Author Topic: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat (Read 248149 times)

happenby · « **Reply #300 on:** March 09, 2017, 06:33:22 PM »

Quote from: Truth is Eternal

Quote from: noOneImportant
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.

And that's why truly flat, consistently level surfaces don't exist. The fact is that you need a very large body of water for the curvature to be large enough to detect. A little simple algebra can demonstrate this. So you need to either be at a coastline, where you can observe the sun sinking below the horizon, or some other sufficiently large body of water.

The spring equinox is in a few weeks, so anyone unconvinced can easily go observe for themselves the proof of the round earth by watching sunrise on the 20th. See (the last part of the video I think) for a full explanation of the proof and why it works.

What does the Pope have to do with anything at all?

The sun does not sink below the horizon.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/7Zy_qg5EbJk[/youtube]

Phenomenal video! Sun is shown within the firmament where it exists, with localized light illuminating a small area of clouds and not from 93,000,000 miles away Plus, this is a shut the front door and shut your mouth proof that the sun does not disappear behind the curve.

mw2016 · « **Reply #301 on:** March 09, 2017, 07:20:22 PM »

Quote from: noOneImportant

I made a very long post somewhere in one of the 30 threads on this topic about conclusions that can and can't be drawn from horizon pictures like these. The long and the short of it is that to actual get measurable curvature*, you have to be at around 30,000 feet, have at least 60 degrees field of view, and have be careful to minimize lens distortion**.

NoOneImportant:

I have a task for you.

Please go to your child's playroom.

Select a ball. Any size - doesn't matter. Beach ball, golf ball, baseball.

Now, please demonstrate the flat surface on any of the balls you found.

It's ok, I'll wait....

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Alright, so there weren't any flat areas, now were there?

No, I didn't think so.

Therefore, no matter the size - a ball is a ball is a ball. There are NO FLAT SURFACES ON A BALL.

EVER.

ManuelChavez · « **Reply #302 on:** March 09, 2017, 11:32:06 PM »

Quote from: happenby

Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: noOneImportant
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: Neil Obstat

But if the earth were flat, the angle between the north star, Polaris, and the horizon, would always be the same, regardless of latitude.

Not at all.

mw is correct. Why is everyone in this thread so bad at geometry? It is trivial to show the curvature of the earth with basic geometry. The greeks did it over 2000 years ago.

There is no curvature to the earth.

Those are all panoramic shots, and by their nature, would not exhibit any curve.

Panoramic shots are designed to work in this way, so these shots in and of themselves do not prove a flat earth, nor do they disprove a globe earth.

If you are going to claim that NASA's photos of the globe earth are fake, then you cannot use photos that have been stitched together by computer software to claim the earth is flat.

That is illogical.

Ok, do show, anything at all, that proves curve commensurate with a 24,000 mile ball. Your own personal tests, someone else's tests, photos, whatever. Please only untouched, non cgi, not photoshopped evidence. But I'll take anything at all.

Just to save you time and effort if you were to try, let me admit to you that no one to date has produced this evidence and I've been doing flat earth for almost 10 years now. Why? Because they know it doesn't exist. NASA provides glorious photoshops of all sorts of things in outer space, yet not one true video of the rotating earth. Seriously? Not one single photo of the ball earth. NOT ONE!!! BY NASA'S OWN ADMISSION! So, please explain to me where is your evidence that earth is a ball?

Let me guess, you think earth is a ball...

1. Because NASA says so.
2. Because somebody says a shadow on the moon is curved.
3. Because teachers said so.
4. Because somebody said that flat earth is stupid.
5. Because everybody else says its true.
6. Because somebody says that the stars and sun and moon wouldn't work on flat earth.
7. Because somebody said ships disappear over the horizon.
8. Because somebody said astronauts saw it.

Wow. 100% of heliocentrism theory held by individuals is unsubstantiated, undocuмented, unphotographed, untenable HEARSAY! I really want to understand why good Catholics maintain heliocentric theory, when the Catholic Church condemned heliocentrism? Scripture only describes a flat immovable earth. Church Fathers condemned heliocentric theory, including sphericity of earth, based on scripture, yet Catholics still have the nerve to hold this blatantly condemned proposition.

Maybe you could explain that to me. I really don't get it. What are people holding on to?

Your post is full of assumptions. I never said I support heliocentrism. I never mentioned it. Your list of reasons for recognizing the possibility of the globe earth are not mine, nor have I ever implied these things.

Your assumptions of my reasons and my motivations are incorrect. Instead of assuming, you should ask first before shooting...

ManuelChavez · « **Reply #303 on:** March 09, 2017, 11:33:31 PM »

Quote from: Truth is Eternal

Quote from: happenby
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: noOneImportant
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: Neil Obstat

But if the earth were flat, the angle between the north star, Polaris, and the horizon, would always be the same, regardless of latitude.

Not at all.

mw is correct. Why is everyone in this thread so bad at geometry? It is trivial to show the curvature of the earth with basic geometry. The greeks did it over 2000 years ago.

There is no curvature to the earth.

Those are all panoramic shots, and by their nature, would not exhibit any curve.

Panoramic shots are designed to work in this way, so these shots in and of themselves do not prove a flat earth, nor do they disprove a globe earth.

If you are going to claim that NASA's photos of the globe earth are fake, then you cannot use photos that have been stitched together by computer software to claim the earth is flat.

That is illogical.

Ok, do show, anything at all, that proves curve commensurate with a 24,000 mile ball. Your own personal tests, someone else's tests, photos, whatever. Please only untouched, non cgi, not photoshopped evidence. But I'll take anything at all.

Just to save you time and effort if you were to try, let me admit to you that no one to date has produced this evidence and I've been doing flat earth for almost 10 years now. Why? Because they know it doesn't exist. NASA provides glorious photoshops of all sorts of things in outer space, yet not one true video of the rotating earth. Seriously? Not one single photo of the ball earth. NOT ONE!!! BY NASA'S OWN ADMISSION! So, please explain to me where is your evidence that earth is a ball?

Let me guess, you think earth is a ball...

1. Because NASA says so.
2. Because somebody says a shadow on the moon is curved.
3. Because teachers said so.
4. Because somebody said that flat earth is stupid.
5. Because everybody else says its true.
6. Because somebody says that the stars and sun and moon wouldn't work on flat earth.
7. Because somebody said ships disappear over the horizon.
8. Because somebody said astronauts saw it.

Wow. 100% of heliocentrism theory held by individuals is unsubstantiated, undocuмented, unphotographed, untenable HEARSAY! I really want to understand why good Catholics maintain heliocentric theory, when the Catholic Church condemned heliocentrism? Scripture only describes a flat immovable earth. Church Fathers condemned heliocentric theory, including sphericity of earth, based on scripture, yet Catholics still have the nerve to hold this blatantly condemned proposition.

Maybe you could explain that to me. I really don't get it. What are people holding on to?

They love Pope Francis more than Catholic Tradition.

That is untrue, and it is quite rude as well.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #304 on:** March 09, 2017, 11:44:21 PM »

Quote from: Truth is Eternal

The sun does not sink below the horizon.

False.

It is plainly visible from a private airplane, when flying westward at sunset, to see the sun dip below the horizon, all one needs to do is to gain elevation a few hundred feet to see the sun re-appear where it went down, and then by descending one can see the sun set again over the horizon.

On a clear day, standing in a valley with mountains to the east, anyone with eyes to see can follow the shadow of the setting sun cast on the mountainside as it moves up the hillside. You can actually watch it move -- but it moves slowly. On an open field, such as Death Valley, you cannot run fast enough to keep up with the shadow it moves so fast.

Of course, some people (generally Modernists) cannot believe what they see with their own eyes.

happenby · « **Reply #305 on:** March 10, 2017, 12:35:14 AM »

Quote from: ManuelChavez

Quote from: happenby
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: noOneImportant
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: Neil Obstat

But if the earth were flat, the angle between the north star, Polaris, and the horizon, would always be the same, regardless of latitude.

Not at all.

mw is correct. Why is everyone in this thread so bad at geometry? It is trivial to show the curvature of the earth with basic geometry. The greeks did it over 2000 years ago.

There is no curvature to the earth.

Those are all panoramic shots, and by their nature, would not exhibit any curve.

Panoramic shots are designed to work in this way, so these shots in and of themselves do not prove a flat earth, nor do they disprove a globe earth.

If you are going to claim that NASA's photos of the globe earth are fake, then you cannot use photos that have been stitched together by computer software to claim the earth is flat.

That is illogical.

Ok, do show, anything at all, that proves curve commensurate with a 24,000 mile ball. Your own personal tests, someone else's tests, photos, whatever. Please only untouched, non cgi, not photoshopped evidence. But I'll take anything at all.

Just to save you time and effort if you were to try, let me admit to you that no one to date has produced this evidence and I've been doing flat earth for almost 10 years now. Why? Because they know it doesn't exist. NASA provides glorious photoshops of all sorts of things in outer space, yet not one true video of the rotating earth. Seriously? Not one single photo of the ball earth. NOT ONE!!! BY NASA'S OWN ADMISSION! So, please explain to me where is your evidence that earth is a ball?

Let me guess, you think earth is a ball...

1. Because NASA says so.
2. Because somebody says a shadow on the moon is curved.
3. Because teachers said so.
4. Because somebody said that flat earth is stupid.
5. Because everybody else says its true.
6. Because somebody says that the stars and sun and moon wouldn't work on flat earth.
7. Because somebody said ships disappear over the horizon.
8. Because somebody said astronauts saw it.

Wow. 100% of heliocentrism theory held by individuals is unsubstantiated, undocuмented, unphotographed, untenable HEARSAY! I really want to understand why good Catholics maintain heliocentric theory, when the Catholic Church condemned heliocentrism? Scripture only describes a flat immovable earth. Church Fathers condemned heliocentric theory, including sphericity of earth, based on scripture, yet Catholics still have the nerve to hold this blatantly condemned proposition.

Maybe you could explain that to me. I really don't get it. What are people holding on to?

Your post is full of assumptions. I never said I support heliocentrism. I never mentioned it. Your list of reasons for recognizing the possibility of the globe earth are not mine, nor have I ever implied these things.

Your assumptions of my reasons and my motivations are incorrect. Instead of assuming, you should ask first before shooting...

.

If you aren't scriptural geocentric, you are heliocentric. Any in between theories are presumed by the uninformed and demonstrably belong to heliocentric theory.

It's flat earth or heliocentrism, so I haven't assumed anything...unless you changed your mind about flat earth.

FlatEarthInquisitor · « **Reply #306 on:** March 10, 2017, 03:04:20 AM »

Quote from: Matto

As much as I think about the flat earth I focus on one point that I cannot understand. The sun's movement in the sky. I cannot reconcile how the sun moves in the sky with the flat earth models I have seen. If in the flat earth model the sun rose from the east and set in the west and at night went below the flat earth it would make sense and the sun would move the same way as it is observed but then you would have to say there is a vast conspiracy about time zones, but the model where the sun is moving around in a big circle over the flat earth and never sets just does not seem to fit the way the sun moves in the sky. So I do not believe it.

The latter model does not seem to make sense because you haven't read about the law of perspective.

As objects move further away, they have the appearance of moving down.

Check out the images in the video at this link to grasp it http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t87-loi-du-perspective-explique

Its not very complicated and is common sense. Check out also the star trails video I posted earlier.

I wouldn't pivot your decision on the flat earth based on that though. To accept the law of perspective you really have to accept the flat earth (not absolutely - just for most people there are too many barriers). Which means you have to have studied the more compelling proofs such as objects that we can see, which we shouldn't, etc. etc.

Usually I find people put blocks up to accepting the flat earth, because they don't want to accept it, and that's really what it boils down to. They don't want to make the effort, or are afraid of coming across as crazy. But I can say it is the most liberating acceptance, once it is done.

FlatEarthInquisitor · « **Reply #307 on:** March 10, 2017, 03:10:41 AM »

Quote from: noOneImportant

Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: noOneImportant
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: Neil Obstat

But if the earth were flat, the angle between the north star, Polaris, and the horizon, would always be the same, regardless of latitude.

Not at all.

mw is correct. Why is everyone in this thread so bad at geometry? It is trivial to show the curvature of the earth with basic geometry. The greeks did it over 2000 years ago.

There is no curvature to the earth.

I made a very long post somewhere in one of the 30 threads on this topic about conclusions that can and can't be drawn from horizon pictures like these. The long and the short of it is that to actual get measurable curvature*, you have to be at around 30,000 feet, have at least 60 degrees field of view, and have be careful to minimize lens distortion**. Those pictures prove nothing, and parroting statements while reposting them over and over isn't an argument that will convince a rational human being.

tl;dr - photographs of the "flat" horizon are rarely, if ever, useful in these arguments. Also pictures are easy to manipulate, so there's that to worry about as well.

* based on a earth with 4k mile radius, as per the "globe model".

** Lens distortion is a real issue, because lenses are round, so you can actually take a photograph of a flat line and have it be curved up, curved down, or flat, depending on how careful you are. Likewise, you can take a picture of a curved surface and distort that curvature so it isn't noticeable.

There's no reason why you should have to ascend to 30000 feet and have at least 60 degrees of view to see curvature. When you actually see the rates of curvature written out, you realise you should be able to see it, even from a mountain.

If you can produce a reason for this imaginary necessity, I would be interested to hear it.

FlatEarthInquisitor · « **Reply #308 on:** March 10, 2017, 03:16:16 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Truth is Eternal

The sun does not sink below the horizon.

False.

It is plainly visible from a private airplane, when flying westward at sunset, to see the sun dip below the horizon, all one needs to do is to gain elevation a few hundred feet to see the sun re-appear where it went down, and then by descending one can see the sun set again over the horizon.

On a clear day, standing in a valley with mountains to the east, anyone with eyes to see can follow the shadow of the setting sun cast on the mountainside as it moves up the hillside. You can actually watch it move -- but it moves slowly. On an open field, such as Death Valley, you cannot run fast enough to keep up with the shadow it moves so fast.

Of course, some people (generally Modernists) cannot believe what they see with their own eyes.

Seeing the sun when you ascend in a plane has nothing to do with the earth being round. This is explained by the law of perspective, I just referred to.

cassini · « **Reply #309 on:** March 10, 2017, 04:32:24 AM »

Once again FlatEarthInquisitor, how can a flat earth have day and night rotating every 24 hours? Now remember we are here dealing with a mathematical and geometrical question, so absolute proofs are possible. We know the distance the sun is from the earth and therefore the distances its light spreads across space. It seem to me impossible for a small flat earth to accommodate this rotation of day and night in the manner that a global earth does.

Remind me of your theory.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #310 on:** March 10, 2017, 04:35:51 AM »

Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor

Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Truth is Eternal

The sun does not sink below the horizon.

False.

It is plainly visible from a private airplane, when flying westward at sunset, to see the sun dip below the horizon, all one needs to do is to gain elevation a few hundred feet to see the sun re-appear where it went down, and then by descending one can see the sun set again over the horizon.

On a clear day, standing in a valley with mountains to the east, anyone with eyes to see can follow the shadow of the setting sun cast on the mountainside as it moves up the hillside. You can actually watch it move -- but it moves slowly. On an open field, such as Death Valley, you cannot run fast enough to keep up with the shadow it moves so fast.

Of course, some people (generally Modernists) cannot believe what they see with their own eyes.

Seeing the sun when you ascend in a plane has nothing to do with the earth being round. This is explained by the law of perspective, I just referred to.

Wrong again.

If it were only perspective, you would not see the sun re-appear when you look at it from a higher elevation, and then set again as you go down. Obviously, you can go up again and see the sun again, and go down again and see it set again. But each time you go up, you have to go up higher, because the sun is moving down below the horizon further each time. News flash: the sun does this south of the tropic of cancer and north of the tropic of capricorn.

Your video above falsifies the view by showing how the sun moves north of the tropic of cancer.

Furthermore, after a few minutes of this, your simple two-seater plane will not be capable of going high enough to see the sun anymore because it has passed beyond the curvature of the earth too far for your plane's ability to ascend. There is an elevation limit on small planes. You would need a pressurized cabin and breathing air supply to go up to say 60,000 feet, where you could then see the sun for another half hour before it sets too far beyond the horizon for you to see it again, even if you were in an SR-71 "Blackbird".

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/d8I7MLD0YZQ[/youtube]

See what the pilot says at 23:50.
"I've seen the sun rise and set two, three times on a flight..."

At 40:50 they mention the fastest flight, outrunning missles, when the pilot says he saw "some pretty scary mach numbers" he had never seen before. But he cannot say what the speed was, because that was classified information. Hint: greater than mach 3, "faster than a speeding bullet."

mw2016 · « **Reply #311 on:** March 10, 2017, 09:41:39 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Of course, some people (generally Modernists) cannot believe what they see with their own eyes.

Funniest. Post. EVER.

:roll-laugh1:

Neil cannot believe what he sees with his own eyes whenever he goes to the top of a tall building, rides in a plane, or stands on the shore looking out at the ocean - namely, that the earth is flat.

He cannot believe his own eyes.

This clearly demonstrates who the REAL modernist is.

mw2016 · « **Reply #312 on:** March 10, 2017, 09:47:04 AM »

Quote from: cassini

Once again FlatEarthInquisitor, how can a flat earth have day and night rotating every 24 hours? Now remember we are here dealing with a mathematical and geometrical question, so absolute proofs are possible. We know the distance the sun is from the earth and therefore the distances its light spreads across space. It seem to me impossible for a small flat earth to accommodate this rotation of day and night in the manner that a global earth does.

Remind me of your theory.

The flat earth model does NOT hold that the sun is 93 million miles away.

If you are ascribing this part of heliocentrism to your theory of geocntrism, you are dead wrong.

In FE model the sun is about 3,000 miles in altitude and has a limited throw of light.

mw2016 · « **Reply #313 on:** March 10, 2017, 09:50:14 AM »

Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor

Usually I find people put blocks up to accepting the flat earth, because they don't want to accept it, and that's really what it boils down to.

They don't want to make the effort, or are afraid of coming across as crazy.

But I can say it is the most liberating acceptance, once it is done.

^^THIS^^

mw2016 · « **Reply #314 on:** March 10, 2017, 09:54:13 AM »

Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor

There's no reason why you should have to ascend to 30000 feet and have at least 60 degrees of view to see curvature. When you actually see the rates of curvature written out, you realise you should be able to see it, even from a mountain.

If you can produce a reason for this imaginary necessity, I would be interested to hear it.

Exactly.

Accordingly to the math, which NoOne is so fond of, spherical trigonometry shows the rate of curvature to be revealed over very short distances, and would be easily visible, given the accepted figures for radius and circuмference of earth.