Author Topic: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat (Read 284971 times)

mw2016 · « **Reply #315 on:** March 10, 2017, 09:57:19 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

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

Yes, duh - because one can easily travel into the path of the sun's light, depending on the route. You can do this on commercial flights also.

In fact, I recently flew on a flight that had this phenomenon and I photographed it. I'll post the photos in a little while.

Matto · « **Reply #316 on:** March 10, 2017, 09:57:37 AM »

Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor

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

It is not just that it sinks below the horizon, it is also that if the flat earth models were true the sun would move in a much greater curve in the sky than it seems to and it would rise and set in the same direction. I have trouble explaining it in words but maybe you could understand if you think about it. I have heard from flat earthers that the sun is 3,000 miles away. So if the sun is really 3,000 miles away from the earth the sun would be around three thousand miles away at noon (let's say on the equator) but at least twice as far away at sunrise and sunset so it would look a lot smaller at sunrise and sunset than it does at noon but this is not the case. I am trying to understand the flat earth theory and reconcile it with what I see but it isn't working.

mw2016 · « **Reply #317 on:** March 10, 2017, 10:03:31 AM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
As objects move further away, they have the appearance of moving down.

It is not just that it sinks below the horizon, it is also that if the flat earth models were true the sun would move in a much greater curve in the sky than it seems to and it would rise and set in the same direction. I have trouble explaining it in words but maybe you could understand if you think about it. I have heard from flat earthers that the sun is 3,000 miles away. So if the sun is really 3,000 miles away from the earth the sun would be around three thousand miles away at noon (let's say on the equator) but at least twice as far away at sunrise and sunset so it would look a lot smaller at sunrise and sunset than it does at noon but this is not the case. I am trying to understand the flat earth theory and reconcile it with what I see but it isn't working.

At the lower angles of viewing at rise and set, the distance is greatest. However, you get the lensing effect from looking through the water vapor of the atmosphere, making it look larger.

At the 90 degree angle the distance is shortest, and the depth of atmosphere is shortest.

cassini · « **Reply #318 on:** March 10, 2017, 02:10:06 PM »

Quote from: mw2016

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.

3,000 milers, you must be joking. We would fry if this were so. No doubt you can tell us how you measured this distance.

There is a science that can calculate the distances of the sun, moon and planets no matter G or H. The stars cannot be measured in a G system, yes.. There is a science that can calculate the curvature of the earth. FE has to dismiss both and depend on so many 'lies' such as no space pictures of curved earth are real, etc., etc.
That is why I for one am not convinced.

happenby · « **Reply #319 on:** March 10, 2017, 02:40:58 PM »

Quote from: cassini

Quote from: mw2016
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.

3,000 milers, you must be joking. We would fry if this were so. No doubt you can tell us how you measured this distance.

There is a science that can calculate the distances of the sun, moon and planets no matter G or H. The stars cannot be measured in a G system, yes.. There is a science that can calculate the curvature of the earth. FE has to dismiss both and depend on so many 'lies' such as no space pictures of curved earth are real, etc., etc.
That is why I for one am not convinced.

We would fry? Obviously, this is a complete lack of consideration that sun and moon remain inside the firmament as scripture says. Why do people choose to remain buried under the piles of NASA indoctrination? The Church teaches infallibly that heliocentrism, the notion that earth moves and sun is stationary, IS FALSE and contrary to the Faith. The Church also teaches that the sun, moon and stars reside inside a visible firmament that is laid out as a firm boundary, like a tent, between heaven and earth. Thus, by God's Holy Will, people certainly will not fry... unless they deny these Catholic teachings.

Origen called the firmament “without doubt firm and solid” (First Homily on Genesis, FC 71). Ambrose, commenting on Genesis 1:6, said, “the specific solidity of this exterior firmament is meant” (Hexameron, FC 42.60). And Saint Augustine said the word firmament was used “to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that it constitutes an impassible boundary between the waters above and the waters below” (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, ACW 41.1.61).

mw2016 · « **Reply #320 on:** March 10, 2017, 03:31:53 PM »

Quote from: cassini

3,000 miles, you must be joking. We would fry if this were so. No doubt you can tell us how you measured this distance.

Cassini is buried under piles of HELIOCENTRISM.

YOU MUST LET GO OF YOUR HELIOCENTRISM!

Stop trying to salvage parts of it by combining it with GC - it does not work!

Quote from: happenby

The Church also teaches that the sun, moon and stars reside inside a visible firmament that is laid out as a firm boundary, like a tent, between heaven and earth. Thus, by God's Holy Will, people certainly will not fry... unless they deny these Catholic teachings.

AMEN!

FlatEarthInquisitor · « **Reply #321 on:** March 10, 2017, 03:35:04 PM »

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 proofs deal only with the earth. They do not deal with the sky. Any use of the sky to talk about the earth and prove the round earth is a circular logic.

Just wanted to state that first of all. After that, how the sun moves is THEORY. There are different opinions among flat earthers. Even among Catholic flat earthers.

To answer your first question. It is is possible with the law of perspective. The suns rays simply have a limit. The sun is smaller than the round earth model. I realise that this sounds ridiculous to you, but think about how ridiculous the explanations of lack of curvature by round earthers sound to us. They are truly ridiculous because the science is very easy to debunk. Round earth science is based on a false premise and so the whole building falls.

Mathematics is a language. You can say things in a language which do not make sense. It must be based on reality.

FlatEarthInquisitor · « **Reply #322 on:** March 10, 2017, 03:40:28 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

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".

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."

your notion of perspective as a globe earther is different to that of flat earthers. It does not extend as much, as with flat earthers.

You haven't really demonstrated why perspective does not work in this case. Clearly it does. Clearly we see more, the higher we go. But the sun moves fast, and faster than an plane. It is as simple as that.

Sorry we're not convincing you of the flat earth. Have a nice life.

FlatEarthInquisitor · « **Reply #323 on:** March 10, 2017, 03:45:12 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
As objects move further away, they have the appearance of moving down.

It is not just that it sinks below the horizon, it is also that if the flat earth models were true the sun would move in a much greater curve in the sky than it seems to and it would rise and set in the same direction. I have trouble explaining it in words but maybe you could understand if you think about it. I have heard from flat earthers that the sun is 3,000 miles away. So if the sun is really 3,000 miles away from the earth the sun would be around three thousand miles away at noon (let's say on the equator) but at least twice as far away at sunrise and sunset so it would look a lot smaller at sunrise and sunset than it does at noon but this is not the case. I am trying to understand the flat earth theory and reconcile it with what I see but it isn't working.

First, no sky "proof" can be used to prove or disprove the flat earth. The proofs for the flat earth concern the earth, not the sky, as I said a minute ago.

Theories about the distance of the sun are just theories. Your reflections in this area are therefore WELCOME. What you are NOT welcome to do is try to claim there is curvature on the earth that we know, when clearly there is not.

noOneImportant · « **Reply #324 on:** March 10, 2017, 04:34:21 PM »

You people are beyond reason. I recommend taking a logic class, followed by a geometry course, followed by some basic physics. But of course, because I am clearly a modernist or something, you aren't going to do any of that.

I am done with this nonsense. Enjoy your ignorance.

If anyone is actually confused about this stuff and willing to approach it with an open mind, feel free to PM me.

Truth is Eternal · « **Reply #325 on:** March 10, 2017, 04:48:52 PM »

Quote from: noOneImportant

You people are beyond reason. I recommend taking a logic class, followed by a geometry course, followed by some basic physics. But of course, because I am clearly a modernist or something, you aren't going to do any of that.

I am done with this nonsense. Enjoy your ignorance.

If anyone is actually confused about this stuff and willing to approach it with an open mind, feel free to PM me.

The London and Northwestern Railway forms a straight line 180 miles long between London and Liverpool. The railroad’s highest point, midway at Birmingham station, is only 240 feet above sea-level. If the world were actually a globe, however, curving 8 inches per mile squared, the 180 mile stretch of rail would form an arc with the center point at Birmingham raising over a mile, a full 5,400 feet above London and Liverpool.

Truth is Eternal · « **Reply #326 on:** March 10, 2017, 04:55:38 PM »

Quote from: noOneImportant

You people are beyond reason. I recommend taking a logic class, followed by a geometry course, followed by some basic physics. But of course, because I am clearly a modernist or something, you aren't going to do any of that.

I am done with this nonsense. Enjoy your ignorance.

If anyone is actually confused about this stuff and willing to approach it with an open mind, feel free to PM me.

With so many "Globe Earthers" continuing to run around in "flat earth circles", you would think they would finally come to realize the earth is not a sphere.

mw2016 · « **Reply #327 on:** March 10, 2017, 06:40:58 PM »

Quote from: noOneImportant

You people are beyond reason. I recommend taking a logic class, followed by a geometry course, followed by some basic physics.

Since you enjoy geometry so much, why do you purposely ignore the spherical trigonmetry equation for calculating rate of curvature with R = 4,000 mi.?

If you believe in math so much, this math does not lie, and it shows a rate of curvature over ANY given distance that simply CANNOT be demonstrated observationally on the earth.

And it cannot be demonstrated for one reason only - because the earth is FLAT.

ManuelChavez · « **Reply #328 on:** March 10, 2017, 06:41:57 PM »

Quote from: happenby

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.

You wrote a list full of assumptions. You assumed that I am heliocentric, and you presume that anything other than flat earth is heliocentric. That is incorrect. Your notions of those who espouse a geocentric, globe earth are also incorrect as well as short-sighted.

mw2016 · « **Reply #329 on:** March 10, 2017, 06:42:57 PM »

Quote from: Truth is Eternal

The London and Northwestern Railway forms a straight line 180 miles long between London and Liverpool. The railroad’s highest point, midway at Birmingham station, is only 240 feet above sea-level. If the world were actually a globe, however, curving 8 inches per mile squared, the 180 mile stretch of rail would form an arc with the center point at Birmingham raising over a mile, a full 5,400 feet above London and Liverpool.

noOneImportant cannot be BOTHERED to answer questions where actual MATH is involved.