, 09:11:08 AM
Neil Globestat just got taken to the Smackdown Cafe for lunch by Ladislaus.

Too funny. 
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 10, 2018, 10:36:40 AM
I hope your tendencies remain consistent with the Dogmatic Flatearthists on this site.

For both sides, I am trying to take the evidence and examine it on its own.  Just because I dismiss Neil as a biased source doesn't mean I don't look at the things he posts.  It's just very difficult to filter out the core factual content when it's surrounded by 3 or 4 paragraphs of emotional ranting and insults.

I'm considering the picture he posted in the OP to understand what its implications are.

What I don't like is when people ignore something and then post OTHER evidence either unrelated or only tangentially related to it ... without actually addressing the main point.

So, if someone posts a picture which appears to show curvature, then someone else posts a different picture that shows no curvature.  If both pictures are genuine, then there must be an explanation for why one of them isn't proving what the poster claims that it does.

So, for instance, a globe earther will show video of a boat getting lower and then disappearing as it moves away from the observer.  But then flat earthers have shown convincing evidence that this can APPEAR to be the case even when it really isn't ... if you zoom in on the boat with some magnification.  So they have demonstrated that the visual appearance of something sinking beyond the horizon doesn't prove globe earth ... since it can just be an optical phenomenon.  So this is the kind of analysis I'm trying to do ... amid all the emotional noise on either side.

Neil at one point posted video of SpaceX as if it proved globe earth, but then flat earthers provided convincing evidence that the pictures were fake/CGI/something and could not have been genuine.  Does that prove flat earth?  No.  But it showed that that particular piece of evidence from globe earthers was invalid.

Now, on the other side, I've seen pictures taken by objective third parties of mountains that could be seen from WAY TOO FAR AWAY given curvature math.  These were from people who had no interest in disputing globe earth.  I've seen pictures of other objects that would not be visible at the stated distances.  And there's only one explanation from globe earthers ... refraction.  If you're a globe earther, you assume that there MUST have been refraction (because of your premise that the earth is a globe).  If you're a flat earther, you assume that there was NOT refraction involved.  If you're trying to find the truth, then you sit here wondering whether there's a way to prove or disprove refraction.

So the ultimate problem is that, when you've already made up your mind almost dogmatically about something, then you selectively interpret and filter out evidence that seems to oppose your viewpoint.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 10, 2018, 10:48:47 AM
.
Anybody who gives the flat earth idea the slightest amount of critical examination will realize that it's complete balderdash.  
.
Saying that 6 miles at sea should account for 24 feet of drop is nonsense: a sight line 6 feet above the water would meet the top of another 6-foot pole at 6 miles' distance if the earth were "flat."
.
Here is a video of a large ship quite clearly going over and behind the curvature of the sea:
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUgKxxR9XkU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUgKxxR9XkU)
.
The container ship starts quite visible with most of its hull in view, but sailing away for an hour appears to sink gradually into the sea.
Eventually the containers on deck and the ship's superstructure are all hidden behind the apparently rising water level of the sea.
The smaller boats in between the container ship and camera are not rising and falling over huge waves, so the swells are quite small, about 2 feet.
Can you refute this simple evidence? 

Let me take this first one.  Neil asserts this video as proof of globe earth.  He opens with the assertion that flat earth is "complete balderdash".  Then he offers evidence, the video of a ship appearing to disappear into the horizon.  This is claims is "simple evidence".

But I have seen many videos produced by flat earthers which appears initially to show the same phenomenon, a ship disappearing into the horizon.  Then additional magnification is applied, and the ship reappears ... demonstrating that the initial disappearance of the ship was an optical phenomenon and not due to earth curvature.

So, in order for this video to constitute "simple evidence", Neil would have to rule out the same demonstrable optical phenomenon having been at work in this video.  He does no such thing, so I reject his "simple evidence" as inconclusive non-evidence.

It's pretty clear.  Problem is that when you have an emotional attachment to one or another outcome out of the gate, you skip logical steps and then in your mind this proves something that needs not proving (since you already believe in it beforehand).  But does it objectively prove it to a third-party objective observer like myself?  No.

And when Neil adduces something like this as proof when it's objectively NOT proof, that undermines his credibility as a reliable source of argument or information.  Everything he presents must now be sifted through with a fine-toothed comb.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 10, 2018, 10:56:39 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/3nlDhCY.jpg)

So let me do the same analysis on this one (on the other side).  This assumes the princple that the "Horizon being always at eye level is only possible on a flat plane."

#1) is it provable from these pictures that the horizon is actually at eye level?  These are pictures, so could the angle have been changed so that it only appeared that the horizon is at eye level?  If the horizon were below eye level, and I tilted my camera slightly downward, would that make it seem as if the horizon is at eye level even if it's a bit lower?

#2) is it really true that the horizon always being at eye level is only possible on a flat plane?

Well, I believe #2 to be correct based on some other videos that I have seen on the subject ... which seem to demonstrate this visual phenomenon.  But it's not proven just by this picture alone.  And then there's a question of how the pictures were taken or produced.  So this is presented as proof, but it does not prove anything on its own.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 10, 2018, 11:26:16 AM
Also, when I was researching it, there wasn't a thing I found that FEers claimed that couldn't be refuted by GEers. I'm not saying that everything was super solid, but adequate in my mind. Conversely, there were things that FEers just didn't have an answer for.

You see, my impression was the other way around.  Almost every answer from GE involved "refraction".  And it seemed like the debunkers were LOOKING for reasons to prove that which they already knew to be true.  Same thing from the other side to an extent.  Overall I found the FE evidence more convincing.

At some point I might list the arguments that I found most convincing.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: happenby on May 10, 2018, 11:57:54 AM
I hope your tendencies remain consistent with the Dogmatic Flatearthists on this site. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find someone here who isn't dogmatic about it, who favors flat-earth. I can't help but hold animosity towards the FE position merely because of the words written here by the "Catholics" who push it. I am usually inclined to be open to counter-mainstream arguments and "theories" and that's the reason I didn't dismiss FE right away. It wasn't until I saw the people here pushing it and how they were doing it, that I realized this has got to have diabolical roots.
You'll need to prove the so-called diabolical roots of the flat earth position.  Saying it automatically makes you a dogmatic globalist.  Prove your position.  We've provided page upon page of proofs, including:
The idiots that run our world also insist earth is a globe (like you do),
NASA, RASA and other Freemasonic space agencies that control science are proven liars and still insist we went to the moon
The myriad of ways the world suffers from the condemned Copernican Revolution of the last 500 years
That heliocentrism, the science of the globe, was condemned by the Church,
That Fathers of the Church who taught flat geocentric earth provide a beautiful relationship of earth to the tabernacle and liturgy,
The reasonableness of flat earth with regards to what is level and what is curve
Scripture quotes on the form of the earth only support flat earth
The impossible logistics of the globe  
Ancient cartography of Catholic mapmakers
Empirical math and scientific proofs,
The warning from Scripture and from the Saints about science falsely so-called
The relationship of science falsely so-called to the imminent collapse and chastisement of the world  
All this has been covered, and more. Whether you believe it or not, it is a cohesive and well founded argument expounded upon as a whole in these threads. The information is verifiable and remains a tower against whatever spit wads you lob at it.  Not one of you globalists has offered anything but sporadic contentions, parroting anti-Catholic sentiments of the globalists. You offer a piece meal defense against a juggernaut of spiritual and physical truths. 100% of the time your claims are "no, it can't be that way" or "you're stupid", rather than explaining how you shamelessly promote what the New World Order globalists do. You literally sneer at information we've provided, but most importantly, you do it without consideration. A reasonable person digests information before he spouts, asks questions, takes the time to get to the bottom of what is being said.  That NEVER happens with dyed in the wool globers, proving that indoctrination warps minds.  Modernism has been described as a system of thinking that enables one to reconcile within himself two opposing beliefs.  Globalism is the poster child for modernism and remains a scientific relativism that is undermining Christendom.            
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 10, 2018, 12:41:53 PM
Understanding the Difference Between Vanishing Point vs The Horizon: Spotting Flat Earth Deception (https://steemit.com/science/@kerriknox/understanding-the-difference-between-vanishing-point-vs-the-horizon-spotting-flat-earth-deception)

Here's one simple, easy-to-understand article that, I believe, explains away the Horizon argument. It's real short. Let me know what you think.
This quote from the article is how I perceive this whole FE movement.
"Because those susceptible to these psychological techniques feel special and incredibly intelligent for having uncovered the largest and longest conspiracy in the world and outsmarting every scientist who has ever lived, many simply never look for any evidence contradicting this deception before rejecting over 2000 years of scientific inquiry on the shape of the earth!"

We're not talking about vanishing point.  I've seen demonstrations of how a visual convergence happens between the plane and the object well before it reaches its vanishing point.

An article like this I give little credibility to because it's emotionally charged, repeatedly referring to flat earth "deception", "deception techniques", attempting to win over "the gullible into their cult".

I've seen pictures where JUST THE BOTTOM of the ship disappears, i.e. it's not reached its vanishing point, and then when you zoom in you can see the entire ship again, including the bottom.  So the fact that this article makes it about "vanishing point" ... well, it's creating a false straw man argument.  Consequently, it's the author of this article who's guilty of deception.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 10, 2018, 12:43:04 PM
I do not have a lot of God-given talents, but I am very skilled at shredding bad arguments to pieces.  I can see logical flaws miles away and rip them apart in seconds.  Other than that, I have a very poor memory, and not very many talents in other areas.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Jaynek on May 10, 2018, 12:56:57 PM
An article like this I give little credibility to because it's emotionally charged, repeatedly referring to flat earth "deception", "deception techniques", attempting to win over "the gullible into their cult".
I have not noticed any difference in the amount of emotionally charged language used by the two sides of this issue.  Few people of any position discusses it calmly and rationally.  So this characeristic does not seem like something that will be any help in determining which side is correct.

I have noticed that lately you only seem to point out illogical or otherwise flawed posts when they support the globe earth position.  This suggests that, rather than objectively seeking out the more logical position, you have emotionally chosen a position and are guilty of confirmation bias.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: aryzia on May 10, 2018, 01:07:48 PM
The fact that the Dogmatic Flatearthers consider it a necessary Dogma of the Church with no proof whatsoever and considering those who disagree as non-Catholics proves it's diabolical. It's at least Schismatic.
Without proof your words remain empty and everything stated prior stands.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Jaynek on May 10, 2018, 01:09:54 PM
All this has been covered, and more. Whether you believe it or not, it is a cohesive and well founded argument expounded upon as a whole in these threads. The information is verifiable and remains a tower against whatever spit wads you lob at it.  Not one of you globalists has offered anything but sporadic contentions, parroting anti-Catholic sentiments of the globalists. You offer a piece meal defense against a juggernaut of spiritual and physical truths. 100% of the time your claims are "no, it can't be that way" or "you're stupid", rather than explaining how you shamelessly promote what the New World Order globalists do. You literally sneer at information we've provided, but most importantly, you do it without consideration. 
Virtually every claim you have made in regard to history and theology supporting flat earth has been incorrect and has been conclusively shown to be incorrect with copious amounts of credible references.  You dismiss all this evidence on the flimsiest of excuses or ignore it altogether and continue to make the same false claims.

I am not going to waste my time posting the same overwhelming evidence over and over again, but it has all been presented on this forum.  You are wrong and have been proven to be wrong.  You do not have a "cohesive and well-founded argument" and this is obvious to any objective observer.

Science is not an area in which I feel qualified to evaluate your statements, but you have so completely destroyed your credibility by your egregious errors in areas in which I am knowledgeable that I find it unlikely that you know what you are talking about in that area either.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: happenby on May 10, 2018, 01:28:44 PM
Virtually every claim you have made in regard to history and theology supporting flat earth has been incorrect and has been conclusively shown to be incorrect with copious amounts of credible references.  You dismiss all this evidence on the flimsiest of excuses or ignore it altogether and continue to make the same false claims.

I am not going to waste my time posting the same overwhelming evidence over and over again, but it has all been presented on this forum.  You are wrong and have been proven to be wrong.  You do not have a "cohesive and well-founded argument" and this is obvious to any objective observer.

Science is not an area in which I feel qualified to evaluate your statements, but you have so completely destroyed your credibility by your egregious errors in areas in which I am knowledgeable that I find it unlikely that you know what you are talking about in that area either.
It's awfully hypocritical that you blame others for "confirmation bias" only to spout garbage like this.  You are without excuse, too, since Heliocentric globalism is without question the doctrine of the demonic Freemasons that you defend.  By itself, your pertinacious defense of the New World Order "science" demonstrates said bias.    
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: aryzia on May 10, 2018, 01:31:18 PM
This literally makes no sense. I stated that there is no proof whatsoever that FE is a Dogma of the Church. What would you like me to provide proof of? Those who claim that it's necessary for salvation need to provide proof. Claiming that merely the basic concept of FE is in Scripture with nothing explicit is not proof. There would need to be something from the Magisterium.
No one said it's necessary for salvation per se, but holding contradictory and unproven theories of the enemy won't save you either.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 10, 2018, 01:45:38 PM
I have not noticed any difference in the amount of emotionally charged language used by the two sides of this issue.  Few people of any position discusses it calmly and rationally.  So this characeristic does not seem like something that will be any help in determining which side is correct.

I have noticed that lately you only seem to point out illogical or otherwise flawed posts when they support the globe earth position.  This suggests that, rather than objectively seeking out the more logical position, you have emotionally chosen a position and are guilty of confirmation bias.

I have chosen neither position.  If I single out going after Neil's posts in particular, it's because the 5-page emotional rants surrounding one debatable piece of evidence annoy me.  I have already explained that I agree with you that the Church does not teach flat earth.  So you noticed wrong.  Theologically, I disagree with the flat earthers and have since the beginning.  Scientifically, I am undecided.  I have been weighing the evidence on both sides and currently find myself leaning in the direction of flat earth due to the evidence appearing to be stronger in that direction.

I have never applied the calmness of the parties involved to my "determin[ation of] which side is correct".  I'm having to distill actual evidence out from within the biased posts of many people.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 10, 2018, 01:50:30 PM
Did you read the other article linked to? It's about the horizon and making your own theodolite or buying one to conduct your own experiments. That one was pretty convincing as well.

No, I didn't read the other article.  But I am troubled by your finding the other one convincing "as well", suggesting that you find this one convincing in the first place.  It's clearly biased and based on a straw man argument regarding "vanishing point" ... vs. the visual convergence against the plane.  So it's mischaracterizing the optical phenomenon in order to debunk it.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: happenby on May 10, 2018, 01:50:42 PM
This literally makes no sense. I stated that there is no proof whatsoever that FE is a Dogma of the Church. What would you like me to provide proof of? Those who claim that it's necessary for salvation need to provide proof. Claiming that merely the basic concept of FE is in Scripture with nothing explicit is not proof. There would need to be something from the Magisterium.
You claimed flat earth is schismatic and demonic.  You were asked to prove it, which you did not do.  We don't need "explicit proof" from the Magisterium because while Scripture, Church Fathers and science favor a flat geocentric earth, and never a heliocentric globe, the Copernican/Pythagorean doctrine of that same heliocentric globe is the science of the globalists destroying the world and the Church.  
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Jaynek on May 10, 2018, 01:53:00 PM
 You are without excuse, too since Heliocentric globalism is without question the doctrine of the demonic Freemasons that you defend.  By itself, your pertinacious defense of the New World Order "science" demonstrates said bias.  
Heliocentrism has nothing to do with this. Flat-earthers here have shown yourselves just as opposed to traditional (spherical earth) geocentrism.  If you were truly concerned with supporting the traditional Catholic view, you would take that position.  Instead, you defame Robert Sungenis, who does take it, and argue against all who support the traditional Catholic view.

Catholics reached a consensus on spherical earth by around 700 AD, maybe earlier if Cosmas was a heretic as some scholars claim.  The acceptance of a spherical earth was not challenged until heretics started a flat earth movement in the mid 1800s.  Later the movement started attracting pagans and even more recently some Catholics have joined in.

There is no good argument for considering flat-earthism to be the Catholic view and you are not defending Catholicism in any way.  Nor is science, in general, opposed to Catholicism.  For most of Western history, the Church was the main patron and promoter of science.  The secular aberration from this is a recent development and not something that I support or defend.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 10, 2018, 01:56:51 PM
I have not noticed any difference in the amount of emotionally charged language used by the two sides of this issue.  Few people of any position discusses it calmly and rationally.  So this characeristic does not seem like something that will be any help in determining which side is correct.

I have noticed that lately you only seem to point out illogical or otherwise flawed posts when they support the globe earth position.  This suggests that, rather than objectively seeking out the more logical position, you have emotionally chosen a position and are guilty of confirmation bias.

As with most issues, I get hostility from both sides ... because I'll argue against and reject arguments from either side without respect to positions and to persons.  Then I invariably get the criticism ... from both sides ... of needing to get off the fence and make up my mind, to side with one camp or another.  I rarely feel compelled to join a camp.  If one side's argument is good about one thing, then I accept that, even if I reject several of their other arguments or points.

So, for instance, on this issue, theologically I disagree with (at least the dogmatic) flat earthers, whereas scientifically I'm undecided but leaning flat earth, based on the evidence that I have seen so far.  I have seen videos where they have used lasers, GPS accurate to within centimeters, sound beams, etc. to demonstrate a decided lack of the mathematically-expected curvature of the earth over certain distances.  Now, if those results are not COMPLETELY FAKED AND FABRICATED, then I do not see how they can be debunked.  Refraction doesn't fly anymore when you're talking about GPS, lasers, and sound beams.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Jaynek on May 10, 2018, 02:04:43 PM
I have chosen neither position.  If I single out going after Neil's posts in particular, it's because the 5-page emotional rants surrounding one debatable piece of evidence annoy me.  I have already explained that I agree with you that the Church does not teach flat earth.  So you noticed wrong.  Theologically, I disagree with the flat earthers and have since the beginning.  Scientifically, I am undecided.  I have been weighing the evidence on both sides and currently find myself leaning in the direction of flat earth due to the evidence appearing to be stronger in that direction.

I have never applied the calmness of the parties involved to my "determin[ation of] which side is correct".  I'm having to distill actual evidence out from within the biased posts of many people.
While I agree that aspects of Neil's posts are problematic, why complain about him and say nothing about TruthisEternal, for example? 

Yes, some time ago, you did say that flat-earther claims about Church history and theology were incorrect, but I have not noticed you mention this lately.  I did explicitly use the word "lately" in my post.

It is good that you are distilling evidence from both sides, but you primarily, perhaps even exclusively, point out emotionalism on the part of globe earthers and not flat earthers.  Your comments are not proportional to the actual occurrence of the phenomenon.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 10, 2018, 02:11:19 PM
While I agree that aspects of Neil's posts are problematic, why complain about him and say nothing about TruthisEternal, for example?

Come on, now, I used to go after him (and Smedley) all the time for their dogmatic flat-earthism, to the point that I told the other flat earthers that they needed to denounce TruthIsEternal to retain any credibility.  Lately TIS will post a single picture and move on, or talk about how the horizon is horizontal (one-liner).  (Replies #4, #5, and #6 are examples of his posting habits of late.)
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: happenby on May 10, 2018, 02:12:32 PM
Heliocentrism has nothing to do with this. Flat-earthers here have shown yourselves just as opposed to traditional (spherical earth) geocentrism.  If you were truly concerned with supporting the traditional Catholic view, you would take that position.  Instead, you defame Robert Sungenis, who does take it, and argue against all who support the traditional Catholic view.

Catholics reached a consensus on spherical earth by around 700 AD, maybe earlier if Cosmas was a heretic as some scholars claim.  The acceptance of a spherical earth was not challenged until heretics started a flat earth movement in the mid 1800s.  Later the movement started attracting pagans and even more recently some Catholics have joined in.

There is no good argument for considering flat-earthism to be the Catholic view and you are not defending Catholicism in any way.  Nor is science, in general, opposed to Catholicism.  For most of Western history, the Church was the main patron and promoter of science.  The secular aberration from this is a recent development and not something that I support or defend.
Ha ha.  Heliocentrism is the accepted model promoted by NASA and the general "scientific community" and has everything to do with this. Catholics have never "reached a consensus" on spherical earth!  But if you're going to say it, prove it.  Commentary from moderns who support geocentric spherical earth do not count, either.  We need proof from ancient times, arguments from the Fathers, from Scripture, from Catholics at the time (like we do with flat earth) that proves your claim.  Flat earth has more proofs by far than anything you're claiming because you're pretend proof comes from the snakes in the grass.    
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Jaynek on May 10, 2018, 02:21:46 PM
Ha ha.  Heliocentrism is the accepted model promoted by NASA and the general "scientific community" and has everything to do with this. Catholics have never "reached a consensus" on spherical earth!  But if you're going to say it, prove it.  Commentary from moderns who support geocentric spherical earth do not count, either.  We need proof from ancient times, arguments from the Fathers, from Scripture, from Catholics at the time (like we do with flat earth) that proves your claim.  Flat earth has more proofs by far than anything you're claiming because you're pretend proof comes from the snakes in the grass.    
Any reasonable person knows that I have already proved this many times over.  You are going to keep claiming "but that's not proof" no matter what I say and those who are open to reason already know.  The Ptolemaic model (which includes a spherical earth) was the consensus view of Catholics from around 700 to 1800.  This position existed before then (including among Church Fathers) but alongside other views.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 10, 2018, 02:23:15 PM
Below is the basis for the argument. Seems pretty sound to me. Don't be troubled. Explain how this is mischaracterizing the optical phenomenon. Again, I don't care too much but let me know how I'm being duped by this article. Don't really want to argue. Unlike my enemies in this subforum, I'm not dogmatic about this so I'm not using too much brain power on it.

I explained why this is wrong several posts ago.  This has nothing to do with vanishing point.  Obviously parts of a ship will start to disappear BEFORE it reaches the vanishing point ... duh, because there would be nothing of the ship left to see at the vanishing point.  What happens is a visual convergence between the bottom of the ship and the plane beneath it after it gets a certain distance away.  This phenomenon has been well demonstrated and well documented.  Then, when you zoom in with a greater magnification, lo and behold, the bottom part of the ship magically reappears.  If it were hidden behind curvature, it could not reappear with increased zoom.  Consequently, the original phenomenon was optical in nature, a visual convergence between the bottom of the ship/boat and the plane beneath it.

Plus, lines like this are nonsense right out of Neil's playbook --
Quote
when it's clear to anyone who has watched small objects disappear into the distance

Clear how?  It's obvious that people can be fooled by optical illusions under certain circumstances.  In fact, these same people who claim that it's clear to anyone who uses their senses that the earth must be round, are the first ones to hop up and down screaming "mirage" or "refraction" when an entire city's skyline is visible across a lake when it shouldn't be.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: aryzia on May 10, 2018, 02:33:07 PM
Any reasonable person knows that I have already proved this many times over.  You are going to keep claiming "but that's not proof" no matter what I say and those who are open to reason already know.  The Ptolemaic model (which includes a spherical earth) was the consensus view of Catholics from around 700 to 1800.  This position existed before then (including among Church Fathers) but alongside other views.
You have proven nothing. Even wiki disagrees with this. And they're on your side.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Jaynek on May 10, 2018, 02:44:40 PM
You have proven nothing. Even wiki disagrees with this. And they're on your side.
Can you provide a quote from Wikipedia which disagrees with what I wrote?
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Smedley Butler on May 10, 2018, 03:07:59 PM
I have not noticed any difference in the amount of emotionally charged language used by the two sides of this issue.  Few people of any position discusses it calmly and rationally.  So this characeristic does not seem like something that will be any help in determining which side is correct.

I have noticed that lately you only seem to point out illogical or otherwise flawed posts when they support the globe earth position.  This suggests that, rather than objectively seeking out the more logical position, you have emotionally chosen a position and are guilty of confirmation bias.
Calmness has nothing to do with facts.
It is flat or it is not. Fact.
Here's another fact I will calmly present:
The One World Religion of the Prince of this world is called globalism.
FACT.
One belief of the globalists' religion is that the earth is literally a globe.
The religion of the globalists is false and the enemy of the Church. Their leader is the Father of Lies who is the enemy of God the Father. 
The One True religion and God's Word describes a Creation that is the opposite of the lying globalists.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Smedley Butler on May 10, 2018, 03:12:46 PM
The fact that the Dogmatic Flatearthers consider it a necessary Dogma of the Church with no proof whatsoever and considering those who disagree as non-Catholics proves it's diabolical. It's at least Schismatic.
The fact that you dismiss the Biblical roots of flat earth is diabolical. 
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Smedley Butler on May 10, 2018, 03:15:29 PM
Virtually every claim you have made in regard to history and theology supporting flat earth has been incorrect and has been conclusively shown to be incorrect with copious amounts of credible references.  You dismiss all this evidence on the flimsiest of excuses or ignore it altogether and continue to make the same false claims.

I am not going to waste my time posting the same overwhelming evidence over and over again, but it has all been presented on this forum.  You are wrong and have been proven to be wrong.  You do not have a "cohesive and well-founded argument" and this is obvious to any objective observer.

Science is not an area in which I feel qualified to evaluate your statements, but you have so completely destroyed your credibility by your egregious errors in areas in which I am knowledgeable that I find it unlikely that you know what you are talking about in that area either.
Every word you wrote in this post is a total lie.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 10, 2018, 06:55:32 PM
Virtually every claim you have made in regard to history and theology supporting flat earth has been incorrect and has been conclusively shown to be incorrect with copious amounts of credible references.  You dismiss all this evidence on the flimsiest of excuses or ignore it altogether and continue to make the same false claims.

I am not going to waste my time posting the same overwhelming evidence over and over again, but it has all been presented on this forum.  You are wrong and have been proven to be wrong.  You do not have a "cohesive and well-founded argument" and this is obvious to any objective observer.

Science is not an area in which I feel qualified to evaluate your statements, but you have so completely destroyed your credibility by your egregious errors in areas in which I am knowledgeable that I find it unlikely that you know what you are talking about in that area either.
.
It's too bad one must resort to being so blatant and fundamental, but if you try to be nice flat-earthers ignore what you have to say since it is so terribly inconvenient for their agenda, all the while they accuse you of ignoring their "proofs" when they haven't provided any.
.
You're doing a fine job, Jaynek, defending the truth against a malicious and egregious opponent.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 10, 2018, 07:30:48 PM
We're not talking about vanishing point.  I've seen demonstrations of how a visual convergence happens between the plane and the object well before it reaches its vanishing point.

An article like this I give little credibility to because it's emotionally charged, repeatedly referring to flat earth "deception", "deception techniques", attempting to win over "the gullible into their cult".

I've seen pictures where JUST THE BOTTOM of the ship disappears, i.e. it's not reached its vanishing point, and then when you zoom in you can see the entire ship again, including the bottom.  So the fact that this article makes it about "vanishing point" ... well, it's creating a false straw man argument.  Consequently, it's the author of this article who's guilty of deception.
.
Your emotionally charged outbursts discredit everything you say, Ladislaus.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 10, 2018, 07:56:44 PM
.
Since no one has managed to respond to the OP after 3 pages (while pretending to have responded) I'll post it again, with more material:
.
.
Anybody who gives the flat earth idea the slightest amount of critical examination will realize that it's complete balderdash.  
.
Saying that 6 miles at sea should account for 24 feet of drop is nonsense: a sight line 6 feet above the water would meet the top of another 6-foot pole at 6 miles' distance if the earth were "flat."
.
Here is a video of a large ship quite clearly going over and behind the curvature of the sea:
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUgKxxR9XkU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUgKxxR9XkU)
The meme-like caption in the title frame shown asks you to consider this:
IF the earth were "flat" the top of the container ship being magnified here with a telephoto lens located above the water's "flat" surface would certainly be higher than the top of the smaller boat located part way in between the camera and the container ship.
While this discrepancy does not "prove" anything, it most certainly does not support the claim that the water surface is "flat" because the VERY TALL container ship superstructure is well BELOW the top of the much shorter boat.
Furthermore, we can see the small boat's hull entirely but the ship's hull is completely out of sight below the water's surface, where no amount of magnification can bring it into view, only ascending to higher ground for a viewpoint of higher elevation will enable the camera to see the ship's hull.
.
The ship does not become more visible in its parts when the telephoto zooms in for a magnified view.
The hull disappears without question behind the water surface in the foreground, that is, the surface on which smaller boats traverse right there for you to see. You can see the hull of the smaller boat but not the hull of the container ship.
As it goes along gradually the containers on deck disappear as well below the water surface as if the ship were sinking.
Nobody can make the containers and the hull re-appear by zooming in through a telephoto lens.
One thing that is NOT shown in this one-position video is what this ship looks like from a higher vantage point, like from a nearby bluff.
There are other videos that show that, but flat-earthers are terrified of them so they refuse to acknowledge them, or, at best, accuse them of being fake.
.
The container ship starts quite visible with most of its hull in view, but sailing away for an hour appears to sink gradually into the sea.
Eventually the containers on deck and the ship's superstructure are all hidden behind the apparently rising water level of the sea.
The smaller boats in between the container ship and camera are not rising and falling over huge waves, so the swells are quite small, about 2 feet.
Can you refute this simple evidence?
.
The website page below compares views of Polaris from various latitudes on a "flat" earth vs. a spherodial earth.
The angle of sight from earth to Polaris is identical to the viewer's latitude on earth!
All viewers are seeing the sun at the same time, so the sun must be located in the same place, consequently all viewers must be looking in the same direction to see the sun there.
.
I find it quite telling that nobody has seen fit to comment on this concept.
If you measure the angle from the horizon to Polaris it's always the same as the latitude where you're standing.
Sailors at sea have been using this trick for hundreds of years.
That's how anyone can know their latitude with one simple measurement, that is, so long as they can see Polaris.
Furthermore, it makes no difference what time of night it is, Polaris is always in the same place in the sky.
The further north you are the higher it gets until at the north pole it's directly overhead.
And in the southern hemisphere, the same feature (but no star) exists where the star tracks circle and you can measure your latitude south of the equator with the same technique.
So how does the "flat" earth map explain this?
.
This is a very powerful indicator that a "flat" earth concept is useless, since as the diagram shows, observers in various latitudes have to look in different directions to see the same thing.
Furthermore, viewers south of the equator can't see Polaris at all.
There have been some flat-earthers who have tried to be clever or something by claiming that people up to 20 degrees south of the equator can see Polaris, but they haven't managed to provide any evidence of that. When I replied, "They must have been at the ridge line of the Andes Mountains" nobody responded. I wasn't supposed to know their secret!
.
Does this support flat-earthism or is it rather supportive of a spheroidial earth?
.
http://i.imgur.com/CPU63Tm.jpg (https://www.youtube.com/redirect?redir_token=MExjDG2_srJMBqgi0xEaN0vZXWF8MTUyNTk2MzQyM0AxNTI1ODc3MDIz&event=comments&q=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCPU63Tm.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/CPU63Tm.jpg)
.
Another highly problematic reality for flat-earthers :
.
How can we measure the relative distance of the earth-to-moon vs. earth-to-sun?
You don't need any fancy equipment for this.
Just a rectangular block of white styrofoam or a pizza box (after you've eaten the pizza!) will work just fine.
Or, you can eat the pizza WHILE you take the measurements. I did that and it was great. Very pleasant afternoon!
.
Can you refute this evidence that the sun is much further away from earth than the moon is?  
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVgx0Eio2Mg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVgx0Eio2Mg)
.
An excellent response to flat earth nonsense.
Numbers and simple math disproves all their childish yammering.
The childish agnosticism of Ladislaus notwithstanding.
.
Another H-U-G-E problem for flat-earthers:
.
It's painfully obvious that the sun doesn't twirl around above the earth the way flat-earthers claim.
How would Antarctica get 24 hour sun if it did?
.
https://vimeo.com/136977957 (https://www.youtube.com/redirect?redir_token=MExjDG2_srJMBqgi0xEaN0vZXWF8MTUyNTk2MzQyM0AxNTI1ODc3MDIz&event=comments&q=https%3A%2F%2Fvimeo.com%2F136977957)

And no, Polaris has not always been the Pole star in the past, nor will it be in the future.
.
Essentially, belief in the silly idea the earth is "flat" relies entirely on ignorance.
.
For at least some, their ignorance is willful and impudent, therefore quite repulsive.
.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: aryzia on May 10, 2018, 08:17:52 PM
.
Since no one has managed to respond to the OP after 3 pages (while pretending to have responded) I'll post it again, with more material:
.
.
Anybody who gives the flat earth idea the slightest amount of critical examination will realize that it's complete balderdash.  
.
Saying that 6 miles at sea should account for 24 feet of drop is nonsense: a sight line 6 feet above the water would meet the top of another 6-foot pole at 6 miles' distance if the earth were "flat."
.
Here is a video of a large ship quite clearly going over and behind the curvature of the sea:
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUgKxxR9XkU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUgKxxR9XkU)
The meme-like caption in the title frame shown asks you to consider this:
IF the earth were "flat" the top of the container ship being magnified here with a telephoto lens located above the water's "flat" surface would certainly be higher than the top of the smaller boat located part way in between the camera and the container ship.
While this discrepancy does not "prove" anything, it most certainly does not support the claim that the water surface is "flat" because the VERY TALL container ship superstructure is well BELOW the top of the much shorter boat.
Furthermore, we can see the small boat's hull entirely but the ship's hull is completely out of sight below the water's surface, where no amount of magnification can bring it into view, only ascending to higher ground for a viewpoint of higher elevation will enable the camera to see the ship's hull.
.
The ship does not become more visible in its parts when the telephoto zooms in for a magnified view.
The hull disappears without question behind the water surface in the foreground, that is, the surface on which smaller boats traverse right there for you to see. You can see the hull of the smaller boat but not the hull of the container ship.
As it goes along gradually the containers on deck disappear as well below the water surface as if the ship were sinking.
Nobody can make the containers and the hull re-appear by zooming in through a telephoto lens.
One thing that is NOT shown in this one-position video is what this ship looks like from a higher vantage point, like from a nearby bluff.
There are other videos that show that, but flat-earthers are terrified of them so they refuse to acknowledge them, or, at best, accuse them of being fake.
.
The container ship starts quite visible with most of its hull in view, but sailing away for an hour appears to sink gradually into the sea.
Eventually the containers on deck and the ship's superstructure are all hidden behind the apparently rising water level of the sea.
The smaller boats in between the container ship and camera are not rising and falling over huge waves, so the swells are quite small, about 2 feet.
Can you refute this simple evidence?
.
The website page below compares views of Polaris from various latitudes on a "flat" earth vs. a spherodial earth.
The angle of sight from earth to Polaris is identical to the viewer's latitude on earth!
All viewers are seeing the sun at the same time, so the sun must be located in the same place, consequently all viewers must be looking in the same direction to see the sun there.
.
I find it quite telling that nobody has seen fit to comment on this concept.
If you measure the angle from the horizon to Polaris it's always the same as the latitude where you're standing.
Sailors at sea have been using this trick for hundreds of years.
That's how anyone can know their latitude with one simple measurement, that is, so long as they can see Polaris.
Furthermore, it makes no difference what time of night it is, Polaris is always in the same place in the sky.
The further north you are the higher it gets until at the north pole it's directly overhead.
And in the southern hemisphere, the same feature (but no star) exists where the star tracks circle and you can measure your latitude south of the equator with the same technique.
So how does the "flat" earth map explain this?
.
This is a very powerful indicator that a "flat" earth concept is useless, since as the diagram shows, observers in various latitudes have to look in different directions to see the same thing.
Furthermore, viewers south of the equator can't see Polaris at all.
There have been some flat-earthers who have tried to be clever or something by claiming that people up to 20 degrees south of the equator can see Polaris, but they haven't managed to provide any evidence of that. When I replied, "They must have been at the ridge line of the Andes Mountains" nobody responded. I wasn't supposed to know their secret!
.
Does this support flat-earthism or is it rather supportive of a spheroidial earth?
.
http://i.imgur.com/CPU63Tm.jpg (https://www.youtube.com/redirect?redir_token=MExjDG2_srJMBqgi0xEaN0vZXWF8MTUyNTk2MzQyM0AxNTI1ODc3MDIz&event=comments&q=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCPU63Tm.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/CPU63Tm.jpg)
.
Another highly problematic reality for flat-earthers :
.
How can we measure the relative distance of the earth-to-moon vs. earth-to-sun?
You don't need any fancy equipment for this.
Just a rectangular block of white styrofoam or a pizza box (after you've eaten the pizza!) will work just fine.
Or, you can eat the pizza WHILE you take the measurements. I did that and it was great. Very pleasant afternoon!
.
Can you refute this evidence that the sun is much further away from earth than the moon is?  
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVgx0Eio2Mg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVgx0Eio2Mg)
.
An excellent response to flat earth nonsense.
Numbers and simple math disproves all their childish yammering.
The childish agnosticism of Ladislaus notwithstanding.
.
Another H-U-G-E problem for flat-earthers:
.
It's painfully obvious that the sun doesn't twirl around above the earth the way flat-earthers claim.
How would Antarctica get 24 hour sun if it did?
.
https://vimeo.com/136977957 (https://www.youtube.com/redirect?redir_token=MExjDG2_srJMBqgi0xEaN0vZXWF8MTUyNTk2MzQyM0AxNTI1ODc3MDIz&event=comments&q=https%3A%2F%2Fvimeo.com%2F136977957)

And no, Polaris has not always been the Pole star in the past, nor will it be in the future.
.
Essentially, belief in the silly idea the earth is "flat" relies entirely on ignorance.
.
For at least some, their ignorance is willful and impudent, therefore quite repulsive.
.
Saying that 6 miles at sea should account for 24 feet of drop is nonsense:
What a stupid thing to say. The math formula for a 25,000 mi circumference sphere is a fact. One minute you globers say it's curved, the next you deny it.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: aryzia on May 10, 2018, 09:32:51 PM
Can you provide a quote from Wikipedia which disagrees with what I wrote?
Like most ancient peoples, the Hebrews believed the sky was a solid dome with the Sun, Moon, planets and stars embedded in it

The Copernican Revolution of the 16th century led to reconsideration of these matters. In 1554, John Calvin proposed that "firmament" be interpreted as clouds.[12] "He who would learn astronomy and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere," wrote Calvin.[12] "As it became a theologian, [Moses] had to respect us rather than the stars," Calvin wrote. Calvin's doctrine of accommodation allowed Protestants to accept the findings of science without rejecting the authority of scripture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament


In 1584, Giordano Bruno proposed a cosmology without firmament: an infinite universe in which the stars are actually suns with their own planetary systems.[16] After Galileo began using a telescope to examine the sky, it became harder to argue that the heavens were perfect, as Aristotelian philosophy required. By 1630, the concept of solid orbs was no longer dominant.[17]
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 11, 2018, 12:51:22 AM
Below is the basis for the argument. Seems pretty sound to me. Don't be troubled. Explain how this is mischaracterizing the optical phenomenon. Again, I don't care too much but let me know how I'm being duped by this article. Don't really want to argue. Unlike my enemies in this subforum, I'm not dogmatic about this so I'm not using too much brain power on it.


The Vanishing Point
The vanishing point of an object is when the object is so far away from you it seems to disappear. Objects will disappear at different distances from you depending upon their size, your vision, and potentially atmospheric conditions. But the smaller the object, the closer to you it will reach it's vanishing point, and the contrary is true as well; the larger an object, the further away from you it will seem to vanish.

Versus over the Horizon
...When you get a large object, such as the container ship in the video below, you'll see that part or all of the ship is obscured by the horizon before it reaches it's vanishing point. The portion obscured by the horizon, it can be easily seen, cannot be zoomed back in with the zoom lens, and the rest of the boat is obviously visible, so it is clearly not an issue of the bottom being too small to see. It's simply obscured by the curvature of the earth!
...
In this case, many have realized that these objects simply cannot be brought back with a telescope, so they now claim that objects disappearing by 'perspective' just disappear bottom first, when it's clear to anyone who has watched small objects disappear into the distance, like these batteries on colored paper prove, this is simply not true. We can still see the furthest away colored paper on the floor, just as we'd expect to see.
.
This reference to "the vanishing point" is slightly off the mark strictly speaking. 
But it's well intended, perhaps an attempt to keep the description simple.
.
The vanishing point of an object has the SIDE EFFECT of it seeming to disappear. But that isn't the essence of what constitutes the vanishing point.
.
In simple perspective, a straight row of same-sized objects gets smaller in the distance, when the lines of their extremities converge, and it is this convergence of the lines of perspective when merging into one point that is the vanishing point.
.
Applying this to the horizon, flat-earthers are wont to confuse a level line of sight with the horizon.
.
Without any sure means to establish where the level line of sight goes as it approaches the horizon, it's far too easy to presume that they are one and the same, thus their erroneous claim that the horizon "rises to eye level," when in fact the horizon doesn't rise anywhere, nor does it fall. The horizon stays right where it is.
.
Rather it is the eye of the viewer without any device or guide to indicate where level is, that drifts down to meet the horizon, and so it is the eye that descends to the horizon and not the horizon rising to eye level.
.
Some of the links that I posted above demonstrate this, the first of which does so very well using mathematics, where the formula used by flat-earthers is derived and the consequences of mistaken application are described in detail by the derivation of the formula.
.
Walter Bislin's blog - http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?blog=list&tag=FlatEarth (https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=comments&redir_token=dirFXg5i0kMe4E4yGLoXCRfXsS18MTUyNTk2MTU4NEAxNTI1ODc1MTg0&q=http%3A%2F%2Fwalter.bislins.ch%2Fbloge%2Findex.asp%3Fblog%3Dlist%26tag%3DFlatEarth)
.
Walter Bislin apparently speaks primarily German so that might explain why he spells "blog" as "bloge."
.
But his mathematical derivation is very impressive. There is no higher math there, just algebra and Euclidean geometry. 
.
Other forums have pointed out that flat-earthers in the past 6 months have backed away from claiming "perspective" as the explanation of why objects such as large ships recede downward over the horizon with the hull disappearing first, then the deck line, and finally the superstructure as they move further away from the viewer.
.
There are numerous diagrams available online that demonstrate why perspective is no good for explaining away this effect of earth's curvature.
.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 11, 2018, 12:53:29 AM
Saying that 6 miles at sea should account for 24 feet of drop is nonsense:
What a stupid thing to say. The math formula for a 25,000 mi circumference sphere is a fact. One minute you globers say it's curved, the next you deny it.
.
"The math formula" is not applied correctly by flat-earthers. That's the point.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 11, 2018, 01:12:13 AM
.
Take a row of telephone poles or electrical power towers as an example.
.
Presuming that they are lined up on a flat plane, it would be true that a level line of sight somewhere near their bottom (such poles are a lot taller than the man standing next to them) would merge along with the perspective lines of the poles (or towers) to become one at the vanishing point in the distance.
.
But it is a mistake to superimpose this presumption onto an unknown situation, in an attempt to "prove" there is no curvature on the earth.
.
If the curvature is not known, nor is the levelness of the plane known, a level-finding instrument is required to determine where the level line of sight is. 
.
Consider the row of poles (or towers) could be on an inclined pane, either rising or falling in the distance. If the plane is flat but inclined upwards as it proceeds away from you, your line of sight could merge at the vanishing point all right, but it would be an INCLINED line of sight, since you have no reliable device to inform you otherwise.
.
Similarly, if the row of poles (or towers) recedes downhill in the distance, your line of sight would also recede along with them, and you would be unable to say with certainty whether the horizon line where the vanishing point is, is at the same level as your eye observing it.
.
Anyone with surveying experience knows this intuitively, since working with a dumpy level or theodolite gives innumerable situations where there is utterly no way to know where "level" is on a Philadelphia rod unless you have an instrument to look through and it is calibrated, adjusted, and verified for shooting a level line. Calibration is done in the factory. Adjustment is done in the field and verification is simply a process of leveling the instrument and reversing it 180 degrees to see that the gauges indicating level read the same way in both directions. A verified instrument reads "0" in all directions, and this must be done before any readings are taken.
.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 11, 2018, 06:03:39 AM
This is exactly the opposite of what he's saying and what I would assume would be easy to verify if true or false. Certain objects of large enough size do not reappear when zoomed in on because it is behind the horizon and not to the vanishing point yet.
I haven't done this experiment and I wonder if you have. I guess until I have the motivation to see which one is correct, it's all one side's word against the other. We all know that if one side can use CGI and video tricks, so can the other.

I have not yet seen credible evidence demonstrating this that ruled out optical phenomena.  Globe earthers constantly talk about how it's clear to simple observation, based on how ships disappear from view bottom up, that there's globe earth.  My point is that this does not PROVE globe earth.  Well after something disappears bottom-up on the horizon, you can still zoom in and see the entire ship.  So this visual observation is an optical illusion and doesn't prove anything.  And at some point it gets far enough away so that the phenomenon recurs even when zoomed in, due to the limitation against the artificial optics.  So this kind of "visual" proof doesn't suffice.

I have seen flat earthers produce measurements using lasers, directed sound beams, and GPS devices that seem to prove their theory.  I have not yet seen a globe earther produce an experiment where you put GPS at the tops and bottoms of two buildings a certain distance apart and show that the tops are farther apart than the bottoms (which would be the case in globe earth).  Something like that would be REAL PROOF.  But the flat earthers produced videos of experiments that show the opposite, that the tops and bottoms are the same distance apart.  Again, unless these are completely faked, and I cannot rule that out entirely, the weight of proof in my mind leans in favor of flat earth.

At the end of the day, I want to know the truth about this matter, but instead of real experiments that prove their thesis, you get a lot of rhetoric and false evidence (interpreted to support their theory due to simple confirmation bias).  Perhaps the globe earthers don't go out of their way to prove this because they assume that it's true and doesn't need proof.  So they do a lot of "it's just clear to anyone who has eyes" type of stuff ... that I find decidedly unconvincing.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 11, 2018, 06:06:25 AM
.
Your emotionally charged outbursts discredit everything you say, Ladislaus.

While I certainly get irritated about various theological subjects, when errors are being promoted, I have been decidedly UNemotional about this particular issue.  You're the one who constantly goes into 10-paragraph emotional jags and insults and mockery.  And the evidence you have posted so far (once I have found it having had to wade through your posts) is mostly unconvincing.  I have not had the time to study some of the mathematical things you've posted, but you keep posting the visual stuff about the bottoms of ships disappearing at a distance, and that's not convincing to me.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Jaynek on May 11, 2018, 06:06:35 AM
Like most ancient peoples, the Hebrews believed the sky was a solid dome with the Sun, Moon, planets and stars embedded in it

The Copernican Revolution of the 16th century led to reconsideration of these matters. In 1554, John Calvin proposed that "firmament" be interpreted as clouds.[12] "He who would learn astronomy and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere," wrote Calvin.[12] "As it became a theologian, [Moses] had to respect us rather than the stars," Calvin wrote. Calvin's doctrine of accommodation allowed Protestants to accept the findings of science without rejecting the authority of scripture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament


In 1584, Giordano Bruno proposed a cosmology without firmament: an infinite universe in which the stars are actually suns with their own planetary systems.[16] After Galileo began using a telescope to examine the sky, it became harder to argue that the heavens were perfect, as Aristotelian philosophy required. By 1630, the concept of solid orbs was no longer dominant.[17]
In the same article you quote above, you will find:  

The Greeks and Stoics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoics) adopted a model of celestial spheres (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres) after the discovery of the spherical Earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth)in the 4th to 3rd centuries BCE. The Medieval Scholastics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholastics) adopted a cosmology that fused the ideas of the Greek philosophers Aristotle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle) and Ptolemy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy).[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament#cite_note-14) This cosmology involved celestial orbs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavenly_sphere), nested concentrically inside one another, with the earth at the center. The outermost orb (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orb_(astrology)) contained the stars and the term firmament was then transferred to this orb. 

Note the last phrase:  "the term firmament was then transferred to this orb".  The word "firmament" changed its meaning to fit in with the traditional (spherical earth) geocentrism that was the consensus of Catholics for over a thousand years.  The use of the word "firmament" in the 16th century refers to this traditional Catholic sense.  It does not mean that anybody then believed the earth was flat with a dome over it.

While your partial quotes give an impression that the article disagrees with me, it is clear enough when one reads the whole thing that it supports what I have said.

Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 11, 2018, 06:07:58 AM
Anyone with surveying experience knows this intuitively, ...

See, you keep saying stuff like this.  I am in search of scientific proof and not false assertions like this.  INTUITIVELY it looks like a boat is disappearing over the horizon.  But then you zoom in with a camera and can see the entire thing.  Visual observation is not proof.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 11, 2018, 06:11:21 AM
.
Since no one has managed to respond to the OP after 3 pages (while pretending to have responded) I'll post it again, with more material:
.
.
Anybody who gives the flat earth idea the slightest amount of critical examination will realize that it's complete balderdash.  
.

For at least some, their ignorance is willful and impudent, therefore quite repulsive.
.

I have responded several times to the OP, that visual phenomenon does not prove globe earth.

And this here is an example of your obvious emotional attachment to the issue which makes it difficult to accept you as an unbiased source of factual information.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: aryzia on May 11, 2018, 07:33:36 AM
.
"The math formula" is not applied correctly by flat-earthers. That's the point.
It's not perfect but it's close enough. Ballers think level means curved when it's convenient to their argument.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: aryzia on May 11, 2018, 07:34:54 AM
This cracks me up. No one said it's necessary but holding to globe earth won't save you? LOL! This contradictory and unproven theory, as you call it, is the globe earth theory correct? The enemy is the Devil correct? Globe Earth is of the Devil according to you. You are saying this won't save a person who holds this opinion. There is no difference between either way of expressing it. You are a Dogmatic Flatearthist. You believe FE is a necessary aspect of faith. The way you just tried to hide it is silly.
Wow, it went way over your head didn't it!
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: aryzia on May 11, 2018, 07:37:36 AM
Like I just pointed out to Aryzia, she holds it to be a necessary article of faith, even though she tried to shroud it in ambiguity. Since there is no Church teaching which defines or even mentions FE, to say someone will not be saved or is not Catholic for not believing in it, is Schismatic.
Wrong.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 11, 2018, 07:45:28 AM
It only has Biblical roots if you don't understand allegory and you are trying to distort Scripture.

That's debatable.  Quite a few Church Fathers read the Bible as promoting a flat earth world view.  They cannot be dismissed as being ignorant.

I could see either case being made, but I also would not rule out the Flat Earth view.  Scripture is to be taken literally unless it's obvious that a passage is metaphorical or allegorical.

But the Church has never officially taught flat earth OR globe earth, so this is a disputed question.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 11, 2018, 07:50:29 AM
In the same article you quote above, you will find:  

The Greeks and Stoics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoics) adopted a model of celestial spheres (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres) after the discovery of the spherical Earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth)in the 4th to 3rd centuries BCE. The Medieval Scholastics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholastics) adopted a cosmology that fused the ideas of the Greek philosophers Aristotle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle) and Ptolemy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy).[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament#cite_note-14) This cosmology involved celestial orbs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavenly_sphere), nested concentrically inside one another, with the earth at the center. The outermost orb (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orb_(astrology)) contained the stars and the term firmament was then transferred to this orb.

Note the last phrase:  "the term firmament was then transferred to this orb".  The word "firmament" changed its meaning to fit in with the traditional (spherical earth) geocentrism that was the consensus of Catholics for over a thousand years.  The use of the word "firmament" in the 16th century refers to this traditional Catholic sense.  It does not mean that anybody then believed the earth was flat with a dome over it.

While your partial quotes give an impression that the article disagrees with me, it is clear enough when one reads the whole thing that it supports what I have said.

Firmament is an interpretive translation of a Hebrew word that means "expanse".

Greeks came up with the spherical earth notion, but ancient peoples before that all held a flat earth world view.  I do not dismiss it lightly when lots of ancient cultures scattered around the world and having little contact with one another happen to come up with a nearly-identical world view.  No, it's not proof of anything, but something to be weighed in the discussion as being of some significance.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Jaynek on May 11, 2018, 08:38:14 AM
The only reason it's debatable is because the FE's are trying to destroy all credibility of the Church, so they try to tie it into the Catholic Faith. 
I don't think this is a fair way to express it, although I agree with your overall analysis of the situation. The way you put sounds like they intend to harm the Church.  It is unlikely that the Flat Earthers on this forum deliberately intend this, no matter how obvious this is to us as the consequence of their actions.  

These people seem to have convinced themselves that somehow they are defending the Church from her enemies.  You and I think they are completely wrong about this, but I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt in regards to their motives.  
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Jaynek on May 11, 2018, 08:55:20 AM
Greeks came up with the spherical earth notion, but ancient peoples before that all held a flat earth world view.  I do not dismiss it lightly when lots of ancient cultures scattered around the world and having little contact with one another happen to come up with a nearly-identical world view.  No, it's not proof of anything, but something to be weighed in the discussion as being of some significance.
The "significance" of the views of ancient pagans is that they are evidence that people's immediate perceptions seem to show the earth is flat.  One needs to reason from observed phenomena to deduce that it is a sphere.  One may debate the observations or the reasoning, but even the most ardent supporter of spherical earth knows that it is not immediately perceived by the senses.  All you are doing is finding evidence for a point that nobody would disagree with.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 11, 2018, 09:16:16 AM
There are few that one can point to it being their opinion. Lactantius is the only one which claims it's a matter of faith. St. Basil and St. Augustine explicitly say this topic is not in Scripture and is not worthy of serious thought. No one's saying they were ignorant. The ones who did hold the FE opinion seemed to hold it not as a matter of faith, but as the common opinion where they were. Like I said though, there weren't that many who wrote about it.
The only reason it's debatable is because the FE's are trying to destroy all credibility of the Church, so they try to tie it into the Catholic Faith. They get Catholics to believe in it by exaggerating the importance among the Fathers and twisting Scripture to attempt to make it a religious matter. There's a reason why this subject was not brought up for about 1500 years.

I was just saying that the Fathers who did see the Bible as teaching Flat Earth were not ignorant ... and the Bible CAN credibly be interpreted that way.  At no point have I said that it's de fide or otherwise indisputable.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 11, 2018, 09:17:45 AM
The "significance" of the views of ancient pagans is that they are evidence that people's immediate perceptions seem to show the earth is flat.

There's more detail in those views (that's similar in all their models) than can be attributed to naive naked-eye observations.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 11, 2018, 09:33:09 AM

At the end of the day, I want to know the truth about this matter, but instead of real experiments that prove their thesis, you get a lot of rhetoric and false evidence (interpreted to support their theory due to simple confirmation bias).  Perhaps the globe earthers don't go out of their way to prove this because they assume that it's true and doesn't need proof.  So they do a lot of "it's just clear to anyone who has eyes" type of stuff ... that I find decidedly unconvincing.
.
IF "at the end of the day" you want to know the truth, then what do you have to say about the following objective test?
.
The little blue arrows are independent observations of which direction an observer looks from his location into the sky to see the sun.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwGG3x3v8RA
.
I won't be surprised if Ladislaus conveniently ignores this question.
.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: happenby on May 11, 2018, 09:40:29 AM
It only has Biblical roots if you don't understand allegory and you are trying to distort Scripture.
You are spreading false information in suggesting that Scripture is allegorical as if the literal sense does not take precedence. 
Scripture must always be interpreted in the literal unless proven otherwise.  Globe earth has not been proven.  And the Fathers who taught about the form of the earth, taught flat earth.
Providenssimus Deus says:
A wide field is still left open to the private student, in which his hermeneutical skill may display itself with signal effect and to the advantage of the Church. On the one hand, in those passages of Holy Scripture which have not as yet received a certain and definitive interpretation, such labors may, in the benignant providence of God, prepare for and bring to maturity the judgment of the Church; on the other, in passages already defined, the private student may do work equally valuable, either by setting them forth more clearly to the flock and more skillfully to scholars, or by defending them more powerfully from hostile attack.


 The Holy Fathers “to whom, after the Apostles, the Church owes its growth — who have planted, watered, built, governed, and cherished it,”39 the Holy Fathers, We say, are of supreme authority, whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith. The opinion of the Fathers is also of very great weight when they treat of these matters in their capacity of doctors, unofficially; not only because they excel in their knowledge of revealed doctrine and in their acquaintance with many things which are useful in understanding the apostolic Books, but because they are men of eminent sanctity and of ardent zeal for the truth, on whom God has bestowed a more ample measure of His light. Wherefore the expositor should make it his duty to follow their footsteps with all reverence, and to use their labors with intelligent appreciation.

 But he must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine — not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: happenby on May 11, 2018, 09:42:10 AM
I was just saying that the Fathers who did see the Bible as teaching Flat Earth were not ignorant ... and the Bible CAN credibly be interpreted that way.  At no point have I said that it's de fide or otherwise indisputable.
Equally true is that Scripture CANNOT be credibly interpreted as describing earth is a globe. 
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Jaynek on May 11, 2018, 09:42:45 AM
I was not talking about the FE's on this forum. I am talking about the people behind this movement. I worded it wrong. I refer to the people on this forum as Dogmatic Flatearthists because they have been duped into thinking it's a Dogma.
The FE's behind this movement are enemies of the faith. They know the world will look at this opinion as "crazy". The devil knows that to introduce this as being a doctrine, not only will it discredit the faith but it has the added bonus of a schism. There is no doubt that a lot of people on this forum believe this is necessary and that others who believe in GE have no hope of salvation unless they convert to FE, whether they say it like that or not.
That makes sense when I think of dodgy people like influential flat-earther, Eric Dubay.  I know he is an enemy of the faith. It is plausible that they want to dupe Catholics into accepting flat earth in order to harm the Church.

I agree that, while few of the FEs here explicitly say that Flat earth is a dogma, many of them seem to constantly imply or suggest it.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Jaynek on May 11, 2018, 09:44:03 AM
There's more detail in those views (that's similar in all their models) than can be attributed to naive naked-eye observations.
Could you give some examples, please?  I can't think of anything that supports this claim.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: happenby on May 11, 2018, 09:47:07 AM
Fair enough. I just didn't want those undecided who may be reading to be persuaded by the FE movement's exaggeration of FE belief among the Fathers.
I tend to agree with these opinions, since it hasn't been decided by the Church.

St. Augustine, The literal meaning of Genesis: "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. Basil, Hexaemeron: “Those who have written about the nature of the universe have discussed at length the shape of the earth… It will not lead me to give less importance to the creation of the universe, that the servant of God, Moses, is silent as to shapes…He has passed over in silence, as useless, all that is unimportant for us. Shall I then prefer foolish wisdom to the oracles of the Holy Spirit? Shall I not rather exalt Him who, not wishing to fill our minds with these vanities, has regulated all the economy of Scripture in view of the edification and the making perfect of our souls? It is this which those seem to me not to have understood, who, giving themselves up to the distorted meaning of allegory, have undertaken to give a majesty of their own invention to Scripture. It is to believe themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and to bring forth their own ideas under a pretext of exegesis. Let us hear Scripture as it has been written.”

I would also like to add that if one were to try to draw the flat Earth interpretation from Scripture, one would run into different contradictions. I've mentioned these before in previous threads.

LEO XIII: “Wherefore, it is clear that that interpretation must be rejected as senseless and false, which either makes inspired authors in some manner quarrel among themselves, or opposes the teaching of the Church. . . .”
This is an attempt that makes the inspired authors in some manner quarrel among themselves, or oppose the teaching of the Church.  No where do the Fathers teach globe earth.  No where does Scripture describe a globe.   
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: happenby on May 11, 2018, 09:49:42 AM
Firmament is an interpretive translation of a Hebrew word that means "expanse".

Greeks came up with the spherical earth notion, but ancient peoples before that all held a flat earth world view.  I do not dismiss it lightly when lots of ancient cultures scattered around the world and having little contact with one another happen to come up with a nearly-identical world view.  No, it's not proof of anything, but something to be weighed in the discussion as being of some significance.
Sorry, tried, but cannot make the font smaller.


Origen
called the firmament "without doubt firm and solid" (First Homily on Genesis, FC 71).

St. Ambrose, commenting on Gen 1:6, said, 'the specific solidity of this exterior firmament is meant' (Hexameron, FC 42.60).

St. Augustine said the word firmament was used 'to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that it constitutes an impassable boundary between the waters above and the waters below' (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, ACW 41.1.61)." - p. 236

Saint Basil: “Now we must say something about the nature of the firmament, and why it received the order to hold the middle place between the waters. Scripture constantly makes use of the word firmament to express extraordinary strength....‘I made firm her pillars [Ps. 75:3].’ ‘Praise ye Him in the firmament of His power [Ps. 150:1].’ It is the custom of Scripture to call firmament all that is strong and unyielding. It even uses the word to denote the condensation of the air. God says, ‘For, behold, I am He that strengthens the thunder [Amos 4:13].’ Scripture means by the strengthening of the thunder, the strength and resistance of the wind, which, enclosed in the hollows of the clouds, produces the noise of thunder when it breaks through with violence. Here then, according to me, is a firm substance, capable of retaining the fluid and unstable element water; and as, according to the common acceptation, it appears that the firmament owes its origin to water, we must not believe that it resembles frozen water or any other matter produced by the filtration of water. For I am taught by Scripture not to allow my imagination to wander too far afield. But do not let us forget to remark that, after these divine words, ‘Let there be a firmament [Gen. 1:6],’ it is not said ‘and the firmament was made’ but, ‘God made the firmament, and God divided between the water that was under the firmament and between the water that was above the firmament [Gen. 1:7].’.  Saint Basil, “Hom. III(9),” Hexaemeron, NPNF, 2nd Ser., Vol. VIII.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: happenby on May 11, 2018, 09:57:27 AM
There are few that one can point to it being their opinion. Lactantius is the only one which claims it's a matter of faith. St. Basil and St. Augustine explicitly say this topic is not in Scripture and is not worthy of serious thought. No one's saying they were ignorant. The ones who did hold the FE opinion seemed to hold it not as a matter of faith, but as the common opinion where they were. Like I said though, there weren't that many who wrote about it.
The only reason it's debatable is because the FE's are trying to destroy all credibility of the Church, so they try to tie it into the Catholic Faith. They get Catholics to believe in it by exaggerating the importance among the Fathers and twisting Scripture to attempt to make it a religious matter. There's a reason why this subject was not brought up for about 1500 years.
Augustine says many things about the flat earth, including the quotes provided above about the firmament.  The intended purpose of bringing flat earth up time and again is to get people to take seriously the subject and dig up documents for full evaluation, do experiments, study the subject with an open mind.  There is a trend in the Church and it doesn't favor the globe pretty much ever.  For those who insist on calling me and others "dogmatic flat earthers", your attempts to discourage discussion, thwart the words and intentions of the Fathers, and otherwise use categorical commentary to denounce people shows contempt for no reason. 
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 11, 2018, 10:01:26 AM
Equally true is that Scripture CANNOT be credibly interpreted as describing earth is a globe.

But it can be credibly interpreted as describing neither one, i.e. not attempting to describe the shape of the earth at all.

Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: happenby on May 11, 2018, 10:05:28 AM
There are few that one can point to it being their opinion. Lactantius is the only one which claims it's a matter of faith. St. Basil and St. Augustine explicitly say this topic is not in Scripture and is not worthy of serious thought. No one's saying they were ignorant. The ones who did hold the FE opinion seemed to hold it not as a matter of faith, but as the common opinion where they were. Like I said though, there weren't that many who wrote about it.
The only reason it's debatable is because the FE's are trying to destroy all credibility of the Church, so they try to tie it into the Catholic Faith. They get Catholics to believe in it by exaggerating the importance among the Fathers and twisting Scripture to attempt to make it a religious matter. There's a reason why this subject was not brought up for about 1500 years.
By the way, the second paragraph reveals your problem.  How could FE destroy the credibility of the Church except for fear of being called stupid for believing it?  It's a popular notion that anyone who thinks the world is flat, must be stupid, a very clever and effective game the propagandists would love to continue. It shows human respect.  FE is beautiful and sensible.  Many elements of the Church, the tabernacle and the liturgy, are tied to it, according to the Fathers. 
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Jaynek on May 11, 2018, 10:06:30 AM
You are spreading false information in suggesting that Scripture is allegorical as if the literal sense does not take precedence.  
Scripture must always be interpreted in the literal unless proven otherwise. 
There is a bit of confusion here, possibly due to terminology.  When one speaks of allegory that means things like a spiritualized meaning.  For example, we are required to believe there was a literal, historical Adam and Eve.  We cannot say that Adam and Eve are merely a symbol representing the human condition.  It is permitted to say that there are multiple levels of meaning.  So, in the example of Adam and Eve, they both really existed in history and are spiritual symbols.

This is a different issue from figures of speech.  When we see a phrase like "God saved the people with a mighty arm" we should not take that literally and claim that God has a physical body. There is no requirement to take figures of speech literally and it can be an error to do so. In traditional Catholic (spherical earth) geocentrism and more recent understandings of spherical earth, Catholics understood Scripture that uses flat earth imagery to be using figures of speech.

There is usually no requirement to prove that something is a figure of speech.  Normally it is something that is obvious to reason.  The majority of Catholics throughout history, including Saints and Doctors of the Church, thought that it was obvious to reason that flat earth language in Scripture was a figure of speech.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 11, 2018, 10:08:07 AM
I won't be surprised if Ladislaus conveniently ignores this question.

Stop acting like a baby, would you?

I looked at the video.  It's simply trying to show that the math of sun direction looks cleaner on a globe model vs. flat earth.  It's the same reasoning used to promote heliocentrism, that geocentric math is ugly compared to heliocentric.  In the video, the beams are shown as crossing over one another, but if you cut them off sooner, they generally converge into a triangle at some point.  So the way it's represented in the video makes it look uglier and nearly impossible, since once they converge at the triangle, then they take off in opposite directions, which would make a single light source impossible.  So cut off the arrows as soon as they converge, at a closer distance to the earth, and it's not quite as ugly as this video makes it out to be.  And this falls short of "proof" also.  Where's the hard proof?  Flat earthers could take this video as proof that the sun is much closer to the earth than science tells us.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Jaynek on May 11, 2018, 10:08:18 AM
But it can be credibly interpreted as describing neither one, i.e. not attempting to describe the shape of the earth at all.
This interpretation is the one supported in magisterial teaching, so I think it is more than credible.  
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: happenby on May 11, 2018, 10:13:33 AM
But it can be credibly interpreted as describing neither one, i.e. not attempting to describe the shape of the earth at all.
Just the Fathers' comments on the firmament say otherwise.  If all their commentary on the firmament was the only place Scripture described the earth, that would almost be enough to eliminate globe earth because the Fathers talk quite a bit about it being a vault-like structure above earth, a dome, a tent, an expanse, and that it divides the water above from the water below.  How does a dome/tent/vault apply to a globe?  The division of water is pretty telling as well. Now, since some might stretch these things to accommodate the globe, there are other aspects of what the Fathers have expounded on that help close the gaps.  Beyond that, the Fathers' silence on the globe is deafening.           
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Jaynek on May 11, 2018, 10:25:50 AM
Augustine says many things about the flat earth, including the quotes provided above about the firmament.  The intended purpose of bringing flat earth up time and again is to get people to take seriously the subject and dig up documents for full evaluation, do experiments, study the subject with an open mind.  There is a trend in the Church and it doesn't favor the globe pretty much ever.  For those who insist on calling me and others "dogmatic flat earthers", your attempts to discourage discussion, thwart the words and intentions of the Fathers, and otherwise use categorical commentary to denounce people shows contempt for no reason.
The use of the word "firmament" does not necessary imply that the author believes the earth is flat with a dome.  The term was co-opted by Catholics who accepted traditional geocentrism to describe a sphere surrounding the spherical earth.  Neither does rejection of antipodes imply belief in flat earth.  You keep seeing support for flat earth is passages that do not actually support it, giving you an exaggerated sense of just how much of this existed.

The "trend in the Church" is that belief in flat earth disappeared for over a thousand years.  There is no reason to take it seriously based on appeals to Catholic belief.  If you have good science arguments for flat earth, go ahead and make them.  Pretending that it is backed by the Church just destroys your credibility.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: happenby on May 11, 2018, 10:28:55 AM
The use of the word "firmament" does not necessary imply that the author believes the earth is flat with a dome.  The term was co-opted by Catholics who accepted traditional geocentrism to describe a sphere surrounding the spherical earth.  Neither does rejection of antipodes imply belief in flat earth.  You keep seeing support for flat earth is passages that do not actually support it, giving you an exaggerated sense of just how much of this existed.

The "trend in the Church" is that belief in flat earth disappeared for over a thousand years.  There is no reason to take it seriously based on appeals to Catholic belief.  If you have good science arguments for flat earth, go ahead and make them.  Pretending that it is backed by the Church just destroys your credibility.
If my credibility is destroyed for helping people to understand Catholic opinion unsullied by spinners, let it be so. 
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Jaynek on May 11, 2018, 10:35:30 AM
If my credibility is destroyed for helping people to understand Catholic opinion unsullied by spinners, let it be so.
Can you give an opinion from a Catholic authority (Saints, Doctors, magisterial sources) any time after 700 that suggests that the earth is flat?

Genuine Catholic opinions persist throughout time.  They do not disappear for a thousand years and then get revived by heretics and promoted by pagans.  Pointing that out is not spin.  
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Meg on May 11, 2018, 10:41:32 AM
Can you give an opinion from a Catholic authority (Saints, Doctors, magisterial sources) any time after 700 that suggests that the earth is flat?

Genuine Catholic opinions persist throughout time.  They do not disappear for a thousand years and then get revived by heretics and promoted by pagans.  That is not spin.  

So genuine Catholic opinion still exists in the church as it is today?

Has it really persisted through today? You don't believe that Truth has been eclipsed or distorted by modernism?
Title: Another Topic!?/Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: AlligatorDicax on May 11, 2018, 11:31:28 AM

I'll start a new thread.  I have been sitting on some quotes from Saint and Doctor, St. John Damascene.  It's fairly relevant to your assertion above.

As of yesterday ca. noon (EDT), there were already 205 topics here in this flattist ghetto.

I beg you to please consider whether this flattist ghetto needs yet another topic.  Yet another topic here which, no matter how carefully you attempt to focus its discussion/debates by creating it with a clearly phrased Subject [], will most likely collapse into yet another free-for-all ignoring that Subject, and shovelling in so much of the flattist [expletives deleted] that've caused readers' eyes to glaze over, again & again.  Meanwhile, new discussion/debates that are dead-center on-topic will be posted into other practically random topic.  Which will stimulate spherist responses that were already adequate rebuttals in whatever topics they were initially posted, but where they were of course rejected on axiomatic grounds a priori by the flattists [×].

I don't intend herein to pick on any CathInfo member in particular, but I can't overlook such a well-timed hook for my protest.  It does apply to all members.  So yes, I was already exasperated with 'Neil Obstat' when he started this very topic earlier this week.

-------
Note †: E.g., The highly relevant topic on the 1893 encyclical letter by Pope Leo XIII: Proventissimus Deus.  An encyclical whose meaning is still being debated late this week, but the tightly-focused topic has fallen thro' lack of use (i.e., not since "February 11, 2018, 23:52:36 (CDT)") to near the bottom of this subforum's index-page 4.

Note ×: E.g., "Why can't you globists show me even 1 convincing photo of your 'blue-marble' globe?  Oh!  But of course, I refuse (a priori) to accept any images from any national or supranational space agencies, because they are all demonic."
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: happenby on May 11, 2018, 11:43:27 AM
Can you give an opinion from a Catholic authority (Saints, Doctors, magisterial sources) any time after 700 that suggests that the earth is flat?

Genuine Catholic opinions persist throughout time.  They do not disappear for a thousand years and then get revived by heretics and promoted by pagans.  Pointing that out is not spin.  
A possible non-literary but graphic indication that people in the Middle Ages believed that the Earth (or perhaps the world) was a sphere is the use of the orb (globus cruciger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globus_cruciger)) in the regalia of many kingdoms and of the Holy Roman Empire. It is attested from the time of the Christian late-Roman emperor Theodosius II (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_II) (423) throughout the Middle Ages; the Reichsapfel was used in 1191 at the coronation of emperor Henry VI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VI,_Holy_Roman_Emperor). However the word 'orbis' means 'circle' and there is no record of a globe as a representation of the Earth since ancient times in the west till that of Martin Behaim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Behaim) in 1492. Additionally it could well be a representation of the entire 'world' or cosmos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos).


The Fathers had already spoken and the pagans were silenced for centuries.  As seen in Wiki above.  Some truths are held back for generations because they don't apply, but not because they aren't true.          
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Jaynek on May 11, 2018, 12:11:20 PM
So genuine Catholic opinion still exists in the church as it is today?

Has it really persisted through today? You don't believe that Truth has been eclipsed or distorted by modernism?
The belief that underlies pretty much every variation of traditional Catholicism that appears on this forum is that we are able to identify when Truth has been distorted my modernism by looking at the Tradition (and tradition) of the Church as it has persisted through time.  Genuine Catholic opinion still exists among those of us who seek it out.

The people who try to introduce new ideas and practices into Catholicism on the basis that they existed in the early Church are guilty of archeologism. 

Quote
Archaeologism is not so much a heresy as a trend, a certain approach to Catholic liturgy and practice. Its distinguishing characteristic is an excessive value placed on those Catholic practices which came earlier in historical-chronological succession. For the archaeologist, first is always best. A practice or prayer of the patristic Church is "better" or "purer" than a practice of the medieval Church. 

http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/theology/81-theology/364-archaeologism.html (http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/theology/81-theology/364-archaeologism.html)
I think that everyone here is aware of how destructive this trend has been to the Church in recent centuries.  If not, read the article which is the source of the quote.  tl;dr It was a major influence on Vatican II.

To rely on a patristic interpretation of Scripture (that did not even have acceptance from all of the Fathers) while ignoring that it disappeared from Catholicism for over a thousand years is an example of archeologism.   

There is a reason that the belief in flat earth disappeared and it wasn't pagans, Copernicus or Freemasons.  It is because our ancestors in the Faith discerned that spherical earth was true.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Jaynek on May 11, 2018, 12:15:25 PM
A possible non-literary but graphic indication that people in the Middle Ages believed that the Earth (or perhaps the world) was a sphere is the use of the orb (globus cruciger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globus_cruciger)) in the regalia of many kingdoms and of the Holy Roman Empire. It is attested from the time of the Christian late-Roman emperor Theodosius II (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_II) (423) throughout the Middle Ages; the Reichsapfel was used in 1191 at the coronation of emperor Henry VI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VI,_Holy_Roman_Emperor). However the word 'orbis' means 'circle' and there is no record of a globe as a representation of the Earth since ancient times in the west till that of Martin Behaim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Behaim) in 1492. Additionally it could well be a representation of the entire 'world' or cosmos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos).


The Fathers had already spoken and the pagans were silenced for centuries.  As seen in Wiki above.  Some truths are held back for generations because they don't apply, but not because they aren't true.          
How is any of this an answer to my question?  I asked if you could cite a Catholic authority teaching that the earth is flat after 700 AD.  I'll take your answer above as a "no".
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: happenby on May 11, 2018, 12:16:02 PM


There is a reason that the belief in flat earth disappeared and it wasn't pagans, Copernicus or Freemasons.  It is because our ancestors in the Faith discerned that spherical earth was true.
Prove it.  You continue to make assertions that you cannot prove.  Until you do, this (above), and the rest of your assertions are dismissed and your persistent contradiction of the Fathers and Scripture have been duly noted. 
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: happenby on May 11, 2018, 12:21:34 PM
How is any of this an answer to my question?  I asked if you could cite a Catholic authority teaching that the earth is flat after 700 AD.  I'll your answer above as a "no".
As I've told you before, I'm not willing to continue to feed you information directly because you're hell bent on your spin. However, in the spirit of what you asked, I pose a similar question to you: Can you cite a Catholic authority that teaches earth is a globe in any age? 
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Jaynek on May 11, 2018, 12:30:47 PM
Prove it.  You continue to make assertions that you cannot prove.  Until you do, this (above), and the rest of your assertions are dismissed and your persistent contradiction of the Fathers and Scripture have been duly noted.
I have proven it.  Everybody but the handful of flat earthers here can tell that I have provided ample support for all my assertions.  It is obvious that you will dismiss them no matter what proof I offer.

As I've told you before, I'm not willing to continue to feed you information directly because you're hell bent on your spin. However, in the spirit of what you asked, I pose a similar question to you: Can you cite a Catholic authority that teaches earth is a globe in any age?  
Yes, and I have already done so.  I have posted quotes from Fathers, from St. Bede, from St. Thomas Aquinas. I have demonstrated that virtually everything written against Galileo,etc was, in effect, support of traditional (spherical earth) geocentrism.  There is no reason for me to post the same quotes and arguments over and over again for those who are determined to dismiss them.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Meg on May 11, 2018, 12:40:44 PM
I have proven it.  Everybody but the handful of flat earthers here can tell that I have provided ample support for all my assertions. 

"Everybody but a handful of flat earthers here can tell that I have provided ample support for my assertions."

You have provided ample support for your OPINIONS. They are only opinions. 
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Truth is Eternal on May 11, 2018, 12:54:21 PM
I have proven it.  Everybody but the handful of flat earthers here can tell that I have provided ample support for all my assertions.  

You have provided ample support to prove your globe earth assertions false. Well done! ;D  :popcorn:
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: happenby on May 11, 2018, 01:09:27 PM
I have proven it.  Everybody but the handful of flat earthers here can tell that I have provided ample support for all my assertions.  It is obvious that you will dismiss them no matter what proof I offer.
Yes, and I have already done so.  I have posted quotes from Fathers, from St. Bede, from St. Thomas Aquinas. I have demonstrated that virtually everything written against Galileo,etc was, in effect, support of traditional (spherical earth) geocentrism.  There is no reason for me to post the same quotes and arguments over and over again for those who are determined to dismiss them.
You haven't proven anything of the kind.  I've re-presented quotes over and over because sometimes, they don't sink in for some people.  You made a claim above, so provide quotes in favor of spherical earth by Fathers and Saints, or don't make your claim. Extrapolating is all too common and since you're wont to do such, you'll have to defend your quote reasonably, and we'll see if it says what you claim.  We've already determined as a group that up until now, no one has produced Catholic teachings that support earth is a globe.  If we're wrong about that, prove it. The Galileo trial condemns heliocentrism but it doesn't support spheres of any kind. Even the Tychonian system didn't actually intend to teach about spherical bodies.  As a contemporary scientist preceding the Galileo Affair, Tycho, having written this himself, it cannot be certain anyone at that time took the spherical earth seriously: 


“There really are not any spheres in the heavens… Those of which have been devised by the experts to save the appearances exist only in the imagination, for the purpose of enabling the mind to conceive the motion which the heavenly bodies trace in their course and, by the aid of geometry, to determine the motion numerically through the use of arithmetic.”

-Tycho Brahe, On the Most Recent Phenomena of the Aetherial World, 1588
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Jaynek on May 11, 2018, 01:23:00 PM
Happenby, I have explained how you are misunderstanding that Tycho Brahe quote, just like I've explained all the other things you get wrong, just like I have already produced extensive documentation for all that I have claimed.  There is no reason why I should waste my time on producing these things again and again for you, merely for you to say "but that isn't proof" and make some excuse to ignore it. You may reread my old posts if you really want to see it.

If there is anybody new to this issue who wants to know about these things, let me know.  I will find my earlier posts or explain it again for you.  
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Meg on May 11, 2018, 02:23:42 PM
As I've told you before, I'm not willing to continue to feed you information directly because you're hell bent on your spin. However, in the spirit of what you asked, I pose a similar question to you: Can you cite a Catholic authority that teaches earth is a globe in any age?

You asked for a citation from a Catholic authority that teaches that the earth is a globe. So far, that citation has not been provided. Which makes sense, considering that the Church does not teach that the earth is a globe.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: happenby on May 11, 2018, 02:39:25 PM
Happenby, I have explained how you are misunderstanding that Tycho Brahe quote, just like I've explained all the other things you get wrong, just like I have already produced extensive documentation for all that I have claimed.  There is no reason why I should waste my time on producing these things again and again for you, merely for you to say "but that isn't proof" and make some excuse to ignore it. You may reread my old posts if you really want to see it.

If there is anybody new to this issue who wants to know about these things, let me know.  I will find my earlier posts or explain it again for you.  
I can read.  I don't need your spin.  Every time you post you qualify it with some twisted idea to escape the obvious.  You've actually said that Thomas Aquinas was your proof that earth is a globe when he didn't teach it at all.  He mentioned it.  Period.  He taught nothing about it, never compared it to Scripture, never expounded on it using the Fathers. You have continued to say that you proved the Church supported the globe earth, but failed in every way to show She did.  Certainly not at the Galileo Affair, which you assert. Conversely, I've shown multiple Fathers and multiple Scripture quotes for claims that the Church supports, even teaches flat earth.  Not to mention dozens of proofs from math and science.  All you can do is parrot the pagan scientists, begging the question, obsess over which model had the greatest number of proponents and miss answering the posts you dare not address.  Your argument collapsed weeks ago, but I will be happy to slice and dice ad infinitum. 
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Jaynek on May 11, 2018, 02:53:57 PM
You asked for a citation from a Catholic authority that teaches that the earth is a globe. So far, that citation has not been provided. Which makes sense, considering that the Church does not teach that the earth is a globe.
I explicitly defined Catholic authority as including Saints and Doctors of the Church.  It is perfectly possible to have statements from such even when there is no magisterial teaching (which is normally what is meant by "Church teaching").

And, in fact, this is the case with the question of globe earth.  There is no magisterial teaching explicitly saying the earth is a globe.  There are many Saints and Doctors who believed or taught that earth is a globe.  This is only to be expected of the predominant position throughout Catholic history.  I have provided quotes from a small proportion of the total number possible, but enough to support what I have claimed.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: happenby on May 11, 2018, 03:04:50 PM
I explicitly defined Catholic authority as including Saints and Doctors of the Church.  It is perfectly possible to have statements from such even when there is no magisterial teaching (which is normally what is meant by "Church teaching").

And, in fact, this is the case with the question of globe earth.  There is no magisterial teaching explicitly saying the earth is a globe.  There are many Saints and Doctors who believed or taught that earth is a globe.  This is only to be expected of the predominant position throughout Catholic history.  I have provided quotes from a small proportion of the total number possible, but enough to support what I have claimed.
Again, do show us the many Saints and Doctors who taught earth is a globe. 
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 12, 2018, 01:46:33 AM
I explicitly defined Catholic authority as including Saints and Doctors of the Church.  It is perfectly possible to have statements from such even when there is no magisterial teaching (which is normally what is meant by "Church teaching").

And, in fact, this is the case with the question of globe earth.  There is no magisterial teaching explicitly saying the earth is a globe.  There are many Saints and Doctors who believed or taught that earth is a globe.  This is only to be expected of the predominant position throughout Catholic history.  I have provided quotes from a small proportion of the total number possible, but enough to support what I have claimed.
.
It is entirely irrelevant what the Church Doctors or saints or Popes have said regarding the shape of the earth.
.
The authority of the Church does not extend to physical realities that can be determined by objective observation.
.
The Church has no authority to define physical reality.
.
Other examples of physical reality where the Church has no authority to define or bind Catholics by faith:
- The molecular weights of the various elements
- The physical properties of any or all elements of the Periodic Table
- The Periodic Table of the elements
- Any or all aspects of Chemistry in general
- The area of a continent measured in any of the many units possible
- The frequency of Concert A as used by an orchestra
- The location of the Greenwich meridian or any other meridian
- The elevation of the front portico steps of St. Peter's Basilica above mean sea level
- The coordinates of the same steps in latitude and longitude
- The speed of sound in air at 29 in.Hg and 20 deg.C.
- The diameter of the earth
- The Geographic Position (GP) of Polaris 
- The Geographic Position of the Southern Cross
- The Zenith of the Sistine Chapel at a specific moment in time
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Jaynek on May 12, 2018, 02:14:20 AM
.
It is entirely irrelevant what the Church Doctors or saints or Popes have said regarding the shape of the earth.
.
The authority of the Church does not extend to physical realities that can be determined by objective observation.
.
The Church has no authority to define physical reality.
It is very relevant to assessing the truth of Flat-earther claims to be taking the the true Catholic position, while those who believe the earth is a sphere are siding with the enemies of the Church.

This FE claim is false, regardless of the actual shape of the earth.  Even if the earth were as flat as they think it is, they would be wrong about Church history and theology.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Meg on May 12, 2018, 09:35:48 AM
It is very relevant to assessing the truth of Flat-earther claims to be taking the the true Catholic position, while those who believe the earth is a sphere are siding with the enemies of the Church.

This FE claim is false, regardless of the actual shape of the earth.  Even if the earth were as flat as they think it is, they would be wrong about Church history and theology.

Still waiting for you to back up your claim that there are many saints and doctors who taught a globe earth. Happenby asked you about it yesterday, and your response has not been provided.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Meg on May 12, 2018, 10:03:38 AM
That's okay. We're still waiting for proof of the claim that many saints and doctors taught flat earth.

Of course it's okay with you that Jayne hasn't backed up what she claimed. That's a typical sede ploy, and of course you're alright with that. 
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Truth is Eternal on May 12, 2018, 11:22:28 AM
I can't hear you over the sound of your hypocrisy.
I don't remember you sounding the alarm that Happenby hasn't backed up her claims.
That's a typical R&Rist ploy, of course you're alright with that.
:laugh1:
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Jaynek on May 12, 2018, 11:48:41 AM
For the record, I am way closer to R&R (gave that as my answer on the recent survey) than to sede. But I think the issues are complex enough that I don't have any business telling people who come to a different conclusion than mine that they are wrong/heretics.

I have already been through many rounds of the quote game with happenby and Meg.  For those of you just tuning in, it goes like this:  I give a quote, FE gives a spurious objection, I explain why the objection is invalid, FE pretends I never gave a quote.  

Nor do I wish to see happenby's list of quotes again.  A large proportion don't even support flat earth but she ignores anyone who points that out or explains what they really mean to her.  Anyone explaining Meg and happenby's misunderstandings to them gets accused of spin and/or ignored.  

It is a waste of time to go through yet another iteration of this game with them.  I have provided quotes in the past.  Reasonable people can see that the quotes support my claims.  Even unreasonable people ought to be able to see that I have provided quotes.  I do not know why Meg is demanding that I provide quotes when she has already seen and discussed them

Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Meg on May 12, 2018, 01:37:58 PM
For the record, I am way closer to R&R (gave that as my answer on the recent survey) than to sede. But I think the issues are complex enough that I don't have any business telling people who come to a different conclusion than mine that they are wrong/heretics.

I have already been through many rounds of the quote game with happenby and Meg.  For those of you just tuning in, it goes like this:  I give a quote, FE gives a spurious objection, I explain why the objection is invalid, FE pretends I never gave a quote.  

Nor do I wish to see happenby's list of quotes again.  A large proportion don't even support flat earth but she ignores anyone who points that out or explains what they really mean to her.  Anyone explaining Meg and happenby's misunderstandings to them gets accused of spin and/or ignored.  

It is a waste of time to go through yet another iteration of this game with them.  I have provided quotes in the past.  Reasonable people can see that the quotes support my claims.  Even unreasonable people ought to be able to see that I have provided quotes.  I do not know why Meg is demanding that I provide quotes when she has already seen and discussed them

If you can't be bothered to provide the supposed teaching of the "many Saints and Doctors" who taught a globe earth, that's your choice. I wouldn't think that it would be all that difficult to format them all in one document or post, so that you can reference them as needed. 
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: happenby on May 12, 2018, 01:41:29 PM
For the record, I am way closer to R&R (gave that as my answer on the recent survey) than to sede. But I think the issues are complex enough that I don't have any business telling people who come to a different conclusion than mine that they are wrong/heretics.

I have already been through many rounds of the quote game with happenby and Meg.  For those of you just tuning in, it goes like this:  I give a quote, FE gives a spurious objection, I explain why the objection is invalid, FE pretends I never gave a quote.  

Nor do I wish to see happenby's list of quotes again.  A large proportion don't even support flat earth but she ignores anyone who points that out or explains what they really mean to her.  Anyone explaining Meg and happenby's misunderstandings to them gets accused of spin and/or ignored.  

It is a waste of time to go through yet another iteration of this game with them.  I have provided quotes in the past.  Reasonable people can see that the quotes support my claims.  Even unreasonable people ought to be able to see that I have provided quotes.  I do not know why Meg is demanding that I provide quotes when she has already seen and discussed them
You have not provided quotes to prove the Church supports the globe.   
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 12, 2018, 10:36:38 PM
It is very relevant to assessing the truth of Flat-earther claims to be taking the the true Catholic position, while those who believe the earth is a sphere are siding with the enemies of the Church.

This FE claim is false, regardless of the actual shape of the earth.  Even if the earth were as flat as they think it is, they would be wrong about Church history and theology.
.
The Church does not define in matters of irrelevancy to the Faith of Catholics.
You might as well look for a Church teaching on prime numbers or the volume of a sphere or the color blue.
If you want to play this silly game, however, then go right ahead, but it will never be resolved because it's based on nonsense.

"Flat" earth is complete balderdash.                    
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 13, 2018, 12:37:55 AM
Stop acting like a baby, would you?

I looked at the video.  It's simply trying to show that the math of sun direction looks cleaner on a globe model vs. flat earth.  It's the same reasoning used to promote heliocentrism, that geocentric math is ugly compared to heliocentric.  In the video, the beams are shown as crossing over one another, but if you cut them off sooner, they generally converge into a triangle at some point.  So the way it's represented in the video makes it look uglier and nearly impossible, since once they converge at the triangle, then they take off in opposite directions, which would make a single light source impossible.  So cut off the arrows as soon as they converge, at a closer distance to the earth, and it's not quite as ugly as this video makes it out to be.  And this falls short of "proof" also.  Where's the hard proof?  Flat earthers could take this video as proof that the sun is much closer to the earth than science tells us.
.
Amazing. A reply! Complete with the insult, of course.
.
"They generally converge into a triangle at some point." How do you keep coming up with garbage like this? The lines of sight do not "converge" at all "into a triangle" or anything else. Are you crosseyed or just full of it? There is absolutely no convergence whatsoever. And what is this "triangle" nonsense? What would a triangle have to do with anything here? The observers are not arranged in a triangle and the sun isn't a triangle. What's most glaringly obvious is the views arranged all around the "flat" earth have directions splaying out like the spokes on a wheel. Where do they "converge" when they're headed in opposite directions?
.
So it looks "neater" and therefore deceptive, eh? Cut off the arrows as soon as they converge -- but they don't converge.
They're all over the place.
.
Here's another version of a similar challenge (equinox) -- one where no flat-earthers participated, even when they were invited.
Because flat-earthers don't want to be involved in actual empirical experiment.
"Those who are SEEKING THE TRUTH sure don't want to participate in finding it."
They only want to SAY they're involved (but that's a lie).
Only one measurement "converged" and the rest of them were way off the mark.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9w4KtHxZ68
.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Theosist on May 13, 2018, 06:40:09 AM
Quote
It is entirely irrelevant what the Church Doctors or saints or Popes have said regarding the shape of the earth.
.
The authority of the Church does not extend to physical realities that can be determined by objective observation.
.
The Church has no authority to define physical reality.

This is just a straw man.

The Church doesn’t define any kind of reality. The Church defines true propositions about that reality which have been revealed by God, and what constitutes a “matter of faith” is not limited to things spiritual or only “essential to our salvation” - that’s Modernist  tripe of the kind that makes a nonsensical distinction between something being “theologically true” and otherwise! - no, it includes facts concerning human history, the nature of man, and cosmology. If the Bible states that the dimensions of Solomon’s Temple were x,y and z, the the Church has the power and authority to infallibly declare in this matter.

“Objective observation”, by the way, is a contradiction in terms, and the notion that a “physical reality” - by which really meant a theoretical model abstracted from sense experience, thus based not only upon uncertain data but upon  projecting conceptual fantasies into that data in order to postulate the existence of a world lying behind the content of sense experience - the notion that this process - of the blind grasping in the dark for a cat that might not exist at all - could take precedence over divine assurance of truth is preposterous.


 


Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Smedley Butler on May 13, 2018, 09:01:30 AM
The problem with your video, Neil, is that all the angles converge into a pyramid and then it magically turns them into parallel lines - with no explanation!

Of course, this is not what we see in reality.

What everyone sees, when sunbeams are filtered by the clouds, is a pyramid shape that ends at its source: the sun.

Ironically, this effectively demonstrates how close the sun is as well.

There are no parallel sunbeams in reality, which are described (and necessary) in the heliocentric model.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Jaynek on May 13, 2018, 09:07:50 AM
.
The Church does not define in matters of irrelevancy to the Faith of Catholics.
You might as well look for a Church teaching on prime numbers or the volume of a sphere or the color blue.
If you want to play this silly game, however, then go right ahead, but it will never be resolved because it's based on nonsense.

"Flat" earth is complete balderdash.                    
I do not expect it to be resolved.  These people are clearly not open to changing their minds in response to better information.  I point out historical and theological errors of flat-earthers so that casual observers of this forum will not get the impression that it is usual for trads to believe the earth is flat or that the Church teaches the earth is flat.  Observers will see that such flat earth claims are met with disagreement based on strong arguments.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Jaynek on May 13, 2018, 09:20:50 AM
.
Amazing. A reply! Complete with the insult, of course.
You have both been insulting each other enough that I cannot remember who started it.  

I find it rather frustrating.  Ladislaus is the main poster who is open to flat earth while acknowledging there is no basis for claiming flat earth as the Catholic position.  He seems genuinely interested in discovering the truth about the shape of the earth using science.  He is doing the right thing.

You are clearly knowledgeable about science in general and arguments for spherical earth in particular.  Both of you are very smart men.  There ought to be a rational, logical discussion of science taking place between you.  There is the potential for an extremely interesting discussion free from personal attacks, insults, or other emotional nonsense.

I feel frustrated that your exchanges fall short of this potential.  Is there some sort of bad history between you?  Or maybe it is a man thing that I just don't get because I am a woman.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 13, 2018, 10:21:49 AM
Is there some sort of bad history between you?  Or maybe it is a man thing that I just don't get because I am a woman.

No, there's no history.  Neil and I seem to agree on many/most issues.  And even on this issue I don't know if I disagree with him or not.  Except that I find the excessive emotionalism of his posts irritating.  He'll mock, taunt, and insult flat earth theory.  And many of the proofs he posts are only proofs if you believe them to be proofs due to confirmation bias.  So, for instance, the example of boats disappearing bottom-up at a distance.  I don't consider that to be proof unless one rules out other optical phenomena that could account for the observation.  I'm looking for hard-fast proof, and so far I've seen more attempts to do this on the side of the flat earthers, and most just rhetoric and mockery on the globe earth side.  Now, there's a lot of emotional rhetoric on both sides, but I'm talking about the "proofs" that remain after I sift out and discard the emotional content.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 13, 2018, 01:48:26 PM
This topic has really shown me my boundaries of intelligence. I still don't understand how it's not proof of a globe earth, that a large ship disappears over the horizon, bottom first, and when zoomed in on still does not expose the bottom part. It seems that if the ship gets zoomed in on and the bottom reappears it would NOT prove globe earth. It seems that if the world is curved, this would make sense.

I've seen video where the bottom DOES reappear after zooming in ... after it looks like it had disappeared, and after travelling a distance where it should not be there given curvature math.  There is an optical phenomenon where the bottom will converge with the plane underneath it.  And at some point the limit of the optics, the zoom, would be reached, and the same phenomenon would occur despite the magnification.  And then I've seen another phenomenon demonstrated where the bottom actually gets obscured by a mirror-image reflection of the higher part above the waves.  You can see birds flying over being reflected in mirror image on the bottom part.  But the bottom is still there, just optically hidden beneath a mirror image reflection of the higher part.

Given that one CAN observe the phenomenon of the bottom disappearing, and then have it reappear when you zoom in ... proves that the phenomenon is not necessarily related to earth curvature.  It's pretty simple logic.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: noOneImportant on May 13, 2018, 02:01:58 PM
The explanation I've gotten whenever I ask that same question is something about the "true law of perspective", which best I can tell involves light bending at sharp angles at arbitrary distances away whenever needed to make it work or something like that.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 13, 2018, 02:06:07 PM
I have seen flat earthers use lasers, sounds beams, and GPS devices accurate to within centimeters to demonstrate lack of curvature.  Unless the results were completely made up, and faked, that is the kind of proof that's irrefutable.  I've seen pictures taken by third parties who were not interested in the curvature problem where entire mountains can be seen from distances that should be impossible given curvature math.  Unless there was lots of "refraction" going on, then that would not be possible.

If globe earthers were to do the same thing, measure the distance between the tops of two buildings separated by a number of miles, and then compare it to the distance between their bottoms (assuming they were plumb and level) ... and show that the tops were farther away from one another than the bottoms, then I would consider that proof of curvature.  But I have not seen them produce anything like that.  I've seen one globe earther use lasers, but the result they had could have been achieved if the laser at the origin was tilted even slightly upward.  But when you do it the other way, and the laser still hits an object that should be obscured, that's much harder to fake.  Again ... unless the entire video was staged and fabricated.  I've seen flat earthers use GPS devices to show that the tops and bottoms of two buildings were exactly the same distance apart ... to within centimeters.  In addition to lasers, and GPS, they have used directed sound beams.

I don't trust anything that comes from NASA ... because they have been caught red-handed producing fakery.  They are on record admitting that their "pictures" of globe earth are composites.  And they have produced composites with widely varying look and sizes of continents, etc.  They've been caught using green screens while pretending that some astronaut was in space.  Why?

Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: noOneImportant on May 13, 2018, 02:08:16 PM
I have seen flat earthers use lasers, sounds beams, and GPS devices accurate to within centimeters to demonstrate lack of curvature.  Unless the results were completely made up, and faked, that is the kind of proof that's irrefutable.  I've seen pictures taken by third parties who were not interested in the curvature problem where entire mountains can be seen from distances that should be impossible given curvature math.  Unless there was lots of "refraction" going on, then that would not be possible.
These pictures get posted on this forum regularly, and they invariably match up with the expected curvature of the round earth when you do the math. I've done so several times if you feel like digging through my post history. Or just post one you think is convincing and I'd be interested to take a look at it.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 13, 2018, 02:11:41 PM
I get that. The point that the article I linked to made is that, there are times when you zoom in and it still does not come back. Some objects, no matter how much zoom you put on them, part of the object is still obscured.
There is the vanishing point where the object goes beyond your view. Some objects, you can zoom in on and they fully come back into focus. On the other hand, even with the best magnification cameras out there, there are larger objects where their entirety cannot come back into view past the vanishing. No matter how close one zooms. a percentage of the lower part of the object is still not in view. Globe earth says that it is over the horizon and being obscured by the curvature.
My point was that I don't know how a flat Earther would explain that. It seems to me that the only explanation would be that the curvature obscures the lower part of the object. We are only talking about objects past the vanishing point; i.e. out of view for our eyes.
Is this how you understand it and I'm still not getting it. LOL

As I said, there can be lots of explanation for this phenomenon.  Please produce something like the GPS experiment that flat earthers have used, and then I'm all ears
.
Now, I have not completely bought into flat earth due to the claim that refraction is possible in some cases.  So I go both ways on this.  If there's another possible explanation for the phenomenon, then I don't consider it hard proof.  While I think it unlikely that refraction can explain all the cases I've seen, I can't rule it out.  Otherwise, I would be 100% convinced of flat earth.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 13, 2018, 02:12:22 PM
These pictures get posted on this forum regularly, and they invariably match up with the expected curvature of the round earth when you do the math. I've done so several times if you feel like digging through my post history. Or just post one you think is convincing and I'd be interested to take a look at it.

No they don't.  I've checked that math using a curvature calculator.

I use this to check their math --
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=20&h0=6&unit=imperial
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: noOneImportant on May 13, 2018, 02:13:39 PM
Please post one that you don't think checks out.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Theosist on May 13, 2018, 02:43:31 PM
No they don't.  I've checked that math using a curvature calculator.

I use this to check their math --
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=20&h0=6&unit=imperial
Please explain how a light source alway at a large height above a flat Earth could cause mountains to cast shadows up into the sky.
(https://181ge72mb8rnbx7z1k119thi-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Teton-Mountains-Shadows-Sunrise.jpg)
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Theosist on May 13, 2018, 03:12:09 PM
Even those ancients who MAY have believed in a flat Earth believed that the Sun went under the rim of the world.

The great irony here is that modern flatters continually appeal to the “common sense” evidence of the senses - except when it comes to the Sun rising and setting. THEN they invoke terms like optical illusion and hocus pocus mechanisms.

Just like with the gravitational force. They laugh it off as magic, despite the universal applicability of its equations to both local and celestial mechanics - but then they invoke words like “pressure” and “density” without being able to account for why their “pressure” has a downward vector in the absence of an external force field (the reason something above you exerts a pressure upon you, whether is that it’s being PULLED IN a DIRECTION) or why objects still fall INSIDE VACUUMS (don’t even bother, you will never get an answer). Of course they have to deny the existence of a gravitational central force because it is incompatible with a finite flat
disk, not to mention a cylinder which would pull you toward its center.

In the case of the really dumb ones it’s “because down is down, duh” - yes, clearly it’s gravitati theory that is “absurd” (as if things attracting one another based upon their mass were any weirder than the electromagnetic force - we can have magnetism but we can’t have gravity, no sir, that gravitational stuff is a priori absurd because ... because ... because modern materialists HATE the notion of action-at-a-distance as it interferes with their only conceivable notion of causation, that of Democritan billiard balls bumping into one another)
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 13, 2018, 05:03:41 PM
Please explain how a light source alway at a large height above a flat Earth could cause mountains to cast shadows up into the sky.

Oh, stop it with this nonsense.  Who knows whether those are shadows of the mountains or something else?  In addition, there's nothing to stop the light source from bouncing off and reflecting from some other surface.  So this doesn't prove anything.

I'd be perfectly fine believing in a globe earth, since it's neither here not there where it comes to my faith.  I'm still waiting for that conclusive proof.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: noOneImportant on May 13, 2018, 05:20:16 PM
While I think Theosist is actually correct about that image, it's not conclusive.

I'm still waiting for you to provide an image of something that you believe shouldn't be visible due to curvature.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 13, 2018, 05:22:20 PM
I'm still waiting for you to provide an image of something that you believe shouldn't be visible due to curvature.

I will ... when I have time to dig back through them and find some.  I'd have to search for them again.  Many of them have been posted here before, and the globe earthers have not disputed the math ... but appealed to refraction.

Most famous example that comes to mind is the Chicago Skyline visible from Michigan.  Nobody disputes that it should not be visible due to curvature.  So the explanation is that it was a "mirage" ... basically refraction.

Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: noOneImportant on May 13, 2018, 05:24:04 PM
I've disputed the math. Refraction is usually a pretty negligible effect. I'll go dig up some of my old posts on the topic
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 13, 2018, 05:25:51 PM
I've disputed the math. Refraction is usually a pretty negligible effect. I'll go dig up some of my old posts on the topic

Chicago skyline visible from Michigan.  Meteorologist tried to explain it away as a mirage (aka refraction).

At 50 miles away, 1400+ feet should be hidden from view.  Their tallest building, the Sears Tower is 1700 feet tall, so the only thing that should have been visible is the top 300 feet of that tower.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 13, 2018, 05:28:17 PM
This is just a straw man.

The Church doesn’t define any kind of reality. The Church defines true propositions about that reality which have been revealed by God, and what constitutes a “matter of faith” is not limited to things spiritual or only “essential to our salvation” - that’s Modernist  tripe of the kind that makes a nonsensical distinction between something being “theologically true” and otherwise! - no, it includes facts concerning human history, the nature of man, and cosmology. If the Bible states that the dimensions of Solomon’s Temple were x,y and z, the the Church has the power and authority to infallibly declare in this matter.

“Objective observation”, by the way, is a contradiction in terms, and the notion that a “physical reality” - by which really meant a theoretical model abstracted from sense experience, thus based not only upon uncertain data but upon  projecting conceptual fantasies into that data in order to postulate the existence of a world lying behind the content of sense experience - the notion that this process - of the blind grasping in the dark for a cat that might not exist at all - could take precedence over divine assurance of truth is preposterous.

.
What you have said here is partially true, and partially false.
.
The Church doesn't define reality that we can verify by objective observation. 
Things like the depth of the sea, or the limits of the sun's northern or southern declination each year, for example.
But the Church DOES define reality in spiritual matters, such as the Assumption of Our Lady body and soul into heaven.
So to say "the Church doesn't define any kind of reality" is incorrect.
.
The dimensions of Solomon's temple is not something that can be verified because the temple no longer exists.
If the temple were still existing, the Church wouldn't declare that its dimensions are other than what can be observed.
Objective observation is its own reality, by the way.
There are those who deny the evidence of direct personal eyewitness. 
Thanks to Hegel, Locke, Hume, Comte, Kant, Marx, Nietzsche and their ilk, we have no shortage of deniers of observation.
I hope that's not what is infecting your perception!
.
Regarding the flat-earthers' claim that the sun is close to earth, a few thousand miles, here are some observations:
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYVYa3BdI84
.
The sun would be further away at sunrise, closer at high noon, and again further away at sunset.
Therefore the sun would appear smaller at sunrise and sunset than it does at noon.
But that is not what we see, in fact.
Flat-earthers go so far as to FALSIFY videos of the sun by not using a solar filter, which makes the sun appear larger than it is.
.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 13, 2018, 05:30:03 PM
I'll dig up the mountain pictures ... since those are independently sourced and not from a video put together by a flat earther.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 13, 2018, 05:36:35 PM
Chicago skyline visible from Michigan.  Meteorologist tried to explain it away as a mirage (aka refraction).

At 50 miles away, 1400+ feet should be hidden from view.  Their tallest building, the Sears Tower is 1700 feet tall, so the only thing that should have been visible is the top 300 feet of that tower.
.
If you knew anything about meteorology perhaps you would be better able to understand a meteorologist.
.
Are you aware, for example, that celestial navigation uses tables specifically developed and published (for hundreds of years now) containing correction factors for refraction when the celestial object being observed is low in the sky?
.
The fact is, the closer the object observed is to the horizon, the more subject to erroneous measurement it is due to refraction.
.
For this reason, navigators avoid taking readings of stars (or the sun) when they are very low in the sky.
.
And the sun's angle to the horizon at high noon is not measured AT high noon, but two readings are taken, one a number of minutes before noon and another the same number of minutes after noon, and the two are averaged to calculate the sun's angle at high noon.
.
I posted a video that explains this procedure previously.
.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Jaynek on May 13, 2018, 05:48:33 PM
.
If you knew anything about meteorology perhaps you would be better able to understand a meteorologist.
There isn't anything wrong with not knowing things.  It's a problem when people refuse to learn.  
People show mastery of a subject when they can explain it clearly to non-experts.  The goal is to convey information, not to show-off how clever one is.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: noOneImportant on May 13, 2018, 05:52:10 PM
Hmm, I stand corrected on the Chicago case. Apparently it is necessary to include some refraction to make the math work. There are some interesting videos (below) which are timelapses where you can actually see the amount of refraction change over the course of a day.

There's a long set of posts on that one in particular here (https://www.quora.com/Chicago-is-59-miles-from-the-opposite-shore-of-Lake-Michigan-Given-the-earth%E2%80%99s-curvature-it-should-be-2320-feet-below-the-horizon-How-can-it-be-seen) on Quora, and as you said they conclude that you need refraction to account for it. There's one post about halfway down the page (by a user named Tony Miller) where he says the proportions of Sears tower are distorted so there must be some refraction involved, which is intriguing.


here1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y6ii4vsdsc)
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 13, 2018, 06:44:29 PM
Hmm, I stand corrected on the Chicago case. Apparently it is necessary to include some refraction to make the math work.

And I've seen similar things with regard to the math ... where the response is refraction.  I can't rule out refraction of course ... which is why I don't consider this proof of flat earth.

So, as you can see, I apply the same criterion to both sides.  I'm looking for solid evidence one way or the other.  I don't consider the bottoms of ships disappearing to be concrete proof, but nor do I consider seeing things at distances where curvature math would rule it out concrete proof either.  I consider these two points to be a wash.

... things like lasers, sound beams, GPS measurements, etc.  I've seen some things from flat earthers n that category ... but nothing yet from the globe earthers.  But I don't consider it 100% either, since I can't rule out fakery in presenting the results.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 13, 2018, 08:55:33 PM
There isn't anything wrong with not knowing things.  It's a problem when people refuse to learn.  
People show mastery of a subject when they can explain it clearly to non-experts.  The goal is to convey information, not to show-off how clever one is.
.
The difficulty faced with trying to answer flat-earthers is, they run away and hide when you give them something to think about.
.
Then they come back forgetting everything you told them and pretend the problem still exists.
.
You can repeat your lesson or change it up for better view from another angle but they just run away again.
.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
.
When being precise and using a variety of styles isn't enough, then what is left?
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Jaynek on May 13, 2018, 09:07:35 PM
.
The difficulty faced with trying to answer flat-earthers is, they run away and hide when you give them something to think about.
.
Then they come back forgetting everything you told them and pretend the problem still exists.
.
You can repeat your lesson or change it up for better view from anothed wier angle but they just run away again.
.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
.
When being precise and using a variety of styles isn't enough, then what is left?
I have seen what you are talking about, but Ladislaus does not seem like that. He is seeking the truth and can be reasoned with.  There is no need to be adversarial with him.    
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Truth is Eternal on May 13, 2018, 11:18:09 PM
There isn't anything wrong with not knowing things.  It's a problem when people refuse to learn.  
People show mastery of a subject when they can explain it clearly to non-experts.  The goal is to convey information, not to show-off how clever one is.
;D :popcorn:
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Theosist on May 14, 2018, 04:50:25 AM
.
What you have said here is partially true, and partially false.
.
No, it's entirely true.
Quote
The Church doesn't define reality that we can verify by objective observation.
Things like the depth of the sea, or the limits of the sun's northern or southern declination each year, for example.
But the Church DOES define reality in spiritual matters, such as the Assumption of Our Lady body and soul into heaven.
So to say "the Church doesn't define any kind of reality" is incorrect.

One more time for the obtuse: the Church does not DEFINE REALITY. That's a nonsense. Reality is what it is; the doctrine of the Assumption expresses a fact regarding an event that actually occured and had occured long before that doctrine was defined. You seem to have a problem with comprehending semantics here. As I stated, and stated correctly, the Church defines true propositions about that reality which have been revealed by God.
REALITY is not a suitable object of the action of DEFINING. Words, terms, concepts, statement about reality - these are objects for definition.


Quote
The dimensions of Solomon's temple is not something that can be verified because the temple no longer exists.

The dimensions of Solomon's Temple are known with certainty, barring some typorgraphic error that may have come down in transcription, because they are revealed in the inerrant word of God. You appear to be denying that inerrancy, which is heresy.

Quote
If the temple were still existing, the Church wouldn't declare that its dimensions are other than what can be observed.

Because if the Temple were still standing its dimensions would conform exactly to what the Bible states they are.

Quote
Objective observation is its own reality, by the way.

Again: "objective observation" is a contradiction in terms. Observations are, in principle, subjective. Stop wasting my time. Of course everything within the experiential field of the subject is it "own reality"; that's a vacuous tautology.

Quote
There are those who deny the evidence of direct personal eyewitness.
Thanks to Hegel, Locke, Hume, Comte, Kant, Marx, Nietzsche and their ilk, we have no shortage of deniers of observation.

When people address me like this, I'm just going to repeat myself: the notion that a “physical reality” - by which really meant a theoretical model abstracted from sense experience, thus based not only upon uncertain data but upon  projecting conceptual fantasies into that data in order to postulate the existence of a world lying behind the content of sense experience - the notion that this process - of the blind grasping in the dark for a cat that might not exist at all - could take precedence over divine assurance of truth is preposterous.
Surely you grasp the distinction that is made IN YOUR OWN ONTOLOGY (not in mine) between the content of your experience and the objective reality of the abstract atomistic "matter" and mechanism of physics which you all postulate as the reductive cause of that experience.

Quote
I hope that's not what is infecting your perception!

Please don't talk about an infection of perception while attacking others for questioning the nature of what has been derived from perceptions.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 14, 2018, 05:19:41 AM
I have seen many videos produced by flat earthers which appears initially to show the same phenomenon, a ship disappearing into the horizon.  Then additional magnification is applied, and the ship reappears ... demonstrating that the initial disappearance of the ship was an optical phenomenon and not due to earth curvature.
.
I somehow missed this paragraph previously.
.
You say you have seen "many videos" showing a ship disappearing into the horizon, then the ship re-appears with additional magnification, you say.
.
Therefore, this ship that appears to recede downward into the horizon can be made to rise UP OUT OF THE WATER with magnification -- not with reversing the video so it plays backwards. Then of course, without reversing the video again, but in real time, to zoom back out again causes the ship to sink downward into the water of the horizon, correct? And you can make the ship rise up out of the water by increasing the magnification and then sink down again into the water by reducing the magnification, correct?
.
So then this same operation should be able to make the sun rise up after sunset just by zooming in with more magnification.
Furthermore, you should be able to make the sun set by zooming out, and make it rise in the west by zooming in with a telephoto lens.
You should be able to make the sun rise in the west after it has set, and make it set again and rise again and set again, without limit.
.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 14, 2018, 07:58:58 AM
Well, I don't find ships disappearing bottom-up to be proof of globe earth ... because that could be due to various optical phenomena.

Similarly, I don't find seeing objects at a distance not explainable by the math a proof of flat earth ... because that COULD be due to refraction (a different optical phenomenon).

Each side uses one of these as proof for its own position, due to confirmation bias, but I see neither one of these as hard proof.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 14, 2018, 09:18:53 AM
Even if it's not proof of the globe Earth, it definitely couldn't happen on a flat plane. It also shows that the ones promoting FE are either ignorant of some facts or deliberately falsifying some info. Either way, it's discouraging.

That's precisely my point, that it CAN happen on a flat plane ... due to optical phenomena.  If it can't happen on a flat plane, then indeed it would be proof of non-flat earth.

Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 14, 2018, 09:48:06 AM
Lad,
Please watch it all. 1:30. This is what I'm talking about. The second ship is not visible unless zoomed in on. But when it is, the whole bottom of it is not visible. I sincerely want to know how FE explains this.

I just said.  Various optical phenomena could explain that.  It's not solid proof.  Do you think that cameras have infinite zoom capability?  At some point their limitations catch up with devices too.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 14, 2018, 09:55:41 AM
I see. So you're saying it's not solid proof for either shaped Earth.
I'd be interested to know which phenomena explains it.

Don't know, but if it can possibly be explained by some other phenomenon, then it's not proof.  Same thing goes with seeing objects at great distances.  If it COULD be explained by refraction, then it's not solid proof.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: noOneImportant on May 14, 2018, 04:44:14 PM
Honestly if you want solid, indisputable proof, go look further into the stuff Neil posted about the position of the sun in the sky (some video with a bunch of rays that didn't intersect right). The math gets more complicated so you'll have to do a little more work probably, but it's pretty convincing. The tests with the angles of shadows are pretty good too, and less work to derive the math if memory serves. It was one of the first methods used by the Greeks to calculate the circumference of the earth and they got really close with relatively primitive measuring tools.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Theosist on May 15, 2018, 11:45:59 AM
I just said.  Various optical phenomena could explain that.  It's not solid proof.  Do you think that cameras have infinite zoom capability?  At some point their limitations catch up with devices too.
There is no optical phenomenon whereby part of an object obscured becomes visible upon zooming in on it. None. That is a priori absurd. Why? Because part of an otherwise visible object becomes obscured when light from that part is somehow blocked from reaching ones eye; but if that light cannot reach ones eye, then it cannot reach a telescopic lense at ones position. This isn’t magic. If I can see PART of it FULLY, then the problem is not the problem of distance which makes it too small for the human eye to see; but if that is not the problem, then a telescope is not going to fix it.
Stop being stupid. It’s beneath you.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 15, 2018, 11:54:27 AM
There is no optical phenomenon whereby part of an object obscured becomes visible upon zooming in on it. None. That is a priori absurd. Why? Because part of an otherwise visible object becomes obscured when light from that part is somehow blocked from reaching ones eye; but if that light cannot reach ones eye, then it cannot reach a telescopic lense at ones position. This isn’t magic. If I can see PART of it FULLY, then the problem is not the problem of distance which makes it too small for the human eye to see; but if that is not the problem, then a telescope is not going to fix it.
Stop being stupid. It’s beneath you.

You're extremely ignorant about this subject.  Said optical phenomena have been well demonstrated and are well known.

You are the one who's being stupid.  Lots of things can happen to light and its relationship with how the eye perceives it.

In fact you can find many videos demonstrating exactly that which you bluster about being impossible.  You see the bottom part of boats seemingly vanish, only to reappear when zoomed in on.

It would be one thing if you were just a simple idiot, but you're an arrogant idiot who blusters about claiming that your ignorance is actually truth.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 15, 2018, 11:59:15 AM
Honestly if you want solid, indisputable proof, go look further into the stuff Neil posted about the position of the sun in the sky (some video with a bunch of rays that didn't intersect right). 

You really don't understand what constitutes proof, do you?  I've addressed this one already.  It's based on nothing more than the suggestion of mathematical neatness.  That might be suggestive, but it's in no way "solid, indisputable proof".
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: noOneImportant on May 15, 2018, 05:13:45 PM
There's a difference between neatness and impossibility. The math for a flat earth simply does not work. It's not that it's messy. It's impossible. The neatness argument applies when talking about things like geo vs helio centricism, because they both can be made to work mathematically. But if you assume the earth is flat, do the geometry, and find a contradiction (i.e. the sun in many different places at the same time), then it absolutely does constitute proof (by contradiction. One of the oldest well established forms of proof around).
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 15, 2018, 07:07:41 PM
There's a difference between neatness and impossibility. The math for a flat earth simply does not work. It's not that it's messy. It's impossible.

I don't think that's proven by any stretch.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: noOneImportant on May 15, 2018, 07:21:58 PM
I am not sure how the image below (taken from that video Neil posted a few days back) can in any way be reconciled with reality. The sun would need to be in a million different places at once.
(http://blob:https://imgur.com/4f85713d-04bd-4a97-b4ba-44aeda066243)
(https://i.imgur.com/ywL6iiw.jpg)
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Truth is Eternal on May 15, 2018, 09:12:13 PM
I am not sure how the image below (taken from that video Neil posted a few days back) can in any way be reconciled with reality. The sun would need to be in a million different places at once.
(http://blob:https://imgur.com/4f85713d-04bd-4a97-b4ba-44aeda066243)
(https://i.imgur.com/ywL6iiw.jpg)
I like this simple diagram much better. ;D

(https://i.imgur.com/VnnCeME.jpg)
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 16, 2018, 01:15:18 AM
I am not sure how the image below (taken from that video Neil posted a few days back) can in any way be reconciled with reality. The sun would need to be in a million different places at once.

Well, Neil understood my point even if you didn't.  If you terminate the lines before they cross over one another and then point out to space, the vast majority of the lines coalesce at some point not too far from the earth, at the top of a conical structure.  And that is where flat earthers would put the sun, relatively close to the earth.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: noOneImportant on May 16, 2018, 09:33:39 AM
That works for some of them, yes. Are we just ignoring all the ones that shoot off in completely different directions?

On an unrelated note, still curious what you make of the camera thing from the other thread btw. Hopefully my mspaint mockups made sense.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 16, 2018, 10:06:19 AM
That works for some of them, yes. Are we just ignoring all the ones that shoot off in completely different directions?

And, if there's a solid dome, reflection off the dome might account for those strays around the perimeter.

Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on May 16, 2018, 10:07:06 AM
On an unrelated note, still curious what you make of the camera thing from the other thread btw. Hopefully my mspaint mockups made sense.

Do you have a link to the message/post?  I admit that I'm getting lost among all these concurrent flat earth threads.
Title: "Zoom" magic?/Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: AlligatorDicax on May 16, 2018, 02:00:31 PM

There is no optical phenomenon whereby part of an object obscured becomes visible upon zooming in on it. None. That is a priori absurd. Why? Because part of an otherwise visible object becomes obscured when light from that part is somehow blocked from reaching ones eye; but if that light cannot reach ones eye, then it cannot reach a telescopic lense at ones position.  This isn’t magic.

Theosist is entirely correct in this instance.

People posting in this topic are, in effect, attributing optical magic to "zoom" lenses.  Which is a technical term that just about everyone posting herein is using incorrectly.

Each lens under discussion is refracting whatever light rays enter that lens, having already been reflected (whether from near or far) toward the lens and the human eyes behind it.  No "zoom" lens, um, unblocks any light ray that is reflected-but-blocked by physical obstructions far out in the distance, where an "obstruction" includes telephoto-foreshortened seawater.


You're extremely ignorant about this subject. [....] You are the one who's being stupid.  Lots of things can happen to light and its relationship with how the eye perceives it.

This is not an issue of perception by the human eye; the light rays reflected from the distant object are either able to enter a lens--or not.  It makes no difference whether that lens is a "zoom"--especially because it's a term that just about everyone herein is using incorrectly.


Said optical phenomena have been well demonstrated and are well known. [....] In fact you can find many videos demonstrating exactly that which you bluster about being impossible.  You see the bottom part of boats seemingly vanish, only to reappear when zoomed in on.

Why do you seem to have ruled out that possibility that those "many videos" claiming magical "zoom" lenses are frauds?

E.g., close coördination between 2 photographers: 1 stationed at sea-level, and the 2nd at an elevation high enough to look over-&-past the "hump" of ocean curvature that obscures--i.e.: blocks--the distant ocean surface from viewers at sea-level, plus more-or-less competent video editing, could be all that's needed to produce such a fraudulent video.


It would be one thing if you were just a simple idiot, but you're an arrogant idiot who blusters about claiming that your ignorance is actually truth.

Really, now?
My 50th anniversary of serious photography [♥] arrives in 2018 (if not already passed in 2017).  I've typically applied an engineering mind-set to the tools of the art & trade, which of course includes the technical characteristics of lenses.  So altho' I'm making an appeal to authority--my own--I'm well positioned to call "seabird [guano! ] on magical "zoom" lenses.

-------
Note ♥: Serious enough about photography to have started self-taught for a high school annual, including push-processing for my own film (there's quite a narrow margin for error in photographing football games by available light at night), and printing some of it esp. in my college years.  From time-to-time being paid for my fieldwork in photojournalism, and later, commercial film processing in a darkroom (dip-n-dunk: no autoeverything processors).
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 16, 2018, 03:15:34 PM
.
Quote
The Sun heats up the atmosphere and it expands (locally, since it's a small Sun), while The Moon cools it (again, locally).  

.
So the sun heats up the atmosphere and the moon cools it............ Okay.............

Then why is the daytime temperature during a new moon the same as during a full moon?

The new moon in the sky at the same time as the sun should take away all the sun's heat that day.

Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 16, 2018, 03:24:26 PM
Well, Neil understood my point even if you didn't.  If you terminate the lines before they cross over one another and then point out to space, the vast majority of the lines coalesce at some point not too far from the earth, at the top of a conical structure.  And that is where flat earthers would put the sun, relatively close to the earth.
.
Your premise is 100% false, again.
The "vast majority of the lines" do NOT "coalesce" or "cross over one another" anywhere near each other.
You're only looking at one view of the model when many views in a moving image are provided for clarity.
Clarity which you ignore repeatedly.
.
The arrows that APPEAR to be close to each other here IN THIS VIEW ALONE are separated from each other near to far.
There are only a VERY FEW like less than 10 that come close to crossing each other AT ALL, and not very close at that.
Most pairs of these arrows don't come close to each other at all. 
Most of these arrows don't touch ANY OTHER ARROW.
So knock it off with your gibberish fantasy, Ladislaus. Unless you enjoy making yourself look stupid.
.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: noOneImportant on May 16, 2018, 08:54:46 PM
Do you have a link to the message/post?  I admit that I'm getting lost among all these concurrent flat earth threads.
Last post in this thread. (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/objects-below-the-horizon/)

And, if there's a solid dome, reflection off the dome might account for those strays around the perimeter.
If the sunlight has enough reach to reflect off the dome and reach the areas south of New Zealand (in my screenshot above, far left), then wouldn't it also illuminate NZ itself directly? Also if there were a dome reflective enough for people that far away to see the sun with the same brightness as it they were viewing it directly, I think you'd end up seeing multiple "suns" in the sky at many point (once viewed directly, plus reflections).
I think you're also being misled by the fact that the arrows are more spaced out along the perimeter. They aren't really "strays". You could draw just as many of those as the ones that sort of converge.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 19, 2018, 09:45:46 AM
.
The posts flat-earthers have made are proof of their obstreperous nescience. They're so transparent.
.
Flat-earthism is a dreamlike fantasy, vague and dim, a dreamy place where flat-earthers run to hide from reality, refusing all the while to conform their minds to its objective revelation as known through our senses, a dreamy Shangri-la where nought's had, all's spent where their desire is got without content.
.
Flat-earthers abide in a dreamworld of their own imagination, unwilling to commit to any real material model subject to and in conformity with principles or natural laws. Their preference is for a dreamy illusionary world without a physical model and free from the responsibility of observable, testable, empirical physics. 
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Truth is Eternal on May 19, 2018, 10:08:25 AM
.
The posts flat-earthers have made are proof of their obstreperous nescience. They're so transparent.
.
Flat-earthism is a dreamlike fantasy, vague and dim, a dreamy place where flat-earthers run to hide from reality, refusing all the while to conform their minds to its objective revelation as known through our senses, a dreamy Shangri-la where nought's had, all's spent where their desire is got without content.
.
Flat-earthers abide in a dreamworld of their own imagination, unwilling to commit to any real material model subject to and in conformity with principles or natural laws. Their preference is for a dreamy illusionary world without a physical model and free from the responsibility of observable, testable, empirical physics.
Observe this, Neil.
(https://i.imgur.com/3kUOkpN.jpg)
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 24, 2018, 08:53:36 PM
.
The fact that by gaining elevation after sunset, you can see the sunset again, means the obstruction of your view was the earth itself.
.
The only thing flat-earthers have to fear is sphere itself.
.
The Flat Earth Society makes contributions by members from all around the globe.
.
Ironically, flat-earthers nonetheless fall short of attaining a global perspective.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Smedley Butler on May 25, 2018, 10:46:19 AM
Observe this, Neil.
(https://i.imgur.com/3kUOkpN.jpg)
Question for Neil:
Please demonstrate flat locations on a ball. Also, provide math to prove a sphere has any flat areas.
Please demonstrate how you can have the above list of ten "flattest places on earth" on a ball.
Thanks.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 25, 2018, 11:26:39 AM
Question for Neil:
Please demonstrate flat locations on a ball. Also, provide math to prove a sphere has any flat areas.
Please demonstrate how you can have the above list of ten "flattest places on earth" on a ball.
Thanks.
.
Are you hoping to have an intelligent conversation now that the garbage posts from the resident troll have been evicted, or are you hoping to take his place with more nonsense?
.
If you're going to be re-posting his stupid pictures then the latter seems to be your plan.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Smedley Butler on May 25, 2018, 11:46:29 AM
I don't know why I bother. 

I knew you would not answer, because you cannot. 
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 25, 2018, 02:27:53 PM
.
Since flat-earthers are so eager to say ships don't disappear over the curvature of the earth at sea because all you need is a telescope to magnify them and then they come back into view, why don't you use the same principle to make the sun come back into view after it APPEARS to set below the curvature of the earth at sunset?
.
You won't answer because you don't have one.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Smedley Butler on May 26, 2018, 12:59:13 PM
Happenby posted the video.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 26, 2018, 01:59:55 PM
Happenby posted the video.
.
Trying to hide from the challenge, again, eh?
Where is the video that shows that you can make the sun come back into view by using a telescope after sunset?
.
Your claim that you can make the bottom of a ship come back with a telescope means you should be able to do that with the sun too.
.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Smedley Butler on May 26, 2018, 07:40:43 PM
Go watch the video.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 26, 2018, 11:52:23 PM
.
If gravity were "fake" (like flat-earthers keep harping like a broken record) then how do the movements of the moon happen to coincide perfectly with the tides of all the oceans of the world for all of recorded history?
.
Just dumb luck?
.
Or, is it -- Flat Earth is Complete BALDERDASH! 
.
Yeah, that's it! 
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 29, 2018, 08:37:49 PM
I do not have a lot of God-given talents, but I am very skilled at shredding bad arguments to pieces.  I can see logical flaws miles away and rip them apart in seconds.  Other than that, I have a very poor memory, and not very many talents in other areas.
.
Really? 
.
So then, show us your stuff and rip this one to pieces:
.
“There never was a period of ‘flat earth darkness’ among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth’s roundness as an established fact of cosmology.”6
.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 01, 2018, 11:50:20 PM
I do not have a lot of God-given talents, but I am very skilled at shredding bad arguments to pieces.  I can see logical flaws miles away and rip them apart in seconds.  Other than that, I have a very poor memory, and not very many talents in other areas.
.
Is that so? 
Then go ahead and rip this apart in seconds -- or take a few hours -- or another week (you've already taken 4 weeks):
.
You have posted numerous times that you find flat-earthism "compelling" when a boat that appears to go down beyond the horizon can be brought "back" by zooming in with a telephoto camera lens. 
.
Then, by the same principle (if it is true) that camera and zoom lens should be able to make the sun come "back" after it sets.
.
Or, if the principle which you find so "compelling" is FALSE then the sun cannot be made to come "back."
.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 06, 2018, 05:24:43 PM
.
It looks like Ladislaus has lost his touch. He can't manage to shred a bad argument to pieces anymore. Sad.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 27, 2018, 05:13:40 PM
.
There goes two months.
.
Shall we try for three? Or four? Or a hundred?
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 30, 2018, 07:09:30 AM
So, for instance, a globe earther will show video of a boat getting lower and then disappearing as it moves away from the observer.  But then flat earthers have shown convincing evidence that this can APPEAR to be the case even when it really isn't ... if you zoom in on the boat with some magnification.  So they have demonstrated that the visual appearance of something sinking beyond the horizon doesn't prove globe earth ... since it can just be an optical phenomenon.  So this is the kind of analysis I'm trying to do ... amid all the emotional noise on either side.
.
Problem: flat-earthers can't show any evidence ("convincing" or otherwise) that a boat appearing to sink over the horizon is not being obstructed by the highest level of the water surface which appears as the horizon line. Because zooming in on the boat does not make the hull of the boat re-appear. And as the boat goes further out, all that remains is the very top antennas and such, without anything left of the cabins or decks. Magnification doesn't help.
.
Furthermore, if zooming in should make the boat come back, then zooming in should make the sun come back after it sets (Note: not BEFORE it sets, AFTER it sets). Or the moon come back after it sets.
.
Flat-earthers pretend to answer the setting sun by not having a solar filter on the camera so the sun appears much larger high in the sky, then as it gets close to the horizon using a zoom the sun can be made to appear to be rising up from the horizon. You can do the same thing with a flashlight in a dark room using a zoom. The camera zooming in changes exposure and the glare that made the light (sun or flashlight) appear much larger, shrinks to a smaller diameter so the flashlight (or the sun) appears to get higher from the ground surface (or the ocean water). Pretending to zoom in and make the sun rise up is complete balderdash. 
.
But there has never been, and there never will be, anyone who can zoom in on the sun after it has set below the horizon and make it come "back" with the magnification of a zoom lens.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 26, 2018, 08:32:12 AM
.
Save your nickles and dimes, flat-earthers! Here's your chance to hob-nob with like-minded trolls! 
.
(https://i2.wp.com/fecore.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Flat-Earth-International-Conference-2018-Denver.jpg?w=1080&ssl=1)
.
All your favorite heroes will no doubt be there, the atheists and Protestants alike - maybe you can evangelize!
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 08, 2018, 01:45:33 PM
.
Interesting, this is the same Denver where the father of your video author lives. Maybe he can go home to visit Dad! 

Like-minded trolls getting together to share itching ear syndrome!

Their only interest is in fables to satisfy their itching ears (II Tim. 4:3-4).
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 08, 2018, 04:29:34 PM
.
Steve Baker, Blogger at LetsRunWithIt.com (2013-present)
Answered Jun 22, 2017

Well, to completely convince a flat-earther is almost impossible.

But to give you some suggestions, we really need to understand which “flavor” of flat-earthism your believer is infested with.

For example:

- Some believe that the sun moves around the ("flat") earth just as it does with the spherical earth.

- Some believe that the sun is a small object that moves around in a circular motion above the flat earth and casts light downwards in a beam like a flashlight.

The first group can be told to pick up the phone in the middle of the night - call someone in a time-zone far from yours - on opposite side of the world (the US embassy in Australia maybe) - and ask them “Is it dark outside?” - if it’s daylight where they are and it’s nighttime where you’re calling from - then the sun can’t be both above the flat plane for you and below the flat plane for them…so their idea of how things work is incorrect…which ought to convince them (but it won’t).

The second group are a little more sophisticated - and use the idea that the sun shines a circular beam of light onto the flat earth to allow that beam to light up one part of the earth and not the other. (How the sun would manage to shine on only a portion of the earth they can never explain.) However, in this version of events - there can be no sunsets. The sun has to be high enough in the sky to illuminate half of the land area at a time - so when daylight ends and night begins, you’d see the sun kinda fade out while still high in the sky - it couldn’t possibly descend to touch the horizon in the USA without setting fire to Europe!

This problem is defended by some flat-earthers by claiming that the laws of perspective are not what our modern physics tells us they are…so when the sun moves away from where you are, it’s light rays are distorted and it appears to be close to the horizon. They literally deny the evidence of our own eyes! IOW since the law of perspective gets in the way, they claim the problem is in the interpretation of the law itself. Kind of like the flat-earther Supreme Court of natural law.

If that’s their claim then why doesn’t the sun get smaller when it reaches the horizon - surely it must be further away now? (Some have ignorantly bought in to the fake depiction of a shrinking sun which is accomplished without the use of a solar filter, so as to deliberately overexpose the sun which gets less overexposed as it sets, thus appearing to get smaller, by fakery, illusion.)

But they’ll claim something bizarre like, “The suns rays are too strong for the sun to be shrunk down by perspective”. This is utter nonsense because either perspective works one way or the other - they can’t have it both ways. But now you’re into the weeds of geometry and physics - and you’re not going to win that debate.

Rather, you can point to the fact that the moon sets just like the sun does - and it’s light is nowhere near as bright as (say) a car headlight off in the distance…but again, you’re just not being convincing enough. Maybe moonlight has some special properties (they say) that prevent it from shrinking with perspective! (Whatever it takes to fake their "flat" earth is fair game, even if it is utter fantasy.)

The “proof” I like the best requires our flat-earther to take a plane ride and to look at the Moon. The orientation of the moon changes depending on whether you’re in the northern hemisphere - the southern hemisphere or on the equator. If you take note of how the patterns on the moon look in the Northern hemisphere - then in the South, they appear to be “upside down” - and at the equator, the patterns are rotated partway between the two. In a "flat" earth, the moon would have to be the same way up for everyone.

You don’t even have to pay careful attention to the patterns - you can just look at the shape of a “new moon” - it looks like a ‘(‘ in one hemisphere, a ‘)’ in the other and like a ‘U’ at the equator. Photos of the new moon in those three places might convince your flat-earther - but generally they’ll claim that photos that get in they way of their beliefs are “photoshopped”.

Another problem for flat-earthers is the stars. These look completely different on opposite sides of the world - but in a "flat" earth - they should all look pretty much the same. Why can people living in the North see the stars slowly rotating around “Polaris” - which is always in the North of the sky - when people in the South can’t see Polaris at all - and the stars appear to rotate IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION around an empty patch of sky.

Honestly - I’ve hung out on the "flat" earth forums - they have their beliefs SO firmly entrenched that NOTHING WHATEVER will convince them. They’ll shift their theories around - deny any and all evidence - fake their own evidence - make up new theories on the spot to cover any errors you find in their thinking - claim that NASA, the United Nations, all astronomers - are all in some gigantic conspiracy theory to hide the fact that the earth is really "flat" (why they’d do this is never fully explained!).

Once someone’s core belief is attacked, no amount of evidence, logic or reason will change their mind.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on August 09, 2018, 12:31:28 PM
.
Steve Baker, Blogger at LetsRunWithIt.com (2013-present)
Answered Jun 22, 2017

Well, to completely convince a flat-earther is almost impossible.
...

Once someone’s core belief is attacked, no amount of evidence, logic or reason will change their mind.

This last line sounds more like you, Neil.  Rest of the article is nothing but a string of unsubstantiated gratuitous assertions.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 10, 2018, 02:38:41 AM
This last line sounds more like you, Neil.  Rest of the article is nothing but a string of unsubstantiated gratuitous assertions.
.
That last line was not written by me, I can assure you, but I don't disagree with it.
(I might have corrected spelling and deleted the "s" on "there minds" because I don't like to repeat bad grammar or bad syntax.)
.
The rest of the article does not provide citations or sources, but every one of the assertions are things I have run into myself.
So I don't disagree with any of them, which is why I posted them here.
The author had a much earlier start in this than I did, so this quote from what he wrote over a year ago was way ahead of me.
I had most of this to learn at that time, so I'm a newcomer compared to Steve Baker.
But that doesn't mean I can't use what he makes public.
Would you like to take issue with anything in particular?
Or do you prefer to hide behind empty blanket statements like your "compelling evidence?" (Which is patently not compelling)
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 15, 2018, 11:50:43 PM
.
You wanted curvature?
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sri-LOvsS6E
.

2,927 Comments, 475^, 17,761 views

Wolfie6020
Wolfie6020
11 months ago
Brilliant video and analysis Sly.

87 ^   375 Replies


Soundly
Soundly
11 months ago
Great observation, nice production, zero rational answers from flatearth predicted.

72 ^  307 Replies


trist0723
trist0723
11 months ago
I love it when flat earthers get triggered

16


Britton Keene
Britton Keene
11 months ago
Sly for president. Make America think again. I got (made) the t-shirt. Literally

13


Tj Wiets
Tj Wiets
11 months ago
You seem to have struck a nerve with this one Sly.

11


Marley James
Marley James
10 months ago
Sly, you do an awesome job of concisely illustrating the spherical dynamics.  Most people, in trying to debunk flat earthers, easy as it should be, get lost in the minutiae and misspeak or incorrectly reference scientific data. You break it down very clearly.

6


Edgar Allan Poe
Edgar Allan Poe
10 months ago
The comments to your video show how useless it is to argue against what conspiracy theorists and religious fundamentalists believe. Wasted time teaching those who want to stay uneducated.

3


iok-1
iok-1
11 months ago
They use these sophisticated videocams.  They upload these millions of bytes of video.  Their videos go out worldwide.  They have no clue about how it all works, but they trust that it's not magic.

But people in science are lying to them?

8


Miles Davis
Miles Davis
11 months ago (edited)
OMG!     Great work again Sly.    (another typo for you, there should be an 'm' in compressed  @ about 3.26 ;-)  )  

I see the flat earthers answer is "perspective"   oh dear oh dear. They just don't understand perspective at all.

4


N/A N/A
N/A N/A
11 months ago
You know flattards won't understand this right? : )))

5


harty bob
harty bob
11 months ago
this guy is like my mate, it took me ages to convince him the cows weren't tiny they were just far away

4


John D
John D
11 months ago
Excellent video. Pretty hard to refute your step-by-step illustration. But the flat Earthers will find a way to refute it, nonetheless. With their stunning misunderstanding of perspective, I'd wager. Or rather, their claim that YOU don't understand it, even though your video takes it into account implicitly.

3


N/A N/A
N/A N/A
10 months ago
It's amazing that flattards can't come up with one good reason why "they" would lie about the shape of the earth LMFAO!!!!

5


Robert Kramarek
Robert Kramarek
11 months ago
Flat earthers are not up to par on math or physics so they don't have a clue on what was just shown .

4


zigguratian A
zigguratian A
11 months ago
Killed it Sly! Flat earth is over. That's curvature with a control...a big control. You just utterly destroyed the "refraction" or "perspective" excuses flatties try at every example of clear curvature. There is no denying this one. There is no way that you could
video this image unless the earth was a globe. It's going to have to be a totally new concoction now. What will it be this time? electrolisystic wavefrontal despersive
interference caused by the aether from radio waves intersecting the light emanating from the building but not the mountan. CGI will have to be everywhere...either wake up to reality, or go off the deep end into matrix-hologrammatic -non-corporeal world-ness. The choice is to ignore this or it will break the fantasy. kudos!

2


Just Looking
Just Looking
2 months ago
Great video. I've been looking through the comments, and the flatties seem to have no grasp on basic geometry, as usual. Astoundingly stupid arguments. My favorite is the 'things get smaller so the mountain is small.'

4


mpetersen6
mpetersen6
11 months ago
I think you lost them at the word "data"

4


Neil Helgeson
Neil Helgeson
11 months ago
Awesome presentation!  All factual references that just about anybody could look up and examine..,  

Great job.

All that is left is to gather up the Flat Earth tears.

3


Doug Kough
Doug Kough
11 months ago
Nicely done.

I'm sure the FEers will say perspective or "planospheric" lensing or some other nonsense.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on August 16, 2018, 02:31:55 PM
DELETED
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Ladislaus on August 16, 2018, 02:46:25 PM
You wanted curvature?

:facepalm:

Utterly idiotic.  It's optics/perspective 101 that things appear smaller as they get farther away from the observer.  It's this kind of thing that discredits globe earthism, when globe earthers present this a "proof".
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Stanley N on August 16, 2018, 06:20:33 PM
:facepalm:

Utterly idiotic.  It's optics/perspective 101 that things appear smaller as they get farther away from the observer.  It's this kind of thing that discredits globe earthism, when globe earthers present this a "proof".
Not sure what you're getting at here. The video seems to be arguing perspective. 
Here's the question, then. In a flat earth world, for an observer at the same level as their bases, can you say which of these should appear taller: a 20m tall object that is 20 km away, or a 120m tall object that is 60 km away?
If that's not enough information to decide, what other factors would you need to know?
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 18, 2018, 04:39:55 AM
Not sure what you're getting at here. The video seems to be arguing perspective.
Here's the question, then. In a flat earth world, for an observer at the same level as their bases, can you say which of these should appear taller: a 20m tall object that is 20 km away, or a 120m tall object that is 60 km away?
If that's not enough information to decide, what other factors would you need to know?
.
The 120m tall object 60 km away would appear twice as tall (40m) compared to the 20m tall object 20 km away.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 18, 2018, 04:52:46 AM
:facepalm:

Utterly idiotic.  It's optics/perspective 101 that things appear smaller as they get farther away from the observer.  It's this kind of thing that discredits globe earthism, when globe earthers present this a "proof".
.
Here's another emotional outburst from the resident know-nothing Ladislaus.
If you don't understand the material why don't you just admit your ignorance?
The video is not referring to size of the objects but to their elevation.
Look up "line of sight" if you don't know what elevation is.

Great video. I've been looking through the comments, and the flatties seem to have no grasp on basic geometry, as usual. Astoundingly stupid arguments. My favorite is the 'things get smaller so the mountain is small.'
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 18, 2018, 06:23:31 AM
Not sure what you're getting at here. The video seems to be arguing perspective.
Here's the question, then. In a flat earth world, for an observer at the same level as their bases, can you say which of these should appear taller: a 20m tall object that is 20 km away, or a 120m tall object that is 60 km away?
If that's not enough information to decide, what other factors would you need to know?
.
Stanley N, don't you know it's a hate crime to math a flat-earther?
.
Schrodinger's Cat
Schrodinger's Cat
1 year ago
Babeaba, You mathed A Bertinasco.  It is a hate crime to math an FE person.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sri-LOvsS6E
.
Here is a flat-earther attempting to jump topic (Gleason's Plane, alias Mark Jamus)
.
Gleason's Plane [a.k.a. Mark Jamus]
1 year ago
Wolfie6020 I'm not here to talk trash or insult, I'm genuinely curious and interested if you can properly explain to me how these things can be possible, first off, there are 2 videos by Dan Dimension, the first 1 is called "Flat Earth, The Rabbit Hole spotted from 108,000 feet !!!"  and the second video is called "Flat Earth ... Nasa footage reveals 470,000 ft and STILL FLAT !!!"

You don't have to watch them but at least explain why it still looks flat from that high up.
.
Wolfie6020
Wolfie6020
1 year ago
+Mark Jamus  Hi Mark,  Always happy to discuss things without insults.  I just looked at the latter video and you can clearly see it is using a fisheye lens.  

A fisheye lens can produce fake curvature but it can also flatten or even reverse real curvature.  Look at 1:44 in that video - pause it and see how the horizon is concave?  Obviously that is a fisheye lens so it will distort reality.

From my own personal experience though I can see curvature quite easily from 45,000 ft and higher.  People have claimed it is due to the window curvature but it is not and I have proof of that.  Also the curve was visible flying another jet years ago that had flat panel windows.

One thing I have noticed with Flat Earth channels is they pick and edit the footage carefully to only show the part of the video where the Horizon looks flat.  

The little piggy video is a perfect example.  Flat Earth channels never show you the entire footage.

If you watch all of them you will see the camera has a fisheye lens that actually flattens the horizon when it is just below mid frame.

Have you seen the balloon footage "High Altitude Balloon over South Florida"  That shows clear evidence of curvature and if you look at Cara Diann's channel it also shows how to analyse the footage correctly.  When you do, the curvature is always visible.
.
Requiem4aDr3Am
Requiem4aDr3Am
1 year ago
+Mark Jamus the first video is part of the favorite video that flat-earthers put out. Its set below the center of frame using a wide angled lens taking advantage of the barrel distortion. The video it is taken from is the little piggy weather balloon launch. If you watch the entire video anytime the earth's horizon crosses center frame you do indeed see the true shape and slight curvature. When the balloon pops this becomes clear as you can pause with it center frame and see the true shape.

The second video is taken through a small window porthole and obstructs the field of view enough so you will not see curvature. Its funny that flat earthers think things like field of view, barrel distortion, etc don't matter.

What you have shared are two videos that base everything on argument from incredulity and ignorance rather than actually pointing to valid evidence that disproves the globe or that supports a flat earth. The fact that there are so many videos out there of weather balloon footage and high altitude footage where proper field of view is established and it shows curvature completely dismantles flat earthers claims with this video footage found in those videos. It also shows dishonesty on the part of flat earthers.

This video shows an example of curvature with an observation that would be impossible on a flat earth. Why are you ignoring this video and instead trying to post flat earth propaganda that is easily dismissed?
.
Michael Onines
Michael Onines
1 year ago
Mark Jamus, both those videos are fish-eye lenses where the horizon is well below center of frame. Check out Dwayne Kellum's balloon 9 footage. Pretty clear look at the horizon, not a wide angle lens, and around 108k' you can get a screen grab right as the horizon crosses the center of frame and you will get about 4° of curvature, very close to what you would expect at that altitude with the field of view used.
.
Gleason's Plane
Gleason's Plane
1 year ago

Wolfie6020 Thanks for the detailed response, I lean more towards a flat Earth but I still try to be open minded about all this stuff, I find your work interesting nonetheless. Are ya gonna do a video about the upcoming solar eclipse by any chance? I look forward to seeing videos about it from both sides.
.
.
These comments were posted a few days before the August 21st 2017 total solar eclipse that swept all across America as predicted.
.
.
Gleason's Plane
Gleason's Plane
1 year ago
Another genuine question I have is that it is claimed that the other planets are spheres and so therefore Earth must also be a sphere. Firstly, Earth is a “plane” not a “planet,” so the shape of these “planets” in the sky have no bearing on the shape of the Earth beneath our feet. Secondly, these “planets” have been known for thousands of years around the world as the “wandering stars” since they differ from the other fixed stars in their relative motions only. When looked at with an unprejudiced naked-eye or through a telescope, the fixed and wandering stars appear as luminous discs of light, NOT spherical terra firma. The pictures and videos shown by NASA of spherical terra firma planets are all clearly fake computer-generated images, and NOT photographs.

The Copernican or Newtonian theory of astronomy is an "absurd composition of truth and error;" and, as admitted by its founder, "not necessarily true nor even probable;" that instead of its being a general conclusion derived from known and admitted facts, it is a heterogeneous compound of assumed premises, isolated truths, and variable appearances in nature. Its advocates are challenged to show a single instance wherein a phenomenon is explained, a. calculation made, or a conclusion advanced without the aid of an avowed or implied assumption.

Where are the practical evidential examples of a body of water naturally conforming to the exterior of a shape?

Also, The Sun brings noon to every time-zone as it passes directly over-head every 15 degree demarcation point, 24 times per day in its circular path over and around the Earth. If time-zones were instead caused by the uniform spinning of the ball-Earth around the Sun, every 6 months as Earth found itself on the opposite side of the Sun, clocks all over Earth would have to flip 12 hours, day would be night and night would be day.

Next, If the world is a sphere, why will the eclipse on August 21 2017 be seen visually moving West to East when the sun and moon move East to West?

I hope my questions here aren't too loaded but if anybody here can properly address each of these concerns I have, it would be appreciated, I lean more towards a flat Earth like I already said but I'm also curious about these questions I presented here and the potential answers I may get from asking them.
.
Wolfie6020
Wolfie6020
1 year ago (edited)
+Mark Jamus,  When the Sun and Moon are both visible during a Lunar Eclipse that is called a Selenelion Eclipse and is easily explained by normal refraction.    

When I do my time lapse videos of the Sun it always rises slightly in the video just before setting.  This is due to refraction,   All it takes is half a degree for the Sun and half a degree for the moon and both can be visible at the same time.

The practical example of Water clinging to a rotating ball is the Earth you are standing on.
.
Wolfie6020
Wolfie6020
1 year ago
+Quikee.  Thanks I was just thinking about the best way to set the camera for the 24 hour time lapse.  I might even use two at different angles.   Looking forward to it myself.  I'll let it run for 30 hours so we see two sun sets

Gleason's Plane
Gleason's Plane
1 year ago (edited)
Also, there's this, as early as the time of Pliny, there are records of lunar eclipses happening while both the Sun and Moon are visible in the sky.  The Greenwich Royal Observatory recorded that “during the lunar eclipses of July 17th, 1590, November 3rd, 1648, June 16th, 1666, and May 26th, 1668 the moon rose eclipsed whilst the sun was still above the horizon.”  McCulluch’s Geography recorded that “on September 20th, 1717 and April 20th, 1837 the moon appeared to rise eclipsed before the sun had set.”  Sir Henry Holland also noted in his “Recollections of Past Life” the April 20th, 1837 phenomena where “the moon rose eclipsed before the sun set.”  The Daily Telegraph recorded it happening again on January 17th, 1870, then again in July of the same year, and it continues to happen during lunar eclipses to this day.

To also expand off of what I said in my first message, the claim we are born into is that we live on a nature defying sphere pear. Fluxion calculus may well be able to cogently explain how trillions of tonnes of water theoretically could theoretically cling to a tilted, wobbling, spinning ball. However without the practical examples of water behaving this way in reality, this is merely a mathematical construct that began from a false axiom. Such mathematical obscurantism as the theory of relativity may overawe the simpleton and neophyte but now the common man is coming to see that these equations prove absolutely nothing without the practical reference in the natural world.

Those paying attention know mathematics to be a formal science and an artificial language that can be founded on false axioms. It is also clear that mathematics does not depend on empirical observation. Moreover, language can also be used to lie, confuse and stultify.

Those making the affirmative claim that vast bodies of water in nature behave in a manner where they will hold and display convexity are making an extraordinary claim. Despite the sophism and gaslighting, It is not upon any other to disprove.

These erroneous claims have no reference to the objective reality we share and are contrary to our daily experience and observation of water in the natural world.

Try to focus, it is not a difficult question to comprehend:
Can you provide a practical evidential example of a body of water conforming to the exterior of a shape
.
Requiem4aDr3Am
Requiem4aDr3Am
1 year ago
+Mark Jamus okay now I'm thinking you are a troll because you are doing a typical flat earther gish gallop of nonsense where you try to overwhelm with multiple false points that are arguments from incredulity and ignorance rather than evidence.

Planets are not luminious discs of light. If you have ever actually observed them through a telescope you will see they are indeed spheres that are illuminated by the very same sun that illuminates our planet earth. Furthermore we can use radio astronomy to confirm size, shape, distance, etc of the planets.  And there are plenty of images and videos of the planets observed through telescopes showing them as spheres with their moons which are also spheres or close to it all orbiting around.

And yes the earth is most definitely a planet as the globe is confirmed via observation, measurement, experiment, and calculation.

Why did you fail to answer my earlier question? Because you ignored it and went off on this gish gallop it makes you look like a troll.

A natural example of water conforming to exterior shape is earth. Furthermore we can observe this occurring on other celestial bodies in our own solar system such as a couple of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. In fact Europa, one of the moons of Jupiter, has its entire surface covered in water and ice.

Funny thing about your quote mine is that it is from hundreds of years ago when people were just beginning to be able to observe planets with telescopes. Since then there have been a multitude of advances that have allowed us to examine and observe the other planets of our solar system. This includes satellites and rovers in some cases. So not only have we observed them with telescopes, radio signals, spectrum, etc., but we have also sent objects to orbit them, or even land on them, to get a close-up view.

Your question about the sun and positions, etc., is easily explained when you look at the actual time it takes for the earth to complete 1 rotation which is once every 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds. This means the earth is actually completing 360.9856° of rotation every solar day, or 24 hours. So in 6 months time it will have rotated nearly 1 full degree a day to compensate for the seasons and location on the other side of the sun by 180°. This keeps the sun rising and setting at a predicted time every day. So no, the clocks would not have to flip, and day and night would not switch.

When viewed from the north celestial pole, i.e. from the approximate direction of the star Polaris, the Moon orbits Earth anticlockwise and Earth orbits the Sun anticlockwise, and the Moon and Earth rotate on their own axes anticlockwise. Earth's moon exhibits prograde motion, meaning that it orbits Earth in the same direction that Earth is rotating on its axis. Viewed from above the North Pole, this is counter-clockwise. This is also the same direction in which Earth orbits the Sun, and the same direction in which the Sun rotates on its axis. The earth rotates west to east just as the moon orbits west to east. The moon is also 240,000 miles away orbiting at approximately 2288 mph as it takes over 27 days to complete an orbit around the earth. This means just as we observe the shadow of an eclipse will move west to east.

Lunar eclipses with the sun and moon are visible are called selenelion eclipses. They are easily explained by refraction as they only occur when the moon and sun are rising and setting at the same time. Furthermore we again have telescopes and radio telescopes all confirming locations.

I've already provided a couple of practical examples but hey there are videos out there where folks have demonstrated this using a simple baseball with water. Simply pour the water on the baseball and drop it. While it tumbles towards the ground you can record the water conforming to the shape of the baseball as it falls. Anyways already provided you with the examples of the earth as well as other celestial objects in our solar system.
Funny that you ask all these questions yet you haven't bothered to ask yourself why it is that there is no map or model for a flat earth that lines up with real world observation. It kind of makes you look like a troll.
.
Sly Sparkane
Sly Sparkane
1 year ago
"Has anyone really researched what lens Distortion really is?"
-yup...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WshKGGTfkiA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyQmtsUlk8s
.
Pauline Underground
Pauline Underground
1 year ago
Sly Sparkane not simulations but real video evidence of where the top of water starts to curve, if you show me this and I will believe in the "spinning ball earth", there has just been too much fraud presented that has been proven to be illegitimate, there's too many lies,

2


Sly Sparkane
Sly Sparkane
1 year ago
Pat... the movement of the camera does not cause the lens distortion.. otherwise it would be called movement distortion.. keyword in Lens distortion.. is the LENS..
Dogcam was also with lens distortion.. however the very location of the praised 'hotspot' pretty much damns FE anyways, because at no time in history (definitely not recent history) was the Sun directly over northern Poland... The bobble-head balloon was filmed with a GoPro H2..  are you going to make a single researched point in the near future?

2


Requiem4aDr3Am
Requiem4aDr3Am
1 year ago
it's obvious that A Bertinasco, Pat Falcey, Daniel Guevara, and Mark Jamus are nothing but trolls. They have nothing of intelligence to offer mankind.

3


Sly Sparkane
Sly Sparkane
1 year ago
Req... they do their movement proud...

.
There are over 300 more Replies all under the first comment by Wolfie6020.

Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Stanley N on August 18, 2018, 09:50:54 AM
Not sure what you're getting at here. The video seems to be arguing perspective.
Here's the question, then. In a flat earth world, for an observer at the same level as their bases, can you say which of these should appear taller: a 20m tall object that is 20 km away, or a 120m tall object that is 60 km away?
If that's not enough information to decide, what other factors would you need to know?
.
The 120m tall object 60 km away would appear twice as tall (40m) compared to the 20m tall object 20 km away.
Thanks. I tried to boil down the argument in the video to a simple case with simple numbers.
I really hope Ladislaus comes back to explain why this wouldn't be the case. This is important, because Ladislaus dismissed the argument in the video as being "utterly idiotic" and discrediting "globe earthism". 

Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 18, 2018, 06:08:57 PM
.
Referring to the video on top in my previous post,
Here is one comment by the author that clearly explains what he has been answering with these videos regarding distortion:
.
.
David Murphy
David Murphy
2 years ago
Feel free to mock me for asking this but...  why is this distortion effect employed?  Is it for a wider field of view, because the effect is pleasing or does it suit some kind of pragmatic purpose that I'm not aware of?
.
Sly Sparkane
Sly Sparkane
2 years ago
+David Murphy (DaddyMonster) it is simply a distortion caused by the wide angle lens on the camera.. nothing more spectacular than that.. Greater field of view from 1 camera.. FEs like to say [effectively] that when the distortion flattens the horizon below the center at high altitudes, it means the Earth is flat.. Yet cry foul when the exaggerated curve is shown above center..
.
.
This is the same error that Ladislaus has bought into, which is why he cannot understand how high altitude cameras work.
.
Ladislaus weakly conforms to the flat-earthers' lie regarding wide angle lenses (that only when the horizon is below the center of the viewing frame is the flattening effect of distortion relevant, while pretending that the curvature exaggerated above center is some kind of violation); and likewise they deliberately overlook the relative heights of distant objects when compared to objects at closer range, because things far away look "smaller due to perspective."
.
Anyone with any experience in photography knows that when using a telephoto lens objects at great distance in the background appear relatively LARGER compared to foreground objects. Anyone can see this by having a man stand still 200 feet in front of a large object like a house, and take his picture with the house in the background with a wide angle lens. The house will appear small. Then keeping the man where he is, the cameraman moves away 200 feet further making it 400 feet to the house, and changes lenses to a 200 mm telephoto. Taking another picture, with the man the same size as in the wide angle shot, the house in the telephoto will appear much larger. Therefore it is a FALLACY to say that distant objects always appear smaller. Because when you zoom in on them they appear to be larger, and if you change the distance to the foreground subject, it can be quite deceptive.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8LNSSQLzXY
.
For the record, this video (above) is now 2 years old.
The video it rebutts has since been taken down, apparently by the owner - a flat-earther who was embarrassed by being exposed.
The exposure is this video here, which near the end includes a few screen shots of the flat-earther's removed video.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 18, 2018, 06:32:52 PM
The 120m tall object 60 km away would appear twice as tall (40m) compared to the 20m tall object 20 km away.

Thanks. I tried to boil down the argument in the video to a simple case with simple numbers.
I really hope Ladislaus comes back to explain why this wouldn't be the case. This is important, because Ladislaus dismissed the argument in the video as being "utterly idiotic" and discrediting "globe earthism".
.
It's a fake accusation for him to say a video showing amazing power zoom is "utterly idiotic" -- because for him, using a zoom improperly (without a solar filter) is his idea of showing that the sun can be made to "rise" from the horizon by increased power of zoom. Ladislaus defends the utterly idiotic while falsely accusing accurate analysis of the same. He's got it backwards!
.
Ladislaus is not going to answer your well-thought-out question because he is not capable of thinking logically in regards to geometrical perspective. He has no idea what you're talking about. To prove my point, if he ever does reply he will continue with a series of inquiries that imply your negligence to consider other factors such as barrel distortion, humidity, refraction, temperature, time of day, type of surface (water or hard earth), heat differential and the like. He will attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill because he denies the whole point of your question. It cannot be simple for him and his ilk, it must be far more complicated such that no correct answer is possible.
.
He weakly and ignorantly buys the flat-earth nonsense and deceptions eagerly and without any objective inquiry, all the while claiming that he has a "great talent for shredding bad arguments."
More like, he has a great talent for sticking his own foot in his own mouth.   ::)
.
"Flat" Earth is Complete Balderdash!
.
.
And it generates foot-in-mouth syndrome.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 18, 2018, 07:01:36 PM
Not sure what you're getting at here. The video seems to be arguing perspective.
Here's the question, then. In a flat earth world, for an observer at the same level as their bases, can you say which of these should appear taller: a 20m tall object that is 20 km away, or a 120m tall object that is 60 km away?
If that's not enough information to decide, what other factors would you need to know?
.
I can offer a subsidiary problem that takes this one step higher:
.
In the same flat earth world, with the same observer facing the two distant objects and standing at the same elevation as the bases of the two objects, how far forward would the observer have to move in order for him to see the tops of the two distant objects appear to be the same height?
.
.
.
.
Take (40K + x) over
120 all times 20 = x;
20K - x is the answer
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 19, 2018, 09:19:26 PM
.
A more general form that covers both versions could go as follows:
.
On a fair, clear day, a man on a hypothetically "flat" earth is standing on flat ground, facing a clear view of two distant objects, also on flat ground, the closest of which is 20 kilometers away from him; there it stands 20 meters tall. In nearly the same direction the man sees a second object at 60 Km away, standing 120 m tall. 
- A) Which direction does the man have to walk: toward  the objects, further away from them, or not at all -- such that when he lies on the ground to look at them, the two distant objects would appear to be the same height, and 
- B) How far must he walk (toward, away or zero) to arrive at this position (where the objects would seem to be equally tall)? 
- For extra credit, by what magnitude and in which direction does this (B) distance change if the man had from the start viewed the two distant objects from the prone position, instead of standing?
.
The original question, "...which of these should appear taller...?" would be redundant since it is displaced by part (A) in the general form, above. Additionally, anyone attempting to solve the problem who complains, that which object from the start appears taller has nothing to do with which way the man would have to walk in order to see them appear the same height, does not understand the problem at all, or is ignorant of how perspective works. IOW it exhibits nescience typical of flat-earthers.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash - calling Ladislaus
Post by: Stanley N on August 20, 2018, 06:16:39 PM
:facepalm:
Utterly idiotic.  It's optics/perspective 101 that things appear smaller as they get farther away from the observer.  It's this kind of thing that discredits globe earthism, when globe earthers present this a "proof".
Not sure what you're getting at here. The video seems to be arguing perspective. 
Here's the question, then. In a flat earth world, for an observer at the same level as their bases, can you say which of these should appear taller: a 20m tall object that is 20 km away, or a 120m tall object that is 60 km away?
If that's not enough information to decide, what other factors would you need to know?
OK, it has been long enough.
Ladislaus condemned the argument in the video as idiotic. I would like an explanation why as outlined above.
This is a serious matter, because this is a Catholic forum representing traditional Catholicism, and anything someone says here (even anonymously) has moral consequences if it misleads anyone about the Church, or worse, drives someone away from the Church.
The math for the FE model is usually within the range of high school geometry and algebra. Making mistakes on something simple - that a LOT of people can understand - harms credibility not just on FE topics but on every other topic here. It makes us look like gullible fools and undermines traditional Catholicism.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: happenby on August 22, 2018, 10:41:58 AM


Try to focus, it is not a difficult question to comprehend:
Can you provide a practical evidential example of a body of water conforming to the exterior of a shape
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Stanley N on August 22, 2018, 04:34:02 PM
Try to focus, it is not a difficult question to comprehend:
Can you provide a practical evidential example of a body of water conforming to the exterior of a shape

Every body of water on earth.
Also water in zero G.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8TssbmY-GM
(This video doesn't look like it has a cut from 0:52 to 1:45, a little long for a zero G airplane. but that's a different topic.)
Goldfish in a water bubble in a zero-G elevator
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJjoYG2iyf0
You can find several images of insects inside drops of water without zero G, too.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: happenby on August 22, 2018, 09:19:28 PM
Oh boy.  This is going to be a long haul.  For now, besides begging the question with NASA nonsense, have you ever seen water gather around and stick to the outside of a ball?   Have you ever seen water surface in a glass or a pool curve?   
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Stanley N on August 22, 2018, 09:38:03 PM
Oh boy.  This is going to be a long haul.  For now, besides begging the question with NASA nonsense, have you ever seen water gather around and stick to the outside of a ball?   Have you ever seen water surface in a glass or a pool curve?  
Yes. Every large lake or body of water on earth.
You can get a water bulge over a glass (such as a cylinder, or a slide), though that is from a different force.

And if you were fast you could see the same thing as the NASA video in an airplane in zero G maneuver.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: hismajesty on August 23, 2018, 06:29:31 AM
Yes. Every large lake or body of water on earth.
You can get a water bulge over a glass (such as a cylinder, or a slide), though that is from a different force.

And if you were fast you could see the same thing as the NASA video in an airplane in zero G maneuver.

Your first remark presumes the earth is round which is a circular logic.

There is only minor bulges in water in real life. Nothing on a big scale.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Stanley N on August 23, 2018, 08:11:21 AM
Your first remark presumes the earth is round which is a circular logic.
The curve of a body of water is something you can measure.
But I suppose you would reject as invalid any observation that disagrees with your FE notions.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: hismajesty on August 23, 2018, 12:11:32 PM
The curve of a body of water is something you can measure.
But I suppose you would reject as invalid any observation that disagrees with your FE notions.

Not at all. It is precisely because I don't have preconceived notions that I am flat earth.

Did you look at the links I provided you in the other thread?
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: happenby on August 23, 2018, 11:08:03 PM
The curve of a body of water is something you can measure.
But I suppose you would reject as invalid any observation that disagrees with your FE notions.
This is hilarious.  Who told you such a thing?  Water surface ALWAYS settles flat.  Aside from FE, curving surface of water is a farce. There is no empirical proof settled water surface curves or maintains curvature of any type.  Water settles flat in my glass, in my pool, in the lake behind my house, and as described, in the glassy seas.    
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Stanley N on August 23, 2018, 11:24:46 PM
Not at all. It is precisely because I don't have preconceived notions that I am flat earth.

Did you look at the links I provided you in the other thread?
Yes. Why don't you come up with one piece of "evidence" that in your view most clearly shows the earth is flat.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Stanley N on August 24, 2018, 12:05:23 AM
This is hilarious.  Who told you such a thing?  Water surface ALWAYS settles flat.  Aside from FE, curving surface of water is a farce. There is no empirical proof settled water surface curves or maintains curvature of any type.  Water settles flat in my glass, in my pool, in the lake behind my house, and as described, in the glassy seas.    
Have you measured this over a reasonably large distance?
Relative to gravity, water "settles" to an equal gravitational potential. That is only "flat" as an approximation for small distances.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: hismajesty on August 24, 2018, 09:56:17 AM
Yes. Why don't you come up with one piece of "evidence" that in your view most clearly shows the earth is flat.

http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/f9-flat-earth-proofs
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Stanley N on August 24, 2018, 01:51:56 PM
Yes. Why don't you come up with one piece of "evidence" that in your view most clearly shows the earth is flat.
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/f9-flat-earth-proofs
In reply to my question you give me a link to some forum?

Please come up with ONE piece of evidence YOU think clear and persuasive that you are willing to defend.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 24, 2018, 11:47:23 PM
http://flatearthtards.forumga.net/f9-flat-earth-proofs

In reply to my question you give me a link to some forum?

Please come up with ONE piece of evidence YOU think clear and persuasive that you are willing to defend.
.
The link he provided is to the ghost town website, the forum where they get no hits from non-members, and there are only about 7 members. So they keep posting links on other forums (even though it's a violation of the CI guidelines), and some of them are deleted by the moderators and some are not. But if you bother to go there (I recommend you don't waste your time, because it only gives them the impression that someone came to visit) don't miss the fact that it's a very closed club, very secretive, kind of creepy, and quite full of misery and unhappiness. Misery loves company, apparently.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: happenby on August 25, 2018, 12:50:10 PM
With all there is to do, and the growth in the Catholic flat earth world, there are natural swings in traffic as the word spreads.  This isn't going away because Scriptural cosmology is true, it's Catholic, it's traditional, and it is pertinent to every aspect of what is going on with the crisis in the world today.   Carry on flat earthers.  Christ reigns. 
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 25, 2018, 06:58:47 PM
With all there is to do, and the growth in the Catholic flat earth world, there are natural swings in traffic as the word spreads.  This isn't going away because Scriptural cosmology is true, it's Catholic, it's traditional, and it is pertinent to every aspect of what is going on with the crisis in the world today. Carry on flat earthers. Christ reigns.
.
More fantasyland, golden-calf, Shangri-La, flat-earthdom syndrome subjective dreamland nonsense.
.
There is nothing Catholic about flat-earthdom syndrome. It is a disorder. Get some help. Before it's too late.
.
Or is it all ready too late?
.
Carrion (for flat-earth vultures).
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: hismajesty on August 28, 2018, 05:43:23 AM
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/f9-flat-earth-proofs

In reply to my question you give me a link to some forum?

Please come up with ONE piece of evidence YOU think clear and persuasive that you are willing to defend.

Look mate, the evidence is all there if you bother to read the link.

You can discuss it here on this forum, but I don't have the time to go reproducing it here.

You're not the first, and won't be the last person to get all foot-stomping about demanding everything be put at their feet, as if you are a king of a country.
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 28, 2018, 11:50:47 AM

Look mate, the evidence is all there if you bother to read the link.

.
Evidence? Evidence?? There is no "evidence" at the flattard forum.
Why do you think they don't get any views?
There is nothing there to offer so why should anyone go there?
If you want an echo chamber you can put a bucket over your head.
.
Quote
You can discuss it here on this forum, but I don't have the time to go reproducing it here.

You're not the first, and won't be the last person to get all foot-stomping about demanding everything be put at their feet, as if you are a king of a country.
.
You mean, there isn't anything to reproduce so why bother?
.
Look at the foot-stomping!  Go there, do this, do that, I can't, you're not, you are...  So funny!  :jester:
.
Flat-earthdom syndromers are so predictable.
.
Here's one to keep you up to speed on the latest developments in flat-earthdomville -- you can't make this stuff up.
.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ysXNNmBRBc
.
.
Skip the first 4 minutes: it is useless.
.
Quotes:
.
The reason flat-earth doesn't have a model is, the model is the earth itself. 4:27
(The model is the earth.)
The earth that we live in, in reality, is not a model. 7:10
(The earth is not a model.)
There is no point to modeling the sun, the moon and the stars. 7:25
(To model the solar system is useless for flat-earthdom.)
Modeling is the only trick that they (globe earthers) have; that's their whole hand. 7:45
(Modeling is a deception of globe-earthers.)
Getting mixed up in the modeling game, you're trying to prove something that doesn't exist. 8:20
(Any positive model involves proving a negative.)
Trying to prove or disprove something is not real. 8:30
(To prove or disprove anything is to leave reality behind.)
You see: THEY have a model on the globe side, so they have to PROVE that. 8:40
(Globers have a model that's why they have to prove something.)
Do you even think for one second that your model can stand up to the real world? It can't! 10:45
(Flat-earthers should abandon models because they fail in the flat-earth world.)
If you can take somebody out of the real world then you can control them because you control the model. 10:59
(To agree to the model game is to be controlled by the enemy.)
You cannot control the real earth so you can't control anyone who is in tune with said real earth. 11:09
(By refusing the model game you cannot be controlled.)
That's why it's about the model. 11:17
(Now we'll re-define the scientific method to exclude all testing of the hypothesis.)
(And while we're at it, we will pretend that the singular phenomenon is not real.)
There is no model -- there is no test!
There is only the scientific method that if you observe a phenomena [sic] that's when you come up with a hypothesis.
THAT'S when you start assuming, AFTER you come up with an observed phenomena [sic]!
You don't come up with an observed phenomena [sic] AFTER you pre-assume! 11:52
You have to have the scientific method PERIOD!
You observe a phenomena [sic].
You say "What the heck was that?"
You have to come up with an independent variable and a dependent variable.
So you can establish cause and affect [sic].              
(pronounced UUH-fect, not ee-FECT)
You can't do that with a model because a model has no observed phenomena in it!
We should call it the "real earth" and forget about the "flat" because defining that "earth" isn't necessary. 13:36
.

Yes. Why don't you come up with one piece of "evidence" that in your view most clearly shows the earth is flat.
.
Bottom line is, flat-earthdom syndromers cannot come up with one piece of evidence.
.
The fact that you're making such an OVERBEARING and MODEL-BASED demand proves that you're deceiving someone!
.
Flat-earthers are not going to play your GAME!
.
They're going to demand that you get in touch with the real earth and leave behind all your pre-conceptions.
.
It's all about feelings, don't you know!
Title: Re: "Flat" Earth -- Complete Balderdash
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 28, 2018, 12:12:30 PM
The curve of a body of water is something you can measure.
But I suppose you would reject as invalid any observation that disagrees with your FE notions.
.
In the video above (previous post) he explains the intentions of flat-earthers, which is, to deny the need for taking any measurements.
.
No math, no numbers, no angles, no temperatures, no distances, none of that stuff.
He argues against having any pre-determined notions, but only when it's in conflict with his flat-earthism notions.
Flat-earthers reject as invalid any observation that conflicts with THEIR notions, so it's a one-way street.
.
For flat-earthers, it's back to the land of the know-nothings, where nobody uses their God-given ability to THINK.
.
It's all about how you FEEL.
.
We don't FEEL the earth move, spin, precess (even though it takes 24,000 years for one cycle).
We can't FEEL the curvature, we can't FEEL an eclipse.
.
I'd like to see a live stream video of a flat-earther being subjected to a vacuum environment, see what he says.
.
That is, until there's no more air so he finds himself unable to speak anymore.
.
(Then give him back his air and let's hear all about how vacuums are impossible!)