Author Topic: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat (Read 224379 times)

happenby · « **Reply #390 on:** March 14, 2017, 01:28:26 AM »

,Polaris, situated almost straight over the North Pole, should not be visible anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere. For Polaris to be seen from the Southern Hemisphere of a globular Earth, the observer would have to be somehow looking “through the globe,” and miles of land and sea would have to be transparent. Polaris can be seen, however, up to approximately 23.5 degrees South latitude.

“If the Earth is a sphere and the pole star hangs over the northern axis, it would be impossible to see it for a single degree beyond the equator, or 90 degrees from the pole. The line-of-sight would become a tangent to the sphere, and consequently several thousand miles out of and divergent from the direction of the pole star. Many cases, however, are on record of the north polar star being visible far beyond the equator, as far even as the tropic of Capricorn.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (41)

“The astronomers' theory of a globular Earth necessitates the conclusion that, if we travel south of the equator, to see the North Star is an impossibility. Yet it is well known this star has been seen by navigators when they have been more than 20 degrees south of the equator. This fact, like hundreds of other facts, puts the theory to shame, and gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (71)

happenby · « **Reply #391 on:** March 14, 2017, 01:30:03 AM »

“The astronomers' theory of a globular Earth necessitates the conclusion that, if we travel south of the equator, to see the North Star is an impossibility. Yet it is well known this star has been seen by navigators when they have been more than 20 degrees south of the equator. This fact, like hundreds of other facts, puts the theory to shame, and gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (71)

happenby · « **Reply #392 on:** March 14, 2017, 01:32:22 AM »

“It has often been urged that the earth must be a globe, because the stars in the southern ‘hemisphere’ move round a south polar star; in the same way that those of the north revolve round the northern pole star. This is another instance of the sacrifice of truth, and denial of the evidence of our senses for the purpose of supporting a theory which is in every sense false and unnatural. It is known to every observer that the north pole star is the centre of a number of constellations which move over the earth in a circular direction. Those nearest to it, as the ‘Great Bear,’ etc. are always visible in England during their whole twenty-four hours' revolution. Those further away southwards rise north-north-east, and set south-south-west; still further south they rise east by north, and set west by north. The farthest south visible from England, the rising is more to the east and south-east, and the setting to the west and south-west. But all the stars visible from London rise and set in a way which is not compatible with the doctrine of rotundity. For instance, if we stand with our backs to the north, on the high land known as ‘Arthur's Seat,’ near Edinburgh, and note the stars in the zenith of our position, and watch for several hours, the zenith stars will gradually recede to the north-west. If we do the same on Woodhouse Moor, near Leeds, or on any of the mountain tops in Yorkshire or Derbyshire, the same phenomenon is observed. The same thing may be seen from the top of Primrose Hill, near Regent's Park, London; from Hampstead Heath; or Shooter's Hill, near Woolwich. If we remain all night, we shall observe the same stars rising towards our position from the north-east, showing that the path of all the stars between ourselves and the northern centre move round the north pole-star as a common centre of rotation; just as they must do over a plane such as the earth is proved to be. It is undeniable that upon a globe zenith stars would rise, pass over head, and set in the plane of the observer's position. If now we carefully watch in the same way the zenith stars from the Rock of Gibraltar, the very same phenomenon is observed. The same is also the case from Cape of Good Hope, Sydney and Melbourne in Australia, in New Zealand, in Rio Janeiro, Monte Video, Valparaiso, and other places in the south. If then the zenith stars of all the places on the earth, where special observations have been made, rise from the morning horizon to the zenith of an observer, and descend to the evening horizon, not in a plane of the position of such observer, but in an arc of a circle concentric with the northern centre, the earth is thereby proved to be a plane, and rotundity altogether disproved - shown, indeed, to be impossible.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (284-6)

cassini · « **Reply #393 on:** March 14, 2017, 05:23:08 AM »

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

Quote from: cassini
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: happenby

Now that we have a little history of NASA, Pythagorean/Copernicans and their "Luciferian doctrine" it is quite clear that those who adopt the heliocentric theory hold anti-Catholic belief. The Church condemned this trash during the Galileo Affair.

The Church' magisterium did not condemn it. The Church's disciplinary arm acted on a particular case to protect the faith of the faithful. You probably don't understand this because your own faith is screwed up (as shown in the Feeneyite sub-forum). The Church has, and always will, even condemn truth if it is worded improperly which is prone to mislead the common faithful.

The Holy Office protected the faithful because geocentrism was so closely connected with Holy Scripture and commonly so. At a time when Protestant revolt was disfiguring the faith, the Galileo affair was disturbing the faithful in a sudden wave, and the Holy Office successfully protected the faithful. It appears to be true that the Holy Office considered the danger to be intrinsicly doctrinal, which we know now was a mistake, but it WAS NOT a doctrinal mistake of the magisterium, and in the end it showed itself to be an extrinsic danger to the faith. Extrinsic dangers pass with the passing of time and circuмstance.

See what I mean Bumpy? 300 years of propaganda designed to get people like you to argue that it was just a disciplinary decree that could be overturned. Now where did you get this information from, one of the books or articles invented by the apologists and minimisers?

Well I get my information from the records of the Supreme Congregation of the Inquisition, yes, the very same Holy Office that issued its 1616 decree. In 1820, the question of the authority of the 1616 decree had to be qualified before any change could be considered. Not one theologian dared to say the decree was merely disciplinary, no, because they all knew it was 'irreversible' and binding on all. They admitted in their docuмent recording the circuмstances of their U-turn that the 1616 decree was forever binding.

So, you ask, how did they do their U-turn and have their irreversible decree and their CAKE (non-heretical heliocentrism)?
They said the heliocentrism condemned as heresy in 1616 was NOT the heliocentrism of 1820. And how so? Well here is the answer that few on this earth know, they said the heliocentrism of Galileo was a 'turbulent' one, whereas the heliocentrism of 1820 was not a 'turbulent' one so was not one condemned but could be believed by all.
Boy would I like to take that matter to a court and see how many would swallow it.

So, your point is that the Church's magisterium reversed a Church teaching?

Quite the opposite Bumpy, the magisterium was cleverly by-passed to make it look like the Church was going along with the dictates of science when in fact it was a reversal of men in the Church, an important distinction.

(The question of a flat-earth never entered the entired Galileo case by the way.)

The magisterium as we know is the term that is used for the infallible teaching of the Church by way of a pope's or doctrinal council's definition of a particular truth that all Catholics must abide by. God promised this magisterium would never teach a falshood. If that happened then the Catholic Church could no longer claim to be divinely guided.

In the Galileo case, the decree of 1616, looked to many philosophers and theologians to have been an error. They believed this in their hearts because they were convinced the 'proofs' claimed by science for a fixed-sun and stars with an orbiting earth were actual proofs.

Every ploy possible was used by these Galileans to try demote the 1616 decree to one of a disciplinary nature. but when it came to it, the magisterium could not contradict itself. Instead most of the officials of the 1820-1835 Holy
Office (there were some who insisted the 1616 decree was safe) found a way PASSED THE MAGISTERIUM that pleased the Copernicans and Galileans.

So no Bumpy, the magisterium did not reverse the Church's teaching, that was done outside the magisterium. And that is the most important aspect of the whole affair for if the magisterium did a U-turn on a defined dogma then all of us on Catholic info are in a religion that makes false claims. Of all my research into the affair the answer to your question is the most important of them all.

TomGubbinsKimmage · « **Reply #394 on:** March 14, 2017, 08:34:03 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

I find it noteworthy that there has been no intelligent reply to my earlier post:

Why should anyone respond to your post when you don't respond to theirs? You can't give an answer as to where the hundreds of feet of this mountain come from

FlatEarthInquisitor · « **Reply #395 on:** March 14, 2017, 08:44:23 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Conversely, if the earth's surface were flat, there would be no different measurements like these, the Southern Cross would be visible in the northern hemisphere and the north star would be visible in the southern hemisphere.

However, in fact the Southern Cross is not visible in the northern hemisphere, and Polaris is not visible in the southern hemisphere. The reason this is true is that the earth is spherical (approximately).

.....

Some flat-earther in a previous thread claimed that the north star can be seen up to 20 degrees south of the equator but provided no reference or evidence of this. Perhaps it is visible from the highest peaks of the Andes mountains, but most certainly not from the surface of the ocean or anywhere close to sea level. The curvature of the earth at the equator prevents a view of Polaris south of that latitude.

Again the video explaining star trails. It shows how we don't see the north star from all parts of the earth. Because of perspective.

If we could see polaris from 20 degrees south, that would neither prove nor disprove the flat earth, as per above.

FlatEarthInquisitor · « **Reply #396 on:** March 14, 2017, 08:53:38 AM »

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: happenby

Now that we have a little history of NASA, Pythagorean/Copernicans and their "Luciferian doctrine" it is quite clear that those who adopt the heliocentric theory hold anti-Catholic belief. The Church condemned this trash during the Galileo Affair.

The Church' magisterium did not condemn it. The Church's disciplinary arm acted on a particular case to protect the faith of the faithful. You probably don't understand this because your own faith is screwed up (as shown in the Feeneyite sub-forum). The Church has, and always will, even condemn truth if it is worded improperly which is prone to mislead the common faithful.

The Holy Office protected the faithful because geocentrism was so closely connected with Holy Scripture and commonly so. At a time when Protestant revolt was disfiguring the faith, the Galileo affair was disturbing the faithful in a sudden wave, and the Holy Office successfully protected the faithful. It appears to be true that the Holy Office considered the danger to be intrinsicly doctrinal, which we know now was a mistake, but it WAS NOT a doctrinal mistake of the magisterium, and in the end it showed itself to be an extrinsic danger to the faith. Extrinsic dangers pass with the passing of time and circuмstance.

Like Neil, you gloss over and don't respond to the posts that you don't like. (and which expose you)

Nonsense.

Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor

Your distinctions are most interesting but not really relevant. It is a smoke-screen to distract from whether the earth is flat or not.

I can give one reason which easily shoots down the silly flat earth nonsense.

Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor

Why don't you go back and actually read my post which challenged you.

Or just get lost and stop annoying us.

Why exactly do you say it was a mistake to consider it intrinsically doctrinal?

The office of prohibition is not the magisterium. But obviously considering the heliocentrism as heretical was a mistake. But that consideration was a common, pious, human consideration, not an official teaching of the Church.

1. If it's nonsense then you have to prove the contrary. Anyone who reads your posts knows it is not.

2. What is the reason then?

3. Where do I say that flat earth is part of the defined Magisterium?

BTW, Do you actually read other peoples posts, or just start typing? It's a good idea to do some humble reflection first, before letting your pride take over the keyboard.

Why do you think your opinion is so important anyway? Is society going to change fundamentally if you become a flat earther?

BumphreyHogart · « **Reply #397 on:** March 14, 2017, 10:38:48 AM »

Quote from: happenby

Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: happenby
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: happenby
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: happenby
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: happenby
So BUMPH, as tradition reveals, earth is flat.

It's not ecclesiastical tradition. It was pious, human tradition until evidence showed otherwise.

Sorry, three popes, including Alexander VII say otherwise. If you read the thread, you'd know.

Doctrinal tradition? until a pope said otherwise? C'mon, come clear here! What kind of "tradition" do you say has been reversed by the Church?

The popes agreed heliocentrism was false and a danger to the faith.

You didn't answer what type of tradition was overturned. Typical of a rationalistic creep on a Catholic forum.

I said no. Are you deaf? Can you not read? Tradition is maintained, always and everywhere.

Okay, so you say there is NO problem with the Galileo and afterward affair. Now you say it...but other times you make it look like there was some substantial change with the affiar. That is slimy and creepy rationalist and modernist agenda.

Your erroneous assessment comes as a result of you not reading. The Church has spoken. Earth is flat and geocentric.

We are talking about a "belief", and beliefs in the Church are called "doctrines". When they are "the Church's beliefs", it would be when it is taught by "the magisterium". The prohibitions around the Galileo affair were NOT magisterial, and therefore NOT Church beliefs proper.

The fact that the Church has allowed helocentrism to be taught in Catholic schools for generations is proof positive that it is not detrimental to the faith, nor against previous magisterium. It is impossible for the divine and holy Church to allow detriment to the faith in schools under Her charge.

BumphreyHogart · « **Reply #398 on:** March 14, 2017, 10:47:20 AM »

You know, when a suspect of a crime has an alibi, proving he was living in Australia when a murder occurred in Florida, nobody need look at any other alleged evidence against him. It is what is called the "argumentum ad absurdam" or "reductio ad absurdum", meaning it has already been proved absurd and nothing else can change that.

The flat earth claim is absurd. I don't need to see any so-called evidence of that....because I know that when the sun rises upon a plane, the whole plain would see the sun at the same time. But on this earth, the sun is seen to rise in one location and due west 100 miles the sun is still below the horizon.

I think non-Catholics, and disgruntled, fallen-away Catholics, just come here to bring laughter upon Catholicism by posting such nonsense. Either that or they have Internet access from a mental institution.

happenby · « **Reply #399 on:** March 14, 2017, 12:10:46 PM »

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

You know, when a suspect of a crime has an alibi, proving he was living in Australia when a murder occurred in Florida, nobody need look at any other alleged evidence against him. It is what is called the "argumentum ad absurdam" or "reductio ad absurdum", meaning it has already been proved absurd and nothing else can change that.

The flat earth claim is absurd. I don't need to see any so-called evidence of that....because I know that when the sun rises upon a plane, the whole plain would see the sun at the same time. But on this earth, the sun is seen to rise in one location and due west 100 miles the sun is still below the horizon.

I think non-Catholics, and disgruntled, fallen-away Catholics, just come here to bring laughter upon Catholicism by posting such nonsense. Either that or they have Internet access from a mental institution.

Here, an obvious fallacy. Visibility of the sun from all points on a plane is dependent on several things. Firstly, the size of the plane in relation to the size of the sun, the relationship of the position of the sun over the plane as well as the distance from the plane to the sun. If indeed, the sun is small and relatively close to earth as it measurably is, then, the farther from the sun that a place on earth is, not only the darker it will be but the sun's proximity to earth prevents outer areas from seeing it because all visible things converge at the observer's horizon. The convergence of sun and earth is known as sunrise and sunset. When the sun goes beyond these points, being too low to be resolved by the eye from that level, it thus disappears. This is proven true as one chases the sun in airplane. As the sun sets for the people in Phoenix, for instance, it doesn't set for the airplane that chases the sun on to LAX where the airplane lands and is then forced to watch the sun set over the ocean. Of course, had the plane chased the sun further, like to Hawaii, the sun would never set.

Now, it is agreed that the sun drives a little faster than the airplane--3-500 mph faster. However this "chasing" the sunset has been observed during the time the sun is visible to the plane and until it outpaces it.

BumphreyHogart · « **Reply #400 on:** March 14, 2017, 12:25:39 PM »

Quote from: happenby

Quote from: BumphreyHogart
You know, when a suspect of a crime has an alibi, proving he was living in Australia when a murder occurred in Florida, nobody need look at any other alleged evidence against him. It is what is called the "argumentum ad absurdam" or "reductio ad absurdum", meaning it has already been proved absurd and nothing else can change that.

The flat earth claim is absurd. I don't need to see any so-called evidence of that....because I know that when the sun rises upon a plane, the whole plain would see the sun at the same time. But on this earth, the sun is seen to rise in one location and due west 100 miles the sun is still below the horizon.

I think non-Catholics, and disgruntled, fallen-away Catholics, just come here to bring laughter upon Catholicism by posting such nonsense. Either that or they have Internet access from a mental institution.

Here, an obvious fallacy. Visibility of the sun from all points on a plane is dependent on several things. Firstly, the size of the plane in relation to the size of the sun, the relationship of the position of the sun over the plane as well as the distance from the plane to the sun. If indeed, the sun is small and relatively close to earth as it measurably is, then, the farther from the sun that a place on earth is, not only the darker it will be but the sun's proximity to earth prevents outer areas from seeing it because all visible things converge at the observer's horizon. The convergence of sun and earth is known as sunrise and sunset. When the sun goes beyond these points, being too low to be resolved by the eye from that level, it thus disappears. This is proven true as one chases the sun in airplane. As the sun sets for the people in Phoenix, for instance, it doesn't set for the airplane that chases the sun on to LAX where the airplane lands and is then forced to watch the sun set over the ocean. Of course, had the plane chased the sun further, like to Hawaii, the sun would never set.

Now, it is agreed that the sun drives a little faster than the airplane--3-500 mph faster. However this "chasing" the sunset has been observed during the time the sun is visible to the plane and until it outpaces it.

Nonsense. A perfect plane would be the ocean. If it were a plane, the sun rising from the horizon would be seen by the whole plane. It doesn't. In fact, using a telescope from one ship to another, the distant ship falls below the plane, because it is an arc between the two, not a plane. Taking the distance of the ship and how far below the horizon it has lowered, the arc is perfectly calculated, which gives us the circuмference of the earth.

I think you are just here to try to make Catholics look bad, and to laugh behind your keyboard. Typical troll. But then again, you could be a mental case.

mw2016 · « **Reply #401 on:** March 14, 2017, 12:42:07 PM »

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

I think you are just here to try to make Catholics look bad, and to laugh behind your keyboard. Typical troll. But then again, you could be a mental case.

The only troll on this thread is Bumphrey Hogart. He is not a Catholic of good will, nor is he interested in any aspect whatsoever of the FE model.

He neither understands it, nor seeks to learn.

Just ignore him and hopefully he will soon lose interest and move on. No point in casting pearls before swine. There are other people here who actually are of good will and would like to learn.

mw2016 · « **Reply #402 on:** March 14, 2017, 12:50:05 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

In the southern hemisphere navigators use the Southern Cross instead of the north star, because the latter cannot be seen from south of the equator at sea level. At the equator, Polaris appears to be just on the horizon due north, and the Southern Cross rotates (clockwise) due south.

Some flat-earther in a previous thread claimed that the north star can be seen up to 20 degrees south of the equator but provided no reference or evidence of this. Perhaps it is visible from the highest peaks of the Andes mountains, but most certainly not from the surface of the ocean or anywhere close to sea level. The curvature of the earth at the equator prevents a view of Polaris south of that latitude.

So when you travel to a different location, your horizon tilts with respect to the stars. Today every school child is taught that the earth is (approximately) a sphere. Even in ancient times, however, astute travelers realized that the changes in the stars as you travel north or south must be caused by the curvature of the earth. The ancient Greeks even reasoned that the earth must be a sphere, and thus pictured the universe as a pair of spheres: an enormous celestial sphere, carrying the stars around us once a day, and the much smaller spherical earth, fixed at the center of the universe.

The ancient Greeks used this principle to estimate the diameter of the spherical earth, and they got surprisingly close to the reality. They measured shadow of a vertical pole at each of two locations at the same day of two years, since it took them about a year to travel to the second place in the south. This same experiment has been done in our time as well, and the same results are obtained, since the earth's axis has not changed (appreciably at least) since the time of the Greeks.

I'll respond!

The angles of the pole star and the change of same from the greater distances of the southern latitudes aptly demonstrates the sunrise/sunset model on the flat earth.

In other words, the sun is in motion in a straight line over a motionless plane. Therefore, the angles change from rise (0 degrees) to zenith (90 degrees) to set (180 degrees).

When you are looking at the pole star, the effect is exactly the same with the motion being reversed: the pole star is stationary. If the observer is standing at the pole the angle is 90 degrees: directly overhead. As the viewer moves farther and farther away to the south, the angle eventually reaches 0 degrees. What gives you the perspective of the pole star "rising" just above the horizon with the stars rotating about it, as demonstrated int he video you posted.

happenby · « **Reply #403 on:** March 14, 2017, 01:11:49 PM »

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

Quote from: happenby
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
You know, when a suspect of a crime has an alibi, proving he was living in Australia when a murder occurred in Florida, nobody need look at any other alleged evidence against him. It is what is called the "argumentum ad absurdam" or "reductio ad absurdum", meaning it has already been proved absurd and nothing else can change that.

The flat earth claim is absurd. I don't need to see any so-called evidence of that....because I know that when the sun rises upon a plane, the whole plain would see the sun at the same time. But on this earth, the sun is seen to rise in one location and due west 100 miles the sun is still below the horizon.

I think non-Catholics, and disgruntled, fallen-away Catholics, just come here to bring laughter upon Catholicism by posting such nonsense. Either that or they have Internet access from a mental institution.

Here, an obvious fallacy. Visibility of the sun from all points on a plane is dependent on several things. Firstly, the size of the plane in relation to the size of the sun, the relationship of the position of the sun over the plane as well as the distance from the plane to the sun. If indeed, the sun is small and relatively close to earth as it measurably is, then, the farther from the sun that a place on earth is, not only the darker it will be but the sun's proximity to earth prevents outer areas from seeing it because all visible things converge at the observer's horizon. The convergence of sun and earth is known as sunrise and sunset. When the sun goes beyond these points, being too low to be resolved by the eye from that level, it thus disappears. This is proven true as one chases the sun in airplane. As the sun sets for the people in Phoenix, for instance, it doesn't set for the airplane that chases the sun on to LAX where the airplane lands and is then forced to watch the sun set over the ocean. Of course, had the plane chased the sun further, like to Hawaii, the sun would never set.

Now, it is agreed that the sun drives a little faster than the airplane--3-500 mph faster. However this "chasing" the sunset has been observed during the time the sun is visible to the plane and until it outpaces it.

Nonsense. A perfect plane would be the ocean. If it were a plane, the sun rising from the horizon would be seen by the whole plane. It doesn't. In fact, using a telescope from one ship to another, the distant ship falls below the plane, because it is an arc between the two, not a plane. Taking the distance of the ship and how far below the horizon it has lowered, the arc is perfectly calculated, which gives us the circuмference of the earth.

I think you are just here to try to make Catholics look bad, and to laugh behind your keyboard. Typical troll. But then again, you could be a mental case.

This is so silly I don't even know what to say except, have a nice day.

mw2016 · « **Reply #404 on:** March 14, 2017, 07:55:20 PM »

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

Either that or they have Internet access from a mental institution.

So you're writing us from your mental institution, you say? Tell us more... :roll-laugh1: