An excellent response to flat earth nonsense.
Numbers and simple math disproves all their childish yammering.
.
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."
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:
I hope your tendencies remain consistent with the Dogmatic Flatearthists on this site.
.
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?
(https://i.imgur.com/3nlDhCY.jpg)
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.
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:
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!"
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.
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.
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 nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr 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.
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.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 nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr "science" demonstrates said bias.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr "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.
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.While I agree that aspects of Neil's posts are problematic, why complain about him and say nothing about TruthisEternal, for example?
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?
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.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.
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.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.
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.
when it's clear to anyone who has watched small objects disappear into the distance
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.
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?
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.Calmness has nothing to do with facts.
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.
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.
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.Every word you wrote in this post is a total lie.
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.
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.
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.
.Saying that 6 miles at sea should account for 24 feet of drop is nonsense:
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.
.
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
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.
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 circuмference sphere is a fact. One minute you globers say it's curved, the next you deny it.
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.
.
Your emotionally charged outbursts discredit everything you say, Ladislaus.
Like most ancient peoples, the Hebrews believed the sky was a solid dome with the Sun, Moon, planets and stars embedded in itIn the same article you quote above, you will find:
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]
Anyone with surveying experience knows this intuitively, ...
.
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.
.
.It's not perfect but it's close enough. Ballers think level means curved when it's convenient to their argument.
"The math formula" is not applied correctly by flat-earthers. That's the point.
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!
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.
It only has Biblical roots if you don't understand allegory and you are trying to distort Scripture.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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. . . .”
Firmament is an interpretive translation of a Hebrew word that means "expanse".Sorry, tried, but cannot make the font smaller.
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.
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.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 docuмents 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 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.
Equally true is that Scripture CANNOT be credibly interpreted as describing earth is a globe.
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.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.
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.
You are spreading false information in suggesting that Scripture is allegorical as if the literal sense does not take precedence.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.
Scripture must always be interpreted in the literal unless proven otherwise.
I won't be surprised if Ladislaus conveniently ignores this question.
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.
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.
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 docuмents 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 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.If my credibility is destroyed for helping people to understand Catholic opinion unsullied by spinners, let it be so.
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.Can you give an opinion from a Catholic authority (Saints, Doctors, magisterial sources) any time after 700 that suggests that the earth is flat?
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.
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.
Can you give an opinion from a Catholic authority (Saints, Doctors, magisterial sources) any time after 700 that suggests that the earth is flat?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).
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.
So genuine Catholic opinion still exists in the church as it is today?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.
Has it really persisted through today? You don't believe that Truth has been eclipsed or distorted by modernism?
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.
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).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".
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I have proven it. Everybody but the handful of flat earthers here can tell that I have provided ample support for all my assertions.
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:
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.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:
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.
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?
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 docuмentation 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.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.
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.
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").
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").Again, do show us the many Saints and Doctors who taught earth is a globe.
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.
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 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.
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.
That's okay. We're still waiting for proof of the claim that many saints and doctors taught flat earth.
I can't hear you over the sound of your hypocrisy.:laugh1:
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.
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
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.You have not provided quotes to prove the Church supports the globe.
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
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.
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.
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.
.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.
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.
.You have both been insulting each other enough that I cannot remember who started it.
Amazing. A reply! Complete with the insult, of course.
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.
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 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.
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
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.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.
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.
I'm still waiting for you to provide an image of something that you believe shouldn't be visible due to curvature.
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
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.
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.
.There isn't anything wrong with not knowing things. It's a problem when people refuse to learn.
If you knew anything about meteorology perhaps you would be better able to understand a meteorologist.
Hmm, I stand corrected on the Chicago case. Apparently it is necessary to include some refraction to make the math work.
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.
.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.
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?
There isn't anything wrong with not knowing things. It's a problem when people refuse to learn.;D :popcorn:
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.
.No, it's entirely true.
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!
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..
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.
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 see. So you're saying it's not solid proof for either shaped Earth.
I'd be interested to know which phenomena explains it.
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.
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.
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).
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 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.I like this simple diagram much better. ;D
(http://blob:https://imgur.com/4f85713d-04bd-4a97-b4ba-44aeda066243)
(https://i.imgur.com/ywL6iiw.jpg)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Sun heats up the atmosphere and it expands (locally, since it's a small Sun), while The Moon cools it (again, locally).
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..
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).
.Observe this, Neil.
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.Question for 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.
Happenby posted the video..
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..
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..
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..
.
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..
You wanted curvature?
:facepalm:Not sure what you're getting at here. The video seems to be arguing perspective.
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?
: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?
Thanks. I tried to boil down the argument in the video to a simple case with simple numbers.Not sure what you're getting at here. The video seems to be arguing perspective.The 120m tall object 60 km away would appear twice as tall (40m) compared to the 20m tall object 20 km away.
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".
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.:facepalm:Not sure what you're getting at here. The video seems to be arguing perspective.
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 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?
Try to focus, it is not a difficult question to comprehend:Every body of water on earth.
Can you provide a practical evidential example of a body of water conforming to the exterior of a shape
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.
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.The curve of a body of water is something you can measure.
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.
The curve of a body of water is something you can measure.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.
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.Yes. Why don't you come up with one piece of "evidence" that in your view most clearly shows the earth is flat.
Did you look at the links I provided you in the other thread?
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?
Yes. Why don't you come up with one piece of "evidence" that in your view most clearly shows the earth is flat.
In reply to my question you give me a link to some forum?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
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.
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..
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.
.
Yes. Why don't you come up with one piece of "evidence" that in your view most clearly shows the earth is flat.
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.