Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: Croix de Fer on December 19, 2016, 09:38:18 AM

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on December 19, 2016, 09:38:18 AM
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/KnqBzncqS2U[/youtube]
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on December 19, 2016, 09:50:48 AM
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on December 19, 2016, 09:51:50 AM
The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on December 19, 2016, 09:53:25 AM
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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on December 31, 2016, 03:18:46 PM

Despite some atheist rhetoric (just ignore it), this video exposes "flat earth" retardation.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/JgY8zNZ35uw[/youtube]
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: noOneImportant on December 31, 2016, 07:03:33 PM
We totally needed another new thread for this topic... the 15 we already have aren't enough.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on January 01, 2017, 05:35:55 PM
Quote from: ascent

Despite some atheist rhetoric (just ignore it), this video exposes "flat earth" retardation.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/JgY8zNZ35uw[/youtube]


You lose. You didn't even attempt to disprove this quote below.  :smile:

Quote
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on January 02, 2017, 01:35:41 AM
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: ascent

Despite some atheist rhetoric (just ignore it), this video exposes "flat earth" retardation.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/JgY8zNZ35uw[/youtube]


You lose. You didn't even attempt to disprove this quote below.  :smile:

Quote
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.


That quote / fallacious argument has been destroyed many times over. Me debunking it with the same truth that has exposes its imbecility isn't going to change your mind. You lose, again.  :laugh1:
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on January 02, 2017, 07:28:17 AM
Quote from: ascent
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: ascent

Despite some atheist rhetoric (just ignore it), this video exposes "flat earth" retardation.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/JgY8zNZ35uw[/youtube]


You lose. You didn't even attempt to disprove this quote below.  :smile:

Quote
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.


That quote / fallacious argument has been destroyed many times over. Me debunking it with the same truth that has exposes its imbecility isn't going to change your mind. You lose, again.  :laugh1:


If it has been destroyed then you won't mind linking to a refutation at least.

On the topic of this thread,
This video of the dimond brothers has been responded to at this link
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t62-video-of-the-dimond-brothers


Just a piece of advice, at this point acting arrogantly towards people and calling them retards etc etc. only has a limited effect and won't make the flat earth go away.

I have had this kind of attitude from everyone from internet trolls to respected traditional priests. It doesn't work and makes us look like the victim especially if we can respond calmly and rationally. It thus draws people to us rather than puts them off. Counter productive from your perspective.

The argument above has not been responded to adequately at all. Some will say that when you cut an orange straight around it looks straight. But it doesn't because the definition of a spehre is that it is a cirlce at all angles.

The second point is that looking at the horizon, the curvature wouldn't show because it is so big. Again false. The curvature would be visible albeit slight. It is sufficient to take a look at the measurements for the rate of curvature. after 120 miles, over 9600 feet of difference. look it up.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on January 02, 2017, 11:32:57 AM
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
Quote from: ascent
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: ascent

Despite some atheist rhetoric (just ignore it), this video exposes "flat earth" retardation.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/JgY8zNZ35uw[/youtube]


You lose. You didn't even attempt to disprove this quote below.  :smile:

Quote
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.


That quote / fallacious argument has been destroyed many times over. Me debunking it with the same truth that has exposes its imbecility isn't going to change your mind. You lose, again.  :laugh1:


If it has been destroyed then you won't mind linking to a refutation at least.

On the topic of this thread,
This video of the dimond brothers has been responded to at this link
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t62-video-of-the-dimond-brothers


Just a piece of advice, at this point acting arrogantly towards people and calling them retards etc etc. only has a limited effect and won't make the flat earth go away.

I have had this kind of attitude from everyone from internet trolls to respected traditional priests. It doesn't work and makes us look like the victim especially if we can respond calmly and rationally. It thus draws people to us rather than puts them off. Counter productive from your perspective.

The argument above has not been responded to adequately at all. Some will say that when you cut an orange straight around it looks straight. But it doesn't because the definition of a spehre is that it is a cirlce at all angles.

The second point is that looking at the horizon, the curvature wouldn't show because it is so big. Again false. The curvature would be visible albeit slight. It is sufficient to take a look at the measurements for the rate of curvature. after 120 miles, over 9600 feet of difference. look it up.


It's actually refuted in both the videos I posted. Don't be such a lazy FlatTard.  :laugh1: Watch the videos.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 02, 2017, 02:00:10 PM
Quote from: An even Seven
Maybe it's been covered on the other big thread but I don't want to search through the 120+ pages to find it.

I have two questions:

1. If gravity has to be so powerful to keep the water on Earth from falling off, how does it not crush us?

2. How do planes land on a north/south runway when the Earth is spinning/rotating at 1000 +/-mph? It seems it would be hard enough to land the plane going with the rotation, but it seems it would be way harder to do it against the rotation.
I've seen bits of the "air moves with the Earth argument" but don't fully get it.


Very good quesion, indeed. It is nice to see someone using their brain and not just calling FE "tards."

The very explanation from the religion of the scientists ("scientism") as to how graviy works makes it impossible.

We know from the Bible and from experiment (the Michelson/Morley experiment) that the earth DOES NOT MOVE.

But scientism says that gravity is caused by the rotation of the earth itself, as well as the rotation of the so-called molten iron core inside the earth - even though we have never drilled deeper than about 8-10 miles down.

Scientism also says the mass and rotation of the sun cause the gravity which makes the earth rotate about it.

You can see the obvious contradiction of both of these claims: the Bible says the earth does not move, and this was proven experimentally by observation in the Michelson/Morley experiment.

Therefore, both cannot be true.

If there is no movement whatsoever of the earth, there is no gravity.

Also, if you think about it, gravity is sure a magical, omniscient "force" isn't it? It somehow "knows" to keep people on the ground, but yet it allows planes to take off and butterflies to fly? Quite absurd, when you think about it.

In the FE model, there is no such thing, no such magical force, as "gravity." There is only mass and density, or buoyancy. An object falls from any given height because it weighs more than the air - there is no force "pulling" it. A balloon filled with helium rises because it has a buoyancy that is lighter than the air. It's pretty simple and much more elegant that the pretzel-logic that the priests of scientism have tried to foist upon the world.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on January 02, 2017, 02:46:27 PM
Quote from: ascent
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
Quote from: ascent
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: ascent

Despite some atheist rhetoric (just ignore it), this video exposes "flat earth" retardation.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/JgY8zNZ35uw[/youtube]


You lose. You didn't even attempt to disprove this quote below.  :smile:

Quote
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.


That quote / fallacious argument has been destroyed many times over. Me debunking it with the same truth that has exposes its imbecility isn't going to change your mind. You lose, again.  :laugh1:


If it has been destroyed then you won't mind linking to a refutation at least.

On the topic of this thread,
This video of the dimond brothers has been responded to at this link
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t62-video-of-the-dimond-brothers


Just a piece of advice, at this point acting arrogantly towards people and calling them retards etc etc. only has a limited effect and won't make the flat earth go away.

I have had this kind of attitude from everyone from internet trolls to respected traditional priests. It doesn't work and makes us look like the victim especially if we can respond calmly and rationally. It thus draws people to us rather than puts them off. Counter productive from your perspective.

The argument above has not been responded to adequately at all. Some will say that when you cut an orange straight around it looks straight. But it doesn't because the definition of a spehre is that it is a cirlce at all angles.

The second point is that looking at the horizon, the curvature wouldn't show because it is so big. Again false. The curvature would be visible albeit slight. It is sufficient to take a look at the measurements for the rate of curvature. after 120 miles, over 9600 feet of difference. look it up.


It's actually refuted in both the videos I posted. Don't be such a lazy FlatTard.  :laugh1: Watch the videos.


Thats not true. And if you took the time to actually read my post (which you obviously did not) then you would have seen that the objections raised in the Dimond brothers were responded to.

The second video you posted raised interesting objections, but did not actually address the point we are talking about.

Who's the retard now?

You see its because of people like you that the main flat earth thread is 120 pages long. You're only interested in the videos you posted because of that superior feeling you got from it and that's why you are posting drunken-like posts, showing you did not even pay full attention to them yourself.

Get off flat earth threads now and stop wasting our time.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on January 03, 2017, 09:04:05 AM
Quote from: ascent
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
Quote from: ascent
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: ascent

Despite some atheist rhetoric (just ignore it), this video exposes "flat earth" retardation.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/JgY8zNZ35uw[/youtube]


You lose. You didn't even attempt to disprove this quote below.  :smile:

Quote
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.


That quote / fallacious argument has been destroyed many times over. Me debunking it with the same truth that has exposes its imbecility isn't going to change your mind. You lose, again.  :laugh1:


If it has been destroyed then you won't mind linking to a refutation at least.

On the topic of this thread,
This video of the dimond brothers has been responded to at this link
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t62-video-of-the-dimond-brothers


Just a piece of advice, at this point acting arrogantly towards people and calling them retards etc etc. only has a limited effect and won't make the flat earth go away.

I have had this kind of attitude from everyone from internet trolls to respected traditional priests. It doesn't work and makes us look like the victim especially if we can respond calmly and rationally. It thus draws people to us rather than puts them off. Counter productive from your perspective.

The argument above has not been responded to adequately at all. Some will say that when you cut an orange straight around it looks straight. But it doesn't because the definition of a spehre is that it is a cirlce at all angles.

The second point is that looking at the horizon, the curvature wouldn't show because it is so big. Again false. The curvature would be visible albeit slight. It is sufficient to take a look at the measurements for the rate of curvature. after 120 miles, over 9600 feet of difference. look it up.


It's actually refuted in both the videos I posted. Don't be such a lazy FlatTard.  :laugh1: Watch the videos.


You still didn't even attempt to disprove this quote below.  :smile:

Quote
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
 

And while you are at it, you should at least try to refute the two quotes below.  :smile:

Quote
The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.


Quote
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.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: noOneImportant on January 03, 2017, 07:01:23 PM
Quote from: mw2016

In the FE model, there is no such thing, no such magical force, as "gravity." There is only mass and density, or buoyancy. An object falls from any given height because it weighs more than the air - there is no force "pulling" it. A balloon filled with helium rises because it has a buoyancy that is lighter than the air. It's pretty simple and much more elegant that the pretzel-logic that the priests of scientism have tried to foist upon the world.


This can be demonstrated to be false with a simple experiment. Drop a feather in a vacuum chamber. It's been done a million times. Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XJcZ-KoL9o) for instance. Things don't fall because they are lighter than air. They fall because there is a force pulling them. Again, I encourage you to look up the definition of a force, as I did some weeks ago in a different thread. Motion, by definition, requires a force to cause it. Ergo, gravity is the force that causes falling motion.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on January 03, 2017, 11:07:44 PM
Quote from: noOneImportant
Quote from: mw2016

 A balloon filled with helium rises because it has a buoyancy that is lighter than the air.  


This can be demonstrated to be false with a simple experiment. Drop a feather in a vacuum chamber. It's been done a million times. Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XJcZ-KoL9o) for instance. Things don't fall because they are lighter than air. They fall because there is a force pulling them. Again, I encourage you to look up the definition of a force, as I did some weeks ago in a different thread. Motion, by definition, requires a force to cause it. Ergo, gravity is the force that causes falling motion.


The linked video shows a very small scale vacuum chamber.

This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs) shows the well-known vacuum chamber where a helium balloon does not rise at all.  So saying that a balloon filled with helium rises is a false statement, because in a vacuum the helium balloon does not rise, but falls instead.

Since the helium balloon not only remains on the floor without rising, so too the same balloon dropped from the high release platform with the feathers and/or with the bowling ball will fall at the very same rate as the feathers and/or the ball.

These objects fall at the acceleration due to gravity, about 32 ft/sec/sec ("32 feet per second per second").  That means each second that it falls, it increases its velocity by 32 feet per second. So after one second it's falling at 32 f/s, and after 2 seconds it's falling at 64 f/s, and after 3 seconds it's falling at 96 f/s. This acceleration increases without limit so long as the ambient vacuum is maintained.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on January 03, 2017, 11:53:01 PM
Quote from: ascent

Despite some atheist rhetoric (just ignore it), this video exposes "flat earth" retardation.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/JgY8zNZ35uw[/youtube]

It's too bad that some people think it's effective to be insulting.

Flat-earthers mean well, they're just misinformed.  But some of them really don't want to know or think about the basics of physics or material sciences which are demonstrable in an experimental scenario. Anyone who studies a science major in college has to pass the basic physics classes, and if they go through the whole course they have to successfully complete calculus based physics. That means that they won't be coming out of that class with a passing grade and then proceed to make arguments for a flat earth or against the existence of gravity.

The video above contains some good, simple geodesic and geometric calculations, that is, ones that don't require integration or differentials.  Even so, it seems unlikely that any of the flat-earthers even here on CI are going to press the keys on their trig calculator (if they even have one) to see that these distances are computed correctly.

Consequently, and perhaps largely due to the derisive language employed therein, they will never achieve a significant degree of comprehension of the examples given, especially the one showing the calculated arc distance vs. actual distance traveled over Australia from east to west.

In other words, the video shows some good stuff in it but they do it without regard to common decency and they throw out any polite decorum like the baby with the bathwater.

As an example of keeping some decorum alive in the discussion, this guy seems to show some promise. He's just getting started so he might have a lot more to offer in the future:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/NKiI5k-_iaU[/youtube]



.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on January 04, 2017, 09:35:22 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: ascent

Despite some atheist rhetoric (just ignore it), this video exposes "flat earth" retardation.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/JgY8zNZ35uw[/youtube]

It's too bad that some people think it's effective to be insulting.

Flat-earthers mean well, they're just misinformed.  But some of them really don't want to know or think about the basics of physics or material sciences which are demonstrable in an experimental scenario. Anyone who studies a science major in college has to pass the basic physics classes, and if they go through the whole course they have to successfully complete calculus based physics. That means that they won't be coming out of that class with a passing grade and then proceed to make arguments for a flat earth or against the existence of gravity.

The video above contains some good, simple geodesic and geometric calculations, that is, ones that don't require integration or differentials.  Even so, it seems unlikely that any of the flat-earthers even here on CI are going to press the keys on their trig calculator (if they even have one) to see that these distances are computed correctly.

Consequently, and perhaps largely due to the derisive language employed therein, they will never achieve a significant degree of comprehension of the examples given, especially the one showing the calculated arc distance vs. actual distance traveled over Australia from east to west.

In other words, the video shows some good stuff in it but they do it without regard to common decency and they throw out any polite decorum like the baby with the bathwater.

As an example of keeping some decorum alive in the discussion, this guy seems to show some promise. He's just getting started so he might have a lot more to offer in the future:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/NKiI5k-_iaU[/youtube]



.


Quoting a video called "Testing Flattards", because You can't disprove the quotes below, is insulting and or rather amusing.   :laugh2:

Quote
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.


Quote
The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.
 

Quote
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.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 04, 2017, 09:37:06 AM
Quote from: noOneImportant
Quote from: mw2016

In the FE model, there is no such thing, no such magical force, as "gravity." There is only mass and density, or buoyancy. An object falls from any given height because it weighs more than the air - there is no force "pulling" it. A balloon filled with helium rises because it has a buoyancy that is lighter than the air. It's pretty simple and much more elegant that the pretzel-logic that the priests of scientism have tried to foist upon the world.


This can be demonstrated to be false with a simple experiment. Drop a feather in a vacuum chamber. It's been done a million times. Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XJcZ-KoL9o) for instance. Things don't fall because they are lighter than air. They fall because there is a force pulling them. Again, I encourage you to look up the definition of a force, as I did some weeks ago in a different thread. Motion, by definition, requires a force to cause it. Ergo, gravity is the force that causes falling motion.


Yes, you can keep making scientism's claim, and keep attempting to rescue their religion, but yet even THEY cannot prove it nor explain it.

The priests of scientism have literally NO explanation for their THEORY.

Remember that? The THEORY of gravity?? That means it is NOT PROVEN.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on January 04, 2017, 12:29:42 PM
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
Who's the retard now?


You, because you believe "the earth is flat."


Quote from: Neil Obstat
Flat-earthers mean well...


A lot of them don't mean well. They're nothing more than disinformationists attempting to smear the geocentrism movement by attaching itself to it. People will then judge geocentrism as "nuts" because "flat earth" has been associated with it. That's how the flawed mind works, and these deceivers know it. They're also trying to make traditional Catholicism look bad with their concerted effort to recruit more FlatTards.

For any FlatTard who would like to respond to the following, please do, for I have yet to receive answers from any of them to whom I posed the question on many different forums.

If you travel east in a linear path without stopping, you will eventually end up in the same spot from where you departed because the earth is a globe, not flat. Are all of the world's airline pilots, ship captains and satellite engineers involved in a grand conspiracy to hide knowledge of the earth being flat? Not one has spoken out and provided hard proof of the earth being flat? Why not?

These are simple questions that should be directly answered.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 04, 2017, 02:54:33 PM
Quote from: ascent
Are all of the world's airline pilots, ship captains and satellite engineers involved in a grand conspiracy to hide knowledge of the earth being flat? Not one has spoken out and provided hard proof of the earth being flat? Why not?

These are simple questions that should be directly answered.



They HAVE spoken out and answered your question.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/VaUBrui9L1I[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/dFi98T8phoI[/youtube]

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 04, 2017, 03:10:42 PM
Quote from: ascent

If you travel east in a linear path without stopping, you will eventually end up in the same spot from where you departed because the earth is a globe, not flat.



You know you can do this on a flat earth, right?

Here's my route sketched out on a FE map.

Depart Los Angeles, sail east to Japan, past the Phillipines, thru the Straits of Malacca, across the Indian Ocean to the Horn of Africa, up the Suez Canal, across the Mediterranean, thru the Strait of Gibraltar, across the Atlantic, thru the Panama Canal, back to LA.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 04, 2017, 03:14:25 PM
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/iop8j4WJDXM[/youtube]
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 04, 2017, 03:42:51 PM
Quote from: ascent
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
Who's the retard now?


You, because you believe "the earth is flat."


Quote from: Neil Obstat
Flat-earthers mean well...


A lot of them don't mean well. They're nothing more than disinformationists attempting to smear the geocentrism movement by attaching itself to it. People will then judge geocentrism as "nuts" because "flat earth" has been associated with it. That's how the flawed mind works, and these deceivers know it. They're also trying to make traditional Catholicism look bad with their concerted effort to recruit more FlatTards.

For any FlatTard who would like to respond to the following, please do, for I have yet to receive answers from any of them to whom I posed the question on many different forums.

If you travel east in a linear path without stopping, you will eventually end up in the same spot from where you departed because the earth is a globe, not flat. Are all of the world's airline pilots, ship captains and satellite engineers involved in a grand conspiracy to hide knowledge of the earth being flat? Not one has spoken out and provided hard proof of the earth being flat? Why not?

These are simple questions that should be directly answered.



Flattard?

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 04, 2017, 03:44:17 PM
For those of you that need assistance, the above Catholic teaching says that rotundity of earth is contrary to scripture.  
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 04, 2017, 04:03:45 PM

Scripture on Flat Earth

Job 26:7 “He stretched out the north over the empty space, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.”
“He raiseth up the needy from the dust, and lifteth up the poor from the dunghill: that He may sit with princes, and hold the throne of glory. For the poles of the earth are the Lord's, and upon them He hath set the world.” (1 Kings 2:8)
Prov. 8:26 “The poles of the earth.”
Isaiah 40:22 “It is He that sitteth
   upon the circle of the earth.”
Psalm 18:5 “Fines Orbis terrae.”
Psalm  89:2 “Terra et orbis.”
Job 37:12 “Orbis terrarum.”
Ps. 18:5 “Orbis terrae.”
Ps. 49:12 “Orbis terrae.”
Prov. 8:26 “Orbis terrae.”
Lk. 4:5 “Orbis terrae.”

Orbis is always translated "circle", not "globe".


http://browse.dict.cc/latin-english/orbis.html

http://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-meaning-of/latin-word-3b58f269f20cb8a0576db4c5547ab969c8fd090f.html

http://www.majstro.com/dictionaries/Latin-English/orbis

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/orbis


Spherical earth is a lie promoted by pagan NASA and historical pagans like Eratosthenes, Pythagorus, Keplar, Newton, Copernicus (heretic priest), Einstein, Carl Sagan and evolution-promoting NASA globalists.  Earth is not a globe.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on January 04, 2017, 05:11:39 PM
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: ascent
Are all of the world's airline pilots, ship captains and satellite engineers involved in a grand conspiracy to hide knowledge of the earth being flat? Not one has spoken out and provided hard proof of the earth being flat? Why not?

These are simple questions that should be directly answered.



They HAVE spoken out and answered your question.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/VaUBrui9L1I[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/dFi98T8phoI[/youtube]



I'm not wasting however many minutes or hours of my life watching videos, when I directed the questions to YOU / THEM to answer. Why don't YOU / THEY answer my questions, then I'll have an impetus to watch the videos you're providing? It seems the reason you / they don't answer these simple questions is because you really don't have the answers. I'm still waiting for my questions to be answered.

Quote from: mw2016
[You know you can do this on a flat earth, right? [...]


That's according to your narrative that every pilot, engineer, etc. on earth throughout history is involved in a grand conspiracy to withhold the fact the they're not really circuмnavigating a globe, but rather going in a flat circle. So we're back to square one, and no questions have really been answered.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on January 04, 2017, 05:13:12 PM
Quote from: ascent
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
Who's the retard now?


You, because you believe "the earth is flat."


Quote from: Neil Obstat
Flat-earthers mean well...


A lot of them don't mean well. They're nothing more than disinformationists attempting to smear the geocentrism movement by attaching itself to it. People will then judge geocentrism as "nuts" because "flat earth" has been associated with it. That's how the flawed mind works, and these deceivers know it. They're also trying to make traditional Catholicism look bad with their concerted effort to recruit more FlatTards.

For any FlatTard who would like to respond to the following, please do, for I have yet to receive answers from any of them to whom I posed the question on many different forums.

If you travel east in a linear path without stopping, you will eventually end up in the same spot from where you departed because the earth is a globe, not flat. Are all of the world's airline pilots, ship captains and satellite engineers involved in a grand conspiracy to hide knowledge of the earth being flat? Not one has spoken out and provided hard proof of the earth being flat? Why not?

These are simple questions that should be directly answered.



The flat earth is geocentric.  :smile:

Satellites' do not exist. Can you show me a picture of satellites' in space?
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 04, 2017, 06:51:11 PM
Quote from: ascent
I'm still waiting for my questions to be answered.


That's according to your narrative that every pilot, engineer, etc. on earth throughout history is involved in a grand conspiracy to withhold the fact the they're not really circuмnavigating a globe, but rather going in a flat circle. So we're back to square one, and no questions have really been answered.


I'm happy to answer any questions to the best of my ability - fire away!

I thought you'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth, hence, the videos.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on January 04, 2017, 09:56:37 PM
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: ascent
I'm still waiting for my questions to be answered.


That's according to your narrative that every pilot, engineer, etc. on earth throughout history is involved in a grand conspiracy to withhold the fact the they're not really circuмnavigating a globe, but rather going in a flat circle. So we're back to square one, and no questions have really been answered.


I'm happy to answer any questions to the best of my ability - fire away!

I thought you'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth, hence, the videos.


Are all of the world's airline pilots, ship captains, satellite engineers, etc. involved in a grand conspiracy to hide knowledge of the earth being flat? Not one has spoken out and provided hard proof of the earth being flat? Why not? If one or some have spoken out, give me a synopsis of what they disclosed.  
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on January 05, 2017, 10:35:03 AM
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: ascent
I'm still waiting for my questions to be answered.


That's according to your narrative that every pilot, engineer, etc. on earth throughout history is involved in a grand conspiracy to withhold the fact the they're not really circuмnavigating a globe, but rather going in a flat circle. So we're back to square one, and no questions have really been answered.


I'm happy to answer any questions to the best of my ability - fire away!

I thought you'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth, hence, the videos.


Are all of the world's airline pilots, ship captains, satellite engineers, etc. involved in a grand conspiracy to hide knowledge of the earth being flat? Not one has spoken out and provided hard proof of the earth being flat? Why not? If one or some have spoken out, give me a synopsis of what they disclosed.  


German ENGINEER/ PILOT Confirms FLAT EARTH & says GPS Satellites Don't Exist on THECONTROVERSY7

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKdZQA9tA3E
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on January 05, 2017, 10:36:20 AM
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: ascent
I'm still waiting for my questions to be answered.


That's according to your narrative that every pilot, engineer, etc. on earth throughout history is involved in a grand conspiracy to withhold the fact the they're not really circuмnavigating a globe, but rather going in a flat circle. So we're back to square one, and no questions have really been answered.


I'm happy to answer any questions to the best of my ability - fire away!

I thought you'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth, hence, the videos.


Are all of the world's airline pilots, ship captains, satellite engineers, etc. involved in a grand conspiracy to hide knowledge of the earth being flat? Not one has spoken out and provided hard proof of the earth being flat? Why not? If one or some have spoken out, give me a synopsis of what they disclosed.  


Surveyors, Engineers, Pilots and Sailors Expose the Flat Earth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcgxBTrmIhU
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on January 05, 2017, 10:39:01 AM
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: ascent
I'm still waiting for my questions to be answered.


That's according to your narrative that every pilot, engineer, etc. on earth throughout history is involved in a grand conspiracy to withhold the fact the they're not really circuмnavigating a globe, but rather going in a flat circle. So we're back to square one, and no questions have really been answered.


I'm happy to answer any questions to the best of my ability - fire away!

I thought you'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth, hence, the videos.


Are all of the world's airline pilots, ship captains, satellite engineers, etc. involved in a grand conspiracy to hide knowledge of the earth being flat? Not one has spoken out and provided hard proof of the earth being flat? Why not? If one or some have spoken out, give me a synopsis of what they disclosed.  


Engineer Proves Flat Earth to Radio Host Mike Church - Nikon P900

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02y4wkEFxPo
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on January 05, 2017, 10:52:10 AM
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: ascent
I'm still waiting for my questions to be answered.


That's according to your narrative that every pilot, engineer, etc. on earth throughout history is involved in a grand conspiracy to withhold the fact the they're not really circuмnavigating a globe, but rather going in a flat circle. So we're back to square one, and no questions have really been answered.


I'm happy to answer any questions to the best of my ability - fire away!

I thought you'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth, hence, the videos.


Are all of the world's airline pilots, ship captains, satellite engineers, etc. involved in a grand conspiracy to hide knowledge of the earth being flat? Not one has spoken out and provided hard proof of the earth being flat? Why not? If one or some have spoken out, give me a synopsis of what they disclosed.  


Career Land Surveyor: No curve ever measured - Flat Earth SW22 - Mark Sargent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BSKVE9pp60
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on January 05, 2017, 11:09:32 AM
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: ascent
I'm still waiting for my questions to be answered.


That's according to your narrative that every pilot, engineer, etc. on earth throughout history is involved in a grand conspiracy to withhold the fact the they're not really circuмnavigating a globe, but rather going in a flat circle. So we're back to square one, and no questions have really been answered.


I'm happy to answer any questions to the best of my ability - fire away!

I thought you'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth, hence, the videos.


Are all of the world's airline pilots, ship captains, satellite engineers, etc. involved in a grand conspiracy to hide knowledge of the earth being flat? Not one has spoken out and provided hard proof of the earth being flat? Why not? If one or some have spoken out, give me a synopsis of what they disclosed.  


Career Land Surveyor: No curve ever measured - Flat Earth SW22 - Mark Sargent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BSKVE9pp60


You keep proving my point. Did you not read what I wrote? YOU answer and explain why there is this grand conspiracy by pilots and the others keep people thinking the world is a globe. I'm not wasting my time on videos until I get an answer from the actual flat earther who is posting the videos.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on January 05, 2017, 11:31:51 AM
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: ascent
I'm still waiting for my questions to be answered.


That's according to your narrative that every pilot, engineer, etc. on earth throughout history is involved in a grand conspiracy to withhold the fact the they're not really circuмnavigating a globe, but rather going in a flat circle. So we're back to square one, and no questions have really been answered.


I'm happy to answer any questions to the best of my ability - fire away!

I thought you'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth, hence, the videos.


Are all of the world's airline pilots, ship captains, satellite engineers, etc. involved in a grand conspiracy to hide knowledge of the earth being flat? Not one has spoken out and provided hard proof of the earth being flat? Why not? If one or some have spoken out, give me a synopsis of what they disclosed.  


Career Land Surveyor: No curve ever measured - Flat Earth SW22 - Mark Sargent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BSKVE9pp60


You keep proving my point. Did you not read what I wrote? YOU answer and explain why there is this grand conspiracy by pilots and the others keep people thinking the world is a globe. I'm not wasting my time on videos until I get an answer from the actual flat earther who is posting the videos.


I got you right where I want you.  :smile:
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 05, 2017, 04:08:39 PM
HISTORY OF HELIOCENTRISM vs GEOCENTRISM

Following historical trails backward in time we find Heliocentrism is a doctrine practiced and promoted by pagans.  Conversely, Geocentrism is a doctrine founded in scripture and vigorously defended by those loyal to the True God.

Pythagoras was recognized by Johannes Kepler as “grandfather of all Copernicans.”
Galileo viewed the papal edict of 1616 as a “suppression of the Pythagorean opinion of the mobility of the earth”.
Heliocentrism is the same as the Pythagorean Doctrine or Copernican Doctrine and is the model accepted today.


The history of spherical earth and Heliocentrism, is 100% pagan, handed down from Pythagoras and held by pagans through the centuries:

Pythagoras
Eratosthenes
Aristotle
Plato
Copernicus
Keplar
Newton
Einstein
Sagan
Freemasons
NASA
Modern Scientism

The Jєωιѕн Encyclopedia states that the Kabbalah is the origin of the philosophy of Pythagoras.  It was the secrets of the Kabbalah that led Pythagoras to heliocentric philosophy. German humanist Johannes Reuchlin (1455-1522) says that Pythagorean philosophy emanated from the Jєωs, not the Greeks.
Martin Wagner conducted an objective and thorough study of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and wrote a book about his findings titled “Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ: An Interpretation” In the book it is found that the Kabbalah is unadulterated witchcraft and occultism.
The Zionist Kabbalah Jєωs hide behind Gentile Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and control the sciences through various arms of the government, including NASA.

We have a history of the Kabbalah through to modern times where the spherical moving earth is widely accepted and people are continuing the process of apostatizing from the Church as never before.  The Church took a stand against these pagan doctrines in 1633 when She condemned Heliocentrism.  Sadly, people moved away from this teaching little by little through the next centuries and most have no idea how seriously it affects their Faith.

Catholics must be warned about the evils of the Heliocentric doctrine that promotes the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, The Big Bang, evolution, aliens, millions year old earth, and demonic modern scientism.  Scripture is very clear: earth is flat and geocentric.      
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 05, 2017, 05:01:41 PM
In addition...

Theological ‘pontiff’ for the Freemasonic religion and author of “Moral Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite”, Albert Pike teaches: “The Masonic Religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian Doctrine.”
Albert Pike, Morals & Dogma, "Masonry is identical to  the ancient Mysteries ", which means that all their teachings in all their books are precisely the same as the Ancient, Pagan, Satanic Mysteries.

NASA symbols and philosophy promote this same Freemasonic Luciferian
    doctrine.


This 1979 medallion was struck to commenmorate the 10th anniversary of our flags “on the moon”.  Many people do not know that Neil Armstrong carried two flags on the Apollo flight, one, the American flag, the other was designed by Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite depicting the double-headed eagle emblem.

This is one of many freemasonic symbols used by NASA to promote their agenda.


Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on January 05, 2017, 07:02:59 PM
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: Croix de Fer
You keep proving my point. Did you not read what I wrote? YOU answer and explain why there is this grand conspiracy by pilots and the others keep people thinking the world is a globe. I'm not wasting my time on videos until I get an answer from the actual flat earther who is posting the videos.


I got you right where I want you.  :smile:


 :laugh1:



Quote from: happenby
NASA symbols and philosophy promote this same Freemasonic Luciferian doctrine.


I agree that NASA is a fraud and pushing a diabolical and anti-human agenda. I also agree with geocentrism, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with "flat earth".
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on January 06, 2017, 12:36:33 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat

As an example of keeping some decorum alive in the discussion, this guy seems to show some promise. He's just getting started so he might have a lot more to offer in the future:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/NKiI5k-_iaU[/youtube]


I think it's noteworthy that none of the Flat-earthers have a reply to the video I posted, above.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on January 06, 2017, 12:58:49 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Neil Obstat

As an example of keeping some decorum alive in the discussion, this guy seems to show some promise. He's just getting started so he might have a lot more to offer in the future:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/NKiI5k-_iaU[/youtube]


I think it's noteworthy that none of the Flat-earthers have a reply to the video I posted, above.



The Flat Earth Rising Horizon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYIXPo0ZA7Y
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 06, 2017, 02:45:47 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Neil Obstat

As an example of keeping some decorum alive in the discussion, this guy seems to show some promise. He's just getting started so he might have a lot more to offer in the future:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/NKiI5k-_iaU[/youtube]


I think it's noteworthy that none of the Flat-earthers have a reply to the video I posted, above.



Why would any Catholic bother to look when so clear evidence shows that the Church has always taught earth is flat and geocentric? Nothing trumps the Catholic Church, or the myriad of Catholics that attest to this truth.  Answer first the Church.  Show evidence that the Church Fathers, saints and popes teach Heliocentrism... or abandon it.  
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on January 08, 2017, 12:17:24 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Neil Obstat

As an example of keeping some decorum alive in the discussion, this guy seems to show some promise. He's just getting started so he might have a lot more to offer in the future:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/NKiI5k-_iaU[/youtube]


I think it's noteworthy that none of the Flat-earthers have a reply to the video I posted, above.



Some quick responses.

The main argument of the flat earth is the lack of curvature. Something you personally have avoided, especially when challenged by the male members of the forum.
It is not the phoney images of NASA. Even if we couldnt prove easily they were phoney, flat earth lack of curvature would still stand.

The thesis of the the earth is, "what we know of the earth is flat". That is a positive thesis, not one which just sets out to disprove the globe earth.

There are different types of manipulation. It depends on what you judge the motivation to be. Also, there are major things like the different sized north america, and the fact that experts now claim the earth is pear shaped, and yet the images don't reflect this. It is contradictions which are the most important.

It is not difficult to photograph the earth.

I agree that NASA faking everything does not necessarily imply a flat earth.

The round earth is big, but not that big. The maths shows us clearly that 120 miles across would make a different of at least 1.5 miles. Look it up, you're an engineer.

The best items for showing objects over the horizon, are viewed from sealevel.
Like the video you conveniently ignored back in the other thread? Remember, the missing few hundred metres you just ignored? Yea.

Just an aside, I find it amusing the way globalists like using the earth curve calculator, to try to show off how they are maths geniuses and we are jsut ignorant, but when you show them where they are wrong! Silence. You're not the only one Neil, if it is any consolation.

There is such a thing as circular reasoning. Some theories appear logical, but only within themselves. They are not truly logical, because they don't consider certain other factors.

The moon arguments by globalists are sometimes not properly studied, so
 it can be easy to mock flatearthers.

His rhetoric about the flat earth being dangerous, is just wrong. This guy has not taken the time to study the curvature issue in depth.

At the end of the day, you like this guy mostly cos he has english accent don't you ?? go on admit it.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on January 08, 2017, 09:42:43 PM
Isaias 40:22 (Douay Rheims)
Quote
It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.



Our Lady of La Salette
Quote
Water and fire will give the earth's globe convulsions and terrible earthquakes which will swallow up mountains, cities, etc..
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on January 08, 2017, 09:56:22 PM
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Isaias 40:22 (Douay Rheims)
Quote
It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.



Our Lady of La Salette
Quote
Water and fire will give the earth's globe convulsions and terrible earthquakes which will swallow up mountains, cities, etc..


Here is an illustration of the globe of the flat earth the above passages are referring to.   :wink:

(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/HebrewConceptEarth1_zpsvsgwjwlh.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/HebrewConceptEarth1_zpsvsgwjwlh.jpg.html)
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on January 08, 2017, 10:50:08 PM
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Isaias 40:22 (Douay Rheims)
Quote
It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.



Our Lady of La Salette
Quote
Water and fire will give the earth's globe convulsions and terrible earthquakes which will swallow up mountains, cities, etc..


Here is an illustration of the globe of the flat earth the above passages are referring to.   :wink:

[...]




Wrong analysis and erred illustration.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on January 09, 2017, 05:51:08 AM
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Isaias 40:22 (Douay Rheims)
Quote
It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.



Our Lady of La Salette
Quote
Water and fire will give the earth's globe convulsions and terrible earthquakes which will swallow up mountains, cities, etc..


Here is an illustration of the globe of the flat earth the above passages are referring to.   :wink:

[...]




Wrong analysis and erred illustration.


Obviously if you believe that the earth is curved like a ball, you will think it is wrong. But sadly for you there is no curvature on the earth. What we know of it is flat. As for what is beyond, Sacred scripture coupled with human historical tradition, tells us more. And it is from these that this concept of the dome above and dome below come from.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: cassini on January 09, 2017, 11:10:19 AM
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Isaias 40:22 (Douay Rheims)
Quote
It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.



Our Lady of La Salette
Quote
Water and fire will give the earth's globe convulsions and terrible earthquakes which will swallow up mountains, cities, etc..



Of interest on this matter is the statue of the Child of Prague. ‘Devotion to this statue began in the year 1556 when Maria Manriquez de Lara brought the image of the infant Jesus, a family heirloom, to Czechoslovakia from Spain on her marriage to Vratislav of Pernstyn. It is housed now in the church of Our Lady of Victory in Prague and is an object of veneration in many other countries.’ I cannot post pictures but it has the child Jesus holding the globe of the earth held steady in his hands.

It seems then this statue is a fake if the earth is flat, an image that has deceived faithful Catholics for over 450 years.
     
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on January 09, 2017, 12:09:09 PM
Quote from: cassini
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Isaias 40:22 (Douay Rheims)
Quote
It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.



Our Lady of La Salette
Quote
Water and fire will give the earth's globe convulsions and terrible earthquakes which will swallow up mountains, cities, etc..



Of interest on this matter is the statue of the Child of Prague. ‘Devotion to this statue began in the year 1556 when Maria Manriquez de Lara brought the image of the infant Jesus, a family heirloom, to Czechoslovakia from Spain on her marriage to Vratislav of Pernstyn. It is housed now in the church of Our Lady of Victory in Prague and is an object of veneration in many other countries.’ I cannot post pictures but it has the child Jesus holding the globe of the earth held steady in his hands.

It seems then this statue is a fake if the earth is flat, an image that has deceived faithful Catholics for over 450 years.
     


Did you not read the preceding posts?

The Child of Prague does not prove at all that the earth is round. This issue has been addressed multiple times. Sphere's are symbolic of unity and perfection, and the image posted above represents the creation in it's entirety.

It is perfectly conformable to the flat earth, but if you have a mind which wants desperately to believe in the round earth, despite the evidence, then you will naturally find an excuse.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on January 09, 2017, 12:18:07 PM
Quote from: cassini
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Isaias 40:22 (Douay Rheims)
Quote
It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.



Our Lady of La Salette
Quote
Water and fire will give the earth's globe convulsions and terrible earthquakes which will swallow up mountains, cities, etc..



Of interest on this matter is the statue of the Child of Prague. ‘Devotion to this statue began in the year 1556 when Maria Manriquez de Lara brought the image of the infant Jesus, a family heirloom, to Czechoslovakia from Spain on her marriage to Vratislav of Pernstyn. It is housed now in the church of Our Lady of Victory in Prague and is an object of veneration in many other countries.’ I cannot post pictures but it has the child Jesus holding the globe of the earth held steady in his hands.

It seems then this statue is a fake if the earth is flat, an image that has deceived faithful Catholics for over 450 years.
     


The statue of the Child of Prague represents the globe of the flat earth in the illustration below.

(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/HebrewConceptEarth1_zpsvsgwjwlh.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/HebrewConceptEarth1_zpsvsgwjwlh.jpg.html)
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: cassini on January 09, 2017, 12:47:33 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Neil Obstat

As an example of keeping some decorum alive in the discussion, this guy seems to show some promise. He's just getting started so he might have a lot more to offer in the future:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/NKiI5k-_iaU[/youtube]


I think it's noteworthy that none of the Flat-earthers have a reply to the video I posted, above.



Hi Neil, interesting video. Obviously this know all is a heliocentrist. Pity this young man does not practive what he preaches about examining such theories.. At the 8th minute he tells us Einstein has been proven right many times. Recently I read a paper article saying Santa Claus used Einstein's relativity to get around the world and down chimneys. If he travels at the speed of light he will shrink and thus get down the narrow tube.Maybe someone woukld ask him to give his followers the proofs he asserts.

‘The third and most important reason is that he [Einstein and his theories of relativity] provides another opportunity to show up the fallacy of the general belief that modern science, in every field but perhaps especially in mathematics and physics, is so complicated that it cannot be understood by the non-specialist, and that the layman has no choice but to rely on the words of experts with superior intelligence and training. Stripped of its disguises, which as with other science and elite professions are mostly jargon and bluff, Relativity, whether Special Theory [STR] or General Theory [GTR], involves no major challenge to the intellect in order to be understood. [Einstein’s] Relativity is not merely nonsense, it is simple nonsense; and the only difficulty in seeing this lies in bringing oneself to believe it possible that anything so generally accepted by so many intelligent people really can be such obvious nonsense.’ --- N.M. Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, p.7.


Proofs for Einstein’s Relativity
Let's take
The Bending of Starlight Sham

A camera was set up; steady as a rock. Photographs of the sky were taken just before the eclipse. Shortly afterwards the sun and moon converged, leaving all in darkness. A second series of photographs were taken. Then it was back to the laboratory for development and comparisons. There were 43 photographic plates in all; the Sobral team took 27 and the Principe team took 16. Fifteen of these, however, were discarded because they were clouded, no use for their purpose. The conclusion, well first let us see the propaganda:

‘Eddington found that light rays which had left the surface of stars thousands of years ago [says who?] and had been bent by the curved space near the Sun only eight minutes previously, passed through the lens and exposed the photograph plates just where Einstein said they would. One of the most remarkable experiments in scientific history had been completed. The results of the eclipse expedition were presented by the Astronomer Royal at a meeting of the Royal Society on 6th November 1919 [announcing the observers had confirmed Einstein’s theory], and Einstein became a national hero overnight. Headlines in the New York Times suggested that a new Universe had been discovered… and this time the newspaper hype was not exaggerated. A world weary from war embraced the quiet and eccentric scientist, sitting in his study in Berlin with a pencil and pad, who had figured out the great plan of the Almighty for the entire Universe.’ ---J.P. McEvoy and O. Zarate:  Introducing Stephen  Hawking, Icon Books UK, pp.43-44.

So says the book ‘Introducing Stephen Hawking,’ filling yet another generation full of bunk. Keep on reading however, and we find the following tucked into the corner of the next page: ‘Many critics said the results were inconclusive, that the possibility of error in the star measurements was too great, so the scepticism continued.’ But note ‘Einstein became a national hero’ anyway, and the New York Times did suggest ‘that a new Universe had been discovered.’ ---  
     If the theory is true, then all the stars positioned near the sun should have been displaced towards the sun. They were not. The stars in fact were displaced in the photographs in every conceivable direction, this way, that way, and every which way, but a long way from showing Einstein’s GTR to be true.
     
‘To make the observations come out to support Einstein, Eddington and the others took the Sobral 4-inch results as the main findings and used the two Principe plates as supporting evidence while ignoring the 18 plates taken by the Sobral astrographic… On 6th Nov. 1919, Sir Joseph Thomson, the President of the Royal Society, chaired a meeting at which he said: “It is difficult for the audience to weigh fully the meaning of the figures that have been put before us, but the Astronomer Royal and Professor Eddington have studied the material carefully, and they regard the evidence as decisively in favour of the larger value for the displacement.” --- H. Collins and T. Pinch: The Golem, p.51, and quoting J. Earman, and C. Glymour, ‘Relativity and Eclipses: The British Eclipse Expedition of 1919 and their Predecessors,’ Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 11 (1), 49-85.  

Ah yes, the Masonic founded Royal Society was in full flow then, doing what it was established to do, dictate what ‘science’ the world was to believe, and what it was to ignore. They approved Newton’s eureka mind-conclusions and then Einstein’s ‘proofs.’ ‘The results of the measurements confirmed the theory in a thoroughly satisfactory manner,’ wrote Einstein in his paper already quoted.

Dr Arthur Lynch, the distinguished mathematician, let the cat out of the bag:

‘The results of the observations are shown on a chart, by a series of dots, and by tracing connections between these dots it is possible to obtain a “curve” from which the law of deviation is inferred. But the actual charts show only an irregular group of dots, through which, if it be possible to draw a curve that seems to confirm the theory of Relativity, it is equally possible to draw a curve which runs counter to the theory. Neither curve has any justification.’

And if that is not enough to show a ‘scientific’ farce, Professor Charles Lane Poor really spilled the beans on the tricksters:

‘The table showing displacement of individual stars shows that on average the observed deflection, as given by the British astronomers, differ by 19% from the calculated Einstein value. In the place of two stars the agreement between theory and observation is very nearly perfect… in other cases however, the differences range from 11% to 60% [from the calculated Einstein value]. The diagrams show clearly that the observed displacements of the stars do not agree in direction with the predicted Einstein effect. This point was nowhere mentioned in the report… But, after the measurements of the plates became available for study, several investigators called attention to this fact of a radial disagreement in direction between the observed and the predicted displacements.’--- C.L. Poor: Gravitation V Relativity, pp.218-226.

Professor Poor then goes on to tell us that the Einsteinian relativists tried to claim the differences between the predicted and observed shifts are no greater than should be expected. Consequently, ‘This very question was investigated by Dr Henry Davies Russell, of Princeton University, a most ardent upholder of relativity theory.’ After ‘an exhaustive examination’ he found the differences are real, and are contradictory.

‘The results given in the Report for the observations are the means (average) of the radial components (direction towards or away from the sun) only, nothing whatever being given to the directions in which the actual displacements took place. The Einstein theory requires a deflection, not only of a certain definite component, but also in a certain observed direction. To discuss the amount of the observed deflection is to discuss only one-half of the whole question and the less important half at that. The observed deflection might agree exactly with the predicted amount, but, if it were in the wrong direction, it would disprove, not prove, the Relativity theory. You cannot reach Washington from New York by travelling south, even if you do go the requisite number of miles.’ --- Gravitation v Relativity

But the Royal Society, as we have already seen, has long been taking homo consensus to Washington from New York travelling south, west and east.

‘Now the diagrams of the seven best plates, the seven taken at Sobral with the 4-inch camera, show clearly and definitely that the observed deflections are not in the directions required by the Einstein theory… The relativists either totally disregard these discordances, or invoke the heating effect of the sun to distort the vision by just the proper amount to explain them away.’

‘Further… there are other perfectly possible explanations of a deflection of a ray of light; explanations based on every-day, common-place grounds. Abnormal refraction in the earth’s atmosphere is one; refraction of the solar envelope is another… Such is the evidence, and are the observations, which according to Einstein, “confirm the theory in a thoroughly satisfactory manner.’--- Gravitation V Relativity.

Finally, Walter van der Kamp showed that Einstein's relative heliocentrism can be shown to be wrong and that the only way to interpret stellar aberration is a geocentric way.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: cassini on January 09, 2017, 12:50:17 PM
"The statue of the Child of Prague represents the globe of the flat earth."

Oh, I see, then again it could represent a sandwich or even a bowl of soup.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on January 09, 2017, 02:38:07 PM
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: ascent

If you travel east in a linear path without stopping, you will eventually end up in the same spot from where you departed because the earth is a globe, not flat.



You know you can do this on a flat earth, right?

Here's my route sketched out on a FE map.

Depart Los Angeles, sail east to Japan, past the Phillipines, thru the Straits of Malacca, across the Indian Ocean to the Horn of Africa, up the Suez Canal, across the Mediterranean, thru the Strait of Gibraltar, across the Atlantic, thru the Panama Canal, back to LA.


No, you can't.

That's not an eastward linear path. It's a deviation from said path based on your false premise that all pilots are involved in a grand conspiracy to withhold knowledge that the earth is "flat".

According to your "flat earth" theory, if a person truly did travel, nonstop, eastward in linear path, he would eventually fall off an unknown cliff or be repelled by some gigantic, unknown magnetic force keeping him on the "flat earth".

You lose, again.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 09, 2017, 02:48:01 PM
Quote from: cassini
"The statue of the Child of Prague represents the globe of the flat earth."

Oh, I see, then again it could represent a sandwich or even a bowl of soup.



“We call the earth a globe, not as if the shape of a sphere were expressed in the diversity of plains and mountains, but because, if all things are included in the outline, the earth's circuмference will represent the figure of a perfect globe..." --Bede the Venerable

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on January 09, 2017, 02:49:55 PM
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Isaias 40:22 (Douay Rheims)
Quote
It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.



Our Lady of La Salette
Quote
Water and fire will give the earth's globe convulsions and terrible earthquakes which will swallow up mountains, cities, etc..


Here is an illustration of the globe of the flat earth the above passages are referring to.   :wink:

[...]




Wrong analysis and erred illustration.


 And it is from these that this concept of the dome above and dome below come from.


Wrong analysis.

You're saying Our Lady of La Salette is wrong. She can't be wrong.

It makes absolutely no sense to refer to these "globes" as having earthquakes when, according to your "flat earth" theory, these "half globes" represent the sky above the earth and the domain, which consists of water or dust, below the earth's land mass and navigable waters, respectively. Our Lady is referring to the earth that we can see and upon that we physically live. It will have convulsions and earthquakes. She calls this land mass "the earth's globe".

Perhaps, you have a reading comprehension problem. You can't understand what Our Lady is stating.

Also, nowhere in the Bible does it say the earth is flat. Circles can be globes, too. It's true circles can be flat, but globes are circular and spherical in nature. It's a matter of semantics. Moreover, Isaias 40:22 specifically says "globe" in the true Bible (Douay Rheims). You're only seeing what you want to see.

You lose, again.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 09, 2017, 02:59:47 PM
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Isaias 40:22 (Douay Rheims)
Quote
It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.



Our Lady of La Salette
Quote
Water and fire will give the earth's globe convulsions and terrible earthquakes which will swallow up mountains, cities, etc..



Interestingly, the word orbis, that some translate "globe" simply does not translate to "globe".  Not any more than disc translates to ball.  

http://browse.dict.cc/latin-english/orbis.html

http://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-meaning-of/latin-word-3b58f269f20cb8a0576db4c5547ab969c8fd090f.html

http://www.majstro.com/dictionaries/Latin-English/orbis

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/orbis

Whoever used "globe" for translation must have been the product of indoctrination. Or worse, an infiltrator who wanted to disturb the truth.  Anyone who desires to know the truth will obtain an unsullied 1610 version of the Catholic Douay and not the more updated ones for truth and accuracy in this matter.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on January 09, 2017, 03:02:18 PM
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: ascent

If you travel east in a linear path without stopping, you will eventually end up in the same spot from where you departed because the earth is a globe, not flat.



You know you can do this on a flat earth, right?

Here's my route sketched out on a FE map.

Depart Los Angeles, sail east to Japan, past the Phillipines, thru the Straits of Malacca, across the Indian Ocean to the Horn of Africa, up the Suez Canal, across the Mediterranean, thru the Strait of Gibraltar, across the Atlantic, thru the Panama Canal, back to LA.


No, you can't.

That's not an eastward linear path. It's a deviation from said path based on your false premise that all pilots are involved in a grand conspiracy to withhold knowledge that the earth is "flat".

According to your "flat earth" theory, if a person truly did travel, nonstop, eastward in linear path, he would eventually fall off an unknown cliff or be repelled by some gigantic, unknown magnetic force keeping him on the "flat earth".

You lose, again.


BUMP
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on January 09, 2017, 03:03:42 PM
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Isaias 40:22 (Douay Rheims)
Quote
It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.



Our Lady of La Salette
Quote
Water and fire will give the earth's globe convulsions and terrible earthquakes which will swallow up mountains, cities, etc..


Here is an illustration of the globe of the flat earth the above passages are referring to.   :wink:

[...]




Wrong analysis and erred illustration.


 And it is from these that this concept of the dome above and dome below come from.


Wrong analysis.

You're saying Our Lady of La Salette is wrong. She can't be wrong.

It makes absolutely no sense to refer to these "globes" as having earthquakes when, according to your "flat earth" theory, these "half globes" represent the sky above the earth and the domain, which consists of water or dust, below the earth's land mass and navigable waters, respectively. Our Lady is referring to the earth that we can see and upon that we physically live. It will have convulsions and earthquakes. She calls this land mass "the earth's globe".

Perhaps, you have a reading comprehension problem. You can't understand what Our Lady is stating.

Also, nowhere in the Bible does it say the earth is flat. Circles can be globes, too. It's true circles can be flat, but globes are circular and spherical in nature. It's a matter of semantics. Moreover, Isaias 40:22 specifically says "globe" in the true Bible (Douay Rheims). You're only seeing what you want to see.

You lose, again.



BUMP
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 09, 2017, 03:07:46 PM
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Isaias 40:22 (Douay Rheims)
Quote
It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.



Our Lady of La Salette
Quote
Water and fire will give the earth's globe convulsions and terrible earthquakes which will swallow up mountains, cities, etc..


Here is an illustration of the globe of the flat earth the above passages are referring to.   :wink:

[...]




Wrong analysis and erred illustration.


 And it is from these that this concept of the dome above and dome below come from.


Wrong analysis.

You're saying Our Lady of La Salette is wrong. She can't be wrong.

It makes absolutely no sense to refer to these "globes" as having earthquakes when, according to your "flat earth" theory, these "half globes" represent the sky above the earth and the domain, which consists of water or dust, below the earth's land mass and navigable waters, respectively. Our Lady is referring to the earth that we can see and upon that we physically live. It will have convulsions and earthquakes. She calls this land mass "the earth's globe".

Perhaps, you have a reading comprehension problem. You can't understand what Our Lady is stating.

Also, nowhere in the Bible does it say the earth is flat. Circles can be globes, too. It's true circles can be flat, but globes are circular and spherical in nature. It's a matter of semantics. Moreover, Isaias 40:22 specifically says "globe" in the true Bible (Douay Rheims). You're only seeing what you want to see.

You lose, again.



No, the translator and you lose... if you choose not to know.  Globe is never translated from the Latin from 'orbis' as has been repeated elsewhere. Easily proven. The word used in scripture Latin text is 'orbis', circle in English, so whatever comes down from the false translations is error.  Heliocentrism is that big of a lie that the perpetrators were relentless in their pursuit of burying the truth and very careful to acquire agents along the way that served the purpose of promoting and supporting their lies about scripture and creation.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on January 09, 2017, 03:53:40 PM
Quote from: happenby

No, the translator and you lose...


Oh, so you're saying St. Jerome loses.

You're saying the Catholic Church, who wrote the Bible and canonically approved the Douay Rheims translation (the very first mass-produced English translation from the Vulgate), loses.

What's this I hear a comin' ??..............BOOM !!....YOU lose, again.  :laugh1:
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 09, 2017, 04:32:57 PM
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: happenby

No, the translator and you lose...


Oh, so you're saying St. Jerome loses.

You're saying the Catholic Church, who wrote the Bible and canonically approved the Douay Rheims translation (the very first mass-produced English translation from the Vulgate), loses.

What's this I hear a comin' ??..............BOOM !!....YOU lose, again.  :laugh1:


St. Jerome transcribed it in Latin.  He used the word "orbis".  Orbis means circle.  He did not translate it into English.  Latter English translations are not true to the original Douay. The original Douay of 1600's is the true translation.  Latter editions underwent many changes.  It would help if you could cover this information before attempting to 'boom' anyone.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on January 09, 2017, 04:41:19 PM
Quote from: happenby
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: happenby

No, the translator and you lose...


Oh, so you're saying St. Jerome loses.

You're saying the Catholic Church, who wrote the Bible and canonically approved the Douay Rheims translation (the very first mass-produced English translation from the Vulgate), loses.

What's this I hear a comin' ??..............BOOM !!....YOU lose, again.  :laugh1:


 Orbis means circle.  He did not translate it into English.  



Circles can be globes, too. It's true circles can be flat, but globes are, geometrically, circular and spherical. It's a matter of semantics.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say the earth if flat.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 09, 2017, 04:42:43 PM
Very interesting...I checked Wiki, and even they know:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay%E2%80%93Rheims_Bible

From Wikipedia

Much of the text of the 1582/1610 bible employed a densely latinate vocabulary, to the extent of being in places unreadable. Consequently, this translation was replaced by a revision undertaken by bishop Richard Challoner; the New Testament in three editions 1749, 1750, and 1752; the Old Testament (minus the Vulgate deuterocanonical), in 1750. Although retaining the title Douay–Rheims Bible, the Challoner revision was a new version, tending to take as its base text the King James Bible[4]
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 09, 2017, 04:46:55 PM
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: happenby
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: happenby

No, the translator and you lose...


Oh, so you're saying St. Jerome loses.

You're saying the Catholic Church, who wrote the Bible and canonically approved the Douay Rheims translation (the very first mass-produced English translation from the Vulgate), loses.

What's this I hear a comin' ??..............BOOM !!....YOU lose, again.  :laugh1:


 Orbis means circle.  He did not translate it into English.  



Circles can be globes, too. It's true circles can be flat, but globes are, geometrically, circular and spherical. It's a matter of semantics.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say the earth if flat.




Nope.  Even back to the Greek, there are clear translations for all these words.

http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/genesis/genesis1_circleearth.htm
The phrase of Isaiah 40:22, "the circle of the earth" is very controversial. There are five main views of this phrase. The first interpretation says that the word "circle" means "sphere" indicating that the earth is a sphere. This view seems most unlikely since we have all ready seen that the Hebrew word gh means "circle," and it seems very remote that it means "sphere" because of the context, and there is a better Hebrew word for "sphere," rwd. In Isaiah 22:18 the word rwd is translated "ball." If the LXX translators understood gh as "sphere," they would have used the Greek word sfairoeides. Plugging the meaning of "sphere" into every passage that gh occurs will result in awkward interpretations.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 09, 2017, 04:50:52 PM
The real Douay Rheims is available here:
http://www.realdouayrheims.com/

Other information on the changes made by Challoner and Haydock
http://www.bible-researcher.com/challoner.html

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/tracts/douayrheims.html which is from http://www.newmanreader.org/index.html


Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on January 09, 2017, 05:07:02 PM
Quote from: happenby
Very interesting...I checked Wiki, and even they know:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay%E2%80%93Rheims_Bible

From Wikipedia

[...] Although retaining the title Douay–Rheims Bible, the Challoner revision was a new version, tending to take as its base text the King James Bible[4]



Your argument falls flat on its face because the Douay Rheims says "globe" in Isaias 40:22, but the KJV says "circle".

Wiki is Jєω-owned and run, so they're not the most credible source of information. I literally saw Wiki lower the death toll of Ukrainian Christians killed in the Holodomor h0Ɩ0cαųst 3 times to less than half of their initial stated number. Wiki is sorta like Snopes. It has an agenda.

Again, NOWHERE in the Bible does it say the earth is flat. Nowhere. You can keep posting links and play mental gymnastics with Hebrew & Greek translations of "circle" all you want, but the word "flat" isn't mentioned to describe the earth.

You lose, again.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on January 09, 2017, 05:11:54 PM
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: happenby
Very interesting...I checked Wiki, and even they know:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay%E2%80%93Rheims_Bible

From Wikipedia

[...] Although retaining the title Douay–Rheims Bible, the Challoner revision was a new version, tending to take as its base text the King James Bible[4]



Your argument falls flat on its face because the Douay Rheims says "globe" in Isaias 40:22, but the KJV says "circle".

Wiki is Jєω-owned and run, so they're not the most credible source of information. I literally saw Wiki lower the death toll of Ukrainian Christians killed in the Holodomor h0Ɩ0cαųst 3 times to less than half of their initial stated number. Wiki is sorta like Snopes. It has an agenda.

Again, NOWHERE in the Bible does it say the earth is flat. Nowhere. You can keep posting links and play mental gymnastics with Greek translations of "circle" all you want, but the word "flat" isn't mentioned to describe the earth.

You lose, again.


This is the globe the Douay Rheims is referring to.

(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/HebrewConceptEarth1_zpsvsgwjwlh.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/HebrewConceptEarth1_zpsvsgwjwlh.jpg.html)
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 09, 2017, 05:14:54 PM
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: happenby
Very interesting...I checked Wiki, and even they know:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay%E2%80%93Rheims_Bible

From Wikipedia

[...] Although retaining the title Douay–Rheims Bible, the Challoner revision was a new version, tending to take as its base text the King James Bible[4]



Your argument falls flat on its face because the Douay Rheims says "globe" in Isaias 40:22, but the KJV says "circle".

Wiki is Jєω-owned and run, so they're not the most credible source of information. I literally saw Wiki lower the death toll of Ukrainian Christians killed in the Holodomor h0Ɩ0cαųst 3 times to less than half of their initial stated number. Wiki is sorta like Snopes. It has an agenda.

Again, NOWHERE in the Bible does it say the earth is flat. Nowhere. You can keep posting links and play mental gymnastics with Greek translations of "circle" all you want, but the word "flat" isn't mentioned to describe the earth.

You lose, again.


Sadly your argument falls because the translations prove my point. It also shows Challoner and Haycock selectively changed the translation of orbis to suit their own indoctrination. The proof is in the translation itself.

Scripture, Church Fathers and science all prove flat earth to those who will listen.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 09, 2017, 05:17:37 PM
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: happenby
Very interesting...I checked Wiki, and even they know:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay%E2%80%93Rheims_Bible

From Wikipedia

[...] Although retaining the title Douay–Rheims Bible, the Challoner revision was a new version, tending to take as its base text the King James Bible[4]



Your argument falls flat on its face because the Douay Rheims says "globe" in Isaias 40:22, but the KJV says "circle".

Wiki is Jєω-owned and run, so they're not the most credible source of information. I literally saw Wiki lower the death toll of Ukrainian Christians killed in the Holodomor h0Ɩ0cαųst 3 times to less than half of their initial stated number. Wiki is sorta like Snopes. It has an agenda.

Again, NOWHERE in the Bible does it say the earth is flat. Nowhere. You can keep posting links and play mental gymnastics with Greek translations of "circle" all you want, but the word "flat" isn't mentioned to describe the earth.

You lose, again.


This is the globe the Douay Rheims is referring to.[/siz

(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/HebrewConceptEarth1_zpsvsgwjwlh.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/HebrewConceptEarth1_zpsvsgwjwlh.jpg.html)



Indeed, this picture is found in many, many bibles.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on January 09, 2017, 05:24:35 PM
Quote from: happenby
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: happenby
Very interesting...I checked Wiki, and even they know:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay%E2%80%93Rheims_Bible

From Wikipedia

[...] Although retaining the title Douay–Rheims Bible, the Challoner revision was a new version, tending to take as its base text the King James Bible[4]



Your argument falls flat on its face because the Douay Rheims says "globe" in Isaias 40:22, but the KJV says "circle".

Wiki is Jєω-owned and run, so they're not the most credible source of information. I literally saw Wiki lower the death toll of Ukrainian Christians killed in the Holodomor h0Ɩ0cαųst 3 times to less than half of their initial stated number. Wiki is sorta like Snopes. It has an agenda.

Again, NOWHERE in the Bible does it say the earth is flat. Nowhere. You can keep posting links and play mental gymnastics with Greek translations of "circle" all you want, but the word "flat" isn't mentioned to describe the earth.

You lose, again.


Sadly your argument falls because the translations prove my point. It also shows Challoner and Haycock selectively changed the translation of orbis to suit their own indoctrination. The proof is in the translation itself.

Scripture, Church Fathers and science all prove flat earth to those who will listen.



Wrong, again. You keep ignoring the fact that the Bible NEVER mentioned the word "flat" to describe the shape of the earth.


Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on January 09, 2017, 05:28:33 PM
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: happenby
Very interesting...I checked Wiki, and even they know:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay%E2%80%93Rheims_Bible

From Wikipedia

[...] Although retaining the title Douay–Rheims Bible, the Challoner revision was a new version, tending to take as its base text the King James Bible[4]



Your argument falls flat on its face because the Douay Rheims says "globe" in Isaias 40:22, but the KJV says "circle".

Wiki is Jєω-owned and run, so they're not the most credible source of information. I literally saw Wiki lower the death toll of Ukrainian Christians killed in the Holodomor h0Ɩ0cαųst 3 times to less than half of their initial stated number. Wiki is sorta like Snopes. It has an agenda.

Again, NOWHERE in the Bible does it say the earth is flat. Nowhere. You can keep posting links and play mental gymnastics with Greek translations of "circle" all you want, but the word "flat" isn't mentioned to describe the earth.

You lose, again.


This is the globe the Douay Rheims is referring to.

(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/HebrewConceptEarth1_zpsvsgwjwlh.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/HebrewConceptEarth1_zpsvsgwjwlh.jpg.html)


I already refuted your illustration, but you ignored it. Here is what I said:

You're saying Our Lady of La Salette is wrong. She can't be wrong.

It makes absolutely no sense to refer to these "globes" as having earthquakes when, according to your "flat earth" theory, these "half globes" represent the sky above the earth and the domain, which consists of water or dust, below the earth's land mass and navigable waters, respectively. Our Lady is referring to the earth that we can see and upon that we physically live. It will have convulsions and earthquakes. She calls this land mass "the earth's globe".

Perhaps, you have a reading comprehension problem. You can't understand what Our Lady is stating.

The logic is clear, you and other trads adhering to FlatTardology have been completely destroyed.

You lose, again.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 09, 2017, 05:33:41 PM
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: happenby
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: happenby
Very interesting...I checked Wiki, and even they know:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay%E2%80%93Rheims_Bible

From Wikipedia

[...] Although retaining the title Douay–Rheims Bible, the Challoner revision was a new version, tending to take as its base text the King James Bible[4]



Your argument falls flat on its face because the Douay Rheims says "globe" in Isaias 40:22, but the KJV says "circle".

Wiki is Jєω-owned and run, so they're not the most credible source of information. I literally saw Wiki lower the death toll of Ukrainian Christians killed in the Holodomor h0Ɩ0cαųst 3 times to less than half of their initial stated number. Wiki is sorta like Snopes. It has an agenda.

Again, NOWHERE in the Bible does it say the earth is flat. Nowhere. You can keep posting links and play mental gymnastics with Greek translations of "circle" all you want, but the word "flat" isn't mentioned to describe the earth.

You lose, again.


Sadly your argument falls because the translations prove my point. It also shows Challoner and Haycock selectively changed the translation of orbis to suit their own indoctrination. The proof is in the translation itself.

Scripture, Church Fathers and science all prove flat earth to those who will listen.



Wrong, again. You keep ignoring the fact that the Bible NEVER mentioned the word "flat" to describe the shape of the earth.




Scriptures descriptions of flat earth are incapatible with a globe.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 09, 2017, 05:40:19 PM
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: happenby
Very interesting...I checked Wiki, and even they know:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay%E2%80%93Rheims_Bible

From Wikipedia

[...] Although retaining the title Douay–Rheims Bible, the Challoner revision was a new version, tending to take as its base text the King James Bible[4]



Your argument falls flat on its face because the Douay Rheims says "globe" in Isaias 40:22, but the KJV says "circle".

Wiki is Jєω-owned and run, so they're not the most credible source of information. I literally saw Wiki lower the death toll of Ukrainian Christians killed in the Holodomor h0Ɩ0cαųst 3 times to less than half of their initial stated number. Wiki is sorta like Snopes. It has an agenda.

Again, NOWHERE in the Bible does it say the earth is flat. Nowhere. You can keep posting links and play mental gymnastics with Greek translations of "circle" all you want, but the word "flat" isn't mentioned to describe the earth.

You lose, again.


This is the globe the Douay Rheims is referring to.

(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/HebrewConceptEarth1_zpsvsgwjwlh.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/HebrewConceptEarth1_zpsvsgwjwlh.jpg.html)


I already refuted your illustration, but you ignored it. Here is what I said:

You're saying Our Lady of La Salette is wrong. She can't be wrong.

It makes absolutely no sense to refer to these "globes" as having earthquakes when, according to your "flat earth" theory, these "half globes" represent the sky above the earth and the domain, which consists of water or dust, below the earth's land mass and navigable waters, respectively. Our Lady is referring to the earth that we can see and upon that we physically live. It will have convulsions and earthquakes. She calls this land mass "the earth's globe".

Perhaps, you have a reading comprehension problem. You can't understand what Our Lady is stating.

The logic is clear, you and other trads adhering to FlatTardology have been completely destroyed.

You lose, again.


Again, orbis does not translate to globe. The problem is in the translation. Perhaps *you* have a reading comprehension problem. Besides, all evidence, scientific, empirical, by the senses, by the Church Fathers, by scripture, and from the Church Herself teach the earth is flat. You have to quit parroting the false, and study.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on January 09, 2017, 05:41:34 PM
Quote from: happenby
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: happenby
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: happenby
Very interesting...I checked Wiki, and even they know:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay%E2%80%93Rheims_Bible

From Wikipedia

[...] Although retaining the title Douay–Rheims Bible, the Challoner revision was a new version, tending to take as its base text the King James Bible[4]



Your argument falls flat on its face because the Douay Rheims says "globe" in Isaias 40:22, but the KJV says "circle".

Wiki is Jєω-owned and run, so they're not the most credible source of information. I literally saw Wiki lower the death toll of Ukrainian Christians killed in the Holodomor h0Ɩ0cαųst 3 times to less than half of their initial stated number. Wiki is sorta like Snopes. It has an agenda.

Again, NOWHERE in the Bible does it say the earth is flat. Nowhere. You can keep posting links and play mental gymnastics with Greek translations of "circle" all you want, but the word "flat" isn't mentioned to describe the earth.

You lose, again.


Sadly your argument falls because the translations prove my point. It also shows Challoner and Haycock selectively changed the translation of orbis to suit their own indoctrination. The proof is in the translation itself.

Scripture, Church Fathers and science all prove flat earth to those who will listen.



Wrong, again. You keep ignoring the fact that the Bible NEVER mentioned the word "flat" to describe the shape of the earth.




Scriptures descriptions of flat earth are incapatible with a globe.


According to you.

Why don't you post the Hebrew and Greek word for "flat"? Compare it with "circle". It seems the writers of Scripture would use the more direct and clear adjective "flat" to describe the earth, if they were intending to say the earth is flat.

You also ignore the logic behind what is said by Our Lady, as I twice mentioned earlier.

Quote from: happenby
Again, orbis does not translate to globe. The problem is in the translation.


This isn't a refutation. "Orbis" certainly doesn't translate to "flat".


Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 09, 2017, 05:50:53 PM
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: happenby
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: happenby
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: happenby
Very interesting...I checked Wiki, and even they know:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay%E2%80%93Rheims_Bible

From Wikipedia

[...] Although retaining the title Douay–Rheims Bible, the Challoner revision was a new version, tending to take as its base text the King James Bible[4]



Your argument falls flat on its face because the Douay Rheims says "globe" in Isaias 40:22, but the KJV says "circle".

Wiki is Jєω-owned and run, so they're not the most credible source of information. I literally saw Wiki lower the death toll of Ukrainian Christians killed in the Holodomor h0Ɩ0cαųst 3 times to less than half of their initial stated number. Wiki is sorta like Snopes. It has an agenda.

Again, NOWHERE in the Bible does it say the earth is flat. Nowhere. You can keep posting links and play mental gymnastics with Greek translations of "circle" all you want, but the word "flat" isn't mentioned to describe the earth.

You lose, again.


Sadly your argument falls because the translations prove my point. It also shows Challoner and Haycock selectively changed the translation of orbis to suit their own indoctrination. The proof is in the translation itself.

Scripture, Church Fathers and science all prove flat earth to those who will listen.



Wrong, again. You keep ignoring the fact that the Bible NEVER mentioned the word "flat" to describe the shape of the earth.




Scriptures descriptions of flat earth are incapatible with a globe.


According to you.

Why don't you post the Hebrew and Greek word for "flat"? Compare it with "circle". It seems the writers of Scripture would use the more direct and clear adjective "flat" to describe the earth, if they were intending to say the earth is flat.

You also ignore the logic behind what is said by Our Lady, as I twice mentioned earlier.


There is an answer for Our Lady of LaSalette who is showing the entirety of creation; heaven, flat earth in between, and hell, which together form a globe.  The terrain we live on, terra firma, is flat.  I have provided many proofs you ignored them. I have ignored nothing.  I have explanations, proofs backed by the Church, by science, etc.  You have only your own limited interpretation.  You have provided nothing except the contrary position.  That's no way to deal with a discussion on Church teaching.  Get some info.  Repeating pagan teachings over and over again without references won't cut it.  
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 09, 2017, 05:56:01 PM
So, which direction did Jesus rise?  The globe is a contradiction and denies all truth.  
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on January 09, 2017, 06:18:54 PM
Quote from: happenby
Besides, all evidence, scientific, empirical,


LOL. What scientific evidence? Please cite the empirical, peer-reviewed journal and study proving the "earth is flat."

It's funny that you claim "science proves the earth is flat", when it's you "flat earthers" who say "science has conspired to deceive everyone to think the earth is a globe." Which is it? You people contradict yourselves.  :laugh1:



Quote from: happenby
by the senses


Oh, you mean the senses that subjectively perceive things? Those senses?



Quote from: happenby
by the Church Fathers,  and from the Church Herself


What the Church teaches about the earth isn't infallible because the earth's geometry doesn't pertain to the Faith and morals. And the Fathers' and Church's teaching about a "flat earth" isn't as widespread as you imply.



Quote from: happenby
by scripture


Scripture doesn't teach the earth is flat. Give the Hebrew and Greek words for "flat", and you'll see that the Bible doesn't say the earth is flat.



Quote from: happenby
You have to quit parroting the false, and study.


Look at you, the pseudo-learned one. You just described yourself. I'm not parroting anyone because the example I gave about Our Lady hasn't been mentioned before other than by me... and it destroys your false premise of what flat earthers call "globe". How? Let me repeat myself a THIRD time. Earthquakes don't happen in the sky (a "half globe" according to FlatTards). They happen on the very land and waters on which we live and navigate.

You lose, again.




Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on January 10, 2017, 03:44:25 AM
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: happenby
Besides, all evidence, scientific, empirical,


LOL. What scientific evidence? Please cite the empirical, peer-reviewed journal and study proving the "earth is flat."

It's funny that you claim "science proves the earth is flat", when it's you "flat earthers" who say "science has conspired to deceive everyone to think the earth is a globe." Which is it? You people contradict yourselves.  :laugh1:



Quote from: happenby
by the senses


Oh, you mean the senses that subjectively perceive things? Those senses?



Quote from: happenby
by the Church Fathers,  and from the Church Herself


What the Church teaches about the earth isn't infallible because the earth's geometry doesn't pertain to the Faith and morals. And the Fathers' and Church's teaching about a "flat earth" isn't as widespread as you imply.



Quote from: happenby
by scripture


Scripture doesn't teach the earth is flat. Give the Hebrew and Greek words for "flat", and you'll see that the Bible doesn't say the earth is flat.



Quote from: happenby
You have to quit parroting the false, and study.


Look at you, the pseudo-learned one. You just described yourself. I'm not parroting anyone because the example I gave about Our Lady hasn't been mentioned before other than by me... and it destroys your false premise of what flat earthers call "globe". How? Let me repeat myself a THIRD time. Earthquakes don't happen in the sky (a "half globe" according to FlatTards). They happen on the very land and waters on which we live and navigate.

You lose, again.





Nowhere is scientific defined as being peer-reviewed, in journals and in studies. Science simply comes from the latin meaning to know, knowledge. You know this.

Here are the proofs. http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/f9-flat-earth-proofs Take the time to go over them, otherwise you can't seriously claim to refute flat earthers.

Trust me, many have come at the flat earth with the arrogant "I know best because modern scientists say so" attitude, and have fallen flat on their face, and also brought people to the flat earth. Don't repeat their mistakes.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 10, 2017, 11:58:09 AM
Quote from: Croix de Fer


You keep proving my point. Did you not read what I wrote? YOU answer and explain why there is this grand conspiracy by pilots and the others keep people thinking the world is a globe. I'm not wasting my time on videos until I get an answer from the actual flat earther who is posting the videos.


[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/xJOB0vcZ4NI[/youtube]

The active-duty Navy man being interviewed here is a ten-year military ballisitic weapons instructor. In the video, he says he first came to the FE material with a bad attitude intent on debunking it. He said, however, the more he looked into it, the more he realized it could NOT be debunked. He says he never gave a thought to the shape of the earth while doing his job. He says he thinks most men are just doing their job, and accept what they are told - hence, no grand conspiracy, just a bunch of people who have never given much thought to what they are doing.

He has realized that NONE of their weapons systems take into account any curvature of earth whatsoever.

He says they have infrared systems that can see ships at approx. 25-27nm at night, and this should be impossible on a ball earth. In other words, at those distances the curvature should make those ships not visible.

He says they have radar systems that can track ships at approx. 175-200nm, which should not be visible if there were curvature.

He says they have guided missile systems that require a 2-inch beam frequency to track the missile to keep it on target (or else it will go ballistic) and this would be utterly impossible on a ball earth, due to the curvature.

He also says their software was taken from a Norgegian tank's system, which is a planar program, operating on an x- and y- axis, which is therefore rendered impossible if the earth is a ball.

He says their calculations for firing weapons involve NO exceptions for the Coriolis effect EVER. NONE. He says he thinks the claim that this is done, when it emphatically is NOT done in reality, is merely a claim to prop up the idea of a ball earth.

So, if they do not have to account for the earth spinning to hit their targets, that means the earth is definitely NOT spinning.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 10, 2017, 12:00:45 PM
Quote from: Croix de Fer
What scientific evidence? Please cite the empirical, peer-reviewed journal and study proving the "earth is flat."




The Michelson-Morley Experiment, for starters.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 10, 2017, 12:14:07 PM
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Isaias 40:22 (Douay Rheims)
It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.


That word is used ONLY in the 1899 versions of the Douay-Rheims.

It is NOT in the original.

What an interesting coincidence that right around the time of a tremendous resurgence of the topic of the flat earth in the 1890's that the word in the Bible should be changed to 'globe.'

The original Douay-Rheims passage of Isaiah 40:22 reads:

"He that sitteth upon the compasse of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts, he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them as a tent to dwell in."

Here's a copy of the original text attached.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 10, 2017, 12:23:19 PM
It is worth noting the MEANING of the word "compass."

It is both a noun and a verb.

Quote


noun
1. an instrument containing a magnetized pointer that shows the direction of magnetic north and bearings from it.

2. an instrument for drawing circles and arcs and measuring distances between points, consisting of two arms linked by a movable joint, one arm ending in a point and the other usually carrying a pencil or pen.

verb
1. to go around (something) in a circular course.
"the ship wherein Magellan compassed the world"


Also, if you look at the Latin Vulgate, the Latin for the part of the passage says:

"Qui sedet super gyrum terrae,"

In Latin, terrae means land or earth, and gyrum means "go around" or "about."

So, this means the circle earth.

It is a flat disc, not a ball, not a globe, not a sphere.

Everyone is capable of understanding and distinguishing the difference between a CIRCLE and a BALL.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 10, 2017, 12:30:10 PM
Quote from: Croix de Fer


You're saying the Catholic Church, who wrote the Bible and canonically approved the Douay Rheims translation (the very first mass-produced English translation from the Vulgate), loses.



You need to do YOUR homework.

The 1899 Challoner Bible is NOT the first.

Time to buy yourself a late Christmas present - an ORIGINAL DOuay-Rheims from 1582 and 1610, NOT 1899:

http://www.realdouayrheims.com/
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 10, 2017, 12:33:11 PM
Quote from: Croix de Fer

Circles can be globes, too. It's true circles can be flat, but globes are, geometrically, circular and spherical. It's a matter of semantics.





Dear God, the stupid... it burns!

No, it is NOT semantics, and precision of language matters - a LOT.

A CIRCLE is NEVER a BALL.

A circle is, by DEFINITION, flat. It has only two dimensions. A ball is three-dimensional. If I hold up a circle and a ball and ask which is which, even a KINDERGARTNER can tell me the answer.

YOU lose.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 10, 2017, 12:40:55 PM
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: Croix de Fer

Circles can be globes, too. It's true circles can be flat, but globes are, geometrically, circular and spherical. It's a matter of semantics.





Dear God, the stupid... it burns!

No, it is NOT semantics, and precision of language matters - a LOT.

A CIRCLE is NEVER a BALL.

A circle is, by DEFINITION, flat. It has only two dimensions. A ball is three-dimensional. If I hold up a circle and a ball and ask which is which, even a KINDERGARTNER can tell me the answer.

YOU lose.


A circle is a ball.  :facepalm:
This kind of nonsense is what the ball earth people resort to in order to maintain their indoctrination.  They contradict themselves, words, teachings, authority and reality because they refuse to believe what is true.  

The horizon is not the curvizon.  Level does not mean curve. Up is not out in every direction.  Yet they believe this garbage like it was a religion.  
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 10, 2017, 12:45:06 PM
MW2016 said: Everyone is capable of understanding and distinguishing the difference between a CIRCLE and a BALL.

Um... maybe not.   :scratchchin:

 :laugh1:
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 10, 2017, 12:49:39 PM
Croix de fer said:

Wrong, again. You keep ignoring the fact that the Bible NEVER mentioned the word "flat" to describe the shape of the earth.


So, that means Our Lady was not Immaculately conceived?  Because that isn't "literally" in scripture either.  

 :boxer:
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 10, 2017, 01:03:35 PM
Scripture: Gen 1:6,7

6 And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so.

Amos 9:6
The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens,
            And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth,
            He who calls for the waters of the sea
            And pours them out on the face of the earth,
            The LORD is His name.



Please baal earther, do explain how this works on a sphere.  Where is this firmament (dome) scripture describes? How can there be a dome on a sphere?
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 10, 2017, 01:26:32 PM
Quote from: happenby


A circle is a ball.  :facepalm:




Quote from: happenby
Quote
MW2016 said: Everyone is capable of understanding and distinguishing the difference between a CIRCLE and a BALL.


Um... maybe not.   :scratchchin:

 :laugh1:


I know, right?

How anyone can say a circle and a globe are the same thing - with a straight face! - is incredible to me.

Count me in for a double facepalm...

 :facepalm:  :facepalm:
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 10, 2017, 01:28:25 PM
Quote from: happenby


The horizon is not the curvizon.  



Shhhh! Don't tell him that it's called a 'horizon' because it is HORIZONTAL.

 :jester:

See, now you made me break out my dictionary again...

Quote
horizontal
adjective
1. parallel to the plane of the horizon; at right angles to the vertical.
"a horizontal line"
synonyms:   level, flat, plane, smooth, even;


Quote
ho·ri·zon

noun
1. the line at which the earth's surface and the sky appear to meet.

synonyms:   skyline
"the sun rose above the horizon"

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 10, 2017, 02:12:37 PM
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: happenby


The horizon is not the curvizon.  



Shhhh! Don't tell him that it's called a 'horizon' because it is HORIZONTAL.

 :jester:

See, now you made me break out my dictionary again...

Quote
horizontal
adjective
1. parallel to the plane of the horizon; at right angles to the vertical.
"a horizontal line"
synonyms:   level, flat, plane, smooth, even;


Quote
ho·ri·zon

noun
1. the line at which the earth's surface and the sky appear to meet.

synonyms:   skyline
"the sun rose above the horizon"



Such reasonableness is way too much! You gotta think like a spherical earther because NASA and pagan scientists said so: The ball earth is flat where I stand! It is upside down to those on the other side, but all people stand upright even if they don't!  Horizon doesn't mean horizontal, it just means you can't see the curve!  Level isn't really level because earth is a ball and we just think level means level but it definitely doesn't! Because I said so! Ships disappear behind the curve whether you can see them with a telescope or not! Polaris moves even if it doesn't! Plane sailing is really circle sailing! Satellites never fall to earth because football sized items up in the sky are too fantastical to understand! Flat earthers think everything means what its supposed to mean but they don't get it!

Get with the program mw2016.  

 :cheers:    
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on January 10, 2017, 04:31:07 PM
Everybody, repeat after me.

This is a CIRCLE.
(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/thXQ5OECKI_zpsrrtoxf3w.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/thXQ5OECKI_zpsrrtoxf3w.jpg.html)

This is a GLOBE.
(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/20-blue-basketball.w750.h560.2x1_zps90ifrm9v.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/20-blue-basketball.w750.h560.2x1_zps90ifrm9v.jpg.html)
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Matto on January 10, 2017, 04:47:35 PM
I have a question for the flat earthers. I have been thinking about this and it still does not make sense to me. Flat earthers say that when ships or islands or mountains or anything else appears to sink below the horizon it is only an illusion and if you look with a telescope the object can be seen. But does it work the same way with the sun? When the sun seems to sink below the horizon is it also an illusion and if you look for the sun with a telescope, can you see the sun like they say you can see the boats and islands and mountains when they sink below the horizon?
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on January 10, 2017, 06:25:44 PM
These FlatTards use deceit to claim the Bible teaches the "earth is flat." The Bible never mentions the word "flat" to describe shape of the earth.

The word "flat" is a very simple word and concept to describe an object. Surely, the word existed in the Hebrew and Koine Greek language, so why didn't the Bible writers use it to describe the shape of the earth?

These FlatTards are saying Our Lady of La Salette is wrong.  She can't be wrong.

Regarding Our Lady's warning about earthquakes to come, she say's "the EARTH's GLOBE will have convulsions and earthquakes." It makes absolutely no sense for FlatTards to refer to the sky (which is a "globe" according to them) as having earthquakes when, according to their "flat earth" theory, these "half globes" represent the sky above the earth and the domain, which consists of water or dust, below the earth's land mass and navigable waters, respectively.

In other words, these FlatTards are saying there will be earthquakes in the sky according to Our Lady. This is preposterous.

Our Lady is referring to the earth that we can see and upon that we physically live. It will have convulsions and earthquakes. She calls this land mass "the earth's globe".

These FlatTards are deceitful and they lack reading comprehension problem. They lack understanding of what Our Lady is stating, and they willfully reject it after it's explained to them.  
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on January 10, 2017, 06:41:32 PM
Quote from: Matto
I have a question for the flat earthers. I have been thinking about this and it still does not make sense to me. Flat earthers say that when ships or islands or mountains or anything else appears to sink below the horizon it is only an illusion and if you look with a telescope the object can be seen. But does it work the same way with the sun? When the sun seems to sink below the horizon is it also an illusion and if you look for the sun with a telescope, can you see the sun like they say you can see the boats and islands and mountains when they sink below the horizon?


Don't expect a straight answer from them. They never give one, rather they'll post a link to a video and tell you to watch it or they'll post a borderline facetious illustration of a false premise in which they base their arguments. I've wondered if there is some demonic element with this movement. The people say the same things and they're zealous for it.

It's a pattern with these people. I've, also, noticed a lot of them are women, which isn't really a surprise because they're more prone to emotional attachments to falsehoods. This might be indicative of the their personal or home life being unfulfilling in some way, therefore, they compensate by emotionally investing into a sensational theory. This sensational theory is their "husband" or "family". They defend the sensational like they'd (suppose to) defend their child's or husband's character.  
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on January 10, 2017, 08:15:14 PM
A jet flying westward during daytime at say the 25th parallel north of the equator stays in the same position relative to the sun above as if the sun were not moving, whereas a jet flying eastward changes position with respect to the sun above twice as fast such that the sun appears to cross the sky at double speed.

The same pilot taking off in a jet toward the sunset can watch the sun hover at the horizon without setting as long as the jet continues to fly west. Only when the jet turns north or south will it see the sun set below the horizon.

Furthermore, a jet at the 20th parallel or the 30th for example (north of the equator) has to continually adjust its course toward the north in order to fly westward with a constant compass bearing of west.  However, at the equator, no adjustment is necessary and the jet can fly west without turning.  South of the equator, the same jet must constantly turn south (left) in order to continue flying west, and the further south from the equator it is, the more it has to turn to keep a westward compass bearing.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 10, 2017, 09:46:33 PM
Quote from: Matto
I have a question for the flat earthers. I have been thinking about this and it still does not make sense to me. Flat earthers say that when ships or islands or mountains or anything else appears to sink below the horizon it is only an illusion and if you look with a telescope the object can be seen. But does it work the same way with the sun? When the sun seems to sink below the horizon is it also an illusion and if you look for the sun with a telescope, can you see the sun like they say you can see the boats and islands and mountains when they sink below the horizon?


I can actually do this experiment in a similar fashion in my own home.

Example, when the sun has disappeared over the horizon from my backyard, I can immediately go upstairs to the second floor and look out the window and see the sun again for a moment.

So, additional height allows for a longer line of sight. A telescope is providing a longer line of sight, isn't it?

If you have a sufficient height to have a clear line of sight with no obstructions, this would be an easy experiment to perform on a west-facing beach. Got a telescope??
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 10, 2017, 09:49:37 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
A jet flying westward during daytime at say the 25th parallel north of the equator stays in the same position relative to the sun above as if the sun were not moving, whereas a jet flying eastward changes position with respect to the sun above twice as fast such that the sun appears to cross the sky at double speed.

The same pilot taking off in a jet toward the sunset can watch the sun hover at the horizon without setting as long as the jet continues to fly west. Only when the jet turns north or south will it see the sun set below the horizon.

Furthermore, a jet at the 20th parallel or the 30th for example (north of the equator) has to continually adjust its course toward the north in order to fly westward with a constant compass bearing of west.  However, at the equator, no adjustment is necessary and the jet can fly west without turning.  South of the equator, the same jet must constantly turn south (left) in order to continue flying west, and the further south from the equator it is, the more it has to turn to keep a westward compass bearing.



Source?

Are you a pilot?

With no reference material, it is impossible to verify the truth of any of your above claims.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 10, 2017, 09:53:06 PM
Quote from: Croix de Fer
I've, also, noticed a lot of them are women, which isn't really a surprise because they're more prone to emotional attachments to falsehoods. This might be indicative of the their personal or home life being unfulfilling in some way, therefore, they compensate by emotionally investing into a sensational theory.  


Gosh, the stupid again...

By my count, the acknowledged FE'ers on this thread are TWO females (me & happenby) and at least THREE males (Truth is Eternal, Flat Earth Inquistor, and I forget the other one's name).

So much for your THEORY. I guess those "emotional men" must have an "unfulfilling home life" and it is making them acknowledge the truth of the Bible.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 10, 2017, 09:56:12 PM
Quote from: Croix de Fer
The Bible never mentions the word "flat" to describe shape of the earth.


Why do you sidestep what the Bible actually says - that the earth is a CIRCLE or a COMPASS?

Answer the question.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on January 10, 2017, 10:49:34 PM
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: Croix de Fer
I've, also, noticed a lot of them are women, which isn't really a surprise because they're more prone to emotional attachments to falsehoods. This might be indicative of the their personal or home life being unfulfilling in some way, therefore, they compensate by emotionally investing into a sensational theory.  


Gosh, the stupid again...

By my count, the acknowledged FE'ers on this thread are TWO females (me & happenby) and at least THREE males (Truth is Eternal, Flat Earth Inquistor, and I forget the other one's name).

So much for your THEORY. I guess those "emotional men" must have an "unfulfilling home life" and it is making them acknowledge the truth of the Bible.


How sensational !!  :laugh1:
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on January 10, 2017, 10:57:49 PM
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: Croix de Fer
The Bible never mentions the word "flat" to describe shape of the earth.


Why do you sidestep what the Bible actually says - that the earth is a CIRCLE or a COMPASS?

Answer the question.


Look at you, FlatTard, demanding answers to questions after you never answered my questions, instead you posted links to frauds (pilots / submarine operators) filling a niche of the sensational to sell books and speeches.

Let us look up one of the synonyms to the word "circle". One synonym is "GLOBE", but nowhere is the word "flat" to be found.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/circle

You and the other FlatTards ignore the following that I stated because it exposes the fallacy of your positions:

Regarding Our Lady's warning about earthquakes to come, she say's "the EARTH's GLOBE will have convulsions and earthquakes." It makes absolutely no sense for FlatTards to refer to the sky (which is a "globe" according to them) as having earthquakes when, according to their "flat earth" theory, these "half globes" represent the sky above the earth and the domain, which consists of water or dust, below the earth's land mass and navigable waters, respectively.

In other words, these FlatTards are saying there will be earthquakes in the sky according to Our Lady. This is preposterous.

Our Lady is referring to the earth that we can see and upon that we physically live. It will have convulsions and earthquakes. She calls this land mass "the earth's globe".

You lose, again.  :laugh1:

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on January 10, 2017, 11:45:06 PM
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: Croix de Fer
The Bible never mentions the word "flat" to describe shape of the earth.


Why do you sidestep what the Bible actually says - that the earth is a CIRCLE or a COMPASS?

Answer the question.


Look at you, FlatTard, demanding answers to questions after you never answered my questions, instead you posted links to frauds (pilots / submarine operators) filling a niche of the sensational to sell books and speeches.

Let us look up one of the synonyms to the word "circle". One synonym is "GLOBE", but nowhere is the word "flat" to be found.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/circle

You and the other FlatTards ignore the following that I stated because it exposes the fallacy of your positions:

Regarding Our Lady's warning about earthquakes to come, she say's "the EARTH's GLOBE will have convulsions and earthquakes." It makes absolutely no sense for FlatTards to refer to the sky (which is a "globe" according to them) as having earthquakes when, according to their "flat earth" theory, these "half globes" represent the sky above the earth and the domain, which consists of water or dust, below the earth's land mass and navigable waters, respectively.

In other words, these FlatTards are saying there will be earthquakes in the sky according to Our Lady. This is preposterous.

Our Lady is referring to the earth that we can see and upon that we physically live. It will have convulsions and earthquakes. She calls this land mass "the earth's globe".

You lose, again.  :laugh1:



A circle is not a globe.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on January 10, 2017, 11:49:36 PM
Quote

In the Northern Hemisphere, latitude is obtained by measuring the altitude of Polaris. At the Equator (0° of latitude) the North Star is on the horizon, making an angle or "altitude" of 0 degrees. Whereas at the North Pole (90° of latitude), Polaris is directly overhead making an angle or "altitude" of 90 degrees. Likewise, at 30°N the star is 30 degrees above the horizon, and so on. In other words, in the Northern Hemisphere, if you know your latitude, you can use that as an angle from the horizon to locate the North Star.

[Therefore, if you can find the North Star and measure the angle of its altitude above the north horizon, you can determine your latitude.]

(http://www.summitpost.org/images/original/358204.jpg)

To measure your latitude, point a stick at the North Star, then measure the angle the stick makes from a level horizon. Note, some compasses include an inclination gauge (not covered in this article) by which you can easily measure the angle.


http://www.summitpost.org/compass-basics-an-introduction-to-orientation-and-navigation/358187

(http://www.summitpost.org/images/medium/332545.jpg)

Gasherbrum IV ----- very cold water in the mountains
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on January 11, 2017, 04:55:58 AM
Quote from: Matto
I have a question for the flat earthers. I have been thinking about this and it still does not make sense to me. Flat earthers say that when ships or islands or mountains or anything else appears to sink below the horizon it is only an illusion and if you look with a telescope the object can be seen. But does it work the same way with the sun? When the sun seems to sink below the horizon is it also an illusion and if you look for the sun with a telescope, can you see the sun like they say you can see the boats and islands and mountains when they sink below the horizon?


The seeing of objects with a telescope from the ground is just due to the limit of our vision. We don't say they appear to go below the horizon.
This video:
https://youtu.be/IdwIMtz8owI
 shows what happens. The the mast of the boat remains at the same level. Which would not happen on a round earth. It would descend. But when you see it with your own eyes from a distance, you might think it does.

As for the sun, since it is high up, there are other factors to consider, but the bottom half goes out because of the law of perspective. Check out the pictures in this video http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t87-loi-du-perspective-explique
to see what I am talking about. Basically, it seems that the bottom half of the sun goes beyond your view until all of it goes below the perspective line.

All this of course seems ridiculous if you are not open the the flat earth, but it is totally reasonable when you understand that there is not curvature on the earth.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: cassini on January 11, 2017, 05:03:16 AM
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: Croix de Fer
What scientific evidence? Please cite the empirical, peer-reviewed journal and study proving the "earth is flat."




The Michelson-Morley Experiment, for starters.


I see nobody has piocked up on this 'proof.' Perhaps you could demonstrate mw2016.

Be careful though, for:

‘Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound, and are often held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common of these concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief however, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists [should] prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to those for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.’ --- Satoshi Kanazawa’s The Scientific Fundamentalist, published on Nov. 16, 2008.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on January 11, 2017, 05:04:25 AM
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: Matto
I have a question for the flat earthers. I have been thinking about this and it still does not make sense to me. Flat earthers say that when ships or islands or mountains or anything else appears to sink below the horizon it is only an illusion and if you look with a telescope the object can be seen. But does it work the same way with the sun? When the sun seems to sink below the horizon is it also an illusion and if you look for the sun with a telescope, can you see the sun like they say you can see the boats and islands and mountains when they sink below the horizon?


Don't expect a straight answer from them. They never give one, rather they'll post a link to a video and tell you to watch it or they'll post a borderline facetious illustration of a false premise in which they base their arguments. I've wondered if there is some demonic element with this movement. The people say the same things and they're zealous for it.

It's a pattern with these people. I've, also, noticed a lot of them are women, which isn't really a surprise because they're more prone to emotional attachments to falsehoods. This might be indicative of the their personal or home life being unfulfilling in some way, therefore, they compensate by emotionally investing into a sensational theory. This sensational theory is their "husband" or "family". They defend the sensational like they'd (suppose to) defend their child's or husband's character.  


I just want to draw attention to this post. You are really starting to cross a line here, and it is clear you are just trolling. Your questions have been answered, and you are resorting to personal insults, so please get lost.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croixalist on January 11, 2017, 08:50:10 AM
Aside from some foul language, this guy is on point. No anti-religion garbage either.

On Polaris and it's southern hemisphere counterpart Sigma Octantis, and how they're not the same star:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/N4DF9n3ItB0[/youtube]

- Sigma O and Polaris at vastly different brightness levels
- Stars revolve in different directions depending on hemisphere

On the horizon issue:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/RIZbh3g16-8[/youtube]

- Basic telescopes with 100 magnification would readily enable people to see across the Atlantic Ocean on a Flat Earth.
- A "cloud of particles" cannot block radar.
- Use of mathematics to scale down and show why the horizon appears flat (even from an airplane) on a simple soccer ball.
- The Bedford Level experiment adjusted to account for atmospheric refraction.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 11, 2017, 09:55:28 AM
Quote from: Croix de Fer


Look at you, FlatTard, demanding answers to questions after you never answered my questions, instead you posted links to frauds (pilots / submarine operators) filling a niche of the sensational to sell books and speeches.

Let us look up one of the synonyms to the word "circle". One synonym is "GLOBE", but nowhere is the word "flat" to be found.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/circle

You and the other FlatTards ignore the following that I stated because it exposes the fallacy of your positions:

Regarding Our Lady's warning about earthquakes to come, she say's "the EARTH's GLOBE will have convulsions and earthquakes." It makes absolutely no sense for FlatTards to refer to the sky (which is a "globe" according to them) as having earthquakes when, according to their "flat earth" theory, these "half globes" represent the sky above the earth and the domain, which consists of water or dust, below the earth's land mass and navigable waters, respectively.

In other words, these FlatTards are saying there will be earthquakes in the sky according to Our Lady. This is preposterous.

Our Lady is referring to the earth that we can see and upon that we physically live. It will have convulsions and earthquakes. She calls this land mass "the earth's globe".





Croix de Fer, while enjoying his use of the pejorative "tard," is demonstrating his own mental deficiencies.

He clearly does not understand the difference between a dictionary and a thesaurus and is having a really hard time with the definition of the word circle and compass. I'm sorry God's Word is so disappointing to you, Croix.

And what is this earthquake in the sky nonsense you keep babbling on about? No FE'er has said such a thing. You really need help.

It is always a strange thing to me when I see people who react like they are SOOOOO personally offended at the idea the earth is a flat disc as described in the Bible. You really have to be a special snowflake to be angry about God's design not conforming to what the atheist scientists taught you.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: cassini on January 11, 2017, 10:19:54 AM
Quote from: happenby
So, which direction did Jesus rise?  The globe is a contradiction and denies all truth.  


This is another post that went unanswered. So, let me do that.

Sorry the illustration with this post did not reappear here, I am unable to post pioctures. It depicts man on a global earth as though it would mean the only place he could stand upright is on top of the north pole. Everywhere else he would be standing sideways at different angles until he is standing upside down at the south pole.

Of all the posts arguing against a global earth this one needs to be exposed for what it is, bringing the debate down to the level of absurdity, and submitting a dogma of the faith to this asbsurdity. Better we separate the two for simplicity.

Now unless flaterarthers argue the moon, sun and planets are also flat, with their discs pointing towards the earth at all times, then they must take the moon and Mars as globes. This being so, if man were to get to the moon, and land probes on Mars, which I accept as true happenings, then the same nonsense would apply. Only at the top, wherever that might be on the moon and Mars, would a man or machine be able to stand upright.

“For great is the power of God alone, and he is honoured by the humble. Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability: but the things that God hath commanded thee, think on them always, and in many of his works be not curious. For it is not necessary for thee to see with thy eyes those things that are hid. In unnecessary matters be not over curious, and in many of his works thou shalt not be inquisitive. For many things are shewn to thee above the understanding of men. And the suspicion of them hath deceived man, and hath detained their minds in vanity.” (Ecclus 3:21-26).

To understand how we have the sky above and earth below everywhere on global earth is beyond human reasoning. We call this mystery 'gravity' and actually believe we understand how it works, but in fact it is an ongoing act of God.

To say science understands the mystery of ‘gravity’ is ignorant or deceit for no one other than God ‘understands’ what we call ‘gravity.’ We know the need for and effects of ‘gravity’ on earth, and indeed on the surface of every other cosmic body, but can mere human reason really comprehend the mystery of gravity? Given, for example, that if we view the earth from space, as man can do now, we find it surrounded by nothing; its surface covered with ‘unattached’ things, half ‘upside-down’ relative to the other half. This being so, we can ask, how is it that on this same globe everybody on its surface has the sky above and the earth below. Is such a phenomenon not beyond human understanding? Let us put it this way. Here we are in the space shuttle, heading for global earth. Now, no matter where we head for, even if it is a place right on the bottom of the globe as we head towards it, somehow, by the time we land, we end up the same way, the sky is always overhead, and the earth is always below. When does the ‘head-under-heels twist’ happen, we ask? If a fly landed on the same place on a light bulb, it would find itself ‘upside down,’ yet the same does not occur when the bulbs are cosmic bodies. How does this happen? ‘It is all because of gravity’ we are told, and thank God for it we say, because without it we would all be in one terrible incoherent state of chaos.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on January 11, 2017, 10:35:55 AM
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: Croix de Fer


Look at you, FlatTard, demanding answers to questions after you never answered my questions, instead you posted links to frauds (pilots / submarine operators) filling a niche of the sensational to sell books and speeches.

Let us look up one of the synonyms to the word "circle". One synonym is "GLOBE", but nowhere is the word "flat" to be found.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/circle

You and the other FlatTards ignore the following that I stated because it exposes the fallacy of your positions:

Regarding Our Lady's warning about earthquakes to come, she say's "the EARTH's GLOBE will have convulsions and earthquakes." It makes absolutely no sense for FlatTards to refer to the sky (which is a "globe" according to them) as having earthquakes when, according to their "flat earth" theory, these "half globes" represent the sky above the earth and the domain, which consists of water or dust, below the earth's land mass and navigable waters, respectively.

In other words, these FlatTards are saying there will be earthquakes in the sky according to Our Lady. This is preposterous.

Our Lady is referring to the earth that we can see and upon that we physically live. It will have convulsions and earthquakes. She calls this land mass "the earth's globe".






He clearly does not understand the difference between a dictionary and a thesaurus and is having a really hard time with the definition of the word circle and compass.


So why does the thesaurus have "globe" as a synonym of "circle", but the word "flat" isn't mentioned? Is it because when a person looks at a circle, it appears round, just like the earth is round? Maybe this is what the Bible writers were conveying?  :scratchchin:

The word "flat" is a very simple word and concept to describe an object. Surely, the word existed in the Hebrew and Koine Greek language, so why didn't the Bible writers use it to describe the shape of the earth?  



Quote from: mw2016
I'm sorry God's Word is so disappointing to you, Croix.


So you're really saying you're happy that Satan's lies made you addicted to the sensational?  :shocked:



Quote from: mw2016
And what is this earthquake in the sky nonsense you keep babbling on about? No FE'er has said such a thing. You really need help.


According to FlatTardology, the message by Our Lady of La Salette states that the sky will have earthquakes, which is premised on your belief that the only (half) globe is the sky above the "flat" earth. Did you go to the Bozo School of Science or Theology?  :clown:
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on January 11, 2017, 10:58:04 AM
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: Croix de Fer


Look at you, FlatTard, demanding answers to questions after you never answered my questions, instead you posted links to frauds (pilots / submarine operators) filling a niche of the sensational to sell books and speeches.

Let us look up one of the synonyms to the word "circle". One synonym is "GLOBE", but nowhere is the word "flat" to be found.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/circle

You and the other FlatTards ignore the following that I stated because it exposes the fallacy of your positions:

Regarding Our Lady's warning about earthquakes to come, she say's "the EARTH's GLOBE will have convulsions and earthquakes." It makes absolutely no sense for FlatTards to refer to the sky (which is a "globe" according to them) as having earthquakes when, according to their "flat earth" theory, these "half globes" represent the sky above the earth and the domain, which consists of water or dust, below the earth's land mass and navigable waters, respectively.

In other words, these FlatTards are saying there will be earthquakes in the sky according to Our Lady. This is preposterous.

Our Lady is referring to the earth that we can see and upon that we physically live. It will have convulsions and earthquakes. She calls this land mass "the earth's globe".






He clearly does not understand the difference between a dictionary and a thesaurus and is having a really hard time with the definition of the word circle and compass.


So why does the thesaurus have "globe" as a synonym of "circle", but the word "flat" isn't mentioned? Is it because when a person looks at a circle, it appears round, just like the earth is round? Maybe this is what the Bible writers were conveying?  :scratchchin:

The word "flat" is a very simple word and concept to describe an object. Surely, the word existed in the Hebrew and Koine Greek language, so why didn't the Bible writers use it to describe the shape of the earth?  



Quote from: mw2016
I'm sorry God's Word is so disappointing to you, Croix.


So you're really saying you're happy that Satan's lies made you addicted to the sensational?  :shocked:



Quote from: mw2016
And what is this earthquake in the sky nonsense you keep babbling on about? No FE'er has said such a thing. You really need help.


According to FlatTardology, the message by Our Lady of La Salette states that the sky will have earthquakes, which is premised on your belief that the only (half) globe is the sky above the "flat" earth. Did you go to the Bozo School of Science or Theology?  :clown:


A circle is not a globe.

Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Croix de Fer, repeat after me.

This is a CIRCLE.
(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/thXQ5OECKI_zpsrrtoxf3w.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/thXQ5OECKI_zpsrrtoxf3w.jpg.html)

This is a GLOBE.
(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/20-blue-basketball.w750.h560.2x1_zps90ifrm9v.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/20-blue-basketball.w750.h560.2x1_zps90ifrm9v.jpg.html)
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: cassini on January 11, 2017, 11:41:45 AM
Quote from: happenby
So, which direction did Jesus rise?  The globe is a contradiction and denies all truth.  


So here we bring in the theology of Christ's ascention and heaven to support a flat earth. It restricts God to a flat-earth theology and heaven to a place that has to be above the earth.

A global earth has heaven outside the physical universe, This gives heaven an infinite demention far more fitting to an Omnipotent Maker.

As for theology and tradition, where is there a flat earth in Catholic tradition developed throughout the ages? The sacrted doctrine of geocentrism has always been global. Andrew White tells us:

'Having thus come from antiquity into the Christian world, St Clement of Alexandria demonstrated that the altar in the Jєωιѕн Tabernacle was “a symbol of the earth placed in the middle of the universe:” nothing more was needed; the geocentric theory was fully adopted by the Church and universally held to agree with the letter and spirit of Scripture.'

'Three great men mainly reared this structure. First was the unknown who gave to the world the treatises ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite. It was unhesitatingly believed that these were the work of St Paul’s Athenian convert, and therefore virtually of St Paul himself.'

‘The next of these three great theologians was Peter Lombard, Professor at the University of Paris. About the middle of the twelfth century he gave forth his collection of Sentences, or statements by the Fathers, and this remained until the end of the Middle Ages the universal manual of theology.'

‘The great triad of thinkers culminated in St Thomas Aquinas – the sainted theologian, the glory of the mediaeval Church, the ‘Angelic Doctor,’ the most marvellous intellect; he to whom it was believed that an image of the crucified had spoken words praising his writings. '

 ‘Thus was the vast system developed by these three leaders of mediaeval thought; and now came the man who wrought it yet more deeply into European belief, the poet divinely inspired who made the system part of the world’s life. Pictured by Dante [in The Divine Comedy], the empyrean and the concentric heavens, paradise, purgatory, and hell, were seen by all;

 ‘Let us look into this vast creation – the highest achievement of theology – somewhat more closely. Its first feature shows a development out of earlier theological ideas. The earth is no longer a flat plain enclosed by four walls and solidly vaulted above, as theologians of previous centuries had believed it [sic], under the inspiration of Cosmas [Indicopleustes]; it is no longer a mere flat disk, with sun, moon, and stars hung up to give it light, as the earlier cathedral sculptors had figured it; it has become a globe at the centre of the universe.'

Then of course was the global geocentrism of St Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) in his 1614 book De Ascensione Mentis in Deum - The Mind’s Ascent to God by the Ladder of Created Things'

Finally an interesting revelation of a global earth: It comes from the private revelations from heaven to Sister Mary of Jesus, better known as Mary of Agreda (1602-1665). The following insights, dictated to her, she said, by the Virgin Mary herself in 1637. Her three volume work is entitled; ‘The Mystical City of God’ or ‘The Divine History and Life of the Virgin Mother of God.’ These revelations to Sister Mary, whose body lies incorrupt in the Agreda Franciscan Monastery in Spain, have received approbations from many popes throughout history as a mode of greater understanding of the Catholic faith completely in line with traditional Church teaching.  

QUOTE: '…. God created the earth co-jointly with the heavens in order to call into existence hell in its centre; for, at the instant of its creation, there were left in the interior of that globe, spacious and wide cavities, suitable for hell, purgatory and limbo. And in hell was created at the same time material fire and other requisites, which now serve for the punishment of the damned.'
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 11, 2017, 01:30:29 PM
Quote from: cassini

To understand how we have the sky above and earth below everywhere on global earth is beyond human reasoning. We call this mystery 'gravity' and actually believe we understand how it works, but in fact it is an ongoing act of God.



Crikey, this entire post is the biggest load of malarkey I have seen posted in recent memory here at Cathinfo!

Cassini - you do remember that even the religion of scientism posits gravity as a THEORY, yes?

And please tell me that you do remember that the high priests of the religion of scientism also readily admit that they are not at all sure how gravity works, or are much less able to prove its very existence?

Therefore, you have given credence to a "mysterious force" that does not exist, nor is even necessary, above the Word of God Himself. That is utterly indefensible.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 11, 2017, 01:32:48 PM
Quote from: Truth is Eternal


A circle is not a globe.

Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Croix de Fer, repeat after me.

This is a CIRCLE.
(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/thXQ5OECKI_zpsrrtoxf3w.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/thXQ5OECKI_zpsrrtoxf3w.jpg.html)

This is a GLOBE.
(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/20-blue-basketball.w750.h560.2x1_zps90ifrm9v.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/20-blue-basketball.w750.h560.2x1_zps90ifrm9v.jpg.html)


AMEN.

He still is not capable of understanding the difference between a ball and a circle.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 11, 2017, 01:38:28 PM
Quote from: Croix de Fer

According to FlatTardology, the message by Our Lady of La Salette states that the sky will have earthquakes, which is premised on your belief that the only (half) globe is the sky above the "flat" earth. Did you go to the Bozo School of Science or Theology?  :clown:


Your interpretation of the message of La Sallette is very bizarre.

Do you enjoy going to basecircle games, Croix? Can you tell me how the catcher manages to catch the circle in his mitt?

How about basketcircle games? Can you tell me how they dribble the circle in a basketcircle game?

I'm sure if I went about town talking like this, nobody would think it strange at all, since ball and circle mean EXACTLY the same thing, right?

"I will compass thine altar, O Lord..."

Do you think when the priest says this in the Mass, as he goes about the altar with the incense, that what he is really supposed to do is go over and under the altar too, or merely AROUND it?
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 11, 2017, 01:42:56 PM
Quote from: cassini
Quote from: happenby
So, which direction did Jesus rise?  The globe is a contradiction and denies all truth.  


So here we bring in the theology of Christ's ascention and heaven to support a flat earth. It restricts God to a flat-earth theology and heaven to a place that has to be above the earth.


Heaven is, de fide, above the earth and hell is below it. That is binding under pain of mortal sin. Heaven is not "out" in all directions at 360 degrees. Get it right.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 11, 2017, 02:17:10 PM
Quote from: Croix de Fer
These FlatTards use deceit to claim the Bible teaches the "earth is flat." The Bible never mentions the word "flat" to describe shape of the earth.

The word "flat" is a very simple word and concept to describe an object. Surely, the word existed in the Hebrew and Koine Greek language, so why didn't the Bible writers use it to describe the shape of the earth?

These FlatTards are saying Our Lady of La Salette is wrong.  She can't be wrong.

Regarding Our Lady's warning about earthquakes to come, she say's "the EARTH's GLOBE will have convulsions and earthquakes." It makes absolutely no sense for FlatTards to refer to the sky (which is a "globe" according to them) as having earthquakes when, according to their "flat earth" theory, these "half globes" represent the sky above the earth and the domain, which consists of water or dust, below the earth's land mass and navigable waters, respectively.

In other words, these FlatTards are saying there will be earthquakes in the sky according to Our Lady. This is preposterous.

Our Lady is referring to the earth that we can see and upon that we physically live. It will have convulsions and earthquakes. She calls this land mass "the earth's globe".

These FlatTards are deceitful and they lack reading comprehension problem. They lack understanding of what Our Lady is stating, and they willfully reject it after it's explained to them.  


As I said about the Immaculate Conception, the actual words are not necessarily in the Bible but you have to read and pray about what you read in order to understand. As Christ taught:

10And his disciples came and said to him: Why speakest thou to them in parables? 11Who answered and said to them: Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given. 12For he that hath, to him shall be given, and he shall abound: but he that hath not, from him shall be taken away that also which he hath. 13Therefore do I speak to them in parables: because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Flattards?
The name calling here is proof in and of itself that this guy is not only insecure, but knows he's wrong. “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”            
 --Socrates

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 11, 2017, 02:21:06 PM
Quote from: Matto
I have a question for the flat earthers. I have been thinking about this and it still does not make sense to me. Flat earthers say that when ships or islands or mountains or anything else appears to sink below the horizon it is only an illusion and if you look with a telescope the object can be seen. But does it work the same way with the sun? When the sun seems to sink below the horizon is it also an illusion and if you look for the sun with a telescope, can you see the sun like they say you can see the boats and islands and mountains when they sink below the horizon?



The sun is subject to perspective issues as anything on the ground.  However, the perspective itself does change.  The sun leaves plenty of evidence it moves over a flat earth when it leaves a trail of light on the ocean from the shore at sunset which is traceable back to the sun, something impossible if earth were a globe because light doesn't bend.



Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: cassini on January 11, 2017, 02:26:48 PM
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: cassini

To understand how we have the sky above and earth below everywhere on global earth is beyond human reasoning. We call this mystery 'gravity' and actually believe we understand how it works, but in fact it is an ongoing act of God.



Crikey, this entire post is the biggest load of malarkey I have seen posted in recent memory here at Cathinfo!

Cassini - you do remember that even the religion of scientism posits gravity as a THEORY, yes?

And please tell me that you do remember that the high priests of the religion of scientism also readily admit that they are not at all sure how gravity works, or are much less able to prove its very existence?

Therefore, you have given credence to a "mysterious force" that does not exist, nor is even necessary, above the Word of God Himself. That is utterly indefensible.


I can see the use of metaphor 'we' could have given the impression We was Me.

I use the word 'we' above to represent humanity today. 'We' also believes Newton and Einstein showed how it works, I do not believe Newton and Einstein proved anything, no more than René Descartes’s ‘vortex theory.’ or
the physicist George Louis Le Sage's ‘ultra mundane Corpuscles’ theory. That I thought should have been obvious when I added 'in fact it is an ongoing act of God' and from the passage below that.

That said gravity can well be a secondry cause crerated by God to do the job.





Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 11, 2017, 02:44:32 PM
Quote from: cassini
Quote from: happenby
So, which direction did Jesus rise?  The globe is a contradiction and denies all truth.  


This is another post that went unanswered. So, let me do that.

Sorry the illustration with this post did not reappear here, I am unable to post pioctures. It depicts man on a global earth as though it would mean the only place he could stand upright is on top of the north pole. Everywhere else he would be standing sideways at different angles until he is standing upside down at the south pole.

Of all the posts arguing against a global earth this one needs to be exposed for what it is, bringing the debate down to the level of absurdity, and submitting a dogma of the faith to this asbsurdity. Better we separate the two for simplicity.

Now unless flaterarthers argue the moon, sun and planets are also flat, with their discs pointing towards the earth at all times, then they must take the moon and Mars as globes. This being so, if man were to get to the moon, and land probes on Mars, which I accept as true happenings, then the same nonsense would apply. Only at the top, wherever that might be on the moon and Mars, would a man or machine be able to stand upright.

“For great is the power of God alone, and he is honoured by the humble. Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability: but the things that God hath commanded thee, think on them always, and in many of his works be not curious. For it is not necessary for thee to see with thy eyes those things that are hid. In unnecessary matters be not over curious, and in many of his works thou shalt not be inquisitive. For many things are shewn to thee above the understanding of men. And the suspicion of them hath deceived man, and hath detained their minds in vanity.” (Ecclus 3:21-26).

To understand how we have the sky above and earth below everywhere on global earth is beyond human reasoning. We call this mystery 'gravity' and actually believe we understand how it works, but in fact it is an ongoing act of God.

To say science understands the mystery of ‘gravity’ is ignorant or deceit for no one other than God ‘understands’ what we call ‘gravity.’ We know the need for and effects of ‘gravity’ on earth, and indeed on the surface of every other cosmic body, but can mere human reason really comprehend the mystery of gravity? Given, for example, that if we view the earth from space, as man can do now, we find it surrounded by nothing; its surface covered with ‘unattached’ things, half ‘upside-down’ relative to the other half. This being so, we can ask, how is it that on this same globe everybody on its surface has the sky above and the earth below. Is such a phenomenon not beyond human understanding? Let us put it this way. Here we are in the space shuttle, heading for global earth. Now, no matter where we head for, even if it is a place right on the bottom of the globe as we head towards it, somehow, by the time we land, we end up the same way, the sky is always overhead, and the earth is always below. When does the ‘head-under-heels twist’ happen, we ask? If a fly landed on the same place on a light bulb, it would find itself ‘upside down,’ yet the same does not occur when the bulbs are cosmic bodies. How does this happen? ‘It is all because of gravity’ we are told, and thank God for it we say, because without it we would all be in one terrible incoherent state of chaos.


In fact, the sun and moon faces are always facing toward earth.  We never see the backside of either.  

Gravity has long been questioned by scientists and has many contradictions science fails to address.

"You might wonder why a string theorist is interested in Newton’s equations. After all Newton was overturned a century ago by Einstein, who explained gravity as warps in the geometry of space-time, and who some theorists think could be overturned in turn by string theorists.
Those exploding black holes (at least in theory — none has ever been observed) lit up a new strangeness of nature. Black holes, in effect, are holograms — like the 3-D images you see on bank cards."
http://www.greenexplored.com/2010/07/gravity-debunked-by-thermodynamics.html

The unfolding story of gravity is like the emperor’s new clothes.
“We’ve known for a long time gravity doesn’t exist,” Dr. Verlinde said, “It’s time to yell it.”

The Encyclopedia Britannica tells us that “ The Law of Gravitation is unique among the laws of nature, not only for its wide generality, taking the whole universe into its scope, but in the fact that, so far as is yet known, it is absolutely unmodified by any condition or cause whatever.”
Reduced to simplicity, gravitation is said to be “That which attracts every thing toward every other thing.” That does not tell us much ; and yet the little it does tell us is not true; for a thoughtful observer knows very well that everything is not attracted towards every other thing. . . The definition implies that it is a force  but it does not say so, for that phrase “ mutual action ” is ambiguous, and not at all convincing.

Newton: ‘Allow us, without proof, which is impossible, the existence of two universal forces –centrifugal and centripetal, or attraction and repulsion, and we will construct a theory which shall explain all the leading phenomena and mysteries of Nature.’  

Gravity is a scam, unproven, unreasonable, untenable.  How can something draw all objects to itself and at the same time fail to do so all the time?  The idea of antipodes, people that walk upside down on one side of the earth as opposed to others is condemned by the Church:

The great authority of Augustine, and the cogency of his scriptural argument, held the Church firmly against the doctrine of the antipodes; all schools of interpretation were now agreed--the followers of the allegorical tendencies of Alexandria, the strictly literals exegetes of Syria, the more eclectic theologians of the West. For over a thousand years it was held in the Church, "always, everywhere, and by all," that there could not be human beings on the opposite sides of the earth, even if the earth had opposite sides; and, when attacked by gainsayers the great mass of true believers, from the fourth century to the fifteenth, simply used that opiate which had so soothing an effect on John Henry Newman in the nineteenth century--securus judicat orbis terrarum.  (the secure judgement of the whole world)
pg 104  A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom  --White

Bishop Isidore of Seville (560-636) taught in his widely read encyclopedia, The etymologies, that the earth was round.  While some writers have thought he referred to a spherical Earth, this and other writings make it clear that he considered the earth to be a disk of wheel shaped.  Isidore did not admit the possibility of people dwelling at the antipodes, considering them as legendary, and noting that there was no evidence for their existence.  The Esoteric Codex: Dynamics of the Celestial Spheres

At the very least, these (and I got plenty more) statements and proofs bear serious weight and show the Church maintains the literal interpretation of scriptural flat earth. Catholics should not summarily dismiss these things when their understanding of some of the dynamics of the earth do not add up for them.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: cassini on January 11, 2017, 02:49:29 PM
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: cassini
Quote from: happenby
So, which direction did Jesus rise?  The globe is a contradiction and denies all truth.  


So here we bring in the theology of Christ's ascention and heaven to support a flat earth. It restricts God to a flat-earth theology and heaven to a place that has to be above the earth.


Heaven is, de fide, above the earth and hell is below it. That is binding under pain of mortal sin. Heaven is not "out" in all directions at 360 degrees. Get it right.




No I don't 'get it' mw2016, Could you show us the de fide dogma that tells us heaven is above the earth and hell below, a dogma binding under pain of mortal sin.

Next you will tell us we have to believe in a flat-earth heaven.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 11, 2017, 02:57:57 PM
Quote from: cassini
Quote from: happenby
So, which direction did Jesus rise?  The globe is a contradiction and denies all truth.  


So here we bring in the theology of Christ's ascention and heaven to support a flat earth. It restricts God to a flat-earth theology and heaven to a place that has to be above the earth.

A global earth has heaven outside the physical universe, This gives heaven an infinite demention far more fitting to an Omnipotent Maker.

As for theology and tradition, where is there a flat earth in Catholic tradition developed throughout the ages? The sacrted doctrine of geocentrism has always been global. Andrew White tells us:

'Having thus come from antiquity into the Christian world, St Clement of Alexandria demonstrated that the altar in the Jєωιѕн Tabernacle was “a symbol of the earth placed in the middle of the universe:” nothing more was needed; the geocentric theory was fully adopted by the Church and universally held to agree with the letter and spirit of Scripture.'

'Three great men mainly reared this structure. First was the unknown who gave to the world the treatises ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite. It was unhesitatingly believed that these were the work of St Paul’s Athenian convert, and therefore virtually of St Paul himself.'

‘The next of these three great theologians was Peter Lombard, Professor at the University of Paris. About the middle of the twelfth century he gave forth his collection of Sentences, or statements by the Fathers, and this remained until the end of the Middle Ages the universal manual of theology.'

‘The great triad of thinkers culminated in St Thomas Aquinas – the sainted theologian, the glory of the mediaeval Church, the ‘Angelic Doctor,’ the most marvellous intellect; he to whom it was believed that an image of the crucified had spoken words praising his writings. '

 ‘Thus was the vast system developed by these three leaders of mediaeval thought; and now came the man who wrought it yet more deeply into European belief, the poet divinely inspired who made the system part of the world’s life. Pictured by Dante [in The Divine Comedy], the empyrean and the concentric heavens, paradise, purgatory, and hell, were seen by all;

 ‘Let us look into this vast creation – the highest achievement of theology – somewhat more closely. Its first feature shows a development out of earlier theological ideas. The earth is no longer a flat plain enclosed by four walls and solidly vaulted above, as theologians of previous centuries had believed it [sic], under the inspiration of Cosmas [Indicopleustes]; it is no longer a mere flat disk, with sun, moon, and stars hung up to give it light, as the earlier cathedral sculptors had figured it; it has become a globe at the centre of the universe.'

Then of course was the global geocentrism of St Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) in his 1614 book De Ascensione Mentis in Deum - The Mind’s Ascent to God by the Ladder of Created Things'

Finally an interesting revelation of a global earth: It comes from the private revelations from heaven to Sister Mary of Jesus, better known as Mary of Agreda (1602-1665). The following insights, dictated to her, she said, by the Virgin Mary herself in 1637. Her three volume work is entitled; ‘The Mystical City of God’ or ‘The Divine History and Life of the Virgin Mother of God.’ These revelations to Sister Mary, whose body lies incorrupt in the Agreda Franciscan Monastery in Spain, have received approbations from many popes throughout history as a mode of greater understanding of the Catholic faith completely in line with traditional Church teaching.  

QUOTE: '…. God created the earth co-jointly with the heavens in order to call into existence hell in its centre; for, at the instant of its creation, there were left in the interior of that globe, spacious and wide cavities, suitable for hell, purgatory and limbo. And in hell was created at the same time material fire and other requisites, which now serve for the punishment of the damned.'



Global geocentrism simply doesn't work.  Where is the firmament on this so-called globe?  When God created the heavens and the earth, he divided the water, some above, some below with the firmament in between, as scripture so eloquently describes in Gen 1:6,7.  It is later referred to as a vault, or dome.  How can there be a dome over a globe?  A vault over a ball?  Where is the water above the firmament in this globe model?  Mixed in with the vacuum of space?  If the sun is indeed inside such a dome structure as scripture describes, then the dome is at least 100 million miles away in order to accommodate the distant sun?  Globe earth is a constant contradiction.  
Lets look at how often this is the case:

Matthew 5:37 But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.
Heliocentrism and its sister theory, Globe Geocentrism have many things in common, but the one glaring fact is that  they both embody imprecision, relativity, pretense and illusion.  The science pew sitters are grumbling right now saying,  “No! Our science is more precise!”
On a flat geocentric earth, level means level.  It doesn’t mean curve that appears level but is not.  Nor can measurements that seem level in relation to distance from the center of earth be called level yet actually curve.  By definition, and in God’s world, level is level and a curve is a curve. Anything else is from evil.

Geocentric/Heliocentric Globe                                    Flat Earth Geocentric Earth
Level can mean curve, depending                                 Level is level  
Curve can mean level, depending                                 Curve is curve

Up is out toward space in every direction…
          while actually down for some                                 Up is up
Down is down to the center of ball earth at an angle…
          while actually up for some                                Down is down
          To rise is to go out in any direction toward space
         …but could also mean to descend, depending        To rise is to rise
Directions are always relative                                       Can be specific
The Horizon is not horizontal but curves                      The Horizon IS horizontal
Vertical is often at an angle to horizontal         Vertical is up, right angle to horizontal
Above is relative, depending                          Above is always above
Below is relative, depending                           Below is always below
Enables imprecise, circular reasoning                        Prevents dishonesty
Yes and no and is… are not absolute                             Yes is yes, no is no, and is is is.



Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 11, 2017, 03:02:44 PM
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: Croix de Fer


Look at you, FlatTard, demanding answers to questions after you never answered my questions, instead you posted links to frauds (pilots / submarine operators) filling a niche of the sensational to sell books and speeches.

Let us look up one of the synonyms to the word "circle". One synonym is "GLOBE", but nowhere is the word "flat" to be found.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/circle

You and the other FlatTards ignore the following that I stated because it exposes the fallacy of your positions:

Regarding Our Lady's warning about earthquakes to come, she say's "the EARTH's GLOBE will have convulsions and earthquakes." It makes absolutely no sense for FlatTards to refer to the sky (which is a "globe" according to them) as having earthquakes when, according to their "flat earth" theory, these "half globes" represent the sky above the earth and the domain, which consists of water or dust, below the earth's land mass and navigable waters, respectively.

In other words, these FlatTards are saying there will be earthquakes in the sky according to Our Lady. This is preposterous.

Our Lady is referring to the earth that we can see and upon that we physically live. It will have convulsions and earthquakes. She calls this land mass "the earth's globe".






He clearly does not understand the difference between a dictionary and a thesaurus and is having a really hard time with the definition of the word circle and compass.


So why does the thesaurus have "globe" as a synonym of "circle", but the word "flat" isn't mentioned? Is it because when a person looks at a circle, it appears round, just like the earth is round? Maybe this is what the Bible writers were conveying?  :scratchchin:

The word "flat" is a very simple word and concept to describe an object. Surely, the word existed in the Hebrew and Koine Greek language, so why didn't the Bible writers use it to describe the shape of the earth?  



Quote from: mw2016
I'm sorry God's Word is so disappointing to you, Croix.


So you're really saying you're happy that Satan's lies made you addicted to the sensational?  :shocked:



Quote from: mw2016
And what is this earthquake in the sky nonsense you keep babbling on about? No FE'er has said such a thing. You really need help.


According to FlatTardology, the message by Our Lady of La Salette states that the sky will have earthquakes, which is premised on your belief that the only (half) globe is the sky above the "flat" earth. Did you go to the Bozo School of Science or Theology?  :clown:


Never once did Our Lady say the earth's globe will have convulsions.  She talks only about the earth convulsing. More inaccuracies on top of more inaccuracies.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 11, 2017, 03:09:12 PM
Quote from: cassini
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: cassini
Quote from: happenby
So, which direction did Jesus rise?  The globe is a contradiction and denies all truth.  


So here we bring in the theology of Christ's ascention and heaven to support a flat earth. It restricts God to a flat-earth theology and heaven to a place that has to be above the earth.


Heaven is, de fide, above the earth and hell is below it. That is binding under pain of mortal sin. Heaven is not "out" in all directions at 360 degrees. Get it right.




No I don't 'get it' mw2016, Could you show us the de fide dogma that tells us heaven is above the earth and hell below, a dogma binding under pain of mortal sin.

Next you will tell us we have to believe in a flat-earth heaven.




Scripture says heaven is above.
Gen 1. 6 And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1.7 And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so.

Scripture continues to describe heaven above the firmament and earth below that.

And everyone knows Christ DESCENDED into hell.  

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: cassini on January 11, 2017, 03:09:53 PM
Quote from: happenby
Quote from: cassini
Quote from: happenby
So, which direction did Jesus rise?  The globe is a contradiction and denies all truth.  


This is another post that went unanswered. So, let me do that.

Sorry the illustration with this post did not reappear here, I am unable to post pioctures. It depicts man on a global earth as though it would mean the only place he could stand upright is on top of the north pole. Everywhere else he would be standing sideways at different angles until he is standing upside down at the south pole.

Of all the posts arguing against a global earth this one needs to be exposed for what it is, bringing the debate down to the level of absurdity, and submitting a dogma of the faith to this asbsurdity. Better we separate the two for simplicity.

Now unless flaterarthers argue the moon, sun and planets are also flat, with their discs pointing towards the earth at all times, then they must take the moon and Mars as globes. This being so, if man were to get to the moon, and land probes on Mars, which I accept as true happenings, then the same nonsense would apply. Only at the top, wherever that might be on the moon and Mars, would a man or machine be able to stand upright.

“For great is the power of God alone, and he is honoured by the humble. Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability: but the things that God hath commanded thee, think on them always, and in many of his works be not curious. For it is not necessary for thee to see with thy eyes those things that are hid. In unnecessary matters be not over curious, and in many of his works thou shalt not be inquisitive. For many things are shewn to thee above the understanding of men. And the suspicion of them hath deceived man, and hath detained their minds in vanity.” (Ecclus 3:21-26).

To understand how we have the sky above and earth below everywhere on global earth is beyond human reasoning. We call this mystery 'gravity' and actually believe we understand how it works, but in fact it is an ongoing act of God.

To say science understands the mystery of ‘gravity’ is ignorant or deceit for no one other than God ‘understands’ what we call ‘gravity.’ We know the need for and effects of ‘gravity’ on earth, and indeed on the surface of every other cosmic body, but can mere human reason really comprehend the mystery of gravity? Given, for example, that if we view the earth from space, as man can do now, we find it surrounded by nothing; its surface covered with ‘unattached’ things, half ‘upside-down’ relative to the other half. This being so, we can ask, how is it that on this same globe everybody on its surface has the sky above and the earth below. Is such a phenomenon not beyond human understanding? Let us put it this way. Here we are in the space shuttle, heading for global earth. Now, no matter where we head for, even if it is a place right on the bottom of the globe as we head towards it, somehow, by the time we land, we end up the same way, the sky is always overhead, and the earth is always below. When does the ‘head-under-heels twist’ happen, we ask? If a fly landed on the same place on a light bulb, it would find itself ‘upside down,’ yet the same does not occur when the bulbs are cosmic bodies. How does this happen? ‘It is all because of gravity’ we are told, and thank God for it we say, because without it we would all be in one terrible incoherent state of chaos.


In fact, the sun and moon faces are always facing toward earth.  We never see the backside of either.  

Gravity has long been questioned by scientists and has many contradictions science fails to address.

"You might wonder why a string theorist is interested in Newton’s equations. After all Newton was overturned a century ago by Einstein, who explained gravity as warps in the geometry of space-time, and who some theorists think could be overturned in turn by string theorists.
Those exploding black holes (at least in theory — none has ever been observed) lit up a new strangeness of nature. Black holes, in effect, are holograms — like the 3-D images you see on bank cards."
http://www.greenexplored.com/2010/07/gravity-debunked-by-thermodynamics.html

The unfolding story of gravity is like the emperor’s new clothes.
“We’ve known for a long time gravity doesn’t exist,” Dr. Verlinde said, “It’s time to yell it.”

The Encyclopedia Britannica tells us that “ The Law of Gravitation is unique among the laws of nature, not only for its wide generality, taking the whole universe into its scope, but in the fact that, so far as is yet known, it is absolutely unmodified by any condition or cause whatever.”
Reduced to simplicity, gravitation is said to be “That which attracts every thing toward every other thing.” That does not tell us much ; and yet the little it does tell us is not true; for a thoughtful observer knows very well that everything is not attracted towards every other thing. . . The definition implies that it is a force  but it does not say so, for that phrase “ mutual action ” is ambiguous, and not at all convincing.

Newton: ‘Allow us, without proof, which is impossible, the existence of two universal forces –centrifugal and centripetal, or attraction and repulsion, and we will construct a theory which shall explain all the leading phenomena and mysteries of Nature.’  

Gravity is a scam, unproven, unreasonable, untenable.  How can something draw all objects to itself and at the same time fail to do so all the time?  The idea of antipodes, people that walk upside down on one side of the earth as opposed to others is condemned by the Church:

The great authority of Augustine, and the cogency of his scriptural argument, held the Church firmly against the doctrine of the antipodes; all schools of interpretation were now agreed--the followers of the allegorical tendencies of Alexandria, the strictly literals exegetes of Syria, the more eclectic theologians of the West. For over a thousand years it was held in the Church, "always, everywhere, and by all," that there could not be human beings on the opposite sides of the earth, even if the earth had opposite sides; and, when attacked by gainsayers the great mass of true believers, from the fourth century to the fifteenth, simply used that opiate which had so soothing an effect on John Henry Newman in the nineteenth century--securus judicat orbis terrarum.  (the secure judgement of the whole world)
pg 104  A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom  --White

Bishop Isidore of Seville (560-636) taught in his widely read encyclopedia, The etymologies, that the earth was round.  While some writers have thought he referred to a spherical Earth, this and other writings make it clear that he considered the earth to be a disk of wheel shaped.  Isidore did not admit the possibility of people dwelling at the antipodes, considering them as legendary, and noting that there was no evidence for their existence.  The Esoteric Codex: Dynamics of the Celestial Spheres

At the very least, these (and I got plenty more) statements and proofs bear serious weight and show the Church maintains the literal interpretation of scriptural flat earth. Catholics should not summarily dismiss these things when their understanding of some of the dynamics of the earth do not add up for them.



I read the first sentence and found the first mistake happenby. Yes we do see the backside of the sun. The sun rotates so we see all of it once a revolution.

Einstein allowed for Newton's 'mass' theory of gravity.

Be careful with the concept of gravity. As i said above it is just a word for what we experience on earth. Newton's and Einstein's gravity relates to the movements of cosmic bodies. Theories for gravity can be thought up by anybody, but yes, they are only useless theories.

I have always respected Flat-earth arguments. I went through the barrier of evolution and heliocentrism and the contempt with which these people can attack one and one's arguments. I understand that some like yourself can be convinced. For myself I have not been convinced and cannot see how it is essential to the Catholic faith or how it has affected the Faith like heliocentrism (and evolution) has. Heliocentrism was defined as heresy by no biblical interpretation of a flat earth ever occurred.
That sauid I am finding mw2016 is getting a little nastuy with his reply posts.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on January 11, 2017, 03:11:44 PM
Cassini,

READ THIS
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t60-pertinent-quotes-from-fathers-and-tradition

And have a good look through the other pages. Because you are asking questions to which the answers are already given.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 11, 2017, 03:13:21 PM
God's description of flat earth denies the globe and anyone familiar with scripture knows it.  The more people deny flat earth, the more they show their ignorance of scripture.  Flat earth, the way God created His world, makes scripture come alive and truth is manifest therein.  This light is too bright for many, however.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 11, 2017, 03:15:20 PM
Globe earth, a component of Heliocentrism, is rooted in the demonic.

The Jєωιѕн Encyclopedia states that the Kabbalah is the origin of the philosophy of Pythagoras.  It was the secrets of the Kabbalah that led Pythagoras to heliocentric philosophy.

Martin Wagner conducted an objective and thorough study of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and wrote a book about his findings titled “Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ: An Interpretation” In the book it is found that the Kabbalah is unadulterated witchcraft and occultism.
The Zionist Kabbalah Jєωs hide behind Gentile Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and control the sciences through various arms of the government, including NASA.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: cassini on January 11, 2017, 03:16:21 PM
Quote from: happenby
Quote from: cassini
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: cassini
Quote from: happenby
So, which direction did Jesus rise?  The globe is a contradiction and denies all truth.  


So here we bring in the theology of Christ's ascention and heaven to support a flat earth. It restricts God to a flat-earth theology and heaven to a place that has to be above the earth.


Heaven is, de fide, above the earth and hell is below it. That is binding under pain of mortal sin. Heaven is not "out" in all directions at 360 degrees. Get it right.




No I don't 'get it' mw2016, Could you show us the de fide dogma that tells us heaven is above the earth and hell below, a dogma binding under pain of mortal sin.

Next you will tell us we have to believe in a flat-earth heaven.




Scripture says heaven is above.
Gen 1. 6 And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1.7 And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so.

Scripture continues to describe heaven above the firmament and earth below that.

And everyone knows Christ DESCENDED into hell.  



Is it possible that you and mw2016 do not know the requirements for a de fide dogma. Quoting the above in no way constitutes a dogma that heaven is above the earth. The place of heaven and hell has never been dogmatised.

The Doctrine of global geocentrism fulfills this rheology of hell better than a flat earth.

Have to go now, see you tomorrow.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 11, 2017, 03:17:07 PM
Theological ‘pontiff’ for the Freemasonic religion and author of “Moral Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite”, Albert Pike teaches: “The Masonic Religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian Doctrine.”
Albert Pike, Morals & Dogma, "Masonry is identical to  the ancient Mysteries ", which means that all their teachings in all their books are precisely the same as the Ancient, Pagan, Satanic Mysteries.
NASA symbols and philosophy promote this same Freemasonic Luciferian doctrine.


Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 11, 2017, 03:18:54 PM
Thanks to the doubters of the flat out truth and their arguments, God's creation has an opportunity to come forth and shine.  Keep 'em coming globe earthers!
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 11, 2017, 03:31:35 PM
Quote from: cassini
Quote from: happenby
Quote from: cassini
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: cassini
Quote from: happenby
So, which direction did Jesus rise?  The globe is a contradiction and denies all truth.  


So here we bring in the theology of Christ's ascention and heaven to support a flat earth. It restricts God to a flat-earth theology and heaven to a place that has to be above the earth.


Heaven is, de fide, above the earth and hell is below it. That is binding under pain of mortal sin. Heaven is not "out" in all directions at 360 degrees. Get it right.




No I don't 'get it' mw2016, Could you show us the de fide dogma that tells us heaven is above the earth and hell below, a dogma binding under pain of mortal sin.

Next you will tell us we have to believe in a flat-earth heaven.




Scripture says heaven is above.
Gen 1. 6 And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1.7 And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so.

Scripture continues to describe heaven above the firmament and earth below that.

And everyone knows Christ DESCENDED into hell.  



Is it possible that you and mw2016 do not know the requirements for a de fide dogma. Quoting the above in no way constitutes a dogma that heaven is above the earth. The place of heaven and hell has never been dogmatised.

The Doctrine of global geocentrism fulfills this rheology of hell better than a flat earth.

Have to go now, see you tomorrow.


Scripture is the source of all dogmatic truth.
St. Augstine :"Major est Scripturae auctoritas quam omnis humani ingenii capacitas."  "Nothing is to be accepted save on the authority of Scripture, since greater is that authority than all the powers of the human mind."  --St. Augustine, Commentary on the Book of Genesis
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 11, 2017, 03:39:22 PM
Quote from: cassini
Quote from: happenby
Quote from: cassini
Quote from: happenby
So, which direction did Jesus rise?  The globe is a contradiction and denies all truth.  


This is another post that went unanswered. So, let me do that.

Sorry the illustration with this post did not reappear here, I am unable to post pioctures. It depicts man on a global earth as though it would mean the only place he could stand upright is on top of the north pole. Everywhere else he would be standing sideways at different angles until he is standing upside down at the south pole.

Of all the posts arguing against a global earth this one needs to be exposed for what it is, bringing the debate down to the level of absurdity, and submitting a dogma of the faith to this asbsurdity. Better we separate the two for simplicity.

Now unless flaterarthers argue the moon, sun and planets are also flat, with their discs pointing towards the earth at all times, then they must take the moon and Mars as globes. This being so, if man were to get to the moon, and land probes on Mars, which I accept as true happenings, then the same nonsense would apply. Only at the top, wherever that might be on the moon and Mars, would a man or machine be able to stand upright.

“For great is the power of God alone, and he is honoured by the humble. Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability: but the things that God hath commanded thee, think on them always, and in many of his works be not curious. For it is not necessary for thee to see with thy eyes those things that are hid. In unnecessary matters be not over curious, and in many of his works thou shalt not be inquisitive. For many things are shewn to thee above the understanding of men. And the suspicion of them hath deceived man, and hath detained their minds in vanity.” (Ecclus 3:21-26).

To understand how we have the sky above and earth below everywhere on global earth is beyond human reasoning. We call this mystery 'gravity' and actually believe we understand how it works, but in fact it is an ongoing act of God.

To say science understands the mystery of ‘gravity’ is ignorant or deceit for no one other than God ‘understands’ what we call ‘gravity.’ We know the need for and effects of ‘gravity’ on earth, and indeed on the surface of every other cosmic body, but can mere human reason really comprehend the mystery of gravity? Given, for example, that if we view the earth from space, as man can do now, we find it surrounded by nothing; its surface covered with ‘unattached’ things, half ‘upside-down’ relative to the other half. This being so, we can ask, how is it that on this same globe everybody on its surface has the sky above and the earth below. Is such a phenomenon not beyond human understanding? Let us put it this way. Here we are in the space shuttle, heading for global earth. Now, no matter where we head for, even if it is a place right on the bottom of the globe as we head towards it, somehow, by the time we land, we end up the same way, the sky is always overhead, and the earth is always below. When does the ‘head-under-heels twist’ happen, we ask? If a fly landed on the same place on a light bulb, it would find itself ‘upside down,’ yet the same does not occur when the bulbs are cosmic bodies. How does this happen? ‘It is all because of gravity’ we are told, and thank God for it we say, because without it we would all be in one terrible incoherent state of chaos.


In fact, the sun and moon faces are always facing toward earth.  We never see the backside of either.  

Gravity has long been questioned by scientists and has many contradictions science fails to address.

"You might wonder why a string theorist is interested in Newton’s equations. After all Newton was overturned a century ago by Einstein, who explained gravity as warps in the geometry of space-time, and who some theorists think could be overturned in turn by string theorists.
Those exploding black holes (at least in theory — none has ever been observed) lit up a new strangeness of nature. Black holes, in effect, are holograms — like the 3-D images you see on bank cards."
http://www.greenexplored.com/2010/07/gravity-debunked-by-thermodynamics.html

The unfolding story of gravity is like the emperor’s new clothes.
“We’ve known for a long time gravity doesn’t exist,” Dr. Verlinde said, “It’s time to yell it.”

The Encyclopedia Britannica tells us that “ The Law of Gravitation is unique among the laws of nature, not only for its wide generality, taking the whole universe into its scope, but in the fact that, so far as is yet known, it is absolutely unmodified by any condition or cause whatever.”
Reduced to simplicity, gravitation is said to be “That which attracts every thing toward every other thing.” That does not tell us much ; and yet the little it does tell us is not true; for a thoughtful observer knows very well that everything is not attracted towards every other thing. . . The definition implies that it is a force  but it does not say so, for that phrase “ mutual action ” is ambiguous, and not at all convincing.

Newton: ‘Allow us, without proof, which is impossible, the existence of two universal forces –centrifugal and centripetal, or attraction and repulsion, and we will construct a theory which shall explain all the leading phenomena and mysteries of Nature.’  

Gravity is a scam, unproven, unreasonable, untenable.  How can something draw all objects to itself and at the same time fail to do so all the time?  The idea of antipodes, people that walk upside down on one side of the earth as opposed to others is condemned by the Church:

The great authority of Augustine, and the cogency of his scriptural argument, held the Church firmly against the doctrine of the antipodes; all schools of interpretation were now agreed--the followers of the allegorical tendencies of Alexandria, the strictly literals exegetes of Syria, the more eclectic theologians of the West. For over a thousand years it was held in the Church, "always, everywhere, and by all," that there could not be human beings on the opposite sides of the earth, even if the earth had opposite sides; and, when attacked by gainsayers the great mass of true believers, from the fourth century to the fifteenth, simply used that opiate which had so soothing an effect on John Henry Newman in the nineteenth century--securus judicat orbis terrarum.  (the secure judgement of the whole world)
pg 104  A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom  --White

Bishop Isidore of Seville (560-636) taught in his widely read encyclopedia, The etymologies, that the earth was round.  While some writers have thought he referred to a spherical Earth, this and other writings make it clear that he considered the earth to be a disk of wheel shaped.  Isidore did not admit the possibility of people dwelling at the antipodes, considering them as legendary, and noting that there was no evidence for their existence.  The Esoteric Codex: Dynamics of the Celestial Spheres

At the very least, these (and I got plenty more) statements and proofs bear serious weight and show the Church maintains the literal interpretation of scriptural flat earth. Catholics should not summarily dismiss these things when their understanding of some of the dynamics of the earth do not add up for them.



I read the first sentence and found the first mistake happenby. Yes we do see the backside of the sun. The sun rotates so we see all of it once a revolution.

Einstein allowed for Newton's 'mass' theory of gravity.

Be careful with the concept of gravity. As i said above it is just a word for what we experience on earth. Newton's and Einstein's gravity relates to the movements of cosmic bodies. Theories for gravity can be thought up by anybody, but yes, they are only useless theories.

I have always respected Flat-earth arguments. I went through the barrier of evolution and heliocentrism and the contempt with which these people can attack one and one's arguments. I understand that some like yourself can be convinced. For myself I have not been convinced and cannot see how it is essential to the Catholic faith or how it has affected the Faith like heliocentrism (and evolution) has. Heliocentrism was defined as heresy by no biblical interpretation of a flat earth ever occurred.
That sauid I am finding mw2016 is getting a little nastuy with his reply posts.



No backside of the sun, bud.  Proven a myriad of times by many people.  I'd post a video, but ppl don't seem to view them.  Get yourself a Nikon P900 and sun lenses and view for yourself.  There are dots on the sun that rotate around like a wheel but never disappear.  The sun turns like a wheel with its face facing earth.  Its kind of important to do some of your own experiments, but also, become familiar enough with the argument from both sides so that you'll know what's true.  Just like Protestant that goes to his choir director, Prot friends, prot parents, prot minister is never going to find the Catholic truth, so the globe earther who always defends a single position (at least in his own mind) will never discover the truth.    
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croixalist on January 11, 2017, 06:18:41 PM
Let's see how many times the Bible mentions a sunset, the sun going "down", and a sunrise.

Genesis 15:12
And when the sun was setting, a deep sleep fell upon Abram, and a great and darksome horror seized upon him.

Genesis 15:17
And when the sun was set, there arose a dark mist, and there appeared a smoking furnace and a lamp of fire passing between those divisions.

Genesis 28:11
And when he was come to a certain place, and would rest in it after sunset, he took of the stones that lay there, and putting under his head, slept in the same place.

Exodus 17:12
And Moses' hands were heavy: so they took a stone, and put under him, and he sat on it: and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands on both sides. And it came to pass that his hands were not weary until sunset.

Exodus 22:26
If thou take of thy neighbour a garment in pledge, thou shalt give it him again before sunset.

Leviticus 22:7
And the sun is down, then being purified, he shall eat of the sanctified things, because it is his meat.

Deuteronomy 16:6
But in the place which the Lord thy God shall choose, that his name may dwell there: thou shalt immolate the phase in the evening, at the going down of the sun, at which time thou camest out of Egypt.  

Deuteronomy 24:13
But thou shalt restore it to him presently before the going down of the sun: that he may sleep in his own raiment and bless thee, and thou mayst have justice before the Lord thy God.

Deuteronomy 24:15
But thou shalt pay him the price of his labour the same day, before the going down of the sun, because he is poor, and with it maintaineth his life: lest he cry against thee to the Lord, and it be reputed to thee for a sin.

Joshua 8:29
And he hung the king thereof on a gibbet until the evening and the going down of the sun. Then Josue commanded, and they took down his carcass from the gibbet: and threw it in the very entrance of the city, heaping upon it a great heap of stones, which remaineth until this present day.

Joshua 10:27
And when the sun was down, he commanded the soldiers to take them down from the gibbets. And after they were taken down, they cast them into the cave where they had lain hid, and put great stones at the mouth thereof, which remain until this day.

Judges 5:31
So let all thy enemies perish, O Lord: but let them that love thee shine, as the sun shineth in his rising. And the land rested for forty years.

2 Samuel 3:35
And when all the people came to take meat with David, while it was yet broad day, David swore, saying: So do God to me, and more also, if I taste bread or any thing else before sunset

2 Samuel 23:4
As the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, shineth in the morning without clouds, and as the grass springeth out of the earth by rain

1 Kings 22:36
And the herald proclaimed through all the army before the sun set, saying: Let every man return to his own city, and to his own country.

Psalm 113:3
From the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, the name of the Lord is worthy of praise.

Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place: and there rising again,

Isaiah 45:6
That they may know who are from the rising of the sun, and they who are from the west, that there is none besides me. I am the Lord, and there is none else

Daniel 6:14
Now when the king had heard these words, he was very much grieved, and in behalf of Daniel he set his heart to deliver him and even till sunset he laboured to save him.

Micah 3:6
Therefore night shall be to you instead of vision, and darkness to you instead of divination; and the sun shall go down upon the prophets, and the day shall be darkened over them.

Mark 1:32
And when it was evening, after sunset, they brought to him all that were ill and that were possessed with devils.

Mark 4:6
And when the sun was risen, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.

Mark 16:2
And very early in the morning, the first day of the week, they come to the sepulchre, the sun being now risen.

Luke 4:40
And when the sun was down, all they that had any sick with divers diseases, brought them to him. But he laying his hands on every one of them, healed them.  

Must be a mistranslation, right? We all know the sun doesn't actually rise or fall, or "set"... or do we? God wouldn't dare allow any kind of poetic language based off of man's limited perspective make it into His inspired Scripture! Good news is that the sun is also a male. That's what it says right?!!?

Quote from: happenby
light doesn't bend.


:laugh2:

Quote from: happenby
No backside of the sun, bud.  Proven a myriad of times by many people.  I'd post a video, but ppl don't seem to view them.  Get yourself a Nikon P900 and sun lenses and view for yourself.


You'd be standing around for days because that's how long it takes for a sunspot to move across the face of the sun and yes, disappear from view.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croixalist on January 11, 2017, 06:37:34 PM
Quote from: Croixalist

2 Samuel 3:35
And when all the people came to take meat with David, while it was yet broad day, David swore, saying: So do God to me, and more also, if I taste bread or any thing else before sunset

2 Samuel 23:4
As the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, shineth in the morning without clouds, and as the grass springeth out of the earth by rain

1 Kings 22:36
And the herald proclaimed through all the army before the sun set, saying: Let every man return to his own city, and to his own country.
 


Before I set the Trad world on fire, make that 2 Kings 3:35, 2 Kings 23:4, and 3 Kings 22:36.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on January 11, 2017, 06:41:30 PM
Quote from: Croixalist
Let's see how many times the Bible mentions a sunset, the sun going "down", and a sunrise.

Genesis 15:12
And when the sun was setting, a deep sleep fell upon Abram, and a great and darksome horror seized upon him.

Genesis 15:17
And when the sun was set, there arose a dark mist, and there appeared a smoking furnace and a lamp of fire passing between those divisions.

Genesis 28:11
And when he was come to a certain place, and would rest in it after sunset, he took of the stones that lay there, and putting under his head, slept in the same place.

Exodus 17:12
And Moses' hands were heavy: so they took a stone, and put under him, and he sat on it: and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands on both sides. And it came to pass that his hands were not weary until sunset.

Exodus 22:26
If thou take of thy neighbour a garment in pledge, thou shalt give it him again before sunset.

Leviticus 22:7
And the sun is down, then being purified, he shall eat of the sanctified things, because it is his meat.

Deuteronomy 16:6
But in the place which the Lord thy God shall choose, that his name may dwell there: thou shalt immolate the phase in the evening, at the going down of the sun, at which time thou camest out of Egypt.  

Deuteronomy 24:13
But thou shalt restore it to him presently before the going down of the sun: that he may sleep in his own raiment and bless thee, and thou mayst have justice before the Lord thy God.

Deuteronomy 24:15
But thou shalt pay him the price of his labour the same day, before the going down of the sun, because he is poor, and with it maintaineth his life: lest he cry against thee to the Lord, and it be reputed to thee for a sin.

Joshua 8:29
And he hung the king thereof on a gibbet until the evening and the going down of the sun. Then Josue commanded, and they took down his carcass from the gibbet: and threw it in the very entrance of the city, heaping upon it a great heap of stones, which remaineth until this present day.

Joshua 10:27
And when the sun was down, he commanded the soldiers to take them down from the gibbets. And after they were taken down, they cast them into the cave where they had lain hid, and put great stones at the mouth thereof, which remain until this day.

Judges 5:31
So let all thy enemies perish, O Lord: but let them that love thee shine, as the sun shineth in his rising. And the land rested for forty years.

2 Samuel 3:35
And when all the people came to take meat with David, while it was yet broad day, David swore, saying: So do God to me, and more also, if I taste bread or any thing else before sunset

2 Samuel 23:4
As the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, shineth in the morning without clouds, and as the grass springeth out of the earth by rain

1 Kings 22:36
And the herald proclaimed through all the army before the sun set, saying: Let every man return to his own city, and to his own country.

Psalm 113:3
From the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, the name of the Lord is worthy of praise.

Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place: and there rising again,

Isaiah 45:6
That they may know who are from the rising of the sun, and they who are from the west, that there is none besides me. I am the Lord, and there is none else

Daniel 6:14
Now when the king had heard these words, he was very much grieved, and in behalf of Daniel he set his heart to deliver him and even till sunset he laboured to save him.

Micah 3:6
Therefore night shall be to you instead of vision, and darkness to you instead of divination; and the sun shall go down upon the prophets, and the day shall be darkened over them.

Mark 1:32
And when it was evening, after sunset, they brought to him all that were ill and that were possessed with devils.

Mark 4:6
And when the sun was risen, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.

Mark 16:2
And very early in the morning, the first day of the week, they come to the sepulchre, the sun being now risen.

Luke 4:40
And when the sun was down, all they that had any sick with divers diseases, brought them to him. But he laying his hands on every one of them, healed them.  

Must be a mistranslation, right? We all know the sun doesn't actually rise or fall, or "set"... or do we? God wouldn't dare allow any kind of poetic language based off of man's limited perspective make it into His inspired Scripture! Good news is that the sun is also a male. That's what it says right?!!?

Quote from: happenby
light doesn't bend.


:laugh2:

Quote from: happenby
No backside of the sun, bud.  Proven a myriad of times by many people.  I'd post a video, but ppl don't seem to view them.  Get yourself a Nikon P900 and sun lenses and view for yourself.


You'd be standing around for days because that's how long it takes for a sunspot to move across the face of the sun and yes, disappear from view.



Those scriptures above you posted about the sun are referring to the suns movement above the flat earth.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croixalist on January 11, 2017, 07:10:17 PM
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Those scriptures above you posted about the sun are referring to the suns movement above the flat earth.


Ahr yoo shore abowt thad?

Then the Flat Earth Model you believe in has the sun actively rising and falling, not revolving above it as I've seen most of you posit. Of course this would not explain how the sun is seen around the world 24/7, unless you believed there was a hemisphere on the opposite side of the earth disk, but since the sun goes from east to west and not north to south or vice-versa, you can't neatly fold it along the equator. Not that that works either because as mentioned before you must contend with not one but two pole stars, one for both northern and southern hemispheres.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 11, 2017, 07:30:25 PM
Quote from: cassini

No I don't 'get it' mw2016, Could you show us the de fide dogma that tells us heaven is above the earth and hell below, a dogma binding under pain of mortal sin.



Yes, it is de fide.

It is in our Apostles' Creed that Heaven is above and hell is below us.

Quote

He descended into hell.
On the third day,
He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into Heaven,
Sitteth at the right hand
Of God, the Father Almighty,
From thence He shall come,
To judge the living and the dead.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 11, 2017, 07:37:42 PM
Quote from: Croixalist

Then the Flat Earth Model you believe in has the sun actively rising and falling, not revolving above it as I've seen most of you posit. Of course this would not explain how the sun is seen around the world 24/7, unless you believed there was a hemisphere on the opposite side of the earth disk, but since the sun goes from east to west and not north to south or vice-versa, you can't neatly fold it along the equator. Not that that works either because as mentioned before you must contend with not one but two pole stars, one for both northern and southern hemispheres.


Why do you post such drivel when it is obvious you do not understand (nor make the slightest effort to understand) the FE model?

None of what you posted above is true.

There are plenty of videos that illustrate the FE model and the motion of the sun and moon and how sunrise and sunset works. But, as happenby says - you don't watch them.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 11, 2017, 07:42:50 PM
Quote from: happenby
The idea of antipodes, people that walk upside down on one side of the earth as opposed to others is condemned by the Church:

The great authority of Augustine, and the cogency of his scriptural argument, held the Church firmly against the doctrine of the antipodes; all schools of interpretation were now agreed--the followers of the allegorical tendencies of Alexandria, the strictly literals exegetes of Syria, the more eclectic theologians of the West. For over a thousand years it was held in the Church, "always, everywhere, and by all," that there could not be human beings on the opposite sides of the earth, even if the earth had opposite sides; and, when attacked by gainsayers the great mass of true believers, from the fourth century to the fifteenth, simply used that opiate which had so soothing an effect on John Henry Newman in the nineteenth century--securus judicat orbis terrarum.  (the secure judgement of the whole world)
pg 104  A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom  --White

Bishop Isidore of Seville (560-636) taught in his widely read encyclopedia, The etymologies, that the earth was round.  While some writers have thought he referred to a spherical Earth, this and other writings make it clear that he considered the earth to be a disk of wheel shaped.  Isidore did not admit the possibility of people dwelling at the antipodes, considering them as legendary, and noting that there was no evidence for their existence.  The Esoteric Codex: Dynamics of the Celestial Spheres

At the very least, these (and I got plenty more) statements and proofs bear serious weight and show the Church maintains the literal interpretation of scriptural flat earth. Catholics should not summarily dismiss these things when their understanding of some of the dynamics of the earth do not add up for them.



This is very important.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 11, 2017, 07:48:04 PM
Quote from: cassini

That sauid I am finding mw2016 is getting a little nastuy with his reply posts.


Sorry, I am a little cranky afer being called "FlatTard" all day by Croix de Fer.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croixalist on January 11, 2017, 08:08:15 PM
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: Croixalist

Then the Flat Earth Model you believe in has the sun actively rising and falling, not revolving above it as I've seen most of you posit. Of course this would not explain how the sun is seen around the world 24/7, unless you believed there was a hemisphere on the opposite side of the earth disk, but since the sun goes from east to west and not north to south or vice-versa, you can't neatly fold it along the equator. Not that that works either because as mentioned before you must contend with not one but two pole stars, one for both northern and southern hemispheres.


Why do you post such drivel when it is obvious you do not understand (nor make the slightest effort to understand) the FE model?

None of what you posted above is true.

There are plenty of videos that illustrate the FE model and the motion of the sun and moon and how sunrise and sunset works. But, as happenby says - you don't watch them.


You don't literally believe the sun rises, because that would also mean it falls, because I have seen your laughable model where it stays firmly above the Earth at all times.

The primary (rhetorical) point was that if you were truly consistent with your use of Biblical language to describe the motions of heavenly bodies literally, you would then be forced to conclude that the sun must in fact rise then go down or "set" everyday. In turn this would mean that the world must be divided into to flat sections, one on the top and one on the bottom in order to make a sunrise and sunset literal and not tied down to a figure of speech based off of man's limited observation.

I predict that you will become even more enraged and dismissive instead of admitting that your train of thought has no tracks to begin with. You literally can't follow it anywhere you try to take the idea. This in itself is quite an accomplishment! It takes an incredible amount of time and effort to become as ignorant as you and your fellow flathead screwtapers, I recognize that. I'm sure you'd have a bright future at the FSB/SWR... if you're not with them already!

It's been awhile since I've perused your ravings though. Could you post that crudely made CGI graphic of the flat earth model again? You know, the one with dimple-patterned sea surface? Thanks a bunch!

 

 

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on January 11, 2017, 08:23:47 PM
Quote from: Croixalist
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Those scriptures above you posted about the sun are referring to the suns movement above the flat earth.


Ahr yoo shore abowt thad?

Then the Flat Earth Model you believe in has the sun actively rising and falling, not revolving above it as I've seen most of you posit. Of course this would not explain how the sun is seen around the world 24/7, unless you believed there was a hemisphere on the opposite side of the earth disk, but since the sun goes from east to west and not north to south or vice-versa, you can't neatly fold it along the equator. Not that that works either because as mentioned before you must contend with not one but two pole stars, one for both northern and southern hemispheres.


I am sure.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croixalist on January 11, 2017, 08:27:20 PM
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: Croixalist
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Those scriptures above you posted about the sun are referring to the suns movement above the flat earth.


Ahr yoo shore abowt thad?

Then the Flat Earth Model you believe in has the sun actively rising and falling, not revolving above it as I've seen most of you posit. Of course this would not explain how the sun is seen around the world 24/7, unless you believed there was a hemisphere on the opposite side of the earth disk, but since the sun goes from east to west and not north to south or vice-versa, you can't neatly fold it along the equator. Not that that works either because as mentioned before you must contend with not one but two pole stars, one for both northern and southern hemispheres.


I am sure.


Start from the top. Tell me how your model works with a literal rising and setting sun. It's your chance to shine!
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on January 11, 2017, 08:39:37 PM
Quote from: Croixalist
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: Croixalist
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Those scriptures above you posted about the sun are referring to the suns movement above the flat earth.


Ahr yoo shore abowt thad?

Then the Flat Earth Model you believe in has the sun actively rising and falling, not revolving above it as I've seen most of you posit. Of course this would not explain how the sun is seen around the world 24/7, unless you believed there was a hemisphere on the opposite side of the earth disk, but since the sun goes from east to west and not north to south or vice-versa, you can't neatly fold it along the equator. Not that that works either because as mentioned before you must contend with not one but two pole stars, one for both northern and southern hemispheres.


I am sure.


Start from the top. Tell me how your model works with a literal rising and setting sun. It's your chance to shine!


[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/p_9cFTQg7NE [/youtube]
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croixalist on January 11, 2017, 08:54:52 PM
Right, like mw2016, you also believe the sun does not literally rise nor literally set but merely emerges and fades from view because we can't just see far enough. What neither one of you has managed to understand is that your use of the Bible as literal in every single case, particularly in regards to the overall shape of the Sun and the Earth is faulty because there are at least 24 instances the Bible where the sun is described as "rising" "going down" or likewise setting. This is significant because your specific take on the FE does not accept this view, when by your own tortured Protestant logic it simply must be. God wouldn't lie about the movement of the Sun when He inspired those men to say "rising" and "going down", would He? Can you answer this honestly? Survey says no!
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on January 11, 2017, 09:02:15 PM
Quote from: Croixalist
Right, like mw2016, you also believe the sun does not literally rise nor literally set but merely emerges and fades from view because we can't just see far enough. What neither one of you has managed to understand is that your use of the Bible as literal in every single case, particularly in regards to the overall shape of the Sun and the Earth is faulty because there are at least 24 instances the Bible where the sun is described as "rising" "going down" or likewise setting. This is significant because your specific take on the FE does not accept this view, when by your own tortured Protestant logic it simply must be. God wouldn't lie about the movement of the Sun when He inspired those men to say "rising" and "going down", would He? Can you answer this honestly? Survey says no!


[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/XugZ9wGnk9M [/youtube]
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 11, 2017, 09:14:39 PM
Quote from: cassini
and now came the man who wrought it yet more deeply into European belief, the poet divinely inspired who made the system part of the world’s life. Pictured by Dante [in The Divine Comedy], the empyrean and the concentric heavens, paradise, purgatory, and hell, were seen by all;

 ‘Let us look into this vast creation – the highest achievement of theology – somewhat more closely. Its first feature shows a development out of earlier theological ideas. The earth is no longer a flat plain enclosed by four walls and solidly vaulted above, as theologians of previous centuries had believed it [sic], under the inspiration of Cosmas [Indicopleustes]; it is no longer a mere flat disk, with sun, moon, and stars hung up to give it light, as the earlier cathedral sculptors had figured it; it has become a globe at the centre of the universe.'



Quoing Dickson-White's opinions of Dante Alighieri's "Divine Comedy" and his illustrations of the universe is hardly compelling. The Bible, however, is compelling.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 11, 2017, 09:31:58 PM
Quote from: Croixalist
. God wouldn't lie about the movement of the Sun when He inspired those men to say "rising" and "going down", would He? Can you answer this honestly?


There is no contradiction whatsoever as God CANNOT deceive nor be deceived.

The sun LITERALLY rises and sets every day for every man at every point on the flat plane of the earth. This is LITERALLY what you - and every person - sees with your own eyes from where you are, at any location on the flat plane of the earth. As the sun approaches you on the East Coast, it rises. When the sun reaches Missouri, it rises. When the sun reaches Arizona, it rises. When the sun reaches California, it rises. The sun travels in a level path over the earth, and this phenomenon is easily duplicated by all aircraft when they fly overhead.

There is only One Person who could see the sun from ABOVE its circuit, and that is God Himself.

You - or any person - CANNOT EVER attain the altitude of the heavens in order to see the sun traverse the sky in its circuit above the earth because God will not allow it. You know this is true because the Bible tells us so in the story of Babel.

Honestly, the fact that a human being sitting down here on the flat plane was able to figure out how the laws of perspective work and was able to clearly illustrate it is genius, in my opinion.

God's design is simple and elegant, and exactly as described in Genesis.

It is NOT as described by the high priests of the religion of scientism.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 11, 2017, 09:41:01 PM
Quote from: Truth is Eternal


[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/p_9cFTQg7NE [/youtube]


This is such a fantastic, small scale, real world, easy-to-understand illustration of sunrise/sunset on the FE model and how it works.

Croixalist should be strapped to a chair and forced to watch it 100 times until he understands it.

It really is so very simple.

I fear people who cannot understand this concept are suffering some sort of willful blindness.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on January 11, 2017, 09:43:30 PM
Quote from: happenby
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: Croix de Fer


Look at you, FlatTard, demanding answers to questions after you never answered my questions, instead you posted links to frauds (pilots / submarine operators) filling a niche of the sensational to sell books and speeches.

Let us look up one of the synonyms to the word "circle". One synonym is "GLOBE", but nowhere is the word "flat" to be found.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/circle

You and the other FlatTards ignore the following that I stated because it exposes the fallacy of your positions:

Regarding Our Lady's warning about earthquakes to come, she say's "the EARTH's GLOBE will have convulsions and earthquakes." It makes absolutely no sense for FlatTards to refer to the sky (which is a "globe" according to them) as having earthquakes when, according to their "flat earth" theory, these "half globes" represent the sky above the earth and the domain, which consists of water or dust, below the earth's land mass and navigable waters, respectively.

In other words, these FlatTards are saying there will be earthquakes in the sky according to Our Lady. This is preposterous.

Our Lady is referring to the earth that we can see and upon that we physically live. It will have convulsions and earthquakes. She calls this land mass "the earth's globe".





He clearly does not understand the difference between a dictionary and a thesaurus and is having a really hard time with the definition of the word circle and compass.


So why does the thesaurus have "globe" as a synonym of "circle", but the word "flat" isn't mentioned? Is it because when a person looks at a circle, it appears round, just like the earth is round? Maybe this is what the Bible writers were conveying?  :scratchchin:

The word "flat" is a very simple word and concept to describe an object. Surely, the word existed in the Hebrew and Koine Greek language, so why didn't the Bible writers use it to describe the shape of the earth?  



Quote from: mw2016
I'm sorry God's Word is so disappointing to you, Croix.


So you're really saying you're happy that Satan's lies made you addicted to the sensational?  :shocked:



Quote from: mw2016
And what is this earthquake in the sky nonsense you keep babbling on about? No FE'er has said such a thing. You really need help.


According to FlatTardology, the message by Our Lady of La Salette states that the sky will have earthquakes, which is premised on your belief that the only (half) globe is the sky above the "flat" earth. Did you go to the Bozo School of Science or Theology?  :clown:


Never once did Our Lady say the earth's globe will have convulsions.  She talks only about the earth convulsing. More inaccuracies on top of more inaccuracies.


You're wrong, again, You obviously don't know the message of Our Lady of La Salette.

I've posted the link below. Scroll down a little past the middle point and read what she said:

"The seasons will be altered, the earth will produce nothing but bad fruit, the stars will lose their regular motion, and the moon will only reflect a faint reddish glow; water and fire will give the earth's globe convulsions and horrible earthquakes which will swallow up mountains, cities, etc."

http://www.salvemariaregina.info/SalveMariaRegina/SMR-171/LaSalette6.htm
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 11, 2017, 09:50:21 PM
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: Truth is Eternal


[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/p_9cFTQg7NE [/youtube]


This is such a fantastic, small scale, real world, easy-to-understand illustration of sunrise/sunset on the FE model and how it works.

Croixalist should be strapped to a chair and forced to watch it 100 times until he understands it.

It really is so very simple.

I fear people who cannot understand this concept are suffering some sort of willful blindness.


Also, his follow-up video is even more informative for those who still don't get it.


[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/gTzRvPyK2dY[/youtube]
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 11, 2017, 09:54:37 PM
More lessons for those who do not understand, salient point at 2:15 mark:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/Vq5ixQytLXE[/youtube]
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 11, 2017, 09:57:52 PM
Quote from: Croixalist

You'd be standing around for days because that's how long it takes for a sunspot to move across the face of the sun and yes, disappear from view.



I'm sure myself and happenby can school you on sunspots and how the face of the sun and moon move as they traverse the sky.

It will have to wait till tomorrow, as I have no more energy for casting pearls before swine this evening.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on January 11, 2017, 10:02:32 PM
Quote from: happenby
Quote from: Croix de Fer
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: Croix de Fer


Look at you, FlatTard, demanding answers to questions after you never answered my questions, instead you posted links to frauds (pilots / submarine operators) filling a niche of the sensational to sell books and speeches.

Let us look up one of the synonyms to the word "circle". One synonym is "GLOBE", but nowhere is the word "flat" to be found.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/circle

You and the other FlatTards ignore the following that I stated because it exposes the fallacy of your positions:

Regarding Our Lady's warning about earthquakes to come, she say's "the EARTH's GLOBE will have convulsions and earthquakes." It makes absolutely no sense for FlatTards to refer to the sky (which is a "globe" according to them) as having earthquakes when, according to their "flat earth" theory, these "half globes" represent the sky above the earth and the domain, which consists of water or dust, below the earth's land mass and navigable waters, respectively.

In other words, these FlatTards are saying there will be earthquakes in the sky according to Our Lady. This is preposterous.

Our Lady is referring to the earth that we can see and upon that we physically live. It will have convulsions and earthquakes. She calls this land mass "the earth's globe".








He clearly does not understand the difference between a dictionary and a thesaurus and is having a really hard time with the definition of the word circle and compass.


So why does the thesaurus have "globe" as a synonym of "circle", but the word "flat" isn't mentioned? Is it because when a person looks at a circle, it appears round, just like the earth is round? Maybe this is what the Bible writers were conveying?  :scratchchin:

The word "flat" is a very simple word and concept to describe an object. Surely, the word existed in the Hebrew and Koine Greek language, so why didn't the Bible writers use it to describe the shape of the earth?  



Quote from: mw2016
I'm sorry God's Word is so disappointing to you, Croix.


So you're really saying you're happy that Satan's lies made you addicted to the sensational?  :shocked:



Quote from: mw2016
And what is this earthquake in the sky nonsense you keep babbling on about? No FE'er has said such a thing. You really need help.


According to FlatTardology, the message by Our Lady of La Salette states that the sky will have earthquakes, which is premised on your belief that the only (half) globe is the sky above the "flat" earth. Did you go to the Bozo School of Science or Theology?  :clown:


Never once did Our Lady say the earth's globe will have convulsions.  She talks only about the earth convulsing. More inaccuracies on top of more inaccuracies.


You're wrong, again, You obviously don't know the message of Our Lady of La Salette.

I've posted the link below. Scroll down a little past the middle point and read what she said:

"The seasons will be altered, the earth will produce nothing but bad fruit, the stars will lose their regular motion, and the moon will only reflect a faint reddish glow; water and fire will give the earth's globe convulsions and horrible earthquakes which will swallow up mountains, cities, etc."  

http://www.salvemariaregina.info/SalveMariaRegina/SMR-171/LaSalette6.htm
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croixalist on January 12, 2017, 06:16:16 AM
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: Croixalist
Right, like mw2016, you also believe the sun does not literally rise nor literally set but merely emerges and fades from view because we can't just see far enough. What neither one of you has managed to understand is that your use of the Bible as literal in every single case, particularly in regards to the overall shape of the Sun and the Earth is faulty because there are at least 24 instances the Bible where the sun is described as "rising" "going down" or likewise setting. This is significant because your specific take on the FE does not accept this view, when by your own tortured Protestant logic it simply must be. God wouldn't lie about the movement of the Sun when He inspired those men to say "rising" and "going down", would He? Can you answer this honestly? Survey says no!


[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/XugZ9wGnk9M [/youtube]


Again, I know how you guys are accustomed to describing the Sun's orbit. There's no need to keep showing it. It's wrong, but let's focus on the point at hand. Your strict adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible in all things does not permit for this:

Quote from: mw2016

The sun LITERALLY rises and sets every day for every man at every point on the flat plane of the earth. This is LITERALLY what you - and every person - sees with your own eyes from where you are, at any location on the flat plane of the earth. As the sun approaches you on the East Coast, it rises. When the sun reaches Missouri, it rises. When the sun reaches Arizona, it rises. When the sun reaches California, it rises. The sun travels in a level path over the earth, and this phenomenon is easily duplicated by all aircraft when they fly overhead.


Why am I not surprised you guys don't have a proper grasp on the word "literal"? The sun rising and setting is literally not what is being seen, only the appearance thereof. In order for something to be literal it must be follow its definition strictly, regardless of context. Whether you admit to it or not, you are embracing a figurative expression. I picked this topic not only because I could accurately predict your stance on it, but also because it should be one of the only things we agree about. I didn't expect you would insist on "rising", "setting", "going down" as actually being literal, but that's what makes this hilarious, tragic, and infuriating all at the same time!

You've really painted yourself into a corner on this one. Speaking of corners, how about snatching some pics of those elusive "four corners of the Earth" in Revelation 7:1?

Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: Croixalist

You'd be standing around for days because that's how long it takes for a sunspot to move across the face of the sun and yes, disappear from view.


I'm sure myself and happenby can school you on sunspots and how the face of the sun and moon move as they traverse the sky.

It will have to wait till tomorrow, as I have no more energy for casting pearls before swine this evening.


The only thing you can school me in is how far your obstinance and hatred for rational thought goes. The tusks have already grown too far back into your cheeks on this one. I know you don't need an excuse to make proclamations the Church has not made on the subject and proof that isn't, but I'm in the mood to see you skewer yourself. By all means post your own footage. I can't wait!

:laugh2:
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: cassini on January 12, 2017, 08:13:01 AM
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: Truth is Eternal


[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/p_9cFTQg7NE [/youtube]


This is such a fantastic, small scale, real world, easy-to-understand illustration of sunrise/sunset on the FE model and how it works.

Croixalist should be strapped to a chair and forced to watch it 100 times until he understands it.

It really is so very simple.

I fear people who cannot understand this concept are suffering some sort of willful blindness.


Before I start could I ask if the combatants would stop using the like, no like buttons. Just because somebody disagrees with a post or agrees with one does not mean it should get a no like or like. That should only be used for exceptional posts for or against a subject under discussion.

Now back to your man at the table above with his sun object practically going around the earth at tree-top level to make the flat-earth day and night work.

First we must see if the sun is really so low above the earth that a few thousand miles of earth distance can cause day and night as illustrated in the video above.

‘In 1672 the astronomer Domenico Cassini took advantage of a good opposition of Mars to determine the distance between the Earth and that planet. He arranged for Jean Richer (1630-1696) to make measurements from his base in Cayenne, on the north eastern coast of South Africa, while Cassini made simultaneous measurements in Paris which permitted them to make a triangulation of Mars with a baseline of nearly 10,000 kilometres. This derived a good approximation for the distance between the Earth and Mars, from which Cassini was able to deduce many other astronomical distances. These included the Astronomical Unit [the distance of the sun from the earth] which Cassini found to be 138 million kilometres, only 11 million kilometres too little [that is, according to today’s proposed measurements].--- David Abbot: Astronomers, The Biographical Dictionary of Scientists, Blonde Educational, 1984, p.35.  

The only way day and night can occur if the sun is that distance away above the earth is by way of a globe that has part of the earth blocked from the sun's light.

Now what does constitute PROOF for something or FALSIFICATION for something is MATHS. The above day and night scenarios can be brought down to a geometric conflict needing to be solved. Anyone care to work out this important solution to a globe or flat earth?

 
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on January 12, 2017, 09:10:29 AM
Quote from: Croixalist
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: Croixalist
Right, like mw2016, you also believe the sun does not literally rise nor literally set but merely emerges and fades from view because we can't just see far enough. What neither one of you has managed to understand is that your use of the Bible as literal in every single case, particularly in regards to the overall shape of the Sun and the Earth is faulty because there are at least 24 instances the Bible where the sun is described as "rising" "going down" or likewise setting. This is significant because your specific take on the FE does not accept this view, when by your own tortured Protestant logic it simply must be. God wouldn't lie about the movement of the Sun when He inspired those men to say "rising" and "going down", would He? Can you answer this honestly? Survey says no!


[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/XugZ9wGnk9M [/youtube]


Again, I know how you guys are accustomed to describing the Sun's orbit. There's no need to keep showing it. It's wrong, but let's focus on the point at hand. Your strict adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible in all things does not permit for this:

Quote from: mw2016

The sun LITERALLY rises and sets every day for every man at every point on the flat plane of the earth. This is LITERALLY what you - and every person - sees with your own eyes from where you are, at any location on the flat plane of the earth. As the sun approaches you on the East Coast, it rises. When the sun reaches Missouri, it rises. When the sun reaches Arizona, it rises. When the sun reaches California, it rises. The sun travels in a level path over the earth, and this phenomenon is easily duplicated by all aircraft when they fly overhead.


Why am I not surprised you guys don't have a proper grasp on the word "literal"? The sun rising and setting is literally not what is being seen, only the appearance thereof. In order for something to be literal it must be follow its definition strictly, regardless of context. Whether you admit to it or not, you are embracing a figurative expression. I picked this topic not only because I could accurately predict your stance on it, but also because it should be one of the only things we agree about. I didn't expect you would insist on "rising", "setting", "going down" as actually being literal, but that's what makes this hilarious, tragic, and infuriating all at the same time!

You've really painted yourself into a corner on this one. Speaking of corners, how about snatching some pics of those elusive "four corners of the Earth" in Revelation 7:1?

Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: Croixalist

You'd be standing around for days because that's how long it takes for a sunspot to move across the face of the sun and yes, disappear from view.


I'm sure myself and happenby can school you on sunspots and how the face of the sun and moon move as they traverse the sky.

It will have to wait till tomorrow, as I have no more energy for casting pearls before swine this evening.


The only thing you can school me in is how far your obstinance and hatred for rational thought goes. The tusks have already grown too far back into your cheeks on this one. I know you don't need an excuse to make proclamations the Church has not made on the subject and proof that isn't, but I'm in the mood to see you skewer yourself. By all means post your own footage. I can't wait!

:laugh2:


The earth does not rise and set; the flat earth is literally stationary.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 12, 2017, 09:36:19 AM
Quote from: cassini

The only way day and night can occur if the sun is that distance away above the earth is by way of a globe that has part of the earth blocked from the sun's light.



 


The only way for your proposition to work is if you think Einstein is correct and that light rays are infinite and can travel over infinite distances.

But, Einstein was wrong and light rays cannot travel over infinite distances.

The division between day and night occur because the throw of light upon the flat plane has a limit.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 12, 2017, 10:07:55 AM
The first mistake, made by cassini and all others who object to flat earth, must be corrected, and it is this:

The earth is NOT a planet.    


The earth is NOT a celestial body.

The heavenly bodies exist in the HEAVENS and are distinct in type and character from the earth.

There is no evidence to ASSUME that they are the same.

This is in the Bible.

Therefore, just because the moon is a ball, it does not follow to believe the earth is a ball.

The Church objected to this notion most strenuously when Galileo began his talk of heliocentrism.

Why did the Church object?

Because heliocentrism made the earth into one of many PLANETS.

It made the earth into a celestial body.

If the Church accepted that the earth was just another celestial body, it would be damaging to the faith.

This is precisely the reason why cassini (and Sungenis's) version of geocentrism, which accepts the earth as a celestial body and merely swaps the position of the sun and earth at the center, is in ERROR.

Cardinal Bellarmine argued that Galileo's ideas would have dreadful consequences and that science must conform to Scripture, not the other way around.

If the earth is a planet, this "vitiates the whole plan of Christian salvation" and "casts suspicion on the doctrine of the Incarnation."

If the earth is a planet, "it upsets the whole basis of theology."

If "the earth is a planet, and only one among several planets, it cannot be that any great such things have been donespecially for it as Christian doctrine teaches. If there are other planets, since God makes nothing in vain, they must be inhabited; but how can their inhabitants be descended from Adam? How can they trace back their origin to Noah's Ark? How can they have been redeemed by the Savior?"

All the above quotes were made at the Inquisition into Galileo's heresy.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 12, 2017, 10:24:54 AM
It is worth noting that besides the fact that there are ZERO references into the Bible of the earth as being a globe, or a ball, that the earth is referred to as a "footstool" of the Lord.

Think about that.

This is because God the Father is seated on His throne.

The earth is His footstool.

A footstool is a FLAT surface with four pillars. What a coincidence that Genesis describes the earth as such!

Can you place your feet on a ball-shaped footstool? No, you cannot.

Quote
"Thus saith the Lord: Heaven is My throne and the earth My footstool: what is this house that you will build to me? and what is this place of My rest? My hand made all these things, and all these things were made, saith the Lord." Isaiah 66:1-2

"But I say to you not to swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool." Matthew 5:34
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 12, 2017, 12:16:50 PM
Quote from: Croixalist
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Those scriptures above you posted about the sun are referring to the suns movement above the flat earth.


Ahr yoo shore abowt thad?

Then the Flat Earth Model you believe in has the sun actively rising and falling, not revolving above it as I've seen most of you posit. Of course this would not explain how the sun is seen around the world 24/7, unless you believed there was a hemisphere on the opposite side of the earth disk, but since the sun goes from east to west and not north to south or vice-versa, you can't neatly fold it along the equator. Not that that works either because as mentioned before you must contend with not one but two pole stars, one for both northern and southern hemispheres.


You haven't seen me posit that.  I believe as Enoch and Cosmas described the sun's movement.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 12, 2017, 12:22:39 PM
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: Croixalist

You'd be standing around for days because that's how long it takes for a sunspot to move across the face of the sun and yes, disappear from view.



I'm sure myself and happenby can school you on sunspots and how the face of the sun and moon move as they traverse the sky.

It will have to wait till tomorrow, as I have no more energy for casting pearls before swine this evening.


Wheels in the sky keep on turning... :laugh1:
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 12, 2017, 12:28:26 PM
When God says this:
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 12, 2017, 12:29:45 PM
...Why do people think this?
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 12, 2017, 12:33:32 PM
If, in the first picture this is sunrise and sunset on a ball...
Why do we see whats in the next picture?
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 12, 2017, 12:50:19 PM
Lets clear up something once and for all, shall we?

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
 
Isaiah 22: 18 He will crown thee with a crown of tribulation, he will toss thee like a ball into a large and spacious country: there shalt thou die, and there shall the chariot of thy glory be, the shame of the house of thy Lord.



Now, since there is definitely a word for 'ball', and another for 'circle', then Isaiah 40:22 cannot possibly be saying earth is a ball.

 :heretic:


Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 12, 2017, 01:56:05 PM
Quote from: happenby
Lets clear up something once and for all, shall we?

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
 
Isaiah 22: 18 He will crown thee with a crown of tribulation, he will toss thee like a ball into a large and spacious country: there shalt thou die, and there shall the chariot of thy glory be, the shame of the house of thy Lord.



Now, since there is definitely a word for 'ball', and another for 'circle', then Isaiah 40:22 cannot possibly be saying earth is a ball.

 :heretic:




Thanks for making the distinction.

The Latin word for ball is "pilam."

Isaiah 40:22 does NOT say He sitteth above the 'pilam.'

Here's Isaiah 22:18:

Quote
He will crown thee with a crown of tribulation, he will toss thee like a ball into a large and spacious country: there shalt thou die, and there shall the chariot of thy glory be, the shame of the house of thy Lord.

Coronas cornonabit te tribulatione; quasi pilam mittet te in terram latam et spatiosam; ibi morieris, et ibi erit currus gloriae tuae, ignominia domus domini tui.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 12, 2017, 02:09:10 PM
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: happenby
Lets clear up something once and for all, shall we?

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
 
Isaiah 22: 18 He will crown thee with a crown of tribulation, he will toss thee like a ball into a large and spacious country: there shalt thou die, and there shall the chariot of thy glory be, the shame of the house of thy Lord.



Now, since there is definitely a word for 'ball', and another for 'circle', then Isaiah 40:22 cannot possibly be saying earth is a ball.

 :heretic:




Thanks for making the distinction.

The Latin word for ball is "pilam."

Isaiah 40:22 does NOT say He sitteth above the 'pilam.'

Here's Isaiah 22:18:

Quote
He will crown thee with a crown of tribulation, he will toss thee like a ball into a large and spacious country: there shalt thou die, and there shall the chariot of thy glory be, the shame of the house of thy Lord.

Coronas cornonabit te tribulatione; quasi pilam mittet te in terram latam et spatiosam; ibi morieris, et ibi erit currus gloriae tuae, ignominia domus domini tui.



Mic drop
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croixalist on January 12, 2017, 04:56:26 PM
Quote from: happenby
Quote from: Croixalist
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Those scriptures above you posted about the sun are referring to the suns movement above the flat earth.


Ahr yoo shore abowt thad?

Then the Flat Earth Model you believe in has the sun actively rising and falling, not revolving above it as I've seen most of you posit. Of course this would not explain how the sun is seen around the world 24/7, unless you believed there was a hemisphere on the opposite side of the earth disk, but since the sun goes from east to west and not north to south or vice-versa, you can't neatly fold it along the equator. Not that that works either because as mentioned before you must contend with not one but two pole stars, one for both northern and southern hemispheres.


You haven't seen me posit that.  I believe as Enoch and Cosmas described the sun's movement.


Well then I suppose you could respond to what applies to you. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Quote from: Truth is Eternal
The earth does not rise and set; the flat earth is literally stationary.


That's good because I'm talking about the Sun.

 :facepalm:

Still waiting for mw2016 amazing sunspot demonstration, her pics of the four corners of the Earth, and any one of you to be honest that your absolute literal approach to Holy Scripture as a dead end.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on January 12, 2017, 10:27:22 PM
Such foolishness...

Quote from: mw2016

It is worth noting that besides the fact that there are ZERO references into the Bible of the earth as being a globe, or a ball, that the earth is referred to as a "footstool" of the Lord.

Think about that. This is because God the Father is seated on His throne. The earth is His footstool. A footstool is a FLAT surface with four pillars. What a coincidence that Genesis describes the earth as such!

Can you place your feet on a ball-shaped footstool?

No, you cannot.


I cannot??

(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.gettyimages.com%2Fvideos%2Flow-angle-medium-shot-senior-man-sitting-under-umbrella-beach-chair-video-id767-29%3Fs%3D640x640&sp=65f707293eee65d5133543e3cd490c98)

How about that?!

Any more absurdities to offer...

Next?

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on January 12, 2017, 10:43:43 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Such foolishness...

Quote from: mw2016

It is worth noting that besides the fact that there are ZERO references into the Bible of the earth as being a globe, or a ball, that the earth is referred to as a "footstool" of the Lord.

Think about that. This is because God the Father is seated on His throne. The earth is His footstool. A footstool is a FLAT surface with four pillars. What a coincidence that Genesis describes the earth as such!

Can you place your feet on a ball-shaped footstool?

No, you cannot.


I cannot??

(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.gettyimages.com%2Fvideos%2Flow-angle-medium-shot-senior-man-sitting-under-umbrella-beach-chair-video-id767-29%3Fs%3D640x640&sp=65f707293eee65d5133543e3cd490c98)

How about that?!

Any more absurdities to offer...

Next?



That is a ball. A footstool in the Holy Bible is never referred to as a ball.  :fryingpan:
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 12, 2017, 11:44:23 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Such foolishness...

Quote from: mw2016

It is worth noting that besides the fact that there are ZERO references into the Bible of the earth as being a globe, or a ball, that the earth is referred to as a "footstool" of the Lord.

Think about that. This is because God the Father is seated on His throne. The earth is His footstool. A footstool is a FLAT surface with four pillars. What a coincidence that Genesis describes the earth as such!

Can you place your feet on a ball-shaped footstool?

No, you cannot.


I cannot??

(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.gettyimages.com%2Fvideos%2Flow-angle-medium-shot-senior-man-sitting-under-umbrella-beach-chair-video-id767-29%3Fs%3D640x640&sp=65f707293eee65d5133543e3cd490c98)

How about that?!

Any more absurdities to offer...

Next?



All those people in Canada are getting squashed!
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croixalist on January 13, 2017, 07:21:29 AM
Let it be known: Yesterday came and went without any Miracle of the Sunspots by our Lippy of Flatima 2017.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on January 13, 2017, 08:17:04 AM
Regarding Our Lady of Fatima, and the Miracle of the Sun, I have to wonder if maybe a flat earth model fits better with the circuмstances of the Miracle of the Sun.

According to those many faithful who were at the Cova, they observed that the sun appeared to be hurling at them, and they were afraid that it was going to fall to earth. In a flat earth model (if I'm recalling correctly) the sun is closer to the earth in proximity.

However, if the sun is as far away as a ball-earth theory supposes, then I think that it would be difficult to have the same effect of the appearance of coming so close to earth, and the temperature rising, and everything in the vicinity drying out suddenly after it rained. I could be wrong.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croixalist on January 13, 2017, 09:18:14 AM
Quote from: Meg
Regarding Our Lady of Fatima, and the Miracle of the Sun, I have to wonder if maybe a flat earth model fits better with the circuмstances of the Miracle of the Sun.

According to those many faithful who were at the Cova, they observed that the sun appeared to be hurling at them, and they were afraid that it was going to fall to earth. In a flat earth model (if I'm recalling correctly) the sun is closer to the earth in proximity.

However, if the sun is as far away as a ball-earth theory supposes, then I think that it would be difficult to have the same effect of the appearance of coming so close to earth, and the temperature rising, and everything in the vicinity drying out suddenly after it rained. I could be wrong.



Here's the thing about miracles: they don't obey the laws of nature. Hence, the word "miracle". Also a great reason why you cannot deduce natural laws from them.

One thing to ponder about the Miracle of the Sun was that for the rest of the world, the Sun was perfectly normal. Does it mean there were two Suns? Was one real and the other an illusion? At a certain point, the power of God is irreducible and unexplainable, it just is. It wouldn't be quite so wonderful if we could explain how it came to be.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 13, 2017, 09:38:06 AM
Quote from: Croixalist
Let it be known: Yesterday came and went without any Miracle of the Sunspots by our Lippy of Flatima 2017.


Calm down, Frenchie, I'm a busy girl.

It is very time consuming trying to teach you ba'al earthers who cannot see God's design.

So, the sun and the moon do NOT rotate on their axis, the y-axis.

The priests of scientism claim that the moon does not rotate because it is "tidally locked" to earth.

The priests of scientism do claim that the sun rotates upon its axis, but absurdly, they claim it rotates at a different speed at its poles than in the middle.

It does not do this.

What the sun and moon, and the other planets, actually do is rotate about their center in a clockwise direction, as the motion of a spoked wheel on a carriage, as it traverses the sky every day/night from east to west, from rise to set.

Happenby and I did an experiment in December and verified this. You all can even observe it for yourself.

The moon has distinguishable features on its face that allow you to observe this "cartwheel" effect. The moon also has a shadow during its crescent of half-moon phases that allow you to observe the cartwheel effect. The moon's features rotate clockwise about 100 degrees each night from rise to set, and the moon's shadow rotates nearly 180 degrees from rise to set.

The sun has distinguishable features (sunspots) which show that it does not rotate upon its axis, but that it also "cartwheels" across the sky. See the attached video, which shows two sets of sunpots rotate from the 1 o'clock position on its face to the 4 o'clock position, and from the 7 o'clock to the 10 o'clock position, at the 2:15 mark.

Even the ancients knew this phenomenon to be true, as it is written about in the Book of Enoch, and the Bronze Age (2700 B.C.) Trundholm Horse that was found in Denmark illustrate the cartwheel effect. The Trundholm Horse is actually a very sophisticated astronomical calendar.

The planets with distinguishing features, such as Jupiter and Saturn, also show the "cartwheel effect." See attached photo.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/tpU6lStM_pk[/youtube]

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/07/30/trundholm-sun-chariot-nordic-bronze-age-artifact-discovered-denmark/

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 13, 2017, 09:45:11 AM
Quote from: Meg
Regarding Our Lady of Fatima, and the Miracle of the Sun, I have to wonder if maybe a flat earth model fits better with the circuмstances of the Miracle of the Sun.

According to those many faithful who were at the Cova, they observed that the sun appeared to be hurling at them, and they were afraid that it was going to fall to earth. In a flat earth model (if I'm recalling correctly) the sun is closer to the earth in proximity.

However, if the sun is as far away as a ball-earth theory supposes, then I think that it would be difficult to have the same effect of the appearance of coming so close to earth, and the temperature rising, and everything in the vicinity drying out suddenly after it rained.




DING! DING! DING!

We have a winner!
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 13, 2017, 09:48:02 AM
Quote
The Trundholm sun chariot is a Nordic Bronze Age artifact discovered in Denmark. It is a representation of the sun chariot, a bronze statue of a horse and a large bronze disk, which are placed on a device with spoked wheels.

The sculpture was discovered with no accompanying objects in 1902 in a peat bog on the Trundholm moor in West Zealand County, on the northwest coast of the island of Zealand (Sjælland) in Denmark, in a region known as Odsherred.

The sculpture is dated by National Museum of Denmark to about 1800 to 1600 BC, though other dates have been suggested. Unfortunately it was found before pollen-dating was developed, which would have enabled a more confident dating.

A model of a horse-drawn vehicle on spoked wheels in Northern Europe at such an early time is surprising; they would not be expected to appear until the end of the Late Bronze Age, which ranges from 1100 BC to 550 BC. This and aspects of the decoration may suggest a Danubian origin or influence in the object, although the National Museum is confident it is of Nordic origin.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on January 13, 2017, 09:48:36 AM
Quote from: Croixalist
Quote from: Meg
Regarding Our Lady of Fatima, and the Miracle of the Sun, I have to wonder if maybe a flat earth model fits better with the circuмstances of the Miracle of the Sun.

According to those many faithful who were at the Cova, they observed that the sun appeared to be hurling at them, and they were afraid that it was going to fall to earth. In a flat earth model (if I'm recalling correctly) the sun is closer to the earth in proximity.

However, if the sun is as far away as a ball-earth theory supposes, then I think that it would be difficult to have the same effect of the appearance of coming so close to earth, and the temperature rising, and everything in the vicinity drying out suddenly after it rained. I could be wrong.



Here's the thing about miracles: they don't obey the laws of nature. Hence, the word "miracle". Also a great reason why you cannot deduce natural laws from them.

One thing to ponder about the Miracle of the Sun was that for the rest of the world, the Sun was perfectly normal. Does it mean there were two Suns? Was one real and the other an illusion? At a certain point, the power of God is irreducible and unexplainable, it just is. It wouldn't be quite so wonderful if we could explain how it came to be.


The miracle of the sun happened right above the flat earth. It was the sun which appeared to fall towards the flat earth. 70,000 people witnessed the Miracle of the Sun. The flat earth remained flat the whole time and still to this day, the earth has remained flat. God has not suspended the laws of nature to turn the flat earth He created, into a ball.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 13, 2017, 09:49:58 AM
The Trundholm Horse
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on January 13, 2017, 10:14:20 AM
Quote from: Croixalist
[Here's the thing about miracles: they don't obey the laws of nature. Hence, the word "miracle". Also a great reason why you cannot deduce natural laws from them.

One thing to ponder about the Miracle of the Sun was that for the rest of the world, the Sun was perfectly normal. Does it mean there were two Suns? Was one real and the other an illusion? At a certain point, the power of God is irreducible and unexplainable, it just is. It wouldn't be quite so wonderful if we could explain how it came to be.


True...miracles don't obey the laws of nature. But God is the author of those laws, and I would think that miracles have to follow natural laws to a certain extent, even though they may, to a certain extent, be outside of them. Apologies if that doesn't make sense. I know I'm not explaining it very well.

God's power isn't completely irreducible and unexplainable. I have no idea how it is that the rest of the world saw it as normal. We can't explain everything. But it seems more plausible to me that a flat earth model lends itself to the Miracle of the Sun better than the ball-earth theory.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on January 13, 2017, 10:35:51 AM
When I worked in health care, about 12 years ago, I was assigned to sit with a patient in the hospital who was a little confused and had the habit of jumping out of bed to go to the bathroom, and thus pulling out his IV line. He was elderly, and a retired NASA engineer. I sat with him for two days - two eight hour shifts. He told me that he knew things about NASA that no one would believe. The main thing, according to the retired NASA engineer, was that NASA was involved in was gun-running. They used the rail system and the Gulf to run the guns. No one would question freight that was labeled "NASA." That's how they were able to get away with it. That patient seemed very sincere to me. That's why I think that NASA is up to no good. That's not proof that they are lying about the earth being flat. It's just proof to me that NASA is not what it makes itself out to be.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 13, 2017, 12:17:00 PM
Quote from: Meg
Quote from: Croixalist
[Here's the thing about miracles: they don't obey the laws of nature. Hence, the word "miracle". Also a great reason why you cannot deduce natural laws from them.

One thing to ponder about the Miracle of the Sun was that for the rest of the world, the Sun was perfectly normal. Does it mean there were two Suns? Was one real and the other an illusion? At a certain point, the power of God is irreducible and unexplainable, it just is. It wouldn't be quite so wonderful if we could explain how it came to be.


True...miracles don't obey the laws of nature. But God is the author of those laws, and I would think that miracles have to follow natural laws to a certain extent, even though they may, to a certain extent, be outside of them. Apologies if that doesn't make sense. I know I'm not explaining it very well.

God's power isn't completely irreducible and unexplainable. I have no idea how it is that the rest of the world saw it as normal. We can't explain everything. But it seems more plausible to me that a flat earth model lends itself to the Miracle of the Sun better than the ball-earth theory.


Great insight.  In fact, it is interesting that God chose to move the sun at Fatima.  As if he were trying to tell the people of the age that its the sun that moves, not earth.   As if a dancing sun isn't miracle enough, God does maintain certain restraint in His miracles, as if to respect His own laws, yet suspends those necessary.  Also, the local, small sun is much more in keeping with the seers in a certain region such as Fatima.  Who knows, maybe it was raining for adjoining areas, or just overcast. Or, God just manifested the miracle for one region.  Our Lady wasn't audible to Francisco, so were there two ladies, one who can talk, one who is silent?  One who was audible, one not? Obviously, there are not two suns.  This is the kind of mind-bending unbelievers like to engage in.   Fatima remains a phenomenon of geocentric flat earth and a proof against Heliocentrism.    
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 13, 2017, 12:34:58 PM
Quote from: Meg
When I worked in health care, about 12 years ago, I was assigned to sit with a patient in the hospital who was a little confused and had the habit of jumping out of bed to go to the bathroom, and thus pulling out his IV line. He was elderly, and a retired NASA engineer. I sat with him for two days - two eight hour shifts. He told me that he knew things about NASA that no one would believe. The main thing, according to the retired NASA engineer, was that NASA was involved in was gun-running. They used the rail system and the Gulf to run the guns. No one would question freight that was labeled "NASA." That's how they were able to get away with it. That patient seemed very sincere to me. That's why I think that NASA is up to no good. That's not proof that they are lying about the earth being flat. It's just proof to me that NASA is not what it makes itself out to be.


This is even more fodder for the fire. I can see the possibilities.  I met a flat earth gal online who worked for NASA and she explained how compartmentalized the organization is.

That NASA is not what it says it is has been proven over and over again.  With a budget of twenty billion dollars a year, all they provide is photo-shopped images and cartoons? Where's the money going?  Although it is true that not all employees of the organization are in on this ginormous Scam, NASA was born of nαzι war criminals right out of World War II.  As was JPL. Even Walt Disney, a 33rd degree mason and friend of Wernher Von Braun, was part of this new age cult-of-man in order to indoctrinate and bring about the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. That these and other organizations were designed for indoctrination and manipulation is little disputed because so much information about them and their creators is now exposed.  
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 13, 2017, 12:40:39 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Such foolishness...

Quote from: mw2016

It is worth noting that besides the fact that there are ZERO references into the Bible of the earth as being a globe, or a ball, that the earth is referred to as a "footstool" of the Lord.

Think about that. This is because God the Father is seated on His throne. The earth is His footstool. A footstool is a FLAT surface with four pillars. What a coincidence that Genesis describes the earth as such!

Can you place your feet on a ball-shaped footstool?

No, you cannot.


I cannot??

(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.gettyimages.com%2Fvideos%2Flow-angle-medium-shot-senior-man-sitting-under-umbrella-beach-chair-video-id767-29%3Fs%3D640x640&sp=65f707293eee65d5133543e3cd490c98)

How about that?!

Any more absurdities to offer...

Next?



When you can't win the argument resort to absurdity.  Clever? No. Just ineffective.  
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 13, 2017, 12:42:24 PM
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Such foolishness...

Quote from: mw2016

It is worth noting that besides the fact that there are ZERO references into the Bible of the earth as being a globe, or a ball, that the earth is referred to as a "footstool" of the Lord.

Think about that. This is because God the Father is seated on His throne. The earth is His footstool. A footstool is a FLAT surface with four pillars. What a coincidence that Genesis describes the earth as such!

Can you place your feet on a ball-shaped footstool?

No, you cannot.


I cannot??

(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.gettyimages.com%2Fvideos%2Flow-angle-medium-shot-senior-man-sitting-under-umbrella-beach-chair-video-id767-29%3Fs%3D640x640&sp=65f707293eee65d5133543e3cd490c98)

How about that?!

Any more absurdities to offer...

Next?



All those people in Canada are getting squashed!


Maybe this is why they call earth an oblate spheroid?  :laugh2:
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 13, 2017, 12:48:06 PM
Still waiting for proof of the curve.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 13, 2017, 01:01:46 PM
Flat earth photo I saw this morning. Notice the light beams illuminated by the ice crystals go straight up and down, not out in every direction.

https://imgur.com/a/3HBQC
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 13, 2017, 01:19:59 PM
Quote from: mw2016
Flat earth photo I saw this morning. Notice the light beams illuminated by the ice crystals go straight up and down, not out in every direction.

https://imgur.com/a/3HBQC


Unlike the angled rays that come down and come directly from a visible sun that is small and local. Fascinating. This shot is gorgeous.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on January 13, 2017, 02:50:45 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Such foolishness...

Quote from: mw2016

It is worth noting that besides the fact that there are ZERO references into the Bible of the earth as being a globe, or a ball, that the earth is referred to as a "footstool" of the Lord.

Think about that. This is because God the Father is seated on His throne. The earth is His footstool. A footstool is a FLAT surface with four pillars. What a coincidence that Genesis describes the earth as such!

Can you place your feet on a ball-shaped footstool?

No, you cannot.


I cannot??

(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.gettyimages.com%2Fvideos%2Flow-angle-medium-shot-senior-man-sitting-under-umbrella-beach-chair-video-id767-29%3Fs%3D640x640&sp=65f707293eee65d5133543e3cd490c98)

How about that?!

Any more absurdities to offer...

Next?



Neil doesn't like the reality of a traditional footstool so He had NASA make him an exercise ball instead.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croixalist on January 13, 2017, 03:18:07 PM
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: Croixalist
Let it be known: Yesterday came and went without any Miracle of the Sunspots by our Lippy of Flatima 2017.


Calm down, Frenchie, I'm a busy girl.

It is very time consuming trying to teach you ba'al earthers who cannot see God's design.

The planets with distinguishing features, such as Jupiter and Saturn, also show the "cartwheel effect." See attached photo.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/tpU6lStM_pk[/youtube]


A day late, a dollar short, and this is dumber than a bag of rocks.

The problem with this observation is that the observer has not taken care to fix their orientation. The first hint is that that the sunspot in question is the same distance away from the outer edge no matter what time of day it is.

Most folks don't take into account that when we see the Sun rise, what we're actually seeing is the side of the sun with the horizon cutting through the north/south axis. This is a problem because when we look at the Sun we automatically tend to adjust for the horizon it's nearest to.  The easiest way to fix one's perspective is to lay down in a north-to-south position while following the Sun as it crosses over from east to west. In conclusion, your "cartwheel effect" is created when you keep turning your body to look at the sun with the horizon below it.    

Here's an experiment you can do at home to replicate this effect easily.
1. Take two pieces of paper.
2. Assign a "N", "S", "E", "W" for each of the four sides of each paper.
3. Draw a circle in the center of each paper, same approximate size. These will be your suns at sunrise and at sunset.
4. Draw a cross inside both suns to evenly divide them into 4 sections each.
5. Place a dot on the same spot in both suns within the same quadrant of your choosing. This is the position of your sunspot.
6. Take one of the suns and place it on the floor propped up (or taped) to a wall with the "W" side on the bottom, "E" side on top.
7. Take the other sun and go to the wall directly opposite and do the same thing only with the "E" side on the bottom, "W" side on the top.
8. Lay down on the floor between them so that your body is parallel to the North/South axis.
9. Turn your head to the sun on the left, then turn to the one on the right. The sunspot should be in the same place.
10. Now lay down with so that one of the suns is under your feet, with the other directly above your head. For this step, place a pillow under your head.
11. Look down at the first sun then look straight up (without craning your neck, use the pillow to cushion your head) at the second sun. Again, the sunspot should be in the same place.
12. Finally, to replicate the results of your Youtube video and how most of us instinctually view the sun rising and setting, stand up and face one sun, then turn around 180 degrees and look at the other. The sunspots will be in reverse positions.



Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 13, 2017, 06:49:06 PM
Quote from: Croixalist

Here's an experiment you can do at home to replicate this effect easily.
1. Take two pieces of paper.
2. Assign a "N", "S", "E", "W" for each of the four sides of each paper.
3. Draw a circle in the center of each paper, same approximate size. These will be your suns at sunrise and at sunset.
4. Draw a cross inside both suns to evenly divide them into 4 sections each.
5. Place a dot on the same spot in both suns within the same quadrant of your choosing. This is the position of your sunspot.
6. Take one of the suns and place it on the floor propped up (or taped) to a wall with the "W" side on the bottom, "E" side on top.
7. Take the other sun and go to the wall directly opposite and do the same thing only with the "E" side on the bottom, "W" side on the top.
8. Lay down on the floor between them so that your body is parallel to the North/South axis.
9. Turn your head to the sun on the left, then turn to the one on the right. The sunspot should be in the same place.
10. Now lay down with so that one of the suns is under your feet, with the other directly above your head. For this step, place a pillow under your head.
11. Look down at the first sun then look straight up (without craning your neck, use the pillow to cushion your head) at the second sun. Again, the sunspot should be in the same place.
12. Finally, to replicate the results of your Youtube video and how most of us instinctually view the sun rising and setting, stand up and face one sun, then turn around 180 degrees and look at the other. The sunspots will be in reverse positions.



How utterly arrogant to pretend you could give advice on an experiment you've never even done.

Since we have actually done it, we proved that everything you wrote above is false. As did the people posting the same experiments on youtube.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 14, 2017, 01:07:58 PM
So far, I've not seen one proof for round earth that holds up to scrutiny, yet they claim 50.  No empirical proof.  No verifiable experiments. No personal hands on. No scriptural proof.  No saints. No Fathers of the Church.  Just lots of talk, parroting and videos supporting NASA, a freemasonic institution bent on destruction of the sciences.  The answer is obvious.  Earth is not a globe.  
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croixalist on January 15, 2017, 03:09:18 AM
Quote from: mw2016
How utterly arrogant to pretend you could give advice on an experiment you've never even done.


It's called providing an alternative interpretation of your results, which people who are accustomed to making experiments actively try to control against. To address my criticisms, the horizons could be aligned so that:

-One pair has the horizon on the left of the Sun at sunrise and to the right at sunset.
-Another pair could have the horizon below the Sun at dawn, but above it at dusk... or vice versa, it would matter as long as the perspective is fixed on the Sun itself, not the horizon.

I just found this video which illustrates my point splendidly, albeit adjusted for the tilts of both Sun and Earth which is why the horizon doesn't perfectly bisect the Sun's axis.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/l4nxjfgleck[/youtube]

Now compare your clip which follows the Sun for a few hours on 12/23/2015 to a continuous shot of the Sun here at 0:55-1:03 and 03:49-03:59:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/7HIKdK-00pA[/youtube]

You will find the approximate position of the sunspots match up with the (gasp) Nasa footage past midday when the north/south axis of the sun is most parallel to our own.

Quote from: mw2016
Since we have actually done it, we proved that everything you wrote above is false. As did the people posting the same experiments on youtube.


Unwarranted self-congratulation. Let's talk about what you have actually proven. You don't have a mental filter to challenge ideas when they come to you, you don't seem to be able to logically process information once you assent to it, and your lack of ability to accept criticism and reply with a valid counterargument translates to making declarative statements, usually in the form of pejoratives or flat denials. You have difficulty with the basic meanings of certain words, such as "literal". And finally, you insist on telling Catholics that they are occult worshippers of the Sun because they don't agree with your half-baked theories of the natural world.

You have the mind of a petulant child, the mouth of a freshly grounded teenager, and if it weren't for your inability to handle yourself like an adult I'd think someone was paying you for the sheer amount of posts on this topic since you joined up last year.

If you want to try another experiment, try this:
1. Take a paperbag.
2. Draw a frowny face on it.
3. Place it over your head.
4. Stand in a corner.
5. Say "I will never compare another Catholic to a Baal worshipper over something as ridiculous as Geocentrism/Heliocentrism or Round Earth/Flat Earth."
6. Say "I will not post online until I go to confession and consult my priest."
7. Say the Rosary.
8. Repeat as many times as necessary until the urge to post on this topic leaves you.

You'll thank me later.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 15, 2017, 02:17:42 PM
Quote from: Croixalist

You have the mind of a petulant child, the mouth of a freshly grounded teenager, and if it weren't for your inability to handle yourself like an adult I'd think someone was paying you for the sheer amount of posts on this topic since you joined up last year.

If you want to try another experiment, try this:
1. Take a paperbag.
2. Draw a frowny face on it.
3. Place it over your head.
4. Stand in a corner.
5. Say "I will never compare another Catholic to a Baal worshipper over something as ridiculous as Geocentrism/Heliocentrism or Round Earth/Flat Earth."
6. Say "I will not post online until I go to confession and consult my priest."
7. Say the Rosary.
8. Repeat as many times as necessary until the urge to post on this topic leaves you.

You'll thank me later.


This is an amazing piece of self-description you have written!

Truly, the only petulant child in the flat earth argument is yourself, because you have no arguments whatsoever.

This is the sad fact that you simply cannot escape.

Choose to disregard the Bible verse, choose to disregard the math, choose to insult me for being a woman, but the one FACT that you cannot get around is that there are no indicators nor any photographs of ANY curvature of the earth whatsoever.

None.

There are literally thousands upon thousands of beautiful photos of the flat plane of the earth and not a single solitary photograph of any curvature or any photo that shows the earth to be a ball.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 15, 2017, 02:47:57 PM
Quote from: Croixalist




[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/l4nxjfgleck[/youtube]



I'm going to be charitable, and ASSUME that you believe at the very in least in the geocentric, stationary, un-moving earth of the Bible.

Therefore, the video you have posted is an idiotic attempt to refute the change of position of sunspots in the course of a day as it crosses the sky BECAUSE your video's explanation of the movement is THE EARTH'S ROTATION UPON ITS OWN AXIS.

You know, as well as I do, that this is NOT true. The earth DOES NOT ROTATE UPON ITS OWN AXIS, nor does it GO AROUND THE SUN.

THE EARTH DOES NOT MOVE.

Your explanation is worthless.

From YOUR source:

Quote

Both pictures show the same sunspots (sunspots are officially numbered and these two are 1203 and 1204 in case you wonder). The first photo was taken in the morning and the second just before sunset, and you can see that the location of the sunspots is very different. Why is this? It is not due to the daily movement of the sun (actually it is the earth which moves). It is also not due to the rotation of the sun around its axis (the sun rotates around its axis, and this rotation changes the location of the spots, however, the change is visible after a day or two and not just after several hours). The reason is simply the rotation of earth around its axis.


http://www.thevenustransit.com/2012/02/sunspots.html

Quote
1 Chronicles 16:30
Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Psalm 93:1
The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

Psalm 96:10
Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.

Psalm 104:5
Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on January 15, 2017, 02:50:17 PM
Quote from: happenby
So far, I've not seen one proof for round earth that holds up to scrutiny, yet they claim 50.  No empirical proof.  No verifiable experiments. No personal hands on. No scriptural proof.  No saints. No Fathers of the Church.  Just lots of talk, parroting and videos supporting NASA, a freemasonic institution bent on destruction of the sciences.  The answer is obvious. Earth is not a globe.  



AMEN!
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on January 16, 2017, 12:30:35 PM
Croixalist said:

It's called providing an alternative interpretation of your results, which people who are accustomed to making experiments actively try to control against. To address my criticisms, the horizons could be aligned so that...


Supposition. Alternative interpretation. Guessing games.  And this is supposed to be compelling evidence that earth is a globe? Plenty of words but zero content.  This is just little kid behavior, opposition for the sake of opposition, and reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP8RB7UZHKI
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on February 25, 2017, 11:57:00 PM
Antarctica has many settlements, and there is no ice wall nor dome.

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

It even has warm freshwater lakes surrounded by coal-rich hills.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on February 26, 2017, 07:43:12 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Antarctica has many settlements, and there is no ice wall nor dome.

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

It even has warm freshwater lakes surrounded by coal-rich hills.



You once again forgot about the Genesis account of the flat earth dome, as in the image below.  :roll-laugh2:

(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/HebrewConceptEarth1_zpsvsgwjwlh.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/HebrewConceptEarth1_zpsvsgwjwlh.jpg.html)
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on February 26, 2017, 06:15:22 PM
No, I didn't forget about Genesis.

When I read the Bible I have never seen "flat earth" anywhere in it, even in corrupted versions like the New Revised Standard Version or whatever.  That's because I try not to READ INTO the Scriptures things that I would like to find there. That's a Modernist bad habit.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on February 26, 2017, 07:16:25 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
No, I didn't forget about Genesis.

When I read the Bible I have never seen "flat earth" anywhere in it, even in corrupted versions like the New Revised Standard Version or whatever.  That's because I try not to READ INTO the Scriptures things that I would like to find there. That's a Modernist bad habit.



God created he flat earth as described in Genesis of the Holy Bible. The flat earth is not modernist.

The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on February 26, 2017, 09:03:57 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Antarctica has many settlements, and there is no ice wall nor dome.

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

It even has warm freshwater lakes surrounded by coal-rich hills.



[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/KyMnGVdrP1M[/youtube]
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on February 27, 2017, 02:47:00 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
No, I didn't forget about Genesis.

When I read the Bible I have never seen "flat earth" anywhere in it, even in corrupted versions like the New Revised Standard Version or whatever.  That's because I try not to READ INTO the Scriptures things that I would like to find there. That's a Modernist bad habit.




Someone has no idea how scripture works. Allegory, descriptives and parable are lost on you. One can easily wonder by the comment above whether you are indeed Catholic. Reminds me of Protestants who say scripture doesn't say Mary was a virgin or immaculately conceived.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on February 27, 2017, 02:54:24 PM
Can't raise your hand.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on February 27, 2017, 02:56:09 PM
Where's gravity when you need it?
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Nooseph Polten on February 27, 2017, 05:34:59 PM
"The Earth is flat. The Earth is flat. ... It's right in front of our faces. I'm telling you, it's right in front of our faces. They lie to us." - Kyrie Irving
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on February 28, 2017, 04:28:20 AM
Neil Obstat's reasons for posting anything on flat earth threads are deeply suspicious.

He knows that pointing out the bases on Antarctica, has nothing to do with the flat earth.
one can be flat earth and believe in bases on Antarctica.

But he is not flat earth himself. So why he is posting about it since it is an internal matter for flat earthers? He is trying to cause trouble.

notice how he ignores the posts of male users, and almost solely picks on the female users. Easy prey. Anything that doesn't fit with what he says, he just ignores. (because that is usually what male users challenge him on)
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on February 28, 2017, 01:07:15 PM
Without evidence, something by way of science or perhaps from scripture, or from Catholic Tradition, or even empirical or personal proof, there is no case for globe earth. Had there been five proofs, which is 10% of the claim, at least there'd be SOMETHING to hold on to. But there isn't even one solid proof!

Globe theory is 100% spin.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on February 28, 2017, 06:35:38 PM
Ever since sailors have been navigating the Atlantic Ocean, they have relied on measurement of the angle from the horizon to the height of Polaris to tell them how far they are from the equator.

Even today, this measurement is a reliable gauge of the degrees north of the equator.

You have been unable to explain how that can be if there is no curvature from north to south, and it's really funny to watch flat-earthers turn head over heels trying to avoid the obvious. You're making a joke of your own blindness.  :rolleyes:  

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on February 28, 2017, 07:29:57 PM
Here's a novel idea:  

I'll post this excellent video from the Russian Electro-L satellite camera.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/6twFHqJ03_k[/youtube]

Quote

Published on Apr 20, 2012
A timelapse of Planet Earth from Electro-L, a geostationary satellite orbiting 40000km above the Earth. The satellite creates a 121 megapixel image every 30 minutes with four visible and infrared light wavelengths. The infrared light appears orange in these images, and shows vegetation. The images were obtained beginning on May 14th, 2011 and end on May 20th. The images are the largest whole disk images of our planet, the resolution is 1 kilometer per pixel. The images are "masked" by a circular barrier that blocks out the light of the Sun and other stars. This is to prevent damage to the camera by exposure to direct sunlight. The images have been interpolated (blended) to create a smooth animation.


Now flat-earthers can complain how these images are tampered with and there is no red/orange vegetation on earth, that the images are "masked" so we can't see what's really there. Or like previously, the Persian Gulf isn't shaped like the Red Sea so flat-earthers can complain that the map isn't accurate when they don't know what they're looking at. One flat-earther thought the ocean in the middle was supposed to be the Atlantic. When I say, "You can see the reflection of the sun crossing the Indian Ocean" they'll complain that you can't see the sun going around the other side of the earth. It could be a reading comprehension problem, though:  the circular barrier blocks out the light of the sun and other stars. In the end, of course, all this incredulity is aimed at making their false claim that there is no evidence of a spheroid earth.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on February 28, 2017, 07:33:00 PM
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/idRjqi8JC2U[/youtube]

Cosmic Purgatory (see min. 5:07)

The images in this video are mostly artists' fantasies, but they don't bother to mention that.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on February 28, 2017, 07:40:17 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Here's a novel idea:  

I'll post this excellent video from the Russian Electro-L satellite camera.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/6twFHqJ03_k[/youtube]

Quote

Published on Apr 20, 2012
A timelapse of Planet Earth from Electro-L, a geostationary satellite orbiting 40000km above the Earth. The satellite creates a 121 megapixel image every 30 minutes with four visible and infrared light wavelengths. The infrared light appears orange in these images, and shows vegetation. The images were obtained beginning on May 14th, 2011 and end on May 20th. The images are the largest whole disk images of our planet, the resolution is 1 kilometer per pixel. The images are "masked" by a circular barrier that blocks out the light of the Sun and other stars. This is to prevent damage to the camera by exposure to direct sunlight. The images have been interpolated (blended) to create a smooth animation.


Now flat-earthers can complain how these images are tampered with and there is no red/orange vegetation on earth, that the images are "masked" so we can't see what's really there. Or like previously, the Persian Gulf isn't shaped like the Red Sea so flat-earthers can complain that the map isn't accurate when they don't know what they're looking at. One flat-earther thought the ocean in the middle was supposed to be the Atlantic. When I say, "You can see the reflection of the sun crossing the Indian Ocean" they'll complain that you can't see the sun going around the other side of the earth. It could be a reading comprehension problem, though:  the circular barrier blocks out the light of the sun and other stars. In the end, of course, all this incredulity is aimed at making their false claim that there is no evidence of a spheroid earth.



[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/xgjAPRMrmek[/youtube]
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on February 28, 2017, 09:15:16 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Here's a novel idea:  

I'll post this excellent video from the Russian Electro-L satellite camera.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/6twFHqJ03_k[/youtube]




Good grief, that is an embarrassingly FAKE video.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on February 28, 2017, 11:29:27 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Ever since sailors have been navigating the Atlantic Ocean, they have relied on measurement of the angle from the horizon to the height of Polaris to tell them how far they are from the equator.

Even today, this measurement is a reliable gauge of the degrees north of the equator.

You have been unable to explain how that can be if there is no curvature from north to south, and it's really funny to watch flat-earthers turn head over heels trying to avoid the obvious. You're making a joke of your own blindness.  :rolleyes:  



Sailors always used geometry and plane sailing. By definition plane sailing is sailing on a course plotted without reference to the curvature of the earth. They never carried globes, but plotted on flat maps.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on February 28, 2017, 11:34:14 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Here's a novel idea:  

I'll post this excellent video from the Russian Electro-L satellite camera.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/6twFHqJ03_k[/youtube]

Quote

Published on Apr 20, 2012
A timelapse of Planet Earth from Electro-L, a geostationary satellite orbiting 40000km above the Earth. The satellite creates a 121 megapixel image every 30 minutes with four visible and infrared light wavelengths. The infrared light appears orange in these images, and shows vegetation. The images were obtained beginning on May 14th, 2011 and end on May 20th. The images are the largest whole disk images of our planet, the resolution is 1 kilometer per pixel. The images are "masked" by a circular barrier that blocks out the light of the Sun and other stars. This is to prevent damage to the camera by exposure to direct sunlight. The images have been interpolated (blended) to create a smooth animation.


Now flat-earthers can complain how these images are tampered with and there is no red/orange vegetation on earth, that the images are "masked" so we can't see what's really there. Or like previously, the Persian Gulf isn't shaped like the Red Sea so flat-earthers can complain that the map isn't accurate when they don't know what they're looking at. One flat-earther thought the ocean in the middle was supposed to be the Atlantic. When I say, "You can see the reflection of the sun crossing the Indian Ocean" they'll complain that you can't see the sun going around the other side of the earth. It could be a reading comprehension problem, though:  the circular barrier blocks out the light of the sun and other stars. In the end, of course, all this incredulity is aimed at making their false claim that there is no evidence of a spheroid earth.



Now there's a video you can trust. Russian Electro-L.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on February 28, 2017, 11:40:10 PM
What does he know?
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on March 02, 2017, 03:47:45 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Ever since sailors have been navigating the Atlantic Ocean, they have relied on measurement of the angle from the horizon to the height of Polaris to tell them how far they are from the equator.

Even today, this measurement is a reliable gauge of the degrees north of the equator.

You have been unable to explain how that can be if there is no curvature from north to south, and it's really funny to watch flat-earthers turn head over heels trying to avoid the obvious. You're making a joke of your own blindness.  :rolleyes:  



Am I the only one to notice, that even when Neil gets answers to his questions, he just ignores them?

He posts questions, to try to sow doubt in the minds of outside observers.

He's not interested in admitting that he might be wrong.

There is an answer to his question above, but is it worth responding to a person who is not interested?
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on March 02, 2017, 08:54:00 AM
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Ever since sailors have been navigating the Atlantic Ocean, they have relied on measurement of the angle from the horizon to the height of Polaris to tell them how far they are from the equator.

Even today, this measurement is a reliable gauge of the degrees north of the equator.

You have been unable to explain how that can be if there is no curvature from north to south, and it's really funny to watch flat-earthers turn head over heels trying to avoid the obvious. You're making a joke of your own blindness.  :rolleyes:  



Am I the only one to notice, that even when Neil gets answers to his questions, he just ignores them?

He posts questions, to try to sow doubt in the minds of outside observers.

He's not interested in admitting that he might be wrong.

There is an answer to his question above, but is it worth responding to a person who is not interested?


I am so quick to respond every time Neil Obstat posts in a flat earth thread because I am not allowing him to sow doubt in the minds of outside observers; that is our job. :wink: I also notice he sometimes tries to post in a flat earth thread when he thinks we are most likely to not be looking.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 02, 2017, 09:44:03 PM
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Here's a novel idea:  

I'll post this excellent video from the Russian Electro-L satellite camera.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/6twFHqJ03_k[/youtube]

Good grief, that is an embarrassingly FAKE video.


What's fake about it? You have complained before about NASA images because the clouds are obviously copied over and over. Here, the clouds show different patterns every day for several days and you can easily see where they came from by looking at the previous day's clouds.

I mentioned the reflection of the sun on the water but you're ignoring that, so far. Maybe you needed a week or two to think of some reply. Don't worry there's plenty of time.

So, what about it?  What precisely do you think is fake in this video? Please be specific.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 02, 2017, 09:55:15 PM
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Ever since sailors have been navigating the Atlantic Ocean, they have relied on measurement of the angle from the horizon to the height of Polaris to tell them how far they are from the equator.

Even today, this measurement is a reliable gauge of the degrees north of the equator.

You have been unable to explain how that can be if there is no curvature from north to south, and it's really funny to watch flat-earthers turn head over heels trying to avoid the obvious. You're making a joke of your own blindness.  :rolleyes:  

Am I the only one to notice, that even when Neil gets answers to his questions, he just ignores them?
He posts questions, to try to sow doubt in the minds of outside observers.
He's not interested in admitting that he might be wrong.
There is an answer to his question above, but is it worth responding to a person who is not interested?

You don't have to pretend you're talking about me behind my back.  I'm right here.

Let's hear your answers.  I already asked the questions, but you have perhaps forgotten them because you didn't copy them.

Restated:  How do sailors find their distance north of the equator on the Atlantic Ocean (for example) by sighting the elevation of Polaris above the horizon, if not by understanding that it is directly proportional due to the earth's curvature?  

Do you know what instrument they have been using for at least 600 years for this purpose?

BTW:  How is the method sailors use to estimate their latitude comparable to the method surveyors use to lay out a simple circular curve in a new highway?  

Or is that question beyond your pay grade?

Maybe you're of the opinion that highways don't have circular curves or whatever.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 02, 2017, 09:56:46 PM
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Ever since sailors have been navigating the Atlantic Ocean, they have relied on measurement of the angle from the horizon to the height of Polaris to tell them how far they are from the equator.

Even today, this measurement is a reliable gauge of the degrees north of the equator.

You have been unable to explain how that can be if there is no curvature from north to south, and it's really funny to watch flat-earthers turn head over heels trying to avoid the obvious. You're making a joke of your own blindness.  :rolleyes:  

Am I the only one to notice, that even when Neil gets answers to his questions, he just ignores them?
He posts questions, to try to sow doubt in the minds of outside observers.
He's not interested in admitting that he might be wrong.
There is an answer to his question above, but is it worth responding to a person who is not interested?
I am so quick to respond every time Neil Obstat posts in a flat earth thread because I am not allowing him to sow doubt in the minds of outside observers; that is our job. :wink: I also notice he sometimes tries to post in a flat earth thread when he thinks we are most likely to not be looking.

Are you "so quick to respond" this time?

How about a substantive answer for a change?  See above.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 02, 2017, 11:00:14 PM
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Ever since sailors have been navigating the Atlantic Ocean, they have relied on measurement of the angle from the horizon to the height of Polaris to tell them how far they are from the equator.

Even today, this measurement is a reliable gauge of the degrees north of the equator.

You have been unable to explain how that can be if there is no curvature from north to south, and it's really funny to watch flat-earthers turn head over heels trying to avoid the obvious. You're making a joke of your own blindness.  :rolleyes:  



Am I the only one to notice, that even when Neil gets answers to his questions, he just ignores them?

He posts questions, to try to sow doubt in the minds of outside observers.

He's not interested in admitting that he might be wrong.

There is an answer to his question above, but is it worth responding to a person who is not interested?


Noticed he ignores most and for that reason doesn't deserve answers.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 02, 2017, 11:56:15 PM
So let me get this straight.

When you can't answer the questions you pout, and pretend you're getting even?

If not, then please answer the questions. That is, if you can.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on March 03, 2017, 08:23:17 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Ever since sailors have been navigating the Atlantic Ocean, they have relied on measurement of the angle from the horizon to the height of Polaris to tell them how far they are from the equator.

Even today, this measurement is a reliable gauge of the degrees north of the equator.

You have been unable to explain how that can be if there is no curvature from north to south, and it's really funny to watch flat-earthers turn head over heels trying to avoid the obvious. You're making a joke of your own blindness.  :rolleyes:  

Am I the only one to notice, that even when Neil gets answers to his questions, he just ignores them?
He posts questions, to try to sow doubt in the minds of outside observers.
He's not interested in admitting that he might be wrong.
There is an answer to his question above, but is it worth responding to a person who is not interested?
I am so quick to respond every time Neil Obstat posts in a flat earth thread because I am not allowing him to sow doubt in the minds of outside observers; that is our job. :wink: I also notice he sometimes tries to post in a flat earth thread when he thinks we are most likely to not be looking.

Are you "so quick to respond" this time?

How about a substantive answer for a change?  See above.



[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/qcgxBTrmIhU[/youtube]
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on March 03, 2017, 08:28:00 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Here's a novel idea:  

I'll post this excellent video from the Russian Electro-L satellite camera.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/6twFHqJ03_k[/youtube]

Good grief, that is an embarrassingly FAKE video.


What's fake about it? You have complained before about NASA images because the clouds are obviously copied over and over. Here, the clouds show different patterns every day for several days and you can easily see where they came from by looking at the previous day's clouds.

I mentioned the reflection of the sun on the water but you're ignoring that, so far. Maybe you needed a week or two to think of some reply. Don't worry there's plenty of time.

So, what about it?  What precisely do you think is fake in this video? Please be specific.



Everything is fake about the CGI video you posted. CGI stands for
"COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGE."
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: cassini on March 03, 2017, 01:02:57 PM
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Here's a novel idea:  

I'll post this excellent video from the Russian Electro-L satellite camera.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/6twFHqJ03_k[/youtube]

Good grief, that is an embarrassingly FAKE video.


What's fake about it? You have complained before about NASA images because the clouds are obviously copied over and over. Here, the clouds show different patterns every day for several days and you can easily see where they came from by looking at the previous day's clouds.

I mentioned the reflection of the sun on the water but you're ignoring that, so far. Maybe you needed a week or two to think of some reply. Don't worry there's plenty of time.

So, what about it?  What precisely do you think is fake in this video? Please be specific.



Everything is fake about the CGI video you posted. CGI stands for
"COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGE."



Of course it is, computerised to go at speed. We see the same thing many times when the turn of the stars are speeded up.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on March 03, 2017, 02:14:53 PM
You know Neil, instead of asking us questions, why don't you answer some, like the ones you failed to answer many times on this forum about missing curvature drop. Which you have still not answered.

All images like this are fake, because the earth is flat, because there is no curvature. Both Neil and Cassini know this and are just pure trolling at this point.

If you bothered to do research instead of mindlessly annoying flat earthers, you might have come across this on the flat earth resistance forum:

http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t22-faqs-part-5

See Question 14. Which shows the fakeness of Nasa images.

They are getting better at faking them since the flat earth movement took off. Because before that no one was questioning them.

But the fact that they were so many fake ones shows that they have already lost their credibility.

Now go! Do some real research and stop being reactionary.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 03, 2017, 03:52:36 PM
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).

Gen 6 And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so.

Gen 14 And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: 15 To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done. 16And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars. 17And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth.

Isaiah 40 22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tradition teaches there is a firmament. Solid dome, like a tent. Water is above the dome and below the dome. Earth below the dome. Sun/moon/stars inside the dome. --Scripture, Origen, Ambrose, Augustine    

The firmament structure discussed by the Fathers of the Church and in scripture must be awfully ginormous to house the moon 250,000 miles away, the sun 93,000,000 miles away and stars even further.  Of course, this dome can't be stretched out like a tent as scripture says, but would have to be a hard ball shaped structure surrounding the earth ball. With a bunch of water beyond that?  Oh boy.  What imaginations the globalists have.  

         

 

     
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Cera on March 03, 2017, 03:56:53 PM
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Ever since sailors have been navigating the Atlantic Ocean, they have relied on measurement of the angle from the horizon to the height of Polaris to tell them how far they are from the equator.

Even today, this measurement is a reliable gauge of the degrees north of the equator.

You have been unable to explain how that can be if there is no curvature from north to south, and it's really funny to watch flat-earthers turn head over heels trying to avoid the obvious. You're making a joke of your own blindness.  :rolleyes:  

Am I the only one to notice, that even when Neil gets answers to his questions, he just ignores them?
He posts questions, to try to sow doubt in the minds of outside observers.
He's not interested in admitting that he might be wrong.
There is an answer to his question above, but is it worth responding to a person who is not interested?
I am so quick to respond every time Neil Obstat posts in a flat earth thread because I am not allowing him to sow doubt in the minds of outside observers; that is our job. :wink: I also notice he sometimes tries to post in a flat earth thread when he thinks we are most likely to not be looking.

Are you "so quick to respond" this time?

How about a substantive answer for a change?  See above.



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


Loved the video. I'm looking at other Dubay videos. You are making me think about this issue. I almost said "re-think" but that would not be accurate because this alternative theory, and its relationship to Zionist control of scientism -- (as opposed to actual science), is not something I have actually ever considered. Until now, the two alternative theories are not something I have actually thought about.

Along with everyone else, I have just bought into the pervasive view that globe theory is correct, the theory of gravity or correct, the earth spinning at 1000 mph is correct, our course around the sun at 5000 or so mph is correct, and our galaxy is also said to be spinning around.

Since I once was tricked into believing the lie about the scientistic (not scientific) theory about evolution (the phony chart showing ape, ape-men and man made me believe a lie) -- I know that it is easy for us to be tricked by the deception of a powerful enemy which controls the media, (what passes for) education, and the government.

I am realizing that just to go this far, to fairly compare two opposing theories is quite politically incorrect. To even give both theories a fair hearing is to risk public shaming. The public shaming of "flat-earthers" is much worse that the public shaming of those who research original sources of information rather that sucking up to abc/nbc/cbs/cspan/cnn and who are therefore called "conspiracy theorists." Both are labels with heavy negative baggage, designed to steer people away from even thinking about certain issues.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on March 03, 2017, 05:14:25 PM
Quote from: Cera
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Ever since sailors have been navigating the Atlantic Ocean, they have relied on measurement of the angle from the horizon to the height of Polaris to tell them how far they are from the equator.

Even today, this measurement is a reliable gauge of the degrees north of the equator.

You have been unable to explain how that can be if there is no curvature from north to south, and it's really funny to watch flat-earthers turn head over heels trying to avoid the obvious. You're making a joke of your own blindness.  :rolleyes:  

Am I the only one to notice, that even when Neil gets answers to his questions, he just ignores them?
He posts questions, to try to sow doubt in the minds of outside observers.
He's not interested in admitting that he might be wrong.
There is an answer to his question above, but is it worth responding to a person who is not interested?
I am so quick to respond every time Neil Obstat posts in a flat earth thread because I am not allowing him to sow doubt in the minds of outside observers; that is our job. :wink: I also notice he sometimes tries to post in a flat earth thread when he thinks we are most likely to not be looking.

Are you "so quick to respond" this time?

How about a substantive answer for a change?  See above.



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


Loved the video. I'm looking at other Dubay videos. You are making me think about this issue. I almost said "re-think" but that would not be accurate because this alternative theory, and its relationship to Zionist control of scientism -- (as opposed to actual science), is not something I have actually ever considered. Until now, the two alternative theories are not something I have actually thought about.

Along with everyone else, I have just bought into the pervasive view that globe theory is correct, the theory of gravity or correct, the earth spinning at 1000 mph is correct, our course around the sun at 5000 or so mph is correct, and our galaxy is also said to be spinning around.

Since I once was tricked into believing the lie about the scientistic (not scientific) theory about evolution (the phony chart showing ape, ape-men and man made me believe a lie) -- I know that it is easy for us to be tricked by the deception of a powerful enemy which controls the media, (what passes for) education, and the government.

I am realizing that just to go this far, to fairly compare two opposing theories is quite politically incorrect. To even give both theories a fair hearing is to risk public shaming. The public shaming of "flat-earthers" is much worse that the public shaming of those who research original sources of information rather that sucking up to abc/nbc/cbs/cspan/cnn and who are therefore called "conspiracy theorists." Both are labels with heavy negative baggage, designed to steer people away from even thinking about certain issues.


Up until about a year ago, I always assumed the earth is a globe, until someone on "Cathinfo" easily convinced me the earth is not a globe. I will never fall for this, "ball earth" lie again.  :smile:
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on March 03, 2017, 08:13:24 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Here's a novel idea:  

I'll post this excellent video from the Russian Electro-L satellite camera.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/6twFHqJ03_k[/youtube]

Good grief, that is an embarrassingly FAKE video.


What's fake about it? You have complained before about NASA images because the clouds are obviously copied over and over. Here, the clouds show different patterns every day for several days and you can easily see where they came from by looking at the previous day's clouds.

I mentioned the reflection of the sun on the water but you're ignoring that, so far. Maybe you needed a week or two to think of some reply. Don't worry there's plenty of time.

So, what about it?  What precisely do you think is fake in this video? Please be specific.



No need of time to "think up a reply" I just don't always get to cathinfo every day.

This video is like each and every image or video from NASA - it is a Computer Generated Image. CGI.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on March 03, 2017, 08:15:50 PM
Quote from: Cera

Loved the video. I'm looking at other Dubay videos. You are making me think about this issue. I almost said "re-think" but that would not be accurate because this alternative theory, and its relationship to Zionist control of scientism -- (as opposed to actual science), is not something I have actually ever considered. Until now, the two alternative theories are not something I have actually thought about.

Along with everyone else, I have just bought into the pervasive view that globe theory is correct, the theory of gravity or correct, the earth spinning at 1000 mph is correct, our course around the sun at 5000 or so mph is correct, and our galaxy is also said to be spinning around.

Since I once was tricked into believing the lie about the scientistic (not scientific) theory about evolution (the phony chart showing ape, ape-men and man made me believe a lie) -- I know that it is easy for us to be tricked by the deception of a powerful enemy which controls the media, (what passes for) education, and the government.

I am realizing that just to go this far, to fairly compare two opposing theories is quite politically incorrect. To even give both theories a fair hearing is to risk public shaming. The public shaming of "flat-earthers" is much worse that the public shaming of those who research original sources of information rather that sucking up to abc/nbc/cbs/cspan/cnn and who are therefore called "conspiracy theorists." Both are labels with heavy negative baggage, designed to steer people away from even thinking about certain issues.


Hooray, Cera, good for you!
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: noOneImportant on March 04, 2017, 01:56:48 PM
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Up until about a year ago, I always assumed the earth is a globe, until someone on "Cathinfo" easily convinced me the earth is not a globe. I will never fall for this, "ball earth" lie again.  :smile:


What argument was it that convinced you?
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on March 04, 2017, 09:22:33 PM
Quote from: noOneImportant
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Up until about a year ago, I always assumed the earth is a globe, until someone on "Cathinfo" easily convinced me the earth is not a globe. I will never fall for this, "ball earth" lie again.  :smile:


What argument was it that convinced you?


The argument that quickly convinced me the earth is flat is this quote,
Quote
"The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos."
Even up in the mountains in Colorado the horizon line always appeared flat. The horizon line in Florida, as I was looking at the ocean, also, always appeared flat.

I began to question how it would be possible for a Jet to land if the earth was rotating 1,040 miles/hour, and I could find any logical explanation anywhere.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Recusant Sede on March 05, 2017, 04:13:44 AM
All these "flatearthers" are probably still waiting for some guy in Kenya to send them a million dollars.

Matthew you should really shut this thread down.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on March 05, 2017, 12:26:53 PM
Quote from: Recusant Sede
All these "flatearthers" are probably still waiting for some guy in Kenya to send them a million dollars.

Matthew you should really shut this thread down.



The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude; do you know why this is?  :jumping2:  :incense:
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Cera on March 05, 2017, 01:00:48 PM
Quote from: Recusant Sede
All these "flatearthers" are probably still waiting for some guy in Kenya to send them a million dollars.

Matthew you should really shut this thread down.



Why does this issue scare you?
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 05, 2017, 03:40:14 PM
Quote from: Recusant Sede
All these "flatearthers" are probably still waiting for some guy in Kenya to send them a million dollars.

Matthew you should really shut this thread down.



Had you read my quotes of scripture, saints and fathers of the church above you would see that  heliocentrism, modern astronomy, is against the teaching of the church. We live in an enclosed system that denies the moving globe.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on March 05, 2017, 06:06:21 PM
Quote from: Recusant Sede


Matthew you should really shut this thread down.




Aw, whatsa matter? You skeered??

Fear the plane!

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on March 05, 2017, 06:07:35 PM
*dbl post*
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 05, 2017, 06:58:43 PM
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
You know Neil, instead of asking us questions, why don't you answer some, like the ones you failed to answer many times on this forum about missing curvature drop. Which you have still not answered.

Blah, blah, blah...



So when you can't answer my questions, you tell me I shouldn't ask them, and that only you can ask questions, which I should answer. There is a simple reason I asked what I did.

I asked you questions with a difference:

I asked simple questions that actually make sense.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 05, 2017, 10:08:46 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
You know Neil, instead of asking us questions, why don't you answer some, like the ones you failed to answer many times on this forum about missing curvature drop. Which you have still not answered.

Blah, blah, blah...



So when you can't answer my questions, you tell me I shouldn't ask them, and that only you can ask questions, which I should answer. There is a simple reason I asked what I did.

I asked you questions with a difference:

I asked simple questions that actually make sense.



Every one of us had answered multiple questions of yours. You don't answer except to post someone else's writings that have no equivalent to church fathers, nor are you responding to scripture. As for lack of curvature, you just say it must be out there somewhere. All the founding fathers of NASA and JPL, your authority apparently, are Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ's luciferian high priests--admitted by them. Not only is your argument dead, it is rooted in the demonic.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 05, 2017, 10:12:57 PM
Surface of water never curves, small drops excepted. Water must be contained and it's surface always settles flat. It is impossible for water to wrap around the outside of a ball.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on March 06, 2017, 06:42:15 AM
Quote from: Cera
Quote from: Recusant Sede
All these "flatearthers" are probably still waiting for some guy in Kenya to send them a million dollars.

Matthew you should really shut this thread down.



Why does this issue scare you?


It does scare him yes.

What I find amusing though, is that there are so many people in the resistance who seriously think that by talking down in a snotty manner to flat earthers, and calling it idiocy, they will actually make it go away.

They really believe this. And believe in themselves!

It is a profound pride. Quite sad at the end of the day, when you think about it. Then you have malicious people like Neil Obstat here, who posts just to mock, and naive users like cassini, who just want to live in their geocentric fantasy, trying to please the world and reconcile tradition and scripture at the same time.


Its all there for people to study if they want to:
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t4-flat-earth-faqs-list

You just have to be open to the truth.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on March 06, 2017, 07:02:34 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
You know Neil, instead of asking us questions, why don't you answer some, like the ones you failed to answer many times on this forum about missing curvature drop. Which you have still not answered.

Blah, blah, blah...



So when you can't answer my questions, you tell me I shouldn't ask them, and that only you can ask questions, which I should answer. There is a simple reason I asked what I did.

I asked you questions with a difference:

I asked simple questions that actually make sense.



No Neil. You're asking questions, but are not interested in the answers. The proof?
Would ANY answer you get convince you that the earth is flat? I rest my case.

Another thing, you are (deliberately I think) not taking into account is that you asking the questions of women. When you ask a woman a question, you cannot always expect to get a rational direct answer. You know this. And are more than happy when the answer isn't perfectly a direct response. Because for you this makes flat earthers look stupid.

This is why you never ask the male users questions. Because you know you will get a direct answer. And this is why you ignored the questions YOU received, asking you to explain where hundreds of feet of a mountain we can see, came from.

Now if you would like to ask me a question, with respect, I am more than happy to try to answer. Sending a private message would assure me it is a sincere question. You could also ask a question on the resistance flat earth forum. But you don't want to do that because you would be restrained to being respectful.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 06, 2017, 09:40:23 PM
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor

Now if you would like to ask me a question, with respect, I am more than happy to try to answer.


Okay, I'll ask you directly, if that's important to you:

What is the name of the instrument that mariners have been using for the past 6 centuries to determine their angular distance in the northern hemisphere from the equator?

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on March 07, 2017, 06:40:38 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor

Now if you would like to ask me a question, with respect, I am more than happy to try to answer.


Okay, I'll ask you directly, if that's important to you:

What is the name of the instrument that mariners have been using for the past 6 centuries to determine their angular distance in the northern hemisphere from the equator?



No it is not important to me whether you ask me or not. The point, which you still don't get, is you need to change your attitude. You're clearly a very unhappy person.

The purpose of forums is not to compete to see who can make the nastiest remark to other people. It is to arrive at the truth.

I know what instrument you are talking about, but why do you want to know? Is it pivotal to accepting the flat earth for you?
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 07, 2017, 09:23:53 PM
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor

Now if you would like to ask me a question, with respect, I am more than happy to try to answer.


Okay, I'll ask you directly, if that's important to you:

What is the name of the instrument that mariners have been using for the past 6 centuries

Actually it has been more like the past 4 centuries, but the principle it's based on has been used much longer than that.

Quote
Quote
to determine their angular distance in the northern hemisphere from the equator?


No it is not important to me whether you ask me or not. The point, which you still don't get, is you need to change your attitude. You're clearly a very unhappy person.

The purpose of forums is not to compete to see who can make the nastiest remark to other people. It is to arrive at the truth.

I know what instrument you are talking about, but why do you want to know? Is it pivotal to accepting the flat earth for you?

Your incessant penchant to comment on your opinion of the happiness of your opponent is telling.

If you know what the instrument is, perhaps you can explain how it works.
What I would like to know is how you can explain its function, in your dream world.

That is, explain how it works when presuming there is no curved surface on the earth.
For example, how do you measure the angular distance from the equator if there is no such angle like on a "flat earth"?

The ball's in your court.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on March 07, 2017, 10:57:36 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor

Now if you would like to ask me a question, with respect, I am more than happy to try to answer.


Okay, I'll ask you directly, if that's important to you:

What is the name of the instrument that mariners have been using for the past 6 centuries

Actually it has been more like the past 4 centuries, but the principle it's based on has been used much longer than that.

Quote
Quote
to determine their angular distance in the northern hemisphere from the equator?


No it is not important to me whether you ask me or not. The point, which you still don't get, is you need to change your attitude. You're clearly a very unhappy person.

The purpose of forums is not to compete to see who can make the nastiest remark to other people. It is to arrive at the truth.

I know what instrument you are talking about, but why do you want to know? Is it pivotal to accepting the flat earth for you?

Your incessant penchant to comment on your opinion of the happiness of your opponent is telling.

If you know what the instrument is, perhaps you can explain how it works.
What I would like to know is how you can explain its function, in your dream world.

That is, explain how it works when presuming there is no curved surface on the earth.
For example, how do you measure the angular distance from the equator if there is no such angle like on a "flat earth"?

The ball's in your court.



The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 07, 2017, 11:44:32 PM
Perhaps Neil is talking about an astrolabe. Used from about the year 250 until the 16th century.

Astrolabe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"An astrolabe (Greek: ?????????? astrolabos, "star-taker")[1] is an elaborate inclinometer, historically used by astronomers and navigators, to measure the inclined position in the sky of a celestial body, day or night. It can thus be used to identify stars or planets, to determine local latitude given local time and vice versa, to survey, or to triangulate. It was used in classical antiquity, the Islamic Golden Age,[2] the European Middle Ages and the Renaissance for all these purposes.
While the astrolabe is effective for determining latitude on land or calm seas, it is less reliable on the heaving deck of a ship in rough seas. The mariner's astrolabe was developed to solve that problem."

Astrolabes were highly accurate and were eventually joined with precision time pieces.

Information on the mariners astrolabe for rough seas is found here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariner%27s_astrolabe

Wiki continues

"At first mechanical astronomical clocks were influenced by the astrolabe; in many ways they could be seen as clockwork astrolabes designed to produce a continual display of the current position of the sun, stars, and planets. For example, Richard of Wallingford's clock (c. 1330) consisted essentially of a star map rotating behind a fixed rete, similar to that of an astrolabe.[27]
Many astronomical clocks, such as the famous clock at Prague, use an astrolabe-style display, adopting a stereographic projection (see below) of the ecliptic plane."
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 08, 2017, 12:40:19 AM
Congratulations, happenby, for giving an intelligent reply.

Quote from: happenby
Perhaps Neil is talking about an astrolabe. Used from about the year 250 until the 16th century.

Astrolabe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"An astrolabe (Greek: ?????????? astrolabos, "star-taker")[1] is an elaborate inclinometer, historically used by astronomers and navigators, to measure the inclined position in the sky of a celestial body, day or night. It can thus be used to identify stars or planets, to determine local latitude given local time and vice versa, to survey, or to triangulate. It was used in classical antiquity, the Islamic Golden Age,[2] the European Middle Ages and the Renaissance for all these purposes.
While the astrolabe is effective for determining latitude on land or calm seas, it is less reliable on the heaving deck of a ship in rough seas. The mariner's astrolabe was developed to solve that problem."

Astrolabes were highly accurate and were eventually joined with precision time pieces.

Information on the mariners astrolabe for rough seas is found here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariner%27s_astrolabe

Wiki continues

"At first mechanical astronomical clocks were influenced by the astrolabe; in many ways they could be seen as clockwork astrolabes designed to produce a continual display of the current position of the sun, stars, and planets. For example, Richard of Wallingford's clock (c. 1330) consisted essentially of a star map rotating behind a fixed rete, similar to that of an astrolabe.[27]
Many astronomical clocks, such as the famous clock at Prague, use an astrolabe-style display, adopting a stereographic projection (see below) of the ecliptic plane."

The astrolabe was used to do the job of determining latitude but they were very challenging to use at sea, as you have indicated, making them accordingly inaccurate. This principle was further developed by an invention that occurred in the 18th century that enables its use even in adverse conditions with greater accuracy, and was improved over many decades, even centuries, to the point where now very effective and precise versions are made even today, to serve as backup tools when GPS systems fail to deliver. I am going to post one video that demonstrates in great detail how to use a particular version made in Germany, for example.

I'll give you another chance to guess the name of the device to which I refer, before I post some very instructive videos that cover how they are used by modern navigators at sea.

Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor

Now if you would like to ask me a question, with respect, I am more than happy to try to answer.


Okay, I'll ask you directly, if that's important to you:

What is the name of the instrument that mariners have been using for the past 6 centuries

Actually it has been more like the past 4 centuries, but the principle it's based on has been used much longer than that.

Quote
Quote
to determine their angular distance in the northern hemisphere from the equator?


No it is not important to me whether you ask me or not. The point, which you still don't get, is you need to change your attitude. You're clearly a very unhappy person.

The purpose of forums is not to compete to see who can make the nastiest remark to other people. It is to arrive at the truth.

I know what instrument you are talking about, but why do you want to know? Is it pivotal to accepting the flat earth for you?

Your incessant penchant to comment on your opinion of the happiness of your opponent is telling.

If you know what the instrument is, perhaps you can explain how it works.
What I would like to know is how you can explain its function, in your dream world.

That is, explain how it works when presuming there is no curved surface on the earth.
For example, how do you measure the angular distance from the equator if there is no such angle like on a "flat earth"?

The ball's in your court.


The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.


FAIL.

True to form, you have again ignored my question and have attempted to change the subject.

Your answer about the horizon being flat, amateur balloon, rocket, NASA, CGI, etc., does not answer the question: What device has been used for the past few centuries to determine latitude from the rolling deck of a ship at sea (which is what a sailor has to deal with) and how does it work in your flat-earth model?

In any event, thank you for not continuing to whine about how you think I must feel, because that makes you appear feminine, even while you complain that I reply to women not to men. If you want me to reply to you then you should try acting like a real man.

E.g., try acting like a man by answering the question like a man, instead of trying to change the subject.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 08, 2017, 01:17:01 AM
Go to minute 25:49 to see a Catholic priest saying "Dominus vobiscuм"
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/YIb6bCpFiF0[/youtube]

I couldn't find any date for reference so the fact the TLM is shown, it must have been before 1968. Also, smoking cigarettes at table while others are eating?

This video shows the installation of a nuclear reactor under ice at Camp Century, Greenland.

Woops. Wrong thread. Oh, well.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on March 08, 2017, 03:26:00 PM
I assume Neil is blabbering on about a sextant, but I have no idea what his point is. A sextant certainly does not show any curvature of the earth.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 08, 2017, 03:58:19 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Congratulations, happenby, for giving an intelligent reply.

Quote from: happenby
Perhaps Neil is talking about an astrolabe. Used from about the year 250 until the 16th century.

Astrolabe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"An astrolabe (Greek: ?????????? astrolabos, "star-taker")[1] is an elaborate inclinometer, historically used by astronomers and navigators, to measure the inclined position in the sky of a celestial body, day or night. It can thus be used to identify stars or planets, to determine local latitude given local time and vice versa, to survey, or to triangulate. It was used in classical antiquity, the Islamic Golden Age,[2] the European Middle Ages and the Renaissance for all these purposes.
While the astrolabe is effective for determining latitude on land or calm seas, it is less reliable on the heaving deck of a ship in rough seas. The mariner's astrolabe was developed to solve that problem."

Astrolabes were highly accurate and were eventually joined with precision time pieces.

Information on the mariners astrolabe for rough seas is found here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariner%27s_astrolabe

Wiki continues

"At first mechanical astronomical clocks were influenced by the astrolabe; in many ways they could be seen as clockwork astrolabes designed to produce a continual display of the current position of the sun, stars, and planets. For example, Richard of Wallingford's clock (c. 1330) consisted essentially of a star map rotating behind a fixed rete, similar to that of an astrolabe.[27]
Many astronomical clocks, such as the famous clock at Prague, use an astrolabe-style display, adopting a stereographic projection (see below) of the ecliptic plane."

The astrolabe was used to do the job of determining latitude but they were very challenging to use at sea, as you have indicated, making them accordingly inaccurate. This principle was further developed by an invention that occurred in the 18th century that enables its use even in adverse conditions with greater accuracy, and was improved over many decades, even centuries, to the point where now very effective and precise versions are made even today, to serve as backup tools when GPS systems fail to deliver. I am going to post one video that demonstrates in great detail how to use a particular version made in Germany, for example.

I'll give you another chance to guess the name of the device to which I refer, before I post some very instructive videos that cover how they are used by modern navigators at sea.

Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor

Now if you would like to ask me a question, with respect, I am more than happy to try to answer.


Okay, I'll ask you directly, if that's important to you:

What is the name of the instrument that mariners have been using for the past 6 centuries

Actually it has been more like the past 4 centuries, but the principle it's based on has been used much longer than that.

Quote
Quote
to determine their angular distance in the northern hemisphere from the equator?


No it is not important to me whether you ask me or not. The point, which you still don't get, is you need to change your attitude. You're clearly a very unhappy person.

The purpose of forums is not to compete to see who can make the nastiest remark to other people. It is to arrive at the truth.

I know what instrument you are talking about, but why do you want to know? Is it pivotal to accepting the flat earth for you?

Your incessant penchant to comment on your opinion of the happiness of your opponent is telling.

If you know what the instrument is, perhaps you can explain how it works.
What I would like to know is how you can explain its function, in your dream world.

That is, explain how it works when presuming there is no curved surface on the earth.
For example, how do you measure the angular distance from the equator if there is no such angle like on a "flat earth"?

The ball's in your court.


The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.


FAIL.

True to form, you have again ignored my question and have attempted to change the subject.

Your answer about the horizon being flat, amateur balloon, rocket, NASA, CGI, etc., does not answer the question: What device has been used for the past few centuries to determine latitude from the rolling deck of a ship at sea (which is what a sailor has to deal with) and how does it work in your flat-earth model?

In any event, thank you for not continuing to whine about how you think I must feel, because that makes you appear feminine, even while you complain that I reply to women not to men. If you want me to reply to you then you should try acting like a real man.

E.g., try acting like a man by answering the question like a man, instead of trying to change the subject.



There were several instruments with different advantages, including the octant and quadrant, but the most effective and least limited is the sextant.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on March 08, 2017, 05:27:39 PM
Quote from: happenby

There were several instruments with different advantages, including the octant and quadrant, but the most effective and least limited is the sextant.


DING DING DING!

See, and I even already knew that's what he meant. And he thinks us girls are dumb...

 :facepalm:
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 08, 2017, 06:07:09 PM
It remains that no curvature of the earth has ever been demonstrated. Further, things like lighthouses, gyros, sundials, bubble levels, compasses, astrolabes and sextants were developed by people with the horizontal plane in mind. For good reason. Earth is a plane. While extrapolation and clever doublespeak goes a long way to show how these might operate on a sphere using low down lies and high brow 'math', in fact,  by their very nature, these devices were designed for measurments that are TRUE.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 08, 2017, 09:44:55 PM
Sextant. Correct.

It measures the vertical angle from the horizon (due north, for example) and a celestial body (the north star, Polaris, for example). This angle, combined with the date (day of year for Polaris which does not move, or, the date and the time of day when referencing other bodies such as the sun or moon, which move) gives the sailor what he needs to find his latitude at sea when no land is visible.

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

The problem still presents itself to you, for you have not responded to this:
How does the sextant indicate the degrees of latitude north of the equator when you have presumed that the earth is flat?

-- When the sailor is at say the 42nd parallel, he obtains one reading on the sextant, but when he is at the 32nd parallel, he obtains a different reading on the sextant. If he returns to the 42nd parallel, his reading is the same as the first, above, and different from the second, above. Explain why that is the case if the earth is "flat."

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: noOneImportant on March 08, 2017, 10:17:41 PM
Stop being needlessly pedantic and condescending, and make an argument. I agree with you and I still find you almost as infuriating as the deluded people in this thread.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 08, 2017, 11:38:10 PM
Broadly speaking a sextant is an instrument that measures the angle between two objects that are visible. Primarily, it is used to measure the angle between a celestial body and the horizon, a process normally known as sighting the object or taking a sight. The angle measured and the time at which it was measured is then used to identify the location of the user on the grid map of the world. Thus sextants are basically navigational tools and have been successfully used by seaman and even other travelers over the years. The most common process of this is to sight the sun at noon to find the latitude of one’s location.

Measuring the angle between two objects that are visible, which is the purpose of a sextant, has nothing to do with curvature. Every measurement is based on lines, line of siight, mirriors, angles, parallel, and vertical. In fact, the mirrors must be maintained or the measurement will be off. Mirrors within reflect directly, and cannot reflect curve. Notice that identification of location is charted on GRID MAP. A grid map is flat. That they can translate these lines and angles to a globe is just another step. But its an unnecessary one, unless one wants you to believe you are on a globe.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 08, 2017, 11:52:03 PM
Here is a well-known person explaining how to plot the position of your boat at sea, using a sextant together with The Air Almanac, which was published twice each year when the video was made (1984).

Especially noteworthy is minute 5:15 when Mr. Buckley says for the purposes of celestial navigation the earth is presumed motionless with the sun continually moving around it. His model shown at that point speaks for itself. It would make no sense whatsoever if the earth were "flat."

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/Xz0VazejX1Q[/youtube]

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 08, 2017, 11:56:46 PM
A nautical mile is equal to one minute of arc at the equator.

The arc is taken from the center of the earth to the surface.

At some point further north, for example, the 45th parallel, what measurement of arc describes one nautical mile, and, if it is different than one minute, why is that the case?

In the video above, at minute 20, the LHA (Local Hour Angle) calculation is based on the angle described by the difference between a line from the center of the earth to the sun and the line from the center of the earth to your boat. How could that be possible if the earth were not spherical?



Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 08, 2017, 11:59:33 PM
Why do those who espouse a flat earth claim that water cannot cling to a "ball" earth because gravity would not allow for it, and then also say that gravity is a myth?
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 09, 2017, 12:11:34 AM
Quote from: happenby
Broadly speaking a sextant is an instrument that measures the angle between two objects that are visible. Primarily, it is used to measure the angle between a celestial body and the horizon, a process normally known as sighting the object or taking a sight. The angle measured and the time at which it was measured is then used to identify the location of the user on the grid map of the world. Thus sextants are basically navigational tools and have been successfully used by seaman and even other travelers over the years. The most common process of this is to sight the sun at noon to find the latitude of one’s location.

Measuring the angle between two objects that are visible, which is the purpose of a sextant, has nothing to do with curvature.

Source, please?
Let me guess: you're just making this up.

Quote
Every measurement is based on lines, line of siight, mirriors, angles, parallel, and vertical. In fact, the mirrors must be maintained or the measurement will be off. Mirrors within reflect directly, and cannot reflect curve. Notice that identification of location is charted on GRID MAP. A grid map is flat. That they can translate these lines and angles to a globe is just another step. But its an unnecessary one, unless one wants you to believe you are on a globe.

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

Maybe your failure to grasp that fact is why you think that the earth is flat.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 09, 2017, 12:48:12 AM
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Why do those who espouse a flat earth claim that water cannot cling to a "ball" earth because gravity would not allow for it, and then also say that gravity is a myth?


If you fill a balloon with helium, a substance lighter than the nitrogen, oxygen and other elements which compose the air around it, the balloon will immediately fly upwards. If you fill a balloon with hydrogen, a substance even lighter than helium, the balloon will fly upwards even faster.

If you blow a dandelion seed out of your hands, a substance just barely heavier than the air, it will float away and slowly but eventually fall to the ground. And if you drop an anvil from your hands, something much heavier than the air, it will quickly and directly fall straight to the ground.

Now, this has absolutely nothing to do with “gravity.” The fact that light things rise up and heavy things fall down is simply a natural property of weight. That is very different from “gravity.” Gravity is a hypothetical magnetic-like force possessed by large masses which Isaac Newton needed to help explain the heliocentric theory of the universe.

Now, even if gravity did exist, why would it cause both planets to orbit the Sun and people to stick to the Earth?  What sort of magic is “gravity” that it can glue people’s feet to the ball-Earth, while causing Earth itself to revolve ellipses round the Sun? How does gravity hold trillions and trillions of gallons of water to the outside of a ball earth while a child with little effort hops, skips and jumps right next to all that water on the seashore?   How do bubbles rise to the surface of water and gravity has no effect on them?  

Gravity is the blanket answer to all questions globalists cannot answer.  Yet, it is purported to cause weight, pull, push, spin, orbit, affect heavenly bodies and even cause things to act contrary to their nature. The theory of gravity, invented by a Luciferian worshiping Isaac Newton, is so full of holes, many honest scientists in the scientific community are abandoning it. One such scientist, Dr. Erik Verlinde is not an enemy of the globe, and he admits gravity is a lie.

"The unfolding story of gravity is like the emperor’s new clothes. “We’ve known for a long time gravity doesn’t exist,” Dr. Erik Verlinde says, “It’s time to yell it.”
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 09, 2017, 12:59:38 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Here is a well-known person explaining how to plot the position of your boat at sea, using a sextant together with The Air Almanac, which was published twice each year when the video was made (1984).

Especially noteworthy is minute 5:15 when Mr. Buckley says for the purposes of celestial navigation the earth is presumed motionless with the sun continually moving around it. His model shown at that point speaks for itself. It would make no sense whatsoever if the earth were "flat."

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/Xz0VazejX1Q[/youtube]



His model doesn't say a word.  In fact, there is every reason to say that little cartoon is flat circle.  The mechanical ability of a sextant to view by line of site, with reflection of mirrors (another direct line of site) with angles provided by the tool for determining position actually makes no sense whatsoever if the earth were a globe.  All horizontal and vertical lines of site and direct reflections from mirrors would be in error when applied to a curved object.        
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 09, 2017, 01:02:42 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: happenby
Broadly speaking a sextant is an instrument that measures the angle between two objects that are visible. Primarily, it is used to measure the angle between a celestial body and the horizon, a process normally known as sighting the object or taking a sight. The angle measured and the time at which it was measured is then used to identify the location of the user on the grid map of the world. Thus sextants are basically navigational tools and have been successfully used by seaman and even other travelers over the years. The most common process of this is to sight the sun at noon to find the latitude of one’s location.

Measuring the angle between two objects that are visible, which is the purpose of a sextant, has nothing to do with curvature.

Source, please?
Let me guess: you're just making this up.

Quote
Every measurement is based on lines, line of siight, mirriors, angles, parallel, and vertical. In fact, the mirrors must be maintained or the measurement will be off. Mirrors within reflect directly, and cannot reflect curve. Notice that identification of location is charted on GRID MAP. A grid map is flat. That they can translate these lines and angles to a globe is just another step. But its an unnecessary one, unless one wants you to believe you are on a globe.

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

Maybe your failure to grasp that fact is why you think that the earth is flat.



No, I am not making this up.  The instrument itself denies that it can, with straight lines and angles, measure something that is curved.  That stands to reason.

Why do you say that the angle between the north star, Polaris and the horizon would always be the same regardless of latitude?  Are you making that up?  Naturally, if you change distance, an angle will change.  Period.  
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 09, 2017, 01:05:45 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
A nautical mile is equal to one minute of arc at the equator.

The arc is taken from the center of the earth to the surface.

At some point further north, for example, the 45th parallel, what measurement of arc describes one nautical mile, and, if it is different than one minute, why is that the case?

In the video above, at minute 20, the LHA (Local Hour Angle) calculation is based on the angle described by the difference between a line from the center of the earth to the sun and the line from the center of the earth to your boat. How could that be possible if the earth were not spherical?





Please prove that the arc is taken from the center of the earth to the surface.  That is impossible.  And anyone who says it better get real clever to prove it.    
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 09, 2017, 01:10:40 AM
Quote from: mw2016
I assume Neil is blabbering on about a sextant, but I have no idea what his point is. A sextant certainly does not show any curvature of the earth.



It appears to me that Neil has it in his head that this all has something to do with the globe because he doesn't understand the sextant.  He thinks the mention of the word arc assumes that a portion of the earth (for his purposes, a globe) is involved with the measurement, when in fact, the arc is a degree of a circle used in relation to angles and lines to denote distance and has zero to do with a globe earth.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 09, 2017, 01:26:37 AM
For further understanding of this subject, here is a noteworthy professional on the subject of latitude and longitude.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za42.htm
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 09, 2017, 01:57:57 AM
The Principle of the Sextant. The optical principle used in a sextant is this: given that a ray of light is reflected from two mirrors in succession, then the angle between the first and last direction of the ray is twice the angle between the mirrors.

Marine Navigational Equipment: The Sextant
written by: Manu • edited by: Lamar Stonecypher • updated: 5/14/2013
Many of us have seen photographs of seamen using a marine sextant. What exactly is that navigator measuring? Learn how a sextant works to help marine navigators find their position.

Sextant Navigation - The Altitudes
sextant

In marine navigation, when a navigator measures the altitude of a celestial body with a marine sextant he has to measure the altitude as an angle of the body above the visible horizon.

The altitude thus obtained has to be corrected for instrument and other errors before calculations can be made.

The Marine Sextant


The sextant derives its name from the extent of its limb which is the sixth part of a circle, or 60 degrees. The marine sextant is a double reflection instrument, used for measuring angles in then same plane. The arc is graduated into degrees from right to left from 0 to 120 (sometimes a little more). However the limb is only 1/6th of a circle due to the instrument double Reflecting.


To the right of 0 degrees on the arc is graduated 5 degrees. This arc of excess is called ‘Off the arc’, and the arc to the left of the zero is termed ‘On the arc’.

The sextant can be used to measure angles in vertical, horizontal or oblique PLANES.

http://www.brighthubengineering.com/seafaring/31615-marine-navigational-equipment-the-sextant/
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 09, 2017, 02:07:13 AM
Now that we have well established that a sextant is designed to work with parallel lines, reflecting mirrors, line of sight and degrees of an arc, (not the globe earth,) that they measure planes, and that the measurements are recorded on a grid map, I think its safe to say, along with gyros, astrolabes, compasses, bubble levels etc, the earth measured by such things is proven not a globe.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on March 09, 2017, 07:20:40 AM
Neil,
You should watch the following video which explains how the stars work in the flat earth.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/ahNfU7zYlmY[/youtube]

are you interested though?

There isn't much point having a conversation with you, because you ignore anything that you don't like. You still have failed to answer where the missing hundreds of feet came from way back a few months ago. This seeing of objects is THE proof par excellence of the flat earth, and you have not answered it.

BTW what is my remarking on your unhappiness indicative of?

But to go back to navigation, I'm at a loss as to why anything you show proves curvature on the earth. Can you explain? Have you studied the flat earth maps? Have you tried to conceive how it would work on a flat earth model?
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on March 09, 2017, 10:02:27 AM
Quote from: noOneImportant
Stop being needlessly pedantic and condescending, and make an argument. I agree with you and I still find you almost as infuriating as the deluded people in this thread.


I just thumbed-up NoOne's post about Neil - unbelievable...haha.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on March 09, 2017, 10:05:07 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat

Especially noteworthy is minute 5:15 when Mr. Buckley says for the purposes of celestial navigation the earth is presumed motionless with the sun continually moving around it. His model shown at that point speaks for itself. It would make no sense whatsoever if the earth were "flat."

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/Xz0VazejX1Q[/youtube]



"...for the purposes of navigation.." ???

No, it is assumed motionless with the sun moving above because that is REALITY.

Tell me how you arrive at the conclusion "it would make no sense if the earth were flat."

It makes PERFECT sense.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on March 09, 2017, 10:07:49 AM
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.

Why did you make this ASSumption?
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: noOneImportant on March 09, 2017, 01:05:41 PM
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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on March 09, 2017, 02:07:30 PM
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.

(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg.html)
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Matto on March 09, 2017, 02:17:33 PM
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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 09, 2017, 04:21:43 PM
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.

(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg.html)



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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 09, 2017, 05:02:51 PM
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.

(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg.html)



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?    
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: noOneImportant on March 09, 2017, 05:03:15 PM
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.

(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg.html)


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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 09, 2017, 05:16:59 PM
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.


 God mocked Job for his arrogance, citing the fact that no one was there for the laying of the foundations of earth, nor understanding the celestial clockwork of heaven.  There is a lot we don't know, but there is a lot we do know.  For instance, we know for certain that ships do not disappear over the curve.  We know for certain that the horizon rises to eye level no matter how high one goes, and that on a ball, the horizon would actually descend in order to be a ball.  We know for certain that the coriolis force and foucault pendulums were scams to try to prove round moving earth.  We know for certain that there is a hard dome above earth forming a tent like structure over the earth with water above the dome.  We know NASA has lied about the moonlandings, photoshopped pictures of earth and heavens with the intent to indoctrinate and steal billions of dollars from the unsuspecting public.  I could go on and on, but that should be sufficient.  One thing is certain for me: all my life I never really looked up for long.  Now I do it constantly.  I take pictures of the stars and moon and observe their actions, I ponder creation and God's intent for showing it to me, and I thank God for providing me a clearer picture of where He resides: above.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on March 09, 2017, 05:26:41 PM
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.

(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg.html)



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.


I have seen the flat-earth horizon with my very own eyes and it exactley the same as in the pictures I posted of the flat-horizon.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: noOneImportant on March 09, 2017, 05:28:45 PM
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
I have seen the flat-earth horizon with my very own eyes and it exactley the same as in the pictures I posted of the flat-horizon.


Unless you have laser eyes that can detect curvature of a few tenths of a degree, or you have been a few hundred thousand feet up in the air, no you haven't.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on March 09, 2017, 05:29:39 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.

(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg.html)



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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 09, 2017, 05:30:32 PM
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.

(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg.html)


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.


So you say. In fact, a 360 panoramic view from 10,000 ft should give a clue.  Still you say you don't get it.  Ok.  Let's try something different.  Water in my glass, in my pool, in the lake behind my house.  It's no more or less curved than the ocean.  Why?  Because water surface remains flat at rest.  Water has never stuck to a curved outside surface of a ball, ever.  Only heliocentric theorists believe such nonsense and then refrain from providing evidence for it.  For Catholics, believing that is really not an option because heliocentrism has been condemned by the Church, by scripture, by saints, by popes.  Perhaps a long consideration about the properties of water and the church's condemnation will clear things up for you.    
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: noOneImportant on March 09, 2017, 05:32:13 PM
Quote from: happenby

So you say. In fact, a 360 panoramic view from 10,000 ft should give a clue.  Still you say you don't get it.  Ok.  Let's try something different.  Water in my glass, in my pool, in the lake behind my house.  It's no more or less curved than the ocean.  Why?  Because water surface remains flat at rest. Water has never stuck to a curved outside surface of a ball, ever.  Only heliocentric theorists believe such nonsense and then refrain from providing evidence for it.  For Catholics, believing that is really not an option because heliocentrism has been condemned by the Church, by scripture, by saints, by popes.  Perhaps a long consideration about the properties of water and the church's condemnation will clear things up for you.    


I did the math on the surface of a pool in a previous thread as well. The center of the pool is something like 1/20,000th of an inch higher than the ends due to the earth's curvature. Good luck measuring that.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on March 09, 2017, 05:33:43 PM
Quote from: noOneImportant
Quote from: happenby

So you say. In fact, a 360 panoramic view from 10,000 ft should give a clue.  Still you say you don't get it.  Ok.  Let's try something different.  Water in my glass, in my pool, in the lake behind my house.  It's no more or less curved than the ocean.  Why?  Because water surface remains flat at rest. Water has never stuck to a curved outside surface of a ball, ever.  Only heliocentric theorists believe such nonsense and then refrain from providing evidence for it.  For Catholics, believing that is really not an option because heliocentrism has been condemned by the Church, by scripture, by saints, by popes.  Perhaps a long consideration about the properties of water and the church's condemnation will clear things up for you.    


I did the math on the surface of a pool in a previous thread as well. The center of the pool is something like 1/20,000th of an inch higher than the ends due to the earth's curvature. Good luck measuring that.


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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 09, 2017, 05:37:03 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.

(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg.html)



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.



 :applause: :rahrah: :boxer:
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: noOneImportant on March 09, 2017, 05:39:45 PM
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 (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/nyMqnpaPD3k/maxresdefault.jpg), 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 here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFU1A88N_6I) (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?
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 09, 2017, 05:40:09 PM
Quote from: noOneImportant
Quote from: happenby

So you say. In fact, a 360 panoramic view from 10,000 ft should give a clue.  Still you say you don't get it.  Ok.  Let's try something different.  Water in my glass, in my pool, in the lake behind my house.  It's no more or less curved than the ocean.  Why?  Because water surface remains flat at rest. Water has never stuck to a curved outside surface of a ball, ever.  Only heliocentric theorists believe such nonsense and then refrain from providing evidence for it.  For Catholics, believing that is really not an option because heliocentrism has been condemned by the Church, by scripture, by saints, by popes.  Perhaps a long consideration about the properties of water and the church's condemnation will clear things up for you.    


I did the math on the surface of a pool in a previous thread as well. The center of the pool is something like 1/20,000th of an inch higher than the ends due to the earth's curvature. Good luck measuring that.


Since you did not, and cannot show this silly premise to be true, why would you post it?  Who's word about such an anomaly is trustworthy enough to chuck reason out the window?  
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: noOneImportant on March 09, 2017, 05:41:03 PM
Quote from: happenby
Quote from: noOneImportant
Quote from: happenby

So you say. In fact, a 360 panoramic view from 10,000 ft should give a clue.  Still you say you don't get it.  Ok.  Let's try something different.  Water in my glass, in my pool, in the lake behind my house.  It's no more or less curved than the ocean.  Why?  Because water surface remains flat at rest. Water has never stuck to a curved outside surface of a ball, ever.  Only heliocentric theorists believe such nonsense and then refrain from providing evidence for it.  For Catholics, believing that is really not an option because heliocentrism has been condemned by the Church, by scripture, by saints, by popes.  Perhaps a long consideration about the properties of water and the church's condemnation will clear things up for you.    


I did the math on the surface of a pool in a previous thread as well. The center of the pool is something like 1/20,000th of an inch higher than the ends due to the earth's curvature. Good luck measuring that.


Since you did not, and cannot show this silly premise to be true, why would you post it?  Who's word about such an anomaly is trustworthy enough to chuck reason out the window?  


I didn't bring it up. You did. I showed, using logic and simple math, why it isn't the proof you think it is. Is this too confusing for you?
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 09, 2017, 05:41:57 PM
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 (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/nyMqnpaPD3k/maxresdefault.jpg), 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 here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFU1A88N_6I) (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?



Ok, here comes the denials of existence.  Very expected, but always a little freaky.  People attempting to carry an argument past reasonable always go here.  

Flat enough exists. And the earth is not a globe.  
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 09, 2017, 05:46:55 PM
Quote from: noOneImportant
Quote from: happenby
Quote from: noOneImportant
Quote from: happenby

So you say. In fact, a 360 panoramic view from 10,000 ft should give a clue.  Still you say you don't get it.  Ok.  Let's try something different.  Water in my glass, in my pool, in the lake behind my house.  It's no more or less curved than the ocean.  Why?  Because water surface remains flat at rest. Water has never stuck to a curved outside surface of a ball, ever.  Only heliocentric theorists believe such nonsense and then refrain from providing evidence for it.  For Catholics, believing that is really not an option because heliocentrism has been condemned by the Church, by scripture, by saints, by popes.  Perhaps a long consideration about the properties of water and the church's condemnation will clear things up for you.    


I did the math on the surface of a pool in a previous thread as well. The center of the pool is something like 1/20,000th of an inch higher than the ends due to the earth's curvature. Good luck measuring that.


Since you did not, and cannot show this silly premise to be true, why would you post it?  Who's word about such an anomaly is trustworthy enough to chuck reason out the window?  


I didn't bring it up. You did. I showed, using logic and simple math, why it isn't the proof you think it is. Is this too confusing for you?


Ok, 1/20,000th of an inch of unprovable hearsay? Confusion happened, but its all in your head.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: noOneImportant on March 09, 2017, 05:53:17 PM
Quote from: happenby
Ok, 1/20,000th of an inch of unprovable hearsay? Confusion happened, but its all in your head.


Since you appear to be having trouble, I'll spell it out for you.

1. You claimed water remains "flat" at rest, citing a pool and a lake as proof.
2. I pointed out that these are not proof, because the curvature over them is small enough that it can't be detected without incredibly sensitive equipment anyway.

My memory was off, and it's actually larger than I remembered, but my point still stands. Based off the assumed radius of the earth of ~4k miles, a 200 foot pool would have a curvature of 1/100th of an inch. So no, you can't claim "I looked at my pool and it was flat!" as "proof" of anything.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 09, 2017, 06:04:25 PM
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.


And you have no evidence at all!
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on March 09, 2017, 06:07:06 PM
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 (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/nyMqnpaPD3k/maxresdefault.jpg), 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 here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFU1A88N_6I) (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]
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 09, 2017, 06:14:58 PM
Quote from: happenby
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.


And you have no evidence at all!


Sorry, this was posted to the wrong person...
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby 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 (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/nyMqnpaPD3k/maxresdefault.jpg), 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 here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFU1A88N_6I) (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.  
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: ManuelChavez 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.

(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg.html)



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...
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: ManuelChavez 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.

(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg.html)



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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat 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.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby 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.

(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg.html)



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.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor 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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor 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.

(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg.html)


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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor 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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: cassini 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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat 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."

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 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^^
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Matto 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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: cassini 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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby 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).
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 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!
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor 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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor 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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor 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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: noOneImportant 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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal 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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal 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.  :laugh1:
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: ManuelChavez 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.

(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg.html)



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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on March 10, 2017, 06:44:39 PM
I'm still waiting for noOneImportant to show me where the flat part is on this:

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on March 10, 2017, 06:51:28 PM
Quote from: ManuelChavez

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.


Repeat after me:

"EARTH IS NOT A CELESTIAL OBJECT."

There.

Lesson over.

Now, you understand WHY you CANNOT have a version of geocentrism that makes of the earth just another one of many, many celestial objects.

The EARTH does not exist IN SPACE.

It DOES NOT FOLLOW that the earth would also be a celestial object, simply because one can see celestial objects above it in the Firmament.

The earth is a different part of Creation altogether - and it is stationary and does not move. The celestial objects rotate in a circle above the flat earth plane, as was amply demonstrated in the star trails video posted by FlatEarth Inquisitor.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on March 10, 2017, 06:54:48 PM
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/ahNfU7zYlmY[/youtube]



Watch the celestial objects move above the stationary flat earth plane.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 10, 2017, 07:04:37 PM
We have measured the distance of the Moon from the earth using various methods, including lasers. One can shine a bright laser at the moon and have the light reflected back. Using the speed of the laser and the reflected light, we can figure the distance the light traveled.

That would be roughly 239,000 miles. Since the moon appears between the earth and the sun, the sun is not 3,000 miles from the earth, according to the distance of the moon from the earth.

The sun would need to be much further than 239,000 miles.

The ancient Greeks also figured this out using more primitive means, and their tests can be done using two people with long-range communications (cell phone). The distance derived from these tests supports the laser tests of the moon's distance from the earth.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 10, 2017, 07:10:05 PM
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: ManuelChavez

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.


Repeat after me:

"EARTH IS NOT A CELESTIAL OBJECT."

There.

Lesson over.

Now, you understand WHY you CANNOT have a version of geocentrism that makes of the earth just another one of many, many celestial objects.

The EARTH does not exist IN SPACE.

It DOES NOT FOLLOW that the earth would also be a celestial object, simply because one can see celestial objects above it in the Firmament.

The earth is a different part of Creation altogether - and it is stationary and does not move. The celestial objects rotate in a circle above the flat earth plane, as was amply demonstrated in the star trails video posted by FlatEarth Inquisitor.


That is not a lesson. It is your observation, based on an interpretation of data and on one's perceptions of the earth and the heavens.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 10, 2017, 07:30:36 PM
This is the list of assumptions I received:

From Happenby: Let me guess, you think earth is a ball...

1. Because NASA says so.

Answer: No. I do my own research, and then compare it with what NASA and the flat earthers both say.

2. Because somebody says a shadow on the moon is curved.

Answer: People can say that, but I rely on my own research and observations.

3. Because teachers said so.

Answer: See above...

4. Because somebody said that flat earth is stupid.

Answer: Insults do not equate to truth.

5. Because everybody else says its true.

Answer: Everybody could say a lot of things that aren't true, though I don't think there has ever seen anything that "everybody" has ever agreed upon as true.

6. Because somebody says that the stars and sun and moon wouldn't work on flat earth.

Answer: Somebody can say that, but I do not rely on their words. I have done my own studies, and there are unanswered questions and apparent errors in regards to the flat earth, especially when considering the motion of the moon, the stars and the sun.

7. Because somebody said ships disappear over the horizon.

Answer: What is it with you and "somebody"? I have my own mind, eyes, ears, and so on. I don't have to rely on "somebody" for my own observations.

Ships are not my concern.

8. Because somebody said astronauts saw it.

Answer: I heard that somebody saw bigfoot once. It was a scientist, too. I don't believe in bigfoot.

- - -

Well, there's the list of assumptions and my answers to the assumptions.

I hate assumptions...
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 10, 2017, 07:31:49 PM
Quote from: ManuelChavez
We have measured the distance of the Moon from the earth using various methods, including lasers. One can shine a bright laser at the moon and have the light reflected back. Using the speed of the laser and the reflected light, we can figure the distance the light traveled.

That would be roughly 239,000 miles. Since the moon appears between the earth and the sun, the sun is not 3,000 miles from the earth, according to the distance of the moon from the earth.

The sun would need to be much further than 239,000 miles.

The ancient Greeks also figured this out using more primitive means, and their tests can be done using two people with long-range communications (cell phone). The distance derived from these tests supports the laser tests of the moon's distance from the earth.


'We' have measured the distance of the moon?  

This is the problem with heliocentric theory. NASA dictates the information to keep people indoctrinated. Scripture denies what NASA says and teaches that the earth is enclosed, under a firmament (dome structure) and that the sun and moon and stars reside in and under the dome, with water above that.  So, one has to ask, can the sun, which is said by NASA to be 93,000,000 miles away in the heliocentric system, be housed under a visible dome?  With water above it?

Gen 1. 6 And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1.7 And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so.

Gen 1:14-16 And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: 15 To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done. 16 And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars.

Psalm 19:1 The heavens shew forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands.

 
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 10, 2017, 07:33:29 PM
Quote from: ManuelChavez
This is the list of assumptions I received:

From Happenby: Let me guess, you think earth is a ball...

1. Because NASA says so.

Answer: No. I do my own research, and then compare it with what NASA and the flat earthers both say.

2. Because somebody says a shadow on the moon is curved.

Answer: People can say that, but I rely on my own research and observations.

3. Because teachers said so.

Answer: See above...

4. Because somebody said that flat earth is stupid.

Answer: Insults do not equate to truth.

5. Because everybody else says its true.

Answer: Everybody could say a lot of things that aren't true, though I don't think there has ever seen anything that "everybody" has ever agreed upon as true.

6. Because somebody says that the stars and sun and moon wouldn't work on flat earth.

Answer: Somebody can say that, but I do not rely on their words. I have done my own studies, and there are unanswered questions and apparent errors in regards to the flat earth, especially when considering the motion of the moon, the stars and the sun.

7. Because somebody said ships disappear over the horizon.

Answer: What is it with you and "somebody"? I have my own mind, eyes, ears, and so on. I don't have to rely on "somebody" for my own observations.

Ships are not my concern.

8. Because somebody said astronauts saw it.

Answer: I heard that somebody saw bigfoot once. It was a scientist, too. I don't believe in bigfoot.

- - -

Well, there's the list of assumptions and my answers to the assumptions.

I hate assumptions...


Ok, me too.  My apologies.  
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 10, 2017, 07:58:09 PM
Quote from: happenby
Quote from: ManuelChavez
This is the list of assumptions I received:

From Happenby: Let me guess, you think earth is a ball...

1. Because NASA says so.

Answer: No. I do my own research, and then compare it with what NASA and the flat earthers both say.

2. Because somebody says a shadow on the moon is curved.

Answer: People can say that, but I rely on my own research and observations.

3. Because teachers said so.

Answer: See above...

4. Because somebody said that flat earth is stupid.

Answer: Insults do not equate to truth.

5. Because everybody else says its true.

Answer: Everybody could say a lot of things that aren't true, though I don't think there has ever seen anything that "everybody" has ever agreed upon as true.

6. Because somebody says that the stars and sun and moon wouldn't work on flat earth.

Answer: Somebody can say that, but I do not rely on their words. I have done my own studies, and there are unanswered questions and apparent errors in regards to the flat earth, especially when considering the motion of the moon, the stars and the sun.

7. Because somebody said ships disappear over the horizon.

Answer: What is it with you and "somebody"? I have my own mind, eyes, ears, and so on. I don't have to rely on "somebody" for my own observations.

Ships are not my concern.

8. Because somebody said astronauts saw it.

Answer: I heard that somebody saw bigfoot once. It was a scientist, too. I don't believe in bigfoot.

- - -

Well, there's the list of assumptions and my answers to the assumptions.

I hate assumptions...


Ok, me too.  My apologies.  


Thank you. That means a lot to me. God bless.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 10, 2017, 08:35:27 PM
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: happenby
Quote from: ManuelChavez
This is the list of assumptions I received:

From Happenby: Let me guess, you think earth is a ball...

1. Because NASA says so.

Answer: No. I do my own research, and then compare it with what NASA and the flat earthers both say.

2. Because somebody says a shadow on the moon is curved.

Answer: People can say that, but I rely on my own research and observations.

3. Because teachers said so.

Answer: See above...

4. Because somebody said that flat earth is stupid.

Answer: Insults do not equate to truth.

5. Because everybody else says its true.

Answer: Everybody could say a lot of things that aren't true, though I don't think there has ever seen anything that "everybody" has ever agreed upon as true.

6. Because somebody says that the stars and sun and moon wouldn't work on flat earth.

Answer: Somebody can say that, but I do not rely on their words. I have done my own studies, and there are unanswered questions and apparent errors in regards to the flat earth, especially when considering the motion of the moon, the stars and the sun.

7. Because somebody said ships disappear over the horizon.

Answer: What is it with you and "somebody"? I have my own mind, eyes, ears, and so on. I don't have to rely on "somebody" for my own observations.

Ships are not my concern.

8. Because somebody said astronauts saw it.

Answer: I heard that somebody saw bigfoot once. It was a scientist, too. I don't believe in bigfoot.

- - -

Well, there's the list of assumptions and my answers to the assumptions.

I hate assumptions...


Ok, me too.  My apologies.  


Thank you. That means a lot to me. God bless.


:-)  God bless.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on March 11, 2017, 01:58:24 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.


I don't want anyone reading this to think go away actually swayed by you so I have some brief things to say:

It is you in ignorance, because you have not successfully refuted the no curvature arguments.

It is you being illogical. Your round earth is only logical once it holds certain premises. That the earth is round! any thing after that is a circular logic and we can't have a discussion with you.

Therefore it is YOU beyond reason.

Geometry we agree with. The flat earth no-curvature argument is based on geometry! As for the stars/sun geometry, you have presuppositions about the distance or put them as being so far that it makes no odds, but fail to take into account that the geometry works perfectly on a flat earth!

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: cassini on March 11, 2017, 03:35:33 PM
Quote from: ManuelChavez
We have measured the distance of the Moon from the earth using various methods, including lasers. One can shine a bright laser at the moon and have the light reflected back. Using the speed of the laser and the reflected light, we can figure the distance the light traveled.

That would be roughly 239,000 miles. Since the moon appears between the earth and the sun, the sun is not 3,000 miles from the earth, according to the distance of the moon from the earth.

The sun would need to be much further than 239,000 miles.

The ancient Greeks also figured this out using more primitive means, and their tests can be done using two people with long-range communications (cell phone). The distance derived from these tests supports the laser tests of the moon's distance from the earth.


the astronomer Dominico Cassini and King Louis XIV's Paris Observatory had another similar system back in 1672..

‘In 1672 Cassini took advantage of a good opposition of Mars to determine the distance between the Earth and that planet. He arranged for Jean Richer (1630-1696) to make measurements from his base in Cayenne, on the north eastern coast of South Africa, while Cassini made simultaneous measurements in Paris which permitted them to make a triangulation of Mars with a baseline of nearly 10,000 kilometres. This derived a good approximation for the distance between the Earth and Mars, from which Cassini was able to deduce many other astronomical distances. These included the Astronomical Unit [the distance of the sun from the earth] which Cassini found to be 138 million kilometres, only 11 million kilometres too little [that is, according to today’s proposed measurements].   ---  David Abbot: Astronomers, The Biographical Dictionary of Scientists, Blonde Educational, 1984, p.35.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 11, 2017, 03:48:50 PM
Quote from: cassini
Quote from: ManuelChavez
We have measured the distance of the Moon from the earth using various methods, including lasers. One can shine a bright laser at the moon and have the light reflected back. Using the speed of the laser and the reflected light, we can figure the distance the light traveled.

That would be roughly 239,000 miles. Since the moon appears between the earth and the sun, the sun is not 3,000 miles from the earth, according to the distance of the moon from the earth.

The sun would need to be much further than 239,000 miles.

The ancient Greeks also figured this out using more primitive means, and their tests can be done using two people with long-range communications (cell phone). The distance derived from these tests supports the laser tests of the moon's distance from the earth.


the astronomer Dominico Cassini and King Louis XIV's Paris Observatory had another similar system back in 1672..

‘In 1672 Cassini took advantage of a good opposition of Mars to determine the distance between the Earth and that planet. He arranged for Jean Richer (1630-1696) to make measurements from his base in Cayenne, on the north eastern coast of South Africa, while Cassini made simultaneous measurements in Paris which permitted them to make a triangulation of Mars with a baseline of nearly 10,000 kilometres. This derived a good approximation for the distance between the Earth and Mars, from which Cassini was able to deduce many other astronomical distances. These included the Astronomical Unit [the distance of the sun from the earth] which Cassini found to be 138 million kilometres, only 11 million kilometres too little [that is, according to today’s proposed measurements].   ---  David Abbot: Astronomers, The Biographical Dictionary of Scientists, Blonde Educational, 1984, p.35.


The problem with Cassini's measurements is that verifying his results are almost impossible. On the other hand, verifying measurements to the sun/moon can be done by anyone at all and most certainly do not add up to millions of miles for sun or hundreds of thousands of miles for the moon.  Scripture alone should suffice to prove sun and moon are in the firmament, relatively small and nearby.  But for the ones who care to do the measurements for themselves...

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: cassini on March 12, 2017, 12:01:46 PM
Quote from: mw2016


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!


Tell that to Mary Of Agreda (1602-1665);

"God created the earth cojointly with the heavens, in order to call into existance hell IN ITS CENTRE; for, at the instant of its creation, there were left in the interior OF THAT GLOBE spacious and wide cavities, suitable for hell, purgatory and Limbo."  --- Mystical City of God.

Mary of Agreda also refers to the sun and moon as "planets" which is geocentric.  

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: BumphreyHogart on March 12, 2017, 12:16:19 PM
Quote from: happenby
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.  


The Church teaches no such thing.  The Church has for generations taught heliocentrism in Her parish schools. This would not happen if it were against Catholic teaching.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on March 12, 2017, 01:12:58 PM
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: happenby
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.  


The Church teaches no such thing.  The Church has for generations taught heliocentrism in Her parish schools. This would not happen if it were against Catholic teaching.


Here's some quotes to chew on....
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t60-pertinent-quotes-from-fathers-and-tradition
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: BumphreyHogart on March 12, 2017, 03:43:39 PM
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: happenby
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.  


The Church teaches no such thing.  The Church has for generations taught heliocentrism in Her parish schools. This would not happen if it were against Catholic teaching.


Here's some quotes to chew on....
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t60-pertinent-quotes-from-fathers-and-tradition


I not only chewed on them, I blew bubbles.

None of it was from the magisterium. A disciplinary prohibition from the Holy Office is not the magisterium. That is why it says, "the present decree respectively prohibits, condemns, and suspends all."

Same problem the Feeneyites have, not noticing that a divine Church cannot allow something inherently dangerous to faith, universally, and for generations, which the Church has, as previously mentioned.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: cassini on March 12, 2017, 03:53:55 PM
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: happenby
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.  


The Church teaches no such thing.  The Church has for generations taught heliocentrism in Her parish schools. This would not happen if it were against Catholic teaching.


We better not get into this discussion on this thread Bumphy, but you deserve an answer to your post.

in 1613 Galileo was asserting heliocentrism was a proven scientific fact and that the references to a moving sun and stars in Scripture were not literal but merely reflected the illusion of motion as man sees it. All the Church Fathers had interpreted the Scriptures as literally revealing a fixed earth and moving sun, moon and stars. Now at the Council of Trent it decreed that the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers cannot be contradicted and anybody doing so had to be stopped. Thus the Church of 1616 had to settle the matter.

In 1616 Pope Paul V defined that the Scriptures reveal a geocentric world and to deny this was formal heresy. Churchmen decided the issue there and then, there cannot be proof for that would make scripture false, nor can there ever be proof found for that again would make scripture reveal in error. The FAITH of these churchmen decided the matter.

This decree was made universal and declared absolute in 1633 by Pope Urban VIII. As it happened when examined all now agree Galileo had no such proof.

By 1700, other philosophers like Newton were claiming they had the proof for heliocentrism. Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ then took over the dictates of science and convinced many that proofs had been found. Some high officials in the Church started to believe Pope Paul V and Urban VIII has made a disasterous mistake and this began what can only be described as the FIRST MODERNIST U-TURN IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

By 1835, most members of the Holy Office had convinced the pope to allow heliocentrism to be accepted by the flock, while others advised him it was an irreversible decree and that no proof for heliocentrism actually existed. Such was the pressure from within and from without to allow heliocentric books He did this,  BUT, and I quote "without comment." In other words it was all done without the abrogation of the 1616 decree. In more words, the popes dared not address or contradict the 1616 decree and say it was wrong, simply ignored it and hoped it would disappear into oblivion.

And it did. Search as much as you like and whereas you will find in Catholic books every Holy Office decree on this and that but the only one that decreed an error formal heresy IS MISSING.

Given the SUBJECT MATTER of the heresy was not THEOLOGICAL it disappeared, and a thousand books assured all Catholics that the 1616 decree was reversible and that the matter was ended, a once-off mistake. But the enemies of the Church saw their chance and let all know that one such mistake proves the Catholic Church is not protected from error by their God. Even today these book are everywhere. Why even Catholic theologians like Hans Kung use this case to argue the Catholic Church is NOT INFALLIBLE. (I read Pope Francis is to have a chat with him about this)

In 1887 however a scientific experiment showed the earth does not move. This sent scientists wild with horror and it took 17 years to get heliocentrism back as a POSSIBILITY. Albert Einstein was used to aschieve this by saying, Yes, geocentrism is a scientific possibility, but because of relativity so is heliocentrism.

So, one hundred years ago science KNEW the 1616 decree was not falsified, that to be at one with science one had to accept geocentrism could well the real order of the universe. So, did ANYONE in the Church at that time, from Pope to Catholic scientist  consider the U-turn had been the disasterous mistake? You bet your life they did but that U-turn kept the world from laughing at a Church that had to believe in the geocentric POSSIBILITY.

Of course Bumphry they didn't dare stop teaching heliocentrism in Church and State, to you and me. Indeed the only way to have to avoid admitting the U-turn mistake was to actually go along with all scientific theories saying of course God did it that way. At Vatican II it became so important to keep all Catholics ignorant heliocentrists that they put in its Gaudium et Spes a criticism of the geocentric popes and theologians of 1616 and 1633.

So, there you are bumphry, hard to believe isn't it. The Church that is supposed to teach the truth of faith and to prevent false philosophy among its flock wouldn't touch the 1616 decree with a long pole. It would make them look like idiots in a world 400 years now under the propaganda that the earth moves around the sun and to adhere to the 1616 decree of faioth would make them look like idiots in this rotten world. Yes, intellectual pride is far more important now than faith in the Scriptures.


Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on March 12, 2017, 04:23:54 PM
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: happenby
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.  


The Church teaches no such thing.  The Church has for generations taught heliocentrism in Her parish schools. This would not happen if it were against Catholic teaching.


Here's some quotes to chew on....
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t60-pertinent-quotes-from-fathers-and-tradition


I not only chewed on them, I blew bubbles.

None of it was from the magisterium. A disciplinary prohibition from the Holy Office is not the magisterium. That is why it says, "the present decree respectively prohibits, condemns, and suspends all."

Same problem the Feeneyites have, not noticing that a divine Church cannot allow something inherently dangerous to faith, universally, and for generations, which the Church has, as previously mentioned.


You should not compare this to the Feeneyites. You know that it not the same.

Do you understand the purpose of an infallible decree is? It is so the faithful can be under no illusion on a certain point. But it does not mean that there are other points which it has not clarified which can be part of the faith.

I think you should be careful in coming down too hard on this, because it may come back to bite you someday. Most especially because you have virtually nothing from the Holy office or the Fathers of the church in favour of globalism.

Also, your lack of humility in face of these quotes is astonishing.

But you cannot ultimately win especially because scientifically you are wrong about the globe earth.

Cassini's post was interesting, but it should be borne in mind that he is clearly (you can read a list of his posts to confirm) not a resistance Catholic.

On a separate note, here is a interesting video:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/p5asOJGkCQI[/youtube]
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on March 12, 2017, 08:42:52 PM
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: happenby
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.  


The Church teaches no such thing.  The Church has for generations taught heliocentrism in Her parish schools. This would not happen if it were against Catholic teaching.


 :facepalm:

Poor Bumphrey Hogart. He has just arrived and thinks he's going to go a few rounds against happenby.

Good luck, pal.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on March 12, 2017, 08:45:26 PM
Quote from: cassini
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: happenby
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.  


The Church teaches no such thing.  The Church has for generations taught heliocentrism in Her parish schools. This would not happen if it were against Catholic teaching.


We better not get into this discussion on this thread Bumphy, but you deserve an answer to your post.

in 1613 Galileo was asserting heliocentrism was a proven scientific fact and that the references to a moving sun and stars in Scripture were not literal but merely reflected the illusion of motion as man sees it. All the Church Fathers had interpreted the Scriptures as literally revealing a fixed earth and moving sun, moon and stars. Now at the Council of Trent it decreed that the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers cannot be contradicted and anybody doing so had to be stopped. Thus the Church of 1616 had to settle the matter.

In 1616 Pope Paul V defined that the Scriptures reveal a geocentric world and to deny this was formal heresy. Churchmen decided the issue there and then, there cannot be proof for that would make scripture false, nor can there ever be proof found for that again would make scripture reveal in error. The FAITH of these churchmen decided the matter.

This decree was made universal and declared absolute in 1633 by Pope Urban VIII. As it happened when examined all now agree Galileo had no such proof.

By 1700, other philosophers like Newton were claiming they had the proof for heliocentrism. Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ then took over the dictates of science and convinced many that proofs had been found. Some high officials in the Church started to believe Pope Paul V and Urban VIII has made a disasterous mistake and this began what can only be described as the FIRST MODERNIST U-TURN IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

By 1835, most members of the Holy Office had convinced the pope to allow heliocentrism to be accepted by the flock, while others advised him it was an irreversible decree and that no proof for heliocentrism actually existed. Such was the pressure from within and from without to allow heliocentric books He did this,  BUT, and I quote "without comment." In other words it was all done without the abrogation of the 1616 decree. In more words, the popes dared not address or contradict the 1616 decree and say it was wrong, simply ignored it and hoped it would disappear into oblivion.

And it did. Search as much as you like and whereas you will find in Catholic books every Holy Office decree on this and that but the only one that decreed an error formal heresy IS MISSING.

Given the SUBJECT MATTER of the heresy was not THEOLOGICAL it disappeared, and a thousand books assured all Catholics that the 1616 decree was reversible and that the matter was ended, a once-off mistake. But the enemies of the Church saw their chance and let all know that one such mistake proves the Catholic Church is not protected from error by their God. Even today these book are everywhere. Why even Catholic theologians like Hans Kung use this case to argue the Catholic Church is NOT INFALLIBLE. (I read Pope Francis is to have a chat with him about this)

In 1887 however a scientific experiment showed the earth does not move. This sent scientists wild with horror and it took 17 years to get heliocentrism back as a POSSIBILITY. Albert Einstein was used to aschieve this by saying, Yes, geocentrism is a scientific possibility, but because of relativity so is heliocentrism.

So, one hundred years ago science KNEW the 1616 decree was not falsified, that to be at one with science one had to accept geocentrism could well the real order of the universe. So, did ANYONE in the Church at that time, from Pope to Catholic scientist  consider the U-turn had been the disasterous mistake? You bet your life they did but that U-turn kept the world from laughing at a Church that had to believe in the geocentric POSSIBILITY.

Of course Bumphry they didn't dare stop teaching heliocentrism in Church and State, to you and me. Indeed the only way to have to avoid admitting the U-turn mistake was to actually go along with all scientific theories saying of course God did it that way. At Vatican II it became so important to keep all Catholics ignorant heliocentrists that they put in its Gaudium et Spes a criticism of the geocentric popes and theologians of 1616 and 1633.

So, there you are bumphry, hard to believe isn't it. The Church that is supposed to teach the truth of faith and to prevent false philosophy among its flock wouldn't touch the 1616 decree with a long pole. It would make them look like idiots in a world 400 years now under the propaganda that the earth moves around the sun and to adhere to the 1616 decree of faioth would make them look like idiots in this rotten world. Yes, intellectual pride is far more important now than faith in the Scriptures.




Bumphrey even thinks he's going to take on the geocentrists AND the FE'ers.

ROFL
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 12, 2017, 09:34:27 PM
Some day, cassini, readers of CI will realize what a signal grace it is to have you as a member of this forum.

Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=43219&min=340#p9)
Quote from: cassini
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: happenby
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.  

The Church teaches no such thing.  The Church has for generations taught heliocentrism in Her parish schools. This would not happen if it were against Catholic teaching.


We better not get into this discussion on this thread Bumphy, but you deserve an answer to your post.

in 1613 Galileo was asserting heliocentrism was a proven scientific fact and that the references to a moving sun and stars in Scripture were not literal but merely reflected the illusion of motion as man sees it. All the Church Fathers had interpreted the Scriptures as literally revealing a fixed earth and moving sun, moon and stars. Now at the Council of Trent it decreed that the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers cannot be contradicted and anybody doing so had to be stopped. Thus the Church of 1616 had to settle the matter.

In 1616 Pope Paul V defined that the Scriptures reveal a geocentric world and to deny this was formal heresy. Churchmen decided the issue there and then, there cannot be proof for that would make scripture false, nor can there ever be proof found for that again would make scripture reveal in error. The FAITH of these churchmen decided the matter.

This decree was made universal and declared absolute in 1633 by Pope Urban VIII. As it happened when examined all now agree Galileo had no such proof.

By 1700, other philosophers like Newton were claiming they had the proof for heliocentrism. Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ then took over the dictates of science and convinced many that proofs had been found. Some high officials in the Church started to believe Pope Paul V and Urban VIII has made a disasterous mistake and this began what can only be described as the FIRST MODERNIST U-TURN IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

By 1835, most members of the Holy Office had convinced the pope to allow heliocentrism to be accepted by the flock, while others advised him it was an irreversible decree and that no proof for heliocentrism actually existed. Such was the pressure from within and from without to allow heliocentric books He did this,  BUT, and I quote "without comment." In other words it was all done without the abrogation of the 1616 decree. In more words, the popes dared not address or contradict the 1616 decree and say it was wrong, simply ignored it and hoped it would disappear into oblivion.

And it did. Search as much as you like and whereas you will find in Catholic books every Holy Office decree on this and that but the only one that decreed an error formal heresy IS MISSING.

Given the SUBJECT MATTER of the heresy was not THEOLOGICAL it disappeared, and a thousand books assured all Catholics that the 1616 decree was reversible and that the matter was ended, a once-off mistake. But the enemies of the Church saw their chance and let all know that one such mistake proves the Catholic Church is not protected from error by their God. Even today these book are everywhere. Why even Catholic theologians like Hans Kung use this case to argue the Catholic Church is NOT INFALLIBLE. (I read Pope Francis is to have a chat with him about this)

In 1887 however a scientific experiment showed the earth does not move. This sent scientists wild with horror and it took 17 years to get heliocentrism back as a POSSIBILITY. Albert Einstein was used to aschieve this by saying, Yes, geocentrism is a scientific possibility, but because of relativity so is heliocentrism.

So, one hundred years ago science KNEW the 1616 decree was not falsified, that to be at one with science one had to accept geocentrism could well the real order of the universe. So, did ANYONE in the Church at that time, from Pope to Catholic scientist  consider the U-turn had been the disasterous mistake? You bet your life they did but that U-turn kept the world from laughing at a Church that had to believe in the geocentric POSSIBILITY.

Of course Bumphry they didn't dare stop teaching heliocentrism in Church and State, to you and me. Indeed the only way to have to avoid admitting the U-turn mistake was to actually go along with all scientific theories saying of course God did it that way. At Vatican II it became so important to keep all Catholics ignorant heliocentrists that they put in its Gaudium et Spes a criticism of the geocentric popes and theologians of 1616 and 1633.

So, there you are bumphry, hard to believe isn't it. The Church that is supposed to teach the truth of faith and to prevent false philosophy among its flock wouldn't touch the 1616 decree with a long pole. It would make them look like idiots in a world 400 years now under the propaganda that the earth moves around the sun and to adhere to the 1616 decree of faioth would make them look like idiots in this rotten world. Yes, intellectual pride is far more important now than faith in the Scriptures.


Your reliably appropriate and well-informed posts are a blessing for the readers.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 12, 2017, 09:49:51 PM
We also ought not forget that Isaac Newton's work, along with others (Rene Descartes, Voltaire, Immanuel Kant, etc.) gave the philosophical turmoil and underpinnings necessary for the French Revolution, which had a primary object of attacking the Church -- and the Royalty of France was necessary collateral damage. The fallout from those dark days consequent to Luther's heresy gave Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin the open field they needed to further demolish popular confidence in the Church and her teachings. From there came the rise of Communism and the push for Zionist illegitimate confiscation of land in Palestine, which has been two world wars......... so far.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on March 12, 2017, 11:05:55 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Some day, cassini, readers of CI will realize what a signal grace it is to have you as a member of this forum.

Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=43219&min=340#p9)
Quote from: cassini
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: happenby
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.  

The Church teaches no such thing.  The Church has for generations taught heliocentrism in Her parish schools. This would not happen if it were against Catholic teaching.


We better not get into this discussion on this thread Bumphy, but you deserve an answer to your post.

in 1613 Galileo was asserting heliocentrism was a proven scientific fact and that the references to a moving sun and stars in Scripture were not literal but merely reflected the illusion of motion as man sees it. All the Church Fathers had interpreted the Scriptures as literally revealing a fixed earth and moving sun, moon and stars. Now at the Council of Trent it decreed that the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers cannot be contradicted and anybody doing so had to be stopped. Thus the Church of 1616 had to settle the matter.

In 1616 Pope Paul V defined that the Scriptures reveal a geocentric world and to deny this was formal heresy. Churchmen decided the issue there and then, there cannot be proof for that would make scripture false, nor can there ever be proof found for that again would make scripture reveal in error. The FAITH of these churchmen decided the matter.

This decree was made universal and declared absolute in 1633 by Pope Urban VIII. As it happened when examined all now agree Galileo had no such proof.

By 1700, other philosophers like Newton were claiming they had the proof for heliocentrism. Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ then took over the dictates of science and convinced many that proofs had been found. Some high officials in the Church started to believe Pope Paul V and Urban VIII has made a disasterous mistake and this began what can only be described as the FIRST MODERNIST U-TURN IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

By 1835, most members of the Holy Office had convinced the pope to allow heliocentrism to be accepted by the flock, while others advised him it was an irreversible decree and that no proof for heliocentrism actually existed. Such was the pressure from within and from without to allow heliocentric books He did this,  BUT, and I quote "without comment." In other words it was all done without the abrogation of the 1616 decree. In more words, the popes dared not address or contradict the 1616 decree and say it was wrong, simply ignored it and hoped it would disappear into oblivion.

And it did. Search as much as you like and whereas you will find in Catholic books every Holy Office decree on this and that but the only one that decreed an error formal heresy IS MISSING.

Given the SUBJECT MATTER of the heresy was not THEOLOGICAL it disappeared, and a thousand books assured all Catholics that the 1616 decree was reversible and that the matter was ended, a once-off mistake. But the enemies of the Church saw their chance and let all know that one such mistake proves the Catholic Church is not protected from error by their God. Even today these book are everywhere. Why even Catholic theologians like Hans Kung use this case to argue the Catholic Church is NOT INFALLIBLE. (I read Pope Francis is to have a chat with him about this)

In 1887 however a scientific experiment showed the earth does not move. This sent scientists wild with horror and it took 17 years to get heliocentrism back as a POSSIBILITY. Albert Einstein was used to aschieve this by saying, Yes, geocentrism is a scientific possibility, but because of relativity so is heliocentrism.

So, one hundred years ago science KNEW the 1616 decree was not falsified, that to be at one with science one had to accept geocentrism could well the real order of the universe. So, did ANYONE in the Church at that time, from Pope to Catholic scientist  consider the U-turn had been the disasterous mistake? You bet your life they did but that U-turn kept the world from laughing at a Church that had to believe in the geocentric POSSIBILITY.

Of course Bumphry they didn't dare stop teaching heliocentrism in Church and State, to you and me. Indeed the only way to have to avoid admitting the U-turn mistake was to actually go along with all scientific theories saying of course God did it that way. At Vatican II it became so important to keep all Catholics ignorant heliocentrists that they put in its Gaudium et Spes a criticism of the geocentric popes and theologians of 1616 and 1633.

So, there you are bumphry, hard to believe isn't it. The Church that is supposed to teach the truth of faith and to prevent false philosophy among its flock wouldn't touch the 1616 decree with a long pole. It would make them look like idiots in a world 400 years now under the propaganda that the earth moves around the sun and to adhere to the 1616 decree of faioth would make them look like idiots in this rotten world. Yes, intellectual pride is far more important now than faith in the Scriptures.


Your reliably appropriate and well-informed posts are a blessing for the readers.



YOU FORGOT TO WATCH THE VIDEO OF THE SUN MOVING ACROSS THE SKY!
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/7Zy_qg5EbJk[/youtube]
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 12, 2017, 11:22:42 PM
This time exposure shows star tracks from Ogden, Utah, at 41 degrees latitude:

Quote from: [url=http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/starmotion.html
source[/url]]
In the north, the motion is most interesting. Stars rise in the northeast and set in the northwest, moving in counter-clockwise circles around a point that's high above the northern horizon:
(http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/NorthernTrails.jpg)
Half-hour time exposure facing north and slightly west, from the same location as the previous three photos [Ogden, UT, 41 deg. lat.]. The stars are tracing counter-clockwise circles, centered on a point near the prominent North Star (Polaris). Notice the Big Dipper at the lower-left.

The majestic motions of the night sky were intimately familiar to ancient people. Today this familiarity has been lost (except by astronomy geeks), so you'll need to make a special effort to remember and visualize the patterns. It helps to stand under the night sky and point with your hands, tracing out the paths of different stars. In summary:

Some stars rise directly east, heading to the right, then cross the high southern sky, and eventually set directly west.

Other stars rise in the southeast and follow shorter, lower arcs across the south before setting in the southwest.

And in the north, there are many stars that never rise or set at all; these “circuмpolar stars” follow counter-clockwise circles. (In fact, it is the center of these circles that defines what we mean by “north”.)

...Measuring Angles

When we talk about the apparent "distance" between two points in the sky, we're really talking about an angle, measured between the two imaginary lines running from your your eye out to those points:

(http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/AngleDefinition.png)
The angle between two points in the sky is defined as the angle between two imaginary lines running from you out to those points. For the two stars shown, the angle is about 16 degrees.

(http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/BigDipperAngles.jpg)
The bowl of the Big Dipper is about 10° wide and 5° deep. The entire handle is 16° long, and the whole Dipper is 26° long.

Similarly, the width of Orion's Belt is a little under 3°, and the four star-trail photos above each span a width of about 60° from side to side.

To measure the angles between stars and other points in the sky, astronomers use protractors and similar instruments, often attached to a telescope for accurate pointing [e.g., sailors use a sextant which is a protractor telescope combination]. To get an approximate measurement, however, you can use instruments that are always with you: your hands. The width of your fist, held at arm's length, is about 10°, while the width of your little finger tip, also held at arm's length, is about 1°.

The rate of angular motion is the same in other parts of the sky, although you can't just measure the angles with your hands because you're not at the center of the circles. In the northern sky, however, you can measure the angles directly by laying a protractor down on a photograph. Here's a longer time exposure of star trails near the North Star:

(http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/NorthernTrails2.jpg)
In the northern sky, all stars move at the same rate around the common center of their circles. During this 75-minute time exposure, the stars rotated by approximately 19°.

To simplify their understanding of the motions of the sky, ancient people invented a mechanical model to explain these motions. We still use this model today because it's so convenient... If you can visualize the model, you won't have to memorize a whole bunch of separate facts about how the stars move.

(http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/CelestialSphere.png)
The stars appear to be attached to a giant celestial sphere, spinning about the celestial poles, and around us, once every 23 hours and 56 minutes.

The model is simply that the stars are all attached to the inside of a giant rigid celestial sphere that surrounds the earth and spins around us once every 23 hours, 56 minutes. The spinning carries each star around in its observed circular path, while a special point in the northern sky, at the center of the circles, remains fixed. The sphere's rigidity accounts for how the shapes of the constellations never change, and its enormous size accounts for how the constellations never grow or shrink, as they would if a particular point on earth were significantly closer to one side of the sphere than the other.

To better describe locations in the sky, we give names to the various parts of the celestial sphere. The fixed point in the northern sky is called the north celestial pole, and is located only about a degree away from the famous North Star (which makes tiny circles around it). Ninety degrees from the pole is the celestial equator, a great circle that runs from directly east to directly west, passing high above our southern horizon. Mintaka, the rightmost star in Orion's Belt, happens to lie almost exactly on the celestial equator, so you can think of the celestial equator as tracing the path of this star. Another important great circle is the meridian, which runs from directly north to directly south, passing straight overhead. As the sphere turns, the meridian remains fixed in the sky. The point straight overhead is called zenith.

The Stars from Other Locations

I've described the stellar motions as they appear from my home in Ogden, Utah, at a latitude of 41° north of the equator. What about other locations?

Moving east or west makes no difference, except to determine when you see things. If you live farther east, you'll see any given star rise and set sooner; if you live farther west, each star rises and sets later. We compensate for these differences, in an approximate way, by setting our clocks according to different time zones.

Moving north or south is more interesting. The farther north you go, the higher in the sky you'll see the north celestial pole and the stars around it—and the lower all the stars will appear in the south. In fact, the angle between your northern horizon and the north celestial pole is precisely equal to your latitude.

For example, in Ogden the north celestial pole is 41° above my northern horizon, but if you're in Anchorage, Alaska, the angle is 61°. At the earth's north pole, you would see the north celestial pole straight overhead, and the celestial equator would lie along your horizon, so you would never see any stars rise or set; they would just move in counter-clockwise circles if you're facing upward, or horizontally to the right if you're facing the horizon. Stars below your horizon (that is, south of the celestial equator) would always be hidden from your view.

On the other hand, if you travel south to Mexico City, you'll see the north celestial pole only 19° above your northern horizon. The Big Dipper will no longer always be visible, setting in the northwest and rising in the northeast instead. But in the southern sky, you'll see stars that are never visible in Utah, including the famous Southern Cross.

Farther south, at earth's equator, the north celestial pole lies on the northern horizon, and the celestial equator passes straight overhead. From here, as the constellations rise in the east, they appear to head straight up, rather than along a diagonal. In the west, they head straight down as they set. Even more stars are visible in the southern sky, making clockwise half-circles about a point on the southern horizon, the south celestial pole.

From the southern hemisphere, you can't see the north celestial pole at all. The south celestial pole, however, will appear above your southern horizon, by an angle equal to your southern latitude. Stars rising in the east will head upward and to the left, toward the northern sky. The celestial equator will also pass through the northern sky, lower and lower as you head farther south.


The point of this quote is that from Ogden UT, or any other point on the 41st parallel, Polaris will always be 41 degrees above the visible horizon. Of course, you must be able to identify the horizon, which is easy on a very flat plain of which there are many in the midwest USA. Otherwise, the open ocean is a good place to see the horizon.

When you move north to say Anchorage, AK, the measurement is 61 degrees, as it is at any other place on that parallel around the world.

At the North Pole the north star (Polaris) is directly overhead at 90 degrees.

When you move south to Mexico City, the measurement is 19 degrees.

Quote

The explanation for all these effects is simply that the earth's surface is curved.

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).

Quote

(http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/MillerSouthernStarTrails.jpg)
This several-hour-long time exposure, taken from tropical northern Australia, shows the clockwise motion of the southern stars around the south celestial pole. The trails of the Southern Cross start at the top of the image, with the top of the cross initially above the edge. Photo by David Miller/DMI.

Finally, if you visit earth's south pole, you'll see the south celestial pole straight overhead, with the stars making clockwise circles around it. The celestial equator will lie on your horizon, with the stars moving parallel to it, from right to left. You always see the same half of the celestial sphere, completely distinct from the half that you would see from earth's north pole.


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.

Quote

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.

Quote
YOU FORGOT TO WATCH THE VIDEO OF THE SUN MOVING ACROSS THE SKY!

No, I watched that silly video, which falsifies the movement of the sun by pretending that it just came from overhead and made some kind of right turn at the horizon.

If they had shown where the sun had come from you would see that it was coming from the left side of the frame, as it does near the Arctic Circle at certain times of the year.  In the arctic, during summer, the sun moves around the horizon 360 degrees going up and down and consequently they have sunlight around the clock for some time, depending on how far north the observer is.

Nobody in the lower 48 states ever sees the sun move like that video shows. Nobody.

The video is a lie.

At the end of the video it invites comments that will take 24 hours for any response, but comments are DISABLED.  They no doubt couldn't answer the questions, like, "Where was this video recorded?"




Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: TomGubbinsKimmage on March 13, 2017, 06:36:26 AM
Neil may be dazzling people with his posts, which display a diabolical obstinacy, but we should all recall that he is unable to account for hundreds of feet of the mountain in this video, as per an earlier thread. The truth always exposes liars. That's why I love it.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/S4oT2EbDONs[/youtube]

He was asked the question numerous times, but still to this day has not answered it.

He just keeps coming back with other smaller issues, trying to confuse people.

By the way here is how the stars actually work


[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/ahNfU7zYlmY[/youtube]


and here are the proofs of the flat earth for those who are only tuning in now.

http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/f9-flat-earth-proofs

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: BumphreyHogart on March 13, 2017, 07:03:06 AM
Quote from: cassini
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: happenby
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.  


The Church teaches no such thing.  The Church has for generations taught heliocentrism in Her parish schools. This would not happen if it were against Catholic teaching.


We better not get into this discussion on this thread Bumphy, but you deserve an answer to your post.




The master of U-turn accusations just starts his post off with a U-turn!  You should have started another thread.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 13, 2017, 11:41:55 AM
Pythagoras was recognized by Johannes Kepler as “grandfather of all Copernicans.” 1
Galileo viewed the papal edict of 1616 as a “suppression of the Pythagorean opinion of the mobility of the earth”. 2
Heliocentrism is the science of the Pythagorean Doctrine or Copernican Doctrine and is the model promoted today.

The Jєωιѕн Encyclopedia states that the Kabbalah is the origin of the philosophy of Pythagoras.  It was the secrets of the Kabbalah that led Pythagoras to heliocentric philosophy.

German humanist Johannes Reuchlin (1455-1522) says that Pythagorean philosophy emanated from the Jєωs, not the Greeks.

Martin Wagner conducted an objective and thorough study of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and wrote a book about his findings titled “Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ: An Interpretation” In the book it is found that the Kabbalah is unadulterated witchcraft and occultism.
The Zionist Kabbalah Jєωs hide behind Gentile Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and control the sciences through various arms of the government, including NASA.

Theological ‘pontiff’ for the Freemasonic religion and author of “Moral Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite”, Albert Pike teaches: “The Masonic Religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian Doctrine.”
Albert Pike, Morals & Dogma, "Masonry is identical to  the ancient Mysteries ", which means that all their teachings in all their books are precisely the same as the Ancient, Pagan, Satanic Mysteries.
NASA symbols and philosophy promote this same Freemasonic Luciferian
    doctrine.

On the Space Administration's Web Page we read: "NASA's ORIGINS PROGRAM will search for clues to help us find our cosmic roots.“


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.  

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 13, 2017, 12:04:37 PM
Dr Seth Pancoast wrote that “Isaac Newton was led to the discovery of physical laws (forces of gravitation and repulsion) through the study of Kabbalah.”

<Isaac Newton> learned how to read Hebrew, scrolled through the Bible and delved into the study of Jєωιѕн philosophy, the mysticism of Kabbalah and the тαℓмυd — a compendium of Jєωιѕн oral law and stories about 1,500 years old.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/sir-isaacs-Jєωιѕн-writings-enter-the-21st-century/

He's considered to be one of the greatest scientists of all time. But Sir Isaac Newton was also an influential theologian who applied a scientific approach to the study of scripture, Hebrew and Jєωιѕн mysticism.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/9085812/Israeli-library-uploads-Sir-Isaac-Newtons-theological-texts.html


I could go on and on, but I think this sufficient to show Newton was one of "them".
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: BumphreyHogart on March 13, 2017, 12:32:06 PM
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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 13, 2017, 01:15:58 PM
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.


One wonders if this guy can even read.  
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 13, 2017, 01:20:44 PM
Pope Alexander VII wrote one of the most authoritative docuмents related to the heliocentrism issue. He published his Index Librorum Prohibitorum Alexandri VII Pontificis Maximi jussu editus which presented anew the contents of the Index of Forbidden Books which had condemned the works of Copernicus and Galileo. According to Rev. William Roberts, he prefaced this with the bull Speculatores Domus Israel, stating his reasons: "in order that the whole history of each case may be known." 'For this purpose,' the Pontiff stated, 'we have caused the Tridentine and Clementine Indices to be added to this general Index, and also all the relevant decrees up to the present time, that have been issued since the Index of our predecessor Clement, that nothing profitable to the faithful interested in such matters might seem omitted."[33] Among those included were the previous decrees placing various heliocentric works on the Index" ("...which should be considered as though it were inserted in these presents, together with all, and singular, the things contained therein...") and using his Apostolic authority he bound the faithful to its contents ("...and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and: command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield this Index a constant and complete obedience...")[34] Thus, Alexander turned definitively against the heliocentric view of the solar system.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on March 13, 2017, 01:30:18 PM
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)

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

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?

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 13, 2017, 01:41:13 PM
WHEN a person is disoriented, he is in a state of confusion and loses his bearings. He does not understand things clearly. It's similar to being away and sleeping in a room where the bed, the window, the door are all different from your own room at home. And upon waking up suddenly in the middle of the night, you are at first disoriented, confused----Where am I? Where's the door, where's the window? So most people have actually experienced disorientation.

Diabolical disorientation, on the other hand, is when a person is disoriented by various tricks of the devil. These diabolical tricks are not simply a kind of possession portrayed on television and in the movies. The devil, the purveyor of diabolical disorientation, manages often to give the targeted person a perception quite different from reality and yet, the person so diabolically disorientated is convinced what he thinks is the truth when it is actually a lie.

--Archbishop Fulton J Sheen
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: cassini on March 13, 2017, 04:28:28 PM
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: cassini
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: happenby
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.  


The Church teaches no such thing.  The Church has for generations taught heliocentrism in Her parish schools. This would not happen if it were against Catholic teaching.


We better not get into this discussion on this thread Bumphy, but you deserve an answer to your post.


The master of U-turn accusations just starts his post off with a U-turn!  You should have started another thread.


I observed that you are new on this forum Bumpy and possibly unaware that certain matters are inclined to dominate and take over a thread designed to discuss a different matter. This is a flat-earth discussion and not a geocentric/heliocentric one. The answer I gave you did not ask or seek a reply so that it would not distract from the flat-earth theme or take over the thread with a G/H one as has happened many times before.

But you, being the person you are, were unable to read my effort to explain something FOR you in the spirit it was given and preferrted instead to find something negative you could reply with. If such is the level of your interest in finding truth then what are you doing on this forum?
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: cassini on March 13, 2017, 05:03:38 PM
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.




Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 13, 2017, 05:28:15 PM
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.






 :applause:
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: BumphreyHogart on March 13, 2017, 05:37:00 PM
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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: BumphreyHogart on March 13, 2017, 05:38:36 PM
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?
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 13, 2017, 05:58:57 PM
Quote from: cassini
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: cassini
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: happenby
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.  


The Church teaches no such thing.  The Church has for generations taught heliocentrism in Her parish schools. This would not happen if it were against Catholic teaching.


We better not get into this discussion on this thread Bumphy, but you deserve an answer to your post.


The master of U-turn accusations just starts his post off with a U-turn!  You should have started another thread.


I observed that you are new on this forum Bumpy and possibly unaware that certain matters are inclined to dominate and take over a thread designed to discuss a different matter. This is a flat-earth discussion and not a geocentric/heliocentric one. The answer I gave you did not ask or seek a reply so that it would not distract from the flat-earth theme or take over the thread with a G/H one as has happened many times before.

But you, being the person you are, were unable to read my effort to explain something FOR you in the spirit it was given and preferrted instead to find something negative you could reply with. If such is the level of your interest in finding truth then what are you doing on this forum?


Not quite.  Geocentrism is flat earth.  There is no such thing as a globe hanging in space.  This fallacy came about when Catholics realized earth was not moving and assumed it was a globe.  The earth has a foundation.  The globe is not founded, but admittedly dangling.  

Lets see what Church Fathers said on the flat geocentric issue:

Methodius:
“Resuming  then,  let  us  first  lay  bare,  in  speaking of  those  things  according  to  our  power,  the imposture  of  those  who  boast  as  though  they  alone  had  comprehended  from  what  forms  the  heaven  is arranged,  in  accordance  with  the  hypothesis  of  the  Chaldeans  and  Egyptians.  For *they*  say  that  the circuмference  of  the  world  is  likened  to  the  turnings  of  a  well?rounded  globe,  the  earth  having  a central  point.  For  its  outline  being  spherical,  it  is  necessary,  *they*  say,  since  there  are  the  same  distances of  the  parts,  that  the  earth  should  be  the  center  of  the  universe,  around  which  as  being  older,  the  heaven is  whirling.  For  if  a  circuмference  is  described  from  the  central  point,  which  seems  to  be  a  circle,  ?  for  it is  impossible  for  a  circle  to  be  described  without  a  point,  and  it  is  impossible  for  a  circle  to  be  without  a point,  ?  surely  the  earth  consisted  before  all,  they  say,  in  a  state  of  chaos  and  disorganization.  Now certainly  the  wretched  ones  were  overwhelmed  in  the  chaos  of  error,  “because  that,  when  they  knew  God, they  glorified  Him  not  as  God.

The great authority of Augustine, and the cogency of his scriptural argument, held the Church firmly against the doctrine of the antipodes; all schools of interpretation were now agreed--the followers of the allegorical tendencies of Alexandria, the strictly literals exegetes of Syria, the more eclectic theologians of the West. For over a thousand years it was held in the Church, "always, everywhere, and by all," that there could not be human beings on the opposite sides of the earth, even if the earth had opposite sides; and, when attacked by gainsayers the great mass of true believers, from the fourth century to the fifteenth, simply used that opiate which had so soothing an effect on John Henry Newman in the nineteenth century--securus judicat orbis terrarum.  
pg 104 War Between Science and Theology…White

Bishop Isidore of Seville (560-636)
taught in his widely read encyclopedia, The etymologies, that the earth was round.  While some writers have thought he referred to a spherical Earth, this and other writings make it clear that he considered the earth to be a disk of wheel shaped.  Isidore did not admit the possibility of people dwelling at the antipodes, considering them as legendary, and noting that there was no evidence for their existence.
The Esoteric Codex: Dynamics of the Celestial Spheres


St. John Chrysostom (considered a “doctor of the Church”, bishop of Antioch, archbishop of Constantinople in 398) –opposed the earth’s sphericity based on Scripture.  Regularly refers to the Earth having four corners as the Bible does in his sermons.  For example, the following quotations come from Homilies Against the Jєωs: “every corner of the earth”, “her action is known in every corner of the earth”, “every corner of the earth seen by the sun” [27]  Exerted his influence against a spherical earth. [2]  He is quoted by Kosmas (Cosmas) as stating “Where are those who say that the heaven is in motion?  Where are those who think it is spherical?  For both these opinions are here swept away.”(in commenting on Hebrews 8:1.)Knew that truly ending the ‘heretical’ study of the Greeks meant wiping out Greek writings –  happily declared, “Every trace of the old philosophy and literature of the ancient world has vanished from the face of the earth.”
In his“Homily 2, Trinity, Sophists, Philosophers”, Para 5, he takes pleasure in the fact that the Church is successfully silencing the Greeks – “And as for the writings of the Greeks, they are all put out and vanished, but this man’s shine brighter day by day.  …since then the (doctrines) of Pythagoras and of Plato, which seemed before to prevail, have ceased to be spoken of, and most men do not know them even by name.”   [77], [78]  He continues to claim, “Pythagoras… practiced there ten thousand kinds of sorcery…. but by his magic tricks he deceived the foolish.  And neglecting to teach men anything useful.”  He then calls Pythagoras a “barbarian”!
Chrysostom was “definitely a strong fundamentalist if not an absolute Biblical literalist and he certainly seems to have believed the earth was flat.  Like Tertullian, he was skeptical of any ‘pagan’ knowledge which seemed to cast doubt on any aspect of the Bible.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem

He followed Basil’s teaching and was a flat earther, using quotes from the Bible portraying earth with firmament floating on water using Gen. i. 6.  He wrote in his Catechetical Lectures: Lecture IX: “Him who reared the sky as a dome, who out of the fluid nature of the waters formed the stable substance of the heaven. For God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the water. God spake once for all, and it stands fast, and falls not. The heaven is water, and the orbs therein, sun, moon, and stars are of fire: and how do the orbs of fire run their course in the water? But if any one disputes this because of the opposite natures of fire and water, let him remember the fire which in the time of Moses in Egypt flamed amid the hail…”

This passage shows St. Cyril was under the pagan impression the sun, moon and stars were balls of fire showing that the electric nature of the universe had been seriously buried by the mid 4th century.  Yet he insisted we could not argue with scripture about the firmament and waters above.

Cosmas

Moses, likewise, in describing the table in the Tabernacle, which is an image of the earth, ordered its length to be of two cubits, and its breadth of one cubit. So then in the same way as Isaiah spoke, so do we also speak of the figure of the first heaven made on the first day, made along with the earth, and comprising along with the earth the universe, and say that its figure is vaultlike… and God [130] having then stretched it out extended it throughout the whole space in the direction of its breadth, like an intermediate roof, and bound together the firmament with the highest heaven, separating and disparting the remainder of the waters, leaving some above the firmament, and others on the earth below the firmament, as the divine Moses explains to us, and so makes the one area or house two houses----an upper and a lower story.

St. Jerome

"Greek gýros turns up in its transliterated form gyrus--present in Roman literature as early as Lucretius (mid-first century BC)--in the Latin versions of the Bible as well.27 St. Jerome (c. 340-420), the early Latin Church's master linguist and Bible translator, began his work on the Old Testament by creating a standard version from the several unreliable Old Latin recensions then in existence, using as a valuable aid Origen's fair copy of the Hexapla which he consulted in the library at Caesarea around 386 AD.28 The Old Latin recensions were based on the LXX and commonly rendered this same portion of Isa. 40:22a as "qui tenet gyrum terrae."29 Later, when he prepared a new version from the Hebrew that would become part of the Vulgate, he kept the Old Latin reading, changing only the verb tenet, "dwells," to sedet, "sits."30 And in his Commentary on Isaiah, Jerome, who is regarded by critics today as a competent and careful scholar,31 specifically rejected the notion that in this verse the prophet is referring to a spherical earth." 32

Severian, Bishop of Gabala  

Depended upon Scriptures for view of the earth saying,  “The earth is flat and the sun does not pass under it in the night, but travels through the northern parts as if hidden by a wall” 1.
  [15]  He shared John Chrysostom’s fundamentalism and opposition to pagan learning. SEVERIAN OF GABALA ON THE CREATION OF THE WORLD
     
He made the upper heavens about which David sang: "The heaven of the heavens is the Lord's."6 This heaven forms in a certain way the upper stage of the firmament. As in any two-story house, there is an intermediate stage; well in this building which is the world, the Creator has prepared the sky as an intermediate level, and he has put it over the waters; from where this passage of David: "It is you who covered with water its upper part.“7 http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/severian_of_gabala_genesis_01.htm

St. Augustine

Noted St. Augustine scholar Leo Ferrari, concluded that Augustine was familiar with the Greek theory of a spherical earth, nevertheless, (following in the footsteps of his fellow North African, Lactantius), he was firmly convinced that the earth was flat and was one of the two biggest bodies in existence and that it lay at the bottom of the universe. Apparently Augustine saw this picture as more useful for scriptural exegesis than the global earth at the centre of an immense universe.

Scripture

Gen 1. 6 And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1.7 And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so.

The Church condemned heliocentrism because it was contrary to scripture.  Same with round earth, which is merely a component of heliocentrism.






Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 13, 2017, 06:01:33 PM
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?



No, Bumph.  Can you not keep track of what you are saying?  You said it... when you suggested that the Church reversed the infallible teachings of 1616 in the 1800's
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: BumphreyHogart on March 13, 2017, 06:07:52 PM
Quote from: happenby
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?



No, Bumph.  Can you not keep track of what you are saying?  You said it... when you suggested that the Church reversed the infallible teachings of 1616 in the 1800's


What kind of a liar are you?  I never said the Church reversed infallible teaching.

Now, I asked this of Cassini, so don't speak for him.

But, why don't you answer it yourself as well? Yes, or No, to my question.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 13, 2017, 06:09:35 PM
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: happenby
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?



No, Bumph.  Can you not keep track of what you are saying?  You said it... when you suggested that the Church reversed the infallible teachings of 1616 in the 1800's


What kind of a liar are you?  I never said the Church reversed infallible teaching.

Now, I asked this of Cassini, so don't speak for him.

But, why don't you answer it yourself as well? Yes, or No, to my question.


Remind me what it was...
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: BumphreyHogart on March 13, 2017, 06:13:35 PM
Quote from: happenby
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: happenby
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?



No, Bumph.  Can you not keep track of what you are saying?  You said it... when you suggested that the Church reversed the infallible teachings of 1616 in the 1800's


What kind of a liar are you?  I never said the Church reversed infallible teaching.

Now, I asked this of Cassini, so don't speak for him.

But, why don't you answer it yourself as well? Yes, or No, to my question.


Remind me what it was...


Duh. Just look at the history text in your own message! It's right there.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 13, 2017, 06:15:21 PM
Modern Geocentrism, (MG) with its stationary globe hanging in space is a theory incompatible with scripture and historical Geocentric cosmology.  How can earth be a foundation as scripture describes, when it is a ball hanging mid-air? MG actually turns out to be the fraternal twin of Heliocentrism (Copernican/Pythagorean doctrines) and an intermediate catch-all that rescues many pagan notions. Other than position and movement of earth, MG is virtually identical to the Heliocentric lies that spawned bloody revolutions, evolution, millions-year-old-earth, global warming, alien life, space indoctrination, Godless origins, and all notions inherent to the atheistic Big Bang theory.  In MG the water above the earth and the firmament is denied or dismissed, along with the firmament itself.  Some think the firmament encompasses our sun 100 million miles away…but then, how is it visible? And where’s the water?  How can they explain stars and planets? Are they in or out of the ‘globe’ firmament? Distance from earth to the sun, moon and stars remains identical in MG as Heliocentric theory, yet both are contrary to scripture.  In 'outer space', stars are said to be enormous and Venus and Mars are said to be planets with terrain, a ridiculous notion that is easily proven false.  Back on earth, contradictory global terrain and relativity remain, demanding outrageous explanations like gravity, dark matter, string theory, antimatter and evolution, teaching that the horizon is no longer horizontal, let alone true or level, directions and measurements quickly become contradictory, explained away or outright denied. Casuistry, imprecision, equivocation and therefore perfidious belief, remain empowered in MG.  
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: BumphreyHogart on March 13, 2017, 06:54:45 PM
Okay, I'll make it easier for you happenby, "Has the Church's magisterium reversed a Church teaching?"

Yes, or No?
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 13, 2017, 07:04:01 PM
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Okay, I'll make it easier for you happenby, "Has the Church's magisterium reversed a Church teaching?"

Yes, or No?


No
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 13, 2017, 07:06:38 PM
So BUMPH, as tradition reveals, earth is flat.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: BumphreyHogart on March 13, 2017, 07:11:15 PM
Quote from: happenby
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Okay, I'll make it easier for you happenby, "Has the Church's magisterium reversed a Church teaching?"

Yes, or No?


No


Fantastic.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: BumphreyHogart on March 13, 2017, 07:13:05 PM
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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 13, 2017, 07:17:32 PM
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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: BumphreyHogart on March 13, 2017, 07:22:23 PM
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?
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 13, 2017, 07:24:44 PM
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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: BumphreyHogart on March 13, 2017, 07:26:30 PM
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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Matto on March 13, 2017, 08:08:04 PM
I think this whole issue of geocentrism makes the sedevacantists look like fools whenever they argue with Cassinni about it.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 13, 2017, 08:17:30 PM
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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 13, 2017, 08:20:06 PM
Quote from: Matto
I think this whole issue of geocentrism makes the sedevacantists look like fools whenever they argue with Cassinni about it.


Sedes are wrong about flat earth/geocentricism, so it does make them look that way.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: BumphreyHogart on March 13, 2017, 08:30:34 PM
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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 13, 2017, 08:35:07 PM
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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 14, 2017, 01:13:49 AM
I find it noteworthy that there has been no intelligent reply to my earlier post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=43219&min=350#p6):

This time exposure shows star tracks from Ogden, Utah, at 41 degrees latitude:

Quote from: [url=http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/starmotion.html
source[/url]]
In the north, the motion is most interesting. Stars rise in the northeast and set in the northwest, moving in counter-clockwise circles around a point that's high above the northern horizon:
(http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/NorthernTrails.jpg)
Half-hour time exposure facing north and slightly west, from the same location as the previous three photos [Ogden, UT, 41 deg. lat.]. The stars are tracing counter-clockwise circles, centered on a point near the prominent North Star (Polaris). Notice the Big Dipper at the lower-left.

The majestic motions of the night sky were intimately familiar to ancient people. Today this familiarity has been lost (except by astronomy geeks), so you'll need to make a special effort to remember and visualize the patterns. It helps to stand under the night sky and point with your hands, tracing out the paths of different stars. In summary:

Some stars rise directly east, heading to the right, then cross the high southern sky, and eventually set directly west.

Other stars rise in the southeast and follow shorter, lower arcs across the south before setting in the southwest.

And in the north, there are many stars that never rise or set at all; these “circuмpolar stars” follow counter-clockwise circles. (In fact, it is the center of these circles that defines what we mean by “north”.)

...Measuring Angles

When we talk about the apparent "distance" between two points in the sky, we're really talking about an angle, measured between the two imaginary lines running from your your eye out to those points:

(http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/AngleDefinition.png)
The angle between two points in the sky is defined as the angle between two imaginary lines running from you out to those points. For the two stars shown, the angle is about 16 degrees.

(http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/BigDipperAngles.jpg)
The bowl of the Big Dipper is about 10° wide and 5° deep. The entire handle is 16° long, and the whole Dipper is 26° long.

Similarly, the width of Orion's Belt is a little under 3°, and the four star-trail photos above each span a width of about 60° from side to side.

To measure the angles between stars and other points in the sky, astronomers use protractors and similar instruments, often attached to a telescope for accurate pointing [e.g., sailors use a sextant which is a protractor telescope combination]. To get an approximate measurement, however, you can use instruments that are always with you: your hands. The width of your fist, held at arm's length, is about 10°, while the width of your little finger tip, also held at arm's length, is about 1°.

The rate of angular motion is the same in other parts of the sky, although you can't just measure the angles with your hands because you're not at the center of the circles. In the northern sky, however, you can measure the angles directly by laying a protractor down on a photograph. Here's a longer time exposure of star trails near the North Star:

(http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/NorthernTrails2.jpg)
In the northern sky, all stars move at the same rate around the common center of their circles. During this 75-minute time exposure, the stars rotated by approximately 19°.

To simplify their understanding of the motions of the sky, ancient people invented a mechanical model to explain these motions. We still use this model today because it's so convenient... If you can visualize the model, you won't have to memorize a whole bunch of separate facts about how the stars move.

(http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/CelestialSphere.png)
The stars appear to be attached to a giant celestial sphere, spinning about the celestial poles, and around us, once every 23 hours and 56 minutes.

The model is simply that the stars are all attached to the inside of a giant rigid celestial sphere that surrounds the earth and spins around us once every 23 hours, 56 minutes. The spinning carries each star around in its observed circular path, while a special point in the northern sky, at the center of the circles, remains fixed. The sphere's rigidity accounts for how the shapes of the constellations never change, and its enormous size accounts for how the constellations never grow or shrink, as they would if a particular point on earth were significantly closer to one side of the sphere than the other.

To better describe locations in the sky, we give names to the various parts of the celestial sphere. The fixed point in the northern sky is called the north celestial pole, and is located only about a degree away from the famous North Star (which makes tiny circles around it). Ninety degrees from the pole is the celestial equator, a great circle that runs from directly east to directly west, passing high above our southern horizon. Mintaka, the rightmost star in Orion's Belt, happens to lie almost exactly on the celestial equator, so you can think of the celestial equator as tracing the path of this star. Another important great circle is the meridian, which runs from directly north to directly south, passing straight overhead. As the sphere turns, the meridian remains fixed in the sky. The point straight overhead is called zenith.

The Stars from Other Locations

I've described the stellar motions as they appear from my home in Ogden, Utah, at a latitude of 41° north of the equator. What about other locations?

Moving east or west makes no difference, except to determine when you see things. If you live farther east, you'll see any given star rise and set sooner; if you live farther west, each star rises and sets later. We compensate for these differences, in an approximate way, by setting our clocks according to different time zones.

Moving north or south is more interesting. The farther north you go, the higher in the sky you'll see the north celestial pole and the stars around it—and the lower all the stars will appear in the south. In fact, the angle between your northern horizon and the north celestial pole is precisely equal to your latitude.

For example, in Ogden the north celestial pole is 41° above my northern horizon, but if you're in Anchorage, Alaska, the angle is 61°. At the earth's north pole, you would see the north celestial pole straight overhead, and the celestial equator would lie along your horizon, so you would never see any stars rise or set; they would just move in counter-clockwise circles if you're facing upward, or horizontally to the right if you're facing the horizon. Stars below your horizon (that is, south of the celestial equator) would always be hidden from your view.

On the other hand, if you travel south to Mexico City, you'll see the north celestial pole only 19° above your northern horizon. The Big Dipper will no longer always be visible, setting in the northwest and rising in the northeast instead. But in the southern sky, you'll see stars that are never visible in Utah, including the famous Southern Cross.

Farther south, at earth's equator, the north celestial pole lies on the northern horizon, and the celestial equator passes straight overhead. From here, as the constellations rise in the east, they appear to head straight up, rather than along a diagonal. In the west, they head straight down as they set. Even more stars are visible in the southern sky, making clockwise half-circles about a point on the southern horizon, the south celestial pole.

From the southern hemisphere, you can't see the north celestial pole at all. The south celestial pole, however, will appear above your southern horizon, by an angle equal to your southern latitude. Stars rising in the east will head upward and to the left, toward the northern sky. The celestial equator will also pass through the northern sky, lower and lower as you head farther south.


The point of this quote is that from Ogden UT, or any other point on the 41st parallel, Polaris will always be 41 degrees above the visible horizon. Of course, you must be able to identify the horizon, which is easy on a very flat plain of which there are many in the midwest USA. Otherwise, the open ocean is a good place to see the horizon.

When you move north to say Anchorage, AK, the measurement is 61 degrees, as it is at any other place on that parallel around the world.

At the North Pole the north star (Polaris) is directly overhead at 90 degrees.

When you move south to Mexico City, the measurement is 19 degrees.

Quote

The explanation for all these effects is simply that the earth's surface is curved.

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).

Quote

(http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/MillerSouthernStarTrails.jpg)
This several-hour-long time exposure, taken from tropical northern Australia, shows the clockwise motion of the southern stars around the south celestial pole. The trails of the Southern Cross start at the top of the image, with the top of the cross initially above the edge. Photo by David Miller/DMI.

Finally, if you visit earth's south pole, you'll see the south celestial pole straight overhead, with the stars making clockwise circles around it. The celestial equator will lie on your horizon, with the stars moving parallel to it, from right to left. You always see the same half of the celestial sphere, completely distinct from the half that you would see from earth's north pole.


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.

Quote

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.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby 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)
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby 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)
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby 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)
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: cassini 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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: TomGubbinsKimmage 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 (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=43219&min=350#p6):



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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4oT2EbDONs

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor 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.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahNfU7zYlmY

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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor 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?
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: BumphreyHogart 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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: BumphreyHogart 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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby 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.    

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: BumphreyHogart 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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby 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.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 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:
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 14, 2017, 09:53:55 PM
Quote from: mw2016
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.

No, they don't.

If you think you can establish a fallacy as if it were truth, simply by repeating it, you're mistaken.

Quote

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).

So now you're changing your mind again, from saying the sun moves in a spiral motion over a "flat" earth, to saying it moves in a straight line?  Need I say more?

Quote

When you are looking at the pole star, the effect is exactly the same with the motion being reversed: the pole star is stationary.

No, the relative motion of the sun and Polaris have nothing to do with each other. They are entirely different positions in the sky and have entirely different predicted locations. Anyone who thinks he can predict where the sun will be at 3:00 pm tomorrow based on the perceived movement of Polaris is in for a lot of disappointment.

Quote
If the observer is standing at the pole the angle is 90 degrees: directly overhead.

And why would that be? You don't find the sun there, EVER.

Quote

As the viewer moves farther and farther away to the south, the angle eventually reaches 0 degrees.

Really? Like from Santiago, Chile? Is that where the angle is 0 degrees? If not, why not?  It's further south, like you said.

Quote
What gives you the perspective of the pole star "rising" just above the horizon with the stars rotating about it, as demonstrated [in the] video you posted.

I don't know which video you're referring to. Maybe you like it that way. More ambiguity? Like Vatican II?

The pole star (Polaris) only appears to rise when the observer moves north away from the equator.  If the observer stays in the same place Polaris does not seem to rise. So it's a function of the moving observer, not the moving Polaris.

The reason Polaris seems to rise is that the vertical angle between the horizon and the star increases in direct proportion to the degrees of latitude increase. If the observer turns around and goes back to a latitude of less degrees, Polaris appears  lower in the sky by the same degrees as the observer moves south.

Polaris and all the other stars rotating around it visible from the north pole become progressively LESS VISIBLE as the observer moves south. The line of the horizon clearly and distinctly CUTS OFF the lower portion of these stars depending on how far south the observer moves. If the earth were "flat," this would NOT be the case, for there would NEVER be any clear line of demarcation between the stars in the sky where some are visible and others not if the earth were "flat."

You guys (flat-earthers) just dig in and stubbornly refuse to see that your "perspective" canard falls flat to simple geometry. If it were merely perspective, the lower portion of stars would continue to be visible in the distance, AND the angular distances between them would get smaller. But that is not what we see at all. The lower portion of the stars dive perpendicularly down into the western horizon constantly, and then re-appear later at right angles to the horizon on the east side (in the northern hemisphere). That is obviously impossible in the flat earth model.

What we see in the night sky does not support the flat earth precept, and it can only be explained by realizing that the earth is spheroid, or as you seem to enjoy harping, "a ball." (Are you having a ball or something?)

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on March 15, 2017, 05:15:45 AM
At this point I think it is clear that Bumphrey and Neil are either mentally defective, consumed with some kind of diabolical pride, or both.

Bumphrey, you ignored my posts because its easier to make fun of the ladies. Neil, you ignored my posts as per usual. I'm almost indifferent to it, because I think that honest readers of this thread can see that.

I know this is going to seem annoying repetitive for those of good will who have been following the thread, and are interested in the flat earth, but it here again is the video explaining the star trails, and perspective.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/ahNfU7zYlmY[/youtube]

The answers to Neil and bumphrey's objections including the angle of the stars are in it. One has to simply visualise being at a certain point. It is really not that complicated. I don't see what the problem is.

It is ironic in Neils post that he is accusing use us of digging in and using canards. Neil is the one that still cannot explain why objects are visible over the horizon. He is not recognising that proofs of the sky cannot debunk our proofs of the earth. That is why he ignores our proofs of the earth and makes you assume that the earth is round, then his sky proofs all make sense! Because you have been sucked into his circular logic.

The point which makes me wonder if he is mentally defective is because he doesnt seem to get that if you assume the earth is round, then of course perspective doesn't make sense, and of course a lot of other things don't make sense. It is a whole other system, and he is either unwilling (proud) or unable (mentally handicapped) to perceive that.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: BumphreyHogart on March 15, 2017, 07:58:33 AM
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.


bump
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on March 15, 2017, 09:16:38 AM
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
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.


bump


The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on March 15, 2017, 09:28:36 AM
Quote from: BumphreyHogart

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.


I understand that it seems crazy to think that the earth is flat. I used to think the same thing. I, for one, have no intention of bringing laughter upon Catholicism, or, rather, traditional Catholicism. I find the evidence for a flat earth to be quite compelling, even though I'm not 100% convinced.

The problem with the flat earth belief, IMO, is that there are few truly Catholic references or studies on the subject. Most of the material that supports a flat earth comes from pagan or protestant sources. The pagan sources are the most problematic for me.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 15, 2017, 11:34:28 AM
Quote from: Meg
Quote from: BumphreyHogart

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.


I understand that it seems crazy to think that the earth is flat. I used to think the same thing. I, for one, have no intention of bringing laughter upon Catholicism, or, rather, traditional Catholicism. I find the evidence for a flat earth to be quite compelling, even though I'm not 100% convinced.

The problem with the flat earth belief, IMO, is that there are few truly Catholic references or studies on the subject. Most of the material that supports a flat earth comes from pagan or protestant sources. The pagan sources are the most problematic for me.


It is a problem. I've been howling at the tiny moon since 2008.  When Eric Dubay finally showed up about three years ago, I have to admit, I enjoyed seeing him come on the scene because he really understood that earth was flat. To this day, he is one of the best for clarity and content, but his paganism is outrageous and disheartening, making him less than adequate as a decent resource. This is why I talk about flat earth where ever I go. Its been a long and difficult haul, but we need Catholics to rebuild what is necessarily Catholic! We need people to go through Church docuмents, read saints and unearth gold. And believe me, its out in them there hills!  We need researchers, youtubers, teachers, apologists, priests who can handle the heat, brave moms and dads!  Catholics must become aware that the diabolical disorientation spoken of by Sister Lucia is not only spiritual, but it is physical as well.  There is no question that this great apostasy we are enduring today is firmly rooted in science falsely so-called.  


Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 15, 2017, 11:36:07 AM
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
At this point I think it is clear that Bumphrey and Neil are either mentally defective, consumed with some kind of diabolical pride, or both.


Please do not accuse anyone in such a manner. It is not conducive to any sort of discussion, and it also tends to work against the user of such language.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: TomGubbinsKimmage on March 15, 2017, 11:44:45 AM
I tend to think its right myself.

Their posts are all public. No room for false sentimental fraternal charity among real Catholics.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 15, 2017, 11:47:56 AM
Quote from: TomGubbinsKimmage
I tend to think its right myself.

Their posts are all public. No room for false sentimental fraternal charity among real Catholics.


To what do you refer as "false sentimental fraternal charity among real Catholics"?
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on March 15, 2017, 12:59:39 PM
Quote from: happenby
Quote from: Meg
Quote from: BumphreyHogart

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.


I understand that it seems crazy to think that the earth is flat. I used to think the same thing. I, for one, have no intention of bringing laughter upon Catholicism, or, rather, traditional Catholicism. I find the evidence for a flat earth to be quite compelling, even though I'm not 100% convinced.

The problem with the flat earth belief, IMO, is that there are few truly Catholic references or studies on the subject. Most of the material that supports a flat earth comes from pagan or protestant sources. The pagan sources are the most problematic for me.


It is a problem. I've been howling at the tiny moon since 2008.  When Eric Dubay finally showed up about three years ago, I have to admit, I enjoyed seeing him come on the scene because he really understood that earth was flat. To this day, he is one of the best for clarity and content, but his paganism is outrageous and disheartening, making him less than adequate as a decent resource. This is why I talk about flat earth where ever I go. Its been a long and difficult haul, but we need Catholics to rebuild what is necessarily Catholic! We need people to go through Church docuмents, read saints and unearth gold. And believe me, its out in them there hills!  We need researchers, youtubers, teachers, apologists, priests who can handle the heat, brave moms and dads!  Catholics must become aware that the diabolical disorientation spoken of by Sister Lucia is not only spiritual, but it is physical as well.  There is no question that this great apostasy we are enduring today is firmly rooted in science falsely so-called.  




I appreciate your thoughtful post above.

The problem I see with someone like Eric Dubay, is that his extreme anti-religious views (which have been at times blasphemous against God), are likely to muddle his thinking in areas other than religion. I mean, if someone has such extreme flaws in his thinking regarding religion, can he really be trusted to think properly on other things, such as a flat earth?

This is just my opinion, but, since knowing whether or not the earth is flat or a globe is not required for our salvation, it seems that having to read through the sometimes vile views of Dubay can be a problem. Sometimes we do, of course, have to read through awful things to get at the truth of matter. I guess it's up to each of as to how much vileness we can take in an effort to get at the truth.

The Dominicans of Avrille (whom I admire greatly) have said on their website that they don't really care for the term "Resistance," since we are not defined so much by what we are against, but rather we are defined by what we are "For." They prefer the terms, "Battle for the Faith," or "Combat for the Faith,"  since these are more accurate descriptions of what the Resistance is all about. I hope that makes sense.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 15, 2017, 03:49:46 PM
Quote from: Meg
Quote from: happenby
Quote from: Meg
Quote from: BumphreyHogart

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.


I understand that it seems crazy to think that the earth is flat. I used to think the same thing. I, for one, have no intention of bringing laughter upon Catholicism, or, rather, traditional Catholicism. I find the evidence for a flat earth to be quite compelling, even though I'm not 100% convinced.

The problem with the flat earth belief, IMO, is that there are few truly Catholic references or studies on the subject. Most of the material that supports a flat earth comes from pagan or protestant sources. The pagan sources are the most problematic for me.


It is a problem. I've been howling at the tiny moon since 2008.  When Eric Dubay finally showed up about three years ago, I have to admit, I enjoyed seeing him come on the scene because he really understood that earth was flat. To this day, he is one of the best for clarity and content, but his paganism is outrageous and disheartening, making him less than adequate as a decent resource. This is why I talk about flat earth where ever I go. Its been a long and difficult haul, but we need Catholics to rebuild what is necessarily Catholic! We need people to go through Church docuмents, read saints and unearth gold. And believe me, its out in them there hills!  We need researchers, youtubers, teachers, apologists, priests who can handle the heat, brave moms and dads!  Catholics must become aware that the diabolical disorientation spoken of by Sister Lucia is not only spiritual, but it is physical as well.  There is no question that this great apostasy we are enduring today is firmly rooted in science falsely so-called.  




I appreciate your thoughtful post above.

The problem I see with someone like Eric Dubay, is that his extreme anti-religious views (which have been at times blasphemous against God), are likely to muddle his thinking in areas other than religion. I mean, if someone has such extreme flaws in his thinking regarding religion, can he really be trusted to think properly on other things, such as a flat earth?

This is just my opinion, but, since knowing whether or not the earth is flat or a globe is not required for our salvation, it seems that having to read through the sometimes vile views of Dubay can be a problem. Sometimes we do, of course, have to read through awful things to get at the truth of matter. I guess it's up to each of as to how much vileness we can take in an effort to get at the truth.

The Dominicans of Avrille (whom I admire greatly) have said on their website that they don't really care for the term "Resistance," since we are not defined so much by what we are against, but rather we are defined by what we are "For." They prefer the terms, "Battle for the Faith," or "Combat for the Faith,"  since these are more accurate descriptions of what the Resistance is all about. I hope that makes sense.


It does make sense.  I think about it a lot and I agree with the Dominicans of Avrille.  Catholics must be more than opposed to all that is wrong since they must be 100% vested in God and His Will, firstly.  The hatred of heresy and being opposed to error comes as result of our love for Our Lord.  One is primary, the other is almost a consequence.  Keeping those straight is the duty of the Christian.  If one hates error first and loves God second, a disorder becomes manifest in the form of bitterness, anxiety, backbiting, and even apostasy. Because love must come first, the fruits of keeping God number 1, properly maintains the hatred of heresy, conditions the warrior for the war, yet tends to make even the tough stuff joy-filled.

There is a third way, where one begins to put God first, but refuses to hate heresy.  It seems to me that this is the approach of many in the modern Church, seeking all loveliness, happiness, consolation, etc, but they will not defend, argue, disagree, or be contrary for truth's sake. Conflict and division are inevitable because true Catholics are born to be warriors.

As for the necessity of knowing the truth about God's creation, that the earth is flat and geocentric, it is far more necessary than one might think.  After all, we relate to God through creation, through reality.  So if our view of creation is skewed, so will be our relationship and understanding of God. For instance, if someone lives in the matrix, that is, everything in their world is an illusion for them, a game as it were, they will die in the matrix of that false image of the world in their mind and are unlikely to be saved.  

Globalism (in all senses of the word) is directly opposed to the reality of God's creation.  Heliocentrism is a Satanic religion.  It is forced relativism, because nothing is true where the terrain is said to be a globe.  The horizon is not horizontal.  Level horizon is not level but curved. There is no up on a globe, only out.  No down, no positional east or west.  God is not up, rather, He's out there...somewhere. Heaven isn't up, it is also down, depending on what side of the globe one is on.  Jesus didn't rise for all, but in some cases, went sideways or down, depending on you. Obviously that is false. This contradictory manner of being deceptive is illusory manipulation of what is. Its an atheistic relativism that promotes chaotic behaviors of moderns, who are all rooted in the globalist's doctrine of Copernican/Heliocentrism.  Orientation matters because we are physical as well as spiritual.  That is why scripture spends so much time teaching  about the flat earth, showing clearly that up is up and down is down.  God is up, the devil is down.  And that if one hears in Catholic teaching that the world is a globe, it must necessarily include the arch of heaven and the pit of hell which form the top and bottom outer circular components that along with flat earth in the center, make up a celestial globe Christ is seen holding in art.

     

       
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on March 15, 2017, 03:56:35 PM
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
At this point I think it is clear that Bumphrey and Neil are either mentally defective, consumed with some kind of diabolical pride, or both.


Please do not accuse anyone in such a manner. It is not conducive to any sort of discussion, and it also tends to work against the user of such language.


Oh, please Manuel. You're going to sermonize to the flat earthers on what constitutes good behavior after calling us stupid or crazy on a regular basis? Give me a break.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on March 15, 2017, 04:00:33 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat

So now you're changing your mind again, from saying the sun moves in a spiral motion over a "flat" earth, to saying it moves in a straight line?  Need I say more?




No, Neil - not changing my mind. The sun and moon appear to move in a straight line across the sky due to the law of perspective from the observer's viewpoint on the flat plane.

The actual motion of the firmament is rotating in a circle, as shown by the star trail timelapse photo.

But, yes, the sun does actually move in concentric circles between the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn over the course of a 12 month period.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on March 15, 2017, 04:26:00 PM
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor

The point which makes me wonder if he is mentally defective is because he doesnt seem to get that if you assume the earth is round, then of course perspective doesn't make sense, and of course a lot of other things don't make sense. It is a whole other system, and he is either unwilling (proud) or unable (mentally handicapped) to perceive that.


^^THIS^^
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on March 15, 2017, 04:29:42 PM
Quote from: happenby

Globalism (in all senses of the word) is directly opposed to the reality of God's creation.  Heliocentrism is a Satanic religion.  It is forced relativism, because nothing is true where the terrain is said to be a globe.  The horizon is not horizontal.  Level horizon is not level but curved. There is no up on a globe, only out.  No down, no positional east or west.  God is not up, rather, He's out there...somewhere. Heaven isn't up, it is also down, depending on what side of the globe one is on.  Jesus didn't rise for all, but in some cases, went sideways or down, depending on you. Obviously that is false. This contradictory manner of being deceptive is illusory manipulation of what is. Its an atheistic relativism that promotes chaotic behaviors of moderns, who are all rooted in the globalist's doctrine of Copernican/Heliocentrism.  Orientation matters because we are physical as well as spiritual.  That is why scripture spends so much time teaching  about the flat earth, showing clearly that up is up and down is down.  God is up, the devil is down.  And that if one hears in Catholic teaching that the world is a globe, it must necessarily include the arch of heaven and the pit of hell which form the top and bottom outer circular components that along with flat earth in the center, make up a celestial globe Christ is seen holding in art.      


Thank you for explaining why it matters where we live!
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 15, 2017, 04:50:56 PM
Hey mw2016...thanks to you!
For your level headed persistence by demonstration and experiments showing the truth of the flat earth. Always informative, always glad to hear what you bring here!
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on March 15, 2017, 06:06:40 PM
Quote from: happenby
Hey mw2016...thanks to you!
For your level headed persistence by demonstration and experiments showing the truth of the flat earth. Always informative, always glad to hear what you bring here!


Thanks to both of you for putting both of them in their place.  :roll-laugh2:

Wait, who is it we're talking about again.  :popcorn:
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 15, 2017, 06:14:39 PM
Quote from: Truth is Eternal
Quote from: happenby
Hey mw2016...thanks to you!
For your level headed persistence by demonstration and experiments showing the truth of the flat earth. Always informative, always glad to hear what you bring here!


Thanks to both of you for putting both of them in their place.  :roll-laugh2:

Wait, who is it we're talking about again.  :popcorn:


Don't go getting modest on us, TiE.  Tx for pulling out all the stops from the scientific  perspective with clarity.  The balance provided from those who are truly thinking about this and taking it apart with honesty prove that truthful answers are available!
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 15, 2017, 09:55:51 PM
It's really self-contradictory for you to claim that photos are not to be believed because they're CGI, etc., and then you are happy to post images like the one shown on the video below. That picture of star trails you see there is nowhere to be seen in the world, for it is a total fabrication from flat-earther obtuseness. Just another fable for fable bearers, eh?

Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/ahNfU7zYlmY[/youtube]


Hypocritically accusing others of falsifying photos while you then proceed to do the same thing that you criticize?  

Actions speak for themselves, don't they.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on March 15, 2017, 10:10:55 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
It's really self-contradictory for you to claim that photos are not to be believed because they're CGI, etc., and then you are happy to post images like the one shown on the video below. That picture of star trails you see there is nowhere to be seen in the world, for it is a total fabrication from flat-earther obtuseness. Just another fable for fable bearers, eh?

Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/ahNfU7zYlmY[/youtube]


Hypocritically accusing others of falsifying photos while you then proceed to do the same thing that you criticize?  

Actions speak for themselves, don't they.



What are you talking about? Timelapse photography is pretty straightforward.

How can you possibly equate a timelapse photo of the sky taken with a normal digital camera sitting on a tripod on THE GROUND, with a piece of computer-generated "animated" footage, taken by a NASA "satellite"  that is "allegedly" out in space 22,000 miles away from the earth?

There is no equal footing in the things you are comparing here.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 15, 2017, 10:41:17 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
It's really self-contradictory for you to claim that photos are not to be believed because they're CGI, etc., and then you are happy to post images like the one shown on the video below. That picture of star trails you see there is nowhere to be seen in the world, for it is a total fabrication from flat-earther obtuseness. Just another fable for fable bearers, eh?

Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/ahNfU7zYlmY[/youtube]


Hypocritically accusing others of falsifying photos while you then proceed to do the same thing that you criticize?  

Actions speak for themselves, don't they.



Holy moly. There's a fair amount of difference in proving what the Church and scripture have taught using straight-forward untouched amateur photos and video... and another thing entirely, to try to defend or use admittedly (And provably) doctored CGI NASA garbage in order to promote a condemned proposition.

:shocked:

People never cease to amaze me.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 15, 2017, 11:50:34 PM
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
At this point I think it is clear that Bumphrey and Neil are either mentally defective, consumed with some kind of diabolical pride, or both.


Please do not accuse anyone in such a manner. It is not conducive to any sort of discussion, and it also tends to work against the user of such language.


Oh, please Manuel. You're going to sermonize to the flat earthers on what constitutes good behavior after calling us stupid or crazy on a regular basis? Give me a break.


I did not sermonize, nor have I participated in these insults.

I don't care for insults from any side of this discussion. I happened to notice this particular one, for its use of the word "diabolical", a word which here means "of, relating to, or characteristic of the devil".

No one here should be branded as having a characteristic of the devil. It is a poor choice of words, and poor judgement to argue in such a manner.

What good does it do to insult others? Does it prove your point? Will it convince those reading this thread or visiting this site that your side of the discussion is correct and the other is not?

I am disinclined to listen to, or believe, those who act in such a manner.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 15, 2017, 11:53:28 PM
Quote from: happenby

What are you talking about? Timelapse photography is pretty straightforward.

Have you ever made timelapse photos yourself?
For your information, I have. I have made many timelapse photos. I have taken star tracks north and south of the equator. So I know what I'm talking about. That image on the front of that video is entirely false. It is not what you get pointing the camera at the sky, and I know this from personal experience. That is a FAKE IMAGE.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/embed/ahNfU7zYlmY[/youtube]          
 FAKE IMAGE.          


Yes, timelapse photography is entirely straightforward. But the image you see there with the northern tracks morphing into the southern tracks is fake. Nowhere can that be obtained by taking a timelapse photo of the sky. They're making it up.

They are implying that they took a wide-angle shot of both north and south hemisphere skies at the same time. But no one can do that in fact, since the two are not visible at the same time.

Even if they were, what you would see is concentric cycles from north to south, such as from the equator. When you're at the equator facing west, you can't see the stars to the right (north) moving one way and the stars to the south moving the other way, as this image pretends.

Quote
How can you possibly equate a timelapse photo of the sky taken with a normal digital camera sitting on a tripod on THE GROUND,

That is NOT what the image shows. What it shows is a composite, PLUS faked-in transition in the middle. It is not real. It's entirely imaginary. Not only that, what it shows is nonsense, which does not even promote what they're trying to promote -- which is nonsense in its own regard. It's one kind of nonsense in an attempt to promote another kind of nonsense. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Quote
with a piece of computer-generated "animated" footage, taken by a NASA "satellite"  that is "allegedly" out in space 22,000 miles away from the earth?

There is no equal footing in the things you are comparing here.

I beg to differ. What I'm comparing is entirely equal.

Quote
Hypocritically accusing others of falsifying photos while you then proceed to do the same thing that you criticize?  

Actions speak for themselves, don't they.

Yes. They do.

Quote
Holy moly. There's a fair amount of difference in proving what the Church and scripture have taught using straight-forward untouched amateur photos and video... and another thing entirely, to try to defend or use admittedly (And provably) doctored CGI NASA garbage in order to promote a condemned proposition.

:shocked:

People never cease to amaze me.


You're talking nonsense. The Church never condemned photography.

The Church has never defined the shape of the earth. That is not what the Church does. It does not define mathematics, nor chemical reactions, nor physical properties of matter.


Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 15, 2017, 11:57:53 PM
Quote from: ManuelChavez

What good does it do to insult others? Does it prove your point? Will it convince those reading this thread or visiting this site that your side of the discussion is correct and the other is not?

I am disinclined to listen to, or believe, those who act in such a manner.


These curiously emotional flat-earthers are showing their real character. They're exposing themselves as full of malice and bad will, when challenged with simple truths, they can't bear to take it so they resort to malediction and ad hominem.

That's what they are, as they show themselves to be. And if you don't want to become like them, then perhaps it's best to not believe what they say, because what they believe is what will take you to also becoming what they are and how they behave.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 16, 2017, 12:00:56 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: happenby

What are you talking about? Timelapse photography is pretty straightforward.

Have you ever made timelapse photos yourself?
For your information, I have. I have made many timelapse photos. I have taken star tracks north and south of the equator. So I know what I'm talking about. That image on the front of that video is entirely false. It is not what you get pointing the camera at the sky, and I know this from personal experience. That is a FAKE IMAGE.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/embed/ahNfU7zYlmY[/youtube]          
 FAKE IMAGE.          


Yes, timelapse photography is entirely straightforward. But the image you see there with the northern tracks morphing into the southern tracks is fake. Nowhere can that be obtained by taking a timelapse photo of the sky. They're making it up.

They are implying that they took a wide-angle shot of both north and south hemisphere skies at the same time. But no one can do that in fact, since the two are not visible at the same time.

Even if they were, what you would see is concentric cycles from north to south, such as from the equator. When you're at the equator facing west, you can't see the stars to the right (north) moving one way and the stars to the south moving the other way, as this image pretends.

Quote
How can you possibly equate a timelapse photo of the sky taken with a normal digital camera sitting on a tripod on THE GROUND,

That is NOT what the image shows. What it shows is a composite, PLUS faked-in transition in the middle. It is not real. It's entirely imaginary. Not only that, what it shows is nonsense, which does not even promote what they're trying to promote -- which is nonsense in its own regard. It's one kind of nonsense in an attempt to promote another kind of nonsense. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Quote
with a piece of computer-generated "animated" footage, taken by a NASA "satellite"  that is "allegedly" out in space 22,000 miles away from the earth?

There is no equal footing in the things you are comparing here.

I beg to differ. What I'm comparing is entirely equal.

Quote
Hypocritically accusing others of falsifying photos while you then proceed to do the same thing that you criticize?  

Actions speak for themselves, don't they.

Yes. They do.

Quote
Holy moly. There's a fair amount of difference in proving what the Church and scripture have taught using straight-forward untouched amateur photos and video... and another thing entirely, to try to defend or use admittedly (And provably) doctored CGI NASA garbage in order to promote a condemned proposition.

:shocked:

People never cease to amaze me.


You're talking nonsense. The Church never condemned photography.

The Church has never defined the shape of the earth. That is not what the Church does. It does not define mathematics, nor chemical reactions, nor physical properties of matter.


Scripture has most certainly defined the shape of the earth and the Church condemned heliocentrism based on scripture. Obviously, you don't read much scripture, because its references and descriptions of earth make round/moving earth totally impossible. You sound like the pro-aborts who say the Church has no business in women's personal lives because of separation of Church and state.  
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 16, 2017, 12:15:42 AM
Maybe you could use this image as a photo of how the "flat" earth was formed:

(http://st-gdefon.gallery.world/wallpapers_medium/737862_gallery.world.jpg)

Quote
Scripture has most certainly defined the shape of the earth

No, the Church has not defined the shape of the earth.
You're hallucinating, again.

Quote
and the Church condemned heliocentrism based on scripture. Obviously, you don't read much scripture, because its references and descriptions of earth make round/moving earth totally impossible. You sound like the pro-aborts who say the Church has no business in women's personal lives because of separation of Church and state.

Sad.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 16, 2017, 12:21:38 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Maybe you could use this image as a photo of how the "flat" earth was formed:

(http://st-gdefon.gallery.world/wallpapers_medium/737862_gallery.world.jpg)

Quote
Scripture has most certainly defined the shape of the earth

No, the Church has not defined the shape of the earth.
You're hallucinating, again.

Quote
and the Church condemned heliocentrism based on scripture. Obviously, you don't read much scripture, because its references and descriptions of earth make round/moving earth totally impossible. You sound like the pro-aborts who say the Church has no business in women's personal lives because of separation of Church and state.

Sad.




Indeed.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: TomGubbinsKimmage on March 16, 2017, 04:46:08 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: ManuelChavez

What good does it do to insult others? Does it prove your point? Will it convince those reading this thread or visiting this site that your side of the discussion is correct and the other is not?

I am disinclined to listen to, or believe, those who act in such a manner.


These curiously emotional flat-earthers are showing their real character. They're exposing themselves as full of malice and bad will, when challenged with simple truths, they can't bear to take it so they resort to malediction and ad hominem.

That's what they are, as they show themselves to be. And if you don't want to become like them, then perhaps it's best to not believe what they say, because what they believe is what will take you to also becoming what they are and how they behave.



Speaking only for myself, I am anything but emotional about this.

Why are you accusing us of malice when you are the one ignoring posts and talking down towards flat earthers?

you and bump were not insulted at alll. It is simply the truth which is clear to anyone with a good moral judgment. You are either malicious or mentally deficient for the reasons outlined. I can now add pertinacious to that list (if you are malicious), because there seems to be not the slightest bit of contrition on your part. It would be shocking, but for the fact that I see it in the world around us all the time.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on March 16, 2017, 04:55:28 AM
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
At this point I think it is clear that Bumphrey and Neil are either mentally defective, consumed with some kind of diabolical pride, or both.


Please do not accuse anyone in such a manner. It is not conducive to any sort of discussion, and it also tends to work against the user of such language.


Oh, please Manuel. You're going to sermonize to the flat earthers on what constitutes good behavior after calling us stupid or crazy on a regular basis? Give me a break.


I did not sermonize, nor have I participated in these insults.

I don't care for insults from any side of this discussion. I happened to notice this particular one, for its use of the word "diabolical", a word which here means "of, relating to, or characteristic of the devil".

No one here should be branded as having a characteristic of the devil. It is a poor choice of words, and poor judgement to argue in such a manner.

What good does it do to insult others? Does it prove your point? Will it convince those reading this thread or visiting this site that your side of the discussion is correct and the other is not?

I am disinclined to listen to, or believe, those who act in such a manner.


awwww did I hurt your fweeelings? Would you like a hankie? here you go little girl.

By the way, why are you so important that we have to convince you, your highness?
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on March 16, 2017, 05:02:38 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: happenby

What are you talking about? Timelapse photography is pretty straightforward.

Have you ever made timelapse photos yourself?
For your information, I have. I have made many timelapse photos. I have taken star tracks north and south of the equator. So I know what I'm talking about. That image on the front of that video is entirely false. It is not what you get pointing the camera at the sky, and I know this from personal experience. That is a FAKE IMAGE.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/embed/ahNfU7zYlmY[/youtube]          
 FAKE IMAGE.          


Yes, timelapse photography is entirely straightforward. But the image you see there with the northern tracks morphing into the southern tracks is fake. Nowhere can that be obtained by taking a timelapse photo of the sky. They're making it up.

They are implying that they took a wide-angle shot of both north and south hemisphere skies at the same time. But no one can do that in fact, since the two are not visible at the same time.

Even if they were, what you would see is concentric cycles from north to south, such as from the equator. When you're at the equator facing west, you can't see the stars to the right (north) moving one way and the stars to the south moving the other way, as this image pretends.

Quote
How can you possibly equate a timelapse photo of the sky taken with a normal digital camera sitting on a tripod on THE GROUND,

That is NOT what the image shows. What it shows is a composite, PLUS faked-in transition in the middle. It is not real. It's entirely imaginary. Not only that, what it shows is nonsense, which does not even promote what they're trying to promote -- which is nonsense in its own regard. It's one kind of nonsense in an attempt to promote another kind of nonsense. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Quote
with a piece of computer-generated "animated" footage, taken by a NASA "satellite"  that is "allegedly" out in space 22,000 miles away from the earth?

There is no equal footing in the things you are comparing here.

I beg to differ. What I'm comparing is entirely equal.

Quote
Hypocritically accusing others of falsifying photos while you then proceed to do the same thing that you criticize?  

Actions speak for themselves, don't they.

Yes. They do.

Quote
Holy moly. There's a fair amount of difference in proving what the Church and scripture have taught using straight-forward untouched amateur photos and video... and another thing entirely, to try to defend or use admittedly (And provably) doctored CGI NASA garbage in order to promote a condemned proposition.

:shocked:

People never cease to amaze me.


You're talking nonsense. The Church never condemned photography.

The Church has never defined the shape of the earth. That is not what the Church does. It does not define mathematics, nor chemical reactions, nor physical properties of matter.




Your mental retardation/diabolical obstinacy is showing again. When your posts are actually read (for those who have the patience) and studied you are shown up.

Clearly these are illustrative. You cannot show all the sky from one point without patching it together, because you only see one part.

have you taken your time laps photography from near the equator? I doubt it.

You are taking it most likely from the northern hemisphere.

stop wasting our time and go away. You're quite annoying.

P.S. just respond to the question you can't answer about the hundreds of feet of a mountain we can see, and we might have some respect for you.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 16, 2017, 09:09:09 AM
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor
At this point I think it is clear that Bumphrey and Neil are either mentally defective, consumed with some kind of diabolical pride, or both.


Please do not accuse anyone in such a manner. It is not conducive to any sort of discussion, and it also tends to work against the user of such language.


Oh, please Manuel. You're going to sermonize to the flat earthers on what constitutes good behavior after calling us stupid or crazy on a regular basis? Give me a break.


I did not sermonize, nor have I participated in these insults.

I don't care for insults from any side of this discussion. I happened to notice this particular one, for its use of the word "diabolical", a word which here means "of, relating to, or characteristic of the devil".

No one here should be branded as having a characteristic of the devil. It is a poor choice of words, and poor judgement to argue in such a manner.

What good does it do to insult others? Does it prove your point? Will it convince those reading this thread or visiting this site that your side of the discussion is correct and the other is not?

I am disinclined to listen to, or believe, those who act in such a manner.


awwww did I hurt your fweeelings? Would you like a hankie? here you go little girl.

By the way, why are you so important that we have to convince you, your highness?


If your argument cannot stand without insult or without ad hominem, then your argument has failed. If you cannot control yourself or your passions, and if cannot act as a Traditional Catholic adult, them you should remain silent until you can speak to others as such.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on March 16, 2017, 10:36:38 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Maybe you could use this image as a photo of how the "flat" earth was formed:

(http://st-gdefon.gallery.world/wallpapers_medium/737862_gallery.world.jpg)

Quote
Scripture has most certainly defined the shape of the earth

No, the Church has not defined the shape of the earth.
You're hallucinating, again.

Quote
and the Church condemned heliocentrism based on scripture. Obviously, you don't read much scripture, because its references and descriptions of earth make round/moving earth totally impossible. You sound like the pro-aborts who say the Church has no business in women's personal lives because of separation of Church and state.

Sad.



You're right, the Church hasn't defined the shape of the earth. And yet the Jєωs of old believed in a flat earth. I assume that you've seen a drawing of what they believed. There's probably one on this thread somewhere. Were the Jєωs of old then wrong about the shape of the earth, which they based on Scripture? (Old Testament).
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on March 16, 2017, 10:38:51 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
It's really self-contradictory for you to claim that photos are not to be believed because they're CGI, etc., and then you are happy to post images like the one shown on the video below. That picture of star trails you see there is nowhere to be seen in the world, for it is a total fabrication from flat-earther obtuseness. Just another fable for fable bearers, eh?

Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/ahNfU7zYlmY[/youtube]


Hypocritically accusing others of falsifying photos while you then proceed to do the same thing that you criticize?  

Actions speak for themselves, don't they.



Are you basing your claim that the video is falsified on clear proof, or are you basing it just on your assumption that it's wrong because you don't believe that the earth is flat?
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on March 16, 2017, 12:13:33 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat

What are you talking about? Timelapse photography is pretty straightforward. Have you ever made timelapse photos yourself? For your information, I have. I have made many timelapse photos. I have taken star tracks north and south of the equator. So I know what I'm talking about.


Here's some more lovely timelapses, both with the trails left in, and without, and they show the trails moving in different directions, over a not-very-wide-angle shot even.

https://vimeo.com/125108525
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on March 16, 2017, 01:40:37 PM
Quote from: ManuelChavez


No one here should be branded as having a characteristic of the devil. It is a poor choice of words, and poor judgement to argue in such a manner.

What good does it do to insult others? Does it prove your point? Will it convince those reading this thread or visiting this site that your side of the discussion is correct and the other is not?

I am disinclined to listen to, or believe, those who act in such a manner.


Then it is time to take your own advice.

You do not like it being implied that your blindness and disregard for Scripture is "diabolical" in nature, and FE'ers do not like the implication that they are "stupid."
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on March 16, 2017, 03:02:49 PM
Quote from: ManuelChavez


If your argument cannot stand without insult or without ad hominem, then your argument has failed. If you cannot control yourself or your passions, and if cannot act as a Traditional Catholic adult, them you should remain silent until you can speak to others as such.


ok buddy, you're not getting away with that. I was not being insulting as another user said earlier. Simply stating the reality of others public behaviour.

Secondly, if you weren't so lazy and actually read my posts, you would see that I do not use ad hominem arguments at all to make the case for the flat earth.

I have no problem responding to objections by people of good will, but these characters are not of good will and are spoiling everything for everyone else. They are clearly derailing the threads.

No why don't YOU leave us alone unless you have some genuine objections. But it is unlikely because you seem interested mostly in deliberately misinterpreting flat earthers and their behaviour.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: ManuelChavez on March 16, 2017, 07:48:52 PM
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: ManuelChavez


No one here should be branded as having a characteristic of the devil. It is a poor choice of words, and poor judgement to argue in such a manner.

What good does it do to insult others? Does it prove your point? Will it convince those reading this thread or visiting this site that your side of the discussion is correct and the other is not?

I am disinclined to listen to, or believe, those who act in such a manner.


Then it is time to take your own advice.

You do not like it being implied that your blindness and disregard for Scripture is "diabolical" in nature, and FE'ers do not like the implication that they are "stupid."


I do not disregard Scriptures, and I do not believe that those who espouse a flat earth are "stupid".

I am not convinced of the flat earth theory, as I have many questions regarding some of the finer details. I endeavor, however, to entertain the possibility of a flat earth, as I do not have a complete picture of the theory, and it is currently out of the question to journey into space to have a better look at the earth for myself.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 16, 2017, 09:20:13 PM
Quote from: ManuelChavez
Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: ManuelChavez


No one here should be branded as having a characteristic of the devil. It is a poor choice of words, and poor judgement to argue in such a manner.

What good does it do to insult others? Does it prove your point? Will it convince those reading this thread or visiting this site that your side of the discussion is correct and the other is not?

I am disinclined to listen to, or believe, those who act in such a manner.


Then it is time to take your own advice.

You do not like it being implied that your blindness and disregard for Scripture is "diabolical" in nature, and FE'ers do not like the implication that they are "stupid."


I do not disregard Scriptures, and I do not believe that those who espouse a flat earth are "stupid".

I am not convinced of the flat earth theory, as I have many questions regarding some of the finer details. I endeavor, however, to entertain the possibility of a flat earth, as I do not have a complete picture of the theory, and it is currently out of the question to journey into space to have a better look at the earth for myself.



The perfect Catholic response. Where's a high five emoji?
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on March 17, 2017, 01:18:17 PM
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/TUUj6Nkp0BU[/youtube]
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 17, 2017, 08:41:34 PM
Look at what these crazy people think -- that they can crawl past the Ice Wall and look at the south celestial pole!  

Ridiculous!

(https://maas.museum/app/uploads/sites/6/2013/01/xfinding-south.png.pagespeed.ic.SvAPAMgJ6y.webp)

They would have to crawl over the edge of the earth and look down to see what the stars look like under the earth.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 17, 2017, 09:54:35 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Look at what these crazy people think -- that they can crawl past the Ice Wall and look at the south celestial pole!  

Ridiculous!

(https://maas.museum/app/uploads/sites/6/2013/01/xfinding-south.png.pagespeed.ic.SvAPAMgJ6y.webp)

They would have to crawl over the edge of the earth and look down to see what the stars look like under the earth.



Chicken scratch.  What does someone's inaccurate drawing and vague terminology have to do with reality?  Does anyone think for one minute that a couple of intersecting lines with a sprinkling of stars and dots is enough to erase what scripture says about the sun, moon and stars under the firmament?

Scripture says the firmament, a hard dome like glass, is above the earth. It is called God's handywork because it can be seen, not to mention that there is water above it.  Where's that on a ball earth? There is no possible way that scripture's description of the firmament, sun, moon and stars can be reconciled with modern science's lies. All the lines and polka dots in the world will never make earth a globe.  
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 18, 2017, 12:07:00 AM
Quote from: happenby
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Look at what these crazy people think -- that they can crawl past the Ice Wall and look at the south celestial pole!  

Ridiculous!

(https://maas.museum/app/uploads/sites/6/2013/01/xfinding-south.png.pagespeed.ic.SvAPAMgJ6y.webp)

They would have to crawl over the edge of the earth and look down to see what the stars look like under the earth.


Chicken scratch.  What does someone's inaccurate drawing and vague terminology have to do with reality?  Does anyone think for one minute that a couple of intersecting lines with a sprinkling of stars and dots is enough to erase what scripture says about the sun, moon and stars under the firmament?

Scripture says the firmament, a hard dome like glass, is above the earth. It is called God's handywork because it can be seen, not to mention that there is water above it.  Where's that on a ball earth? There is no possible way that scripture's description of the firmament, sun, moon and stars can be reconciled with modern science's lies. All the lines and polka dots in the world will never make earth a globe.  


Totally!

Why, no one can look up into the sky in the south Atlantic (or Australia) and see stars with that configuration, eh?

If you want to know how to identify and use the Southern Cross, your first stop should be the Bible!  

Which book, chapter and verse would that be?

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 18, 2017, 12:18:31 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: happenby
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Look at what these crazy people think -- that they can crawl past the Ice Wall and look at the south celestial pole!  

Ridiculous!

(https://maas.museum/app/uploads/sites/6/2013/01/xfinding-south.png.pagespeed.ic.SvAPAMgJ6y.webp)

They would have to crawl over the edge of the earth and look down to see what the stars look like under the earth.


Chicken scratch.  What does someone's inaccurate drawing and vague terminology have to do with reality?  Does anyone think for one minute that a couple of intersecting lines with a sprinkling of stars and dots is enough to erase what scripture says about the sun, moon and stars under the firmament?

Scripture says the firmament, a hard dome like glass, is above the earth. It is called God's handywork because it can be seen, not to mention that there is water above it.  Where's that on a ball earth? There is no possible way that scripture's description of the firmament, sun, moon and stars can be reconciled with modern science's lies. All the lines and polka dots in the world will never make earth a globe.  


Totally!

Why, no one can look up into the sky in the south Atlantic (or Australia) and see stars with that configuration, eh?

If you want to know how to identify and use the Southern Cross, your first stop should be the Bible!  

Which book, chapter and verse would that be?

I don't doubt the attempt here is to show the Southern Cross and some angles to deny flat earth. But whatever is intended to come across does not come across.  It is incomplete at best and is ignorant with regard to alternatives you can't fathom. If this alone is intended to prove earth cannot be a plane, it is woefully lacking.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 18, 2017, 12:46:01 AM
West Marine is a superstore of Marine equipment and tools, for people who actually use them.

How about this item, Weems & Plath Star Finder:

(http://content.westmarine.com/images/catalog/full/120436.jpg)
Weems & Plath Star Finder.  The Star Finder is an invaluable tool for celestial navigators to plan star and planet sights; but it can also be used by amateur star gazers for general star identification. Graphically portrays altitude and azimuth of fifty-seven numbered stars in air and nautical almanacs.  Includes special diagrams that permit rapid check of hour angle and means of finding altitude and azimuth of unplotted celestial bodies or identification of unplotted bodies from known altitude and azimuth.  Allows the plotting of additional celestial bodies on the star base.


'Crux', The Southern Cross

The southern cross is the best known constelation in the southern hemisphere.

However, unlike the navigator in the northern hemisphere, the southerner has no fixed star conveniently placed to mark the South Celestial pole.

Quite the opposite, there is in fact an inky-black dark patch across that area of sky.

This dark patch looking like a hole in the firmament is actually a cloud of gas obscuring any stars beyond, which has been appropriately called the ‘Coal Sack’.

(http://www.diy-wood-boat.com/images/Crux.jpg)

To find out where in this ‘coal sack’ the south celestial pole lies, there are, fortunately several ‘pointers’, the most famous of which is the Southern Cross.

The Southern Cross, the constellation ‘Crux’, is in one of the brightest portions of the southern Milky Way.

It is also one of the smallest constellations.

Fortunately three of its stars Acrux, Mimosa and Gacrux are among the brightest objects in the night sky.

Counter clockwise next to Crux are another pair of bright stars Alpha and Beta Centauri which are known as the ‘Southern Pointers’.

An imaginary straight line drawn clockwise across the pointers will point towards the head of the cross.

It’s important to identify the cross using the pointers as there are several other cross like groups of stars, including the one known as the ‘false cross’.

Once the cross has been correctly identified, if we draw an imaginary line through its head and carry it on through the bottom, somewhere along this line where it crosses the ‘coal sack’, is the South Celestial Pole.

If we then draw a perpendicular line from that imaginary line running between 'Pointer Stars' and extend this into the ‘coal sack’, where it crosses the line from the cross is the position of the South Celestial Pole.

If this perpendicular line from the pointers were extended beyond the celestial pole it would point to Achernar a very bright star an equal distance beyond the pole.

Another position line can be drawn from the ‘Southern Triangle’.

A line from the apex of this star group cutting the base at right angles, then extended, will also cross the position of the South Celestial Pole.

Terrestrial south is of course directly below the south celestial pole.


Quiz:
1. Where is terrestrial south located?  
2. What is the zenith of the terrestrial south pole called?
3. What is another name for the nadir of the south celestial pole?
4. What are the names of the two "Southern Pointers" stars?
5. When we look for the southern pole star, what do we see instead?
6. Why don't we use that (#5 above) just like we use Polaris in the north?
.
.
.
.
.
No fair peeking!!
.
.
.
.
.
Ans 1: directly below the south celestial pole.
Ans 2: the south celestial pole.
Ans 3: that is the terrestrial south pole.
Ans 4: Alpha Centauri and Beta Centauri.
Ans 5: The Coal Sack.
Ans 6: The Coal Sack is not useful because it is a vast void of information.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 18, 2017, 01:27:06 AM
If indeed there is a "south pole", how can that one point or pole be demonstrated with a compass?  The needle arrow points north only.  The the opposite side of the needle, when turning around the north, draws a circle in the outer regions showing there is only one pole--north.  The southern region is as scripture describes, "encompassed", as in a "circle" of land within the great deep.  The outer regions have not yet been fully circuмnavigated, but the compass and scripture agree that earth is not a globe.  
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 18, 2017, 01:47:41 AM
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/kmb6BVbaCuI[/youtube]
This video covers finding south AS WELL as finding north, using the Southern Cross.

Quote

If indeed there is a "south pole", how can that one point or pole be demonstrated with a compass? The needle arrow points north only. The the opposite side of the needle, when turning around the north, draws a circle in the outer regions showing there is only one pole--north. The southern region is as scripture describes, "encompassed", as in a "circle" of land within the great deep. The outer regions have not yet been fully circuмnavigated, but the compass and scripture agree that earth is not a globe.


You have never used a compass, have you?  Because if you had learned how to find your bearing direction using a compass, you would not be saying these things.

The video above shows how to find south with a celestial guide (instead of a compass) and how knowing where south is can tell you also where north is. This is not rocket science.

The stars are better than a magnetic compass for the latter tells you magnetic north (or south) which is MOVING and not constant, but the stars are much more reliable because their alignment does not change like earth's magnetic field does.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 18, 2017, 02:01:20 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/kmb6BVbaCuI[/youtube]
This video covers finding south AS WELL as finding north, using the Southern Cross.

Quote

If indeed there is a "south pole", how can that one point or pole be demonstrated with a compass? The needle arrow points north only. The the opposite side of the needle, when turning around the north, draws a circle in the outer regions showing there is only one pole--north. The southern region is as scripture describes, "encompassed", as in a "circle" of land within the great deep. The outer regions have not yet been fully circuмnavigated, but the compass and scripture agree that earth is not a globe.


You have never used a compass, have you?  Because if you had learned how to find your bearing direction using a compass, you would not be saying these things.

The video above shows how to find south with a celestial guide (instead of a compass) and how knowing where south is can tell you also where north is. This is not rocket science.

The stars are better than a magnetic compass for the latter tells you magnetic north (or south) which is MOVING and not constant, but the stars are much more reliable because their alignment does not change like earth's magnetic field does.



Actually, I agree with the fact that there is a directional south.  But the compass still does not work on a globe, and will only point to true south in very limited circuмstances because the back end of a compass draws a circle as one goes around the north. This is simply a fact regarding the compass.  But none of this is inconsistent with a flat earth.  A compass, held flat at the equator can never point to the north pole on a globe because the needle will be perpendicular to north while one holds it standing on any side of the ball, proving that earth is not a globe.  
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 18, 2017, 02:50:08 AM
So you think the needle has to point at the north pole?

No, the needle of a compass points which way the traveler has to GO to be traveling north.

At the equator, a compass on the surface of the earth points to the north star. And as one travels north, the star rises in the sky, because the course taken is curved, on the curved surface of a spherical planet.  Very simple.

.....That is, unless you have a curiously obtuse agenda, which compels you to say that a compass doesn't work.

Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on March 18, 2017, 07:36:38 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
So you think the needle has to point at the north pole?

No, the needle of a compass points which way the traveler has to GO to be traveling north.

At the equator, a compass on the surface of the earth points to the north star. And as one travels north, the star rises in the sky, because the course taken is curved, on the curved surface of a spherical planet.  Very simple.

.....That is, unless you have a curiously obtuse agenda, which compels you to say that a compass doesn't work.



You have to be joking. Are you really so retarded as to think that disproves the flat earth? After all you have been following on it? Have you even read the responses? Have you fully watched the video on the stars?

For people of good will confused by Neils dishonest statements: The North star rises as you go further north, because the angle gets wider. You are getting closer to going "under" it.

The video again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahNfU7zYlmY&t=4s
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 18, 2017, 10:57:32 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/kmb6BVbaCuI[/youtube]
This video covers finding south AS WELL as finding north, using the Southern Cross.

Quote

If indeed there is a "south pole", how can that one point or pole be demonstrated with a compass? The needle arrow points north only. The the opposite side of the needle, when turning around the north, draws a circle in the outer regions showing there is only one pole--north. The southern region is as scripture describes, "encompassed", as in a "circle" of land within the great deep. The outer regions have not yet been fully circuмnavigated, but the compass and scripture agree that earth is not a globe.


You have never used a compass, have you?  Because if you had learned how to find your bearing direction using a compass, you would not be saying these things.

The video above shows how to find south with a celestial guide (instead of a compass) and how knowing where south is can tell you also where north is. This is not rocket science.

The stars are better than a magnetic compass for the latter tells you magnetic north (or south) which is MOVING and not constant, but the stars are much more reliable because their alignment does not change like earth's magnetic field does.



Please. A compass works within the magnetic fields of EARTH.  The north "pole" to be exact.  Necessarily, were anyone to locate the north pole with a compass, they would have to be on the same level as the north pole, or the compass wouldn't work, since the compass necessarily must be held level. Held level at the equator on a globe, a compass leaves a perpendicular line that points out in space, not to the pole.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Matto on March 18, 2017, 11:40:32 AM
https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole-2017 (https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole-2017)

You can fly to the South Pole now and go look for the ice wall. Maybe you can ask one of the pilots about how big Antarctica is and if they ever saw the ice wall and the edge of the flat earth.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 18, 2017, 11:42:22 AM
Quote from: Matto
https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole-2017 (https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole-2017)

You can fly to the South Pole now and go look for the ice wall. Maybe you can ask one of the pilots about how big Antarctica is and if they ever saw the ice wall and the edge of the flat earth.


Unlikely, but that doesn't mean the earth isn't flat.
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on March 18, 2017, 12:51:09 PM
Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor


For people of good will confused by Neils dishonest statements: The North star rises as you go further north, because the angle gets wider. You are getting closer to going "under" it.

The video again.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/ahNfU7zYlmY&t=4s[/youtube]



^^THIS^^
Title: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 18, 2017, 02:55:27 PM
Notice Neil isn't really arguing the globe, but seems to find pleasure in countering with smoke and mirrors in order to find that one single argument that might discredit scripture.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Cera on March 19, 2017, 07:05:57 PM
https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole-2017 (https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole-2017)

You can fly to the South Pole now and go look for the ice wall. Maybe you can ask one of the pilots about how big Antarctica is and if they ever saw the ice wall and the edge of the flat earth.
Tourists are taken to an icy area, where a South Pole sign is planted and are told they are at the south pole.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZP_VZ_Ehvk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZP_VZ_Ehvk
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 19, 2017, 10:47:35 PM
Here is a quick lesson in great circle usefulness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDlc9a4AjnE
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 19, 2017, 10:57:08 PM

And this one explains 3 types of map projections of the spherical earth:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsgYh7qrsys
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: aryzia on March 20, 2017, 04:05:34 PM
Ok, so they can project a global map based on a flat earth map or vise versa means earth is a globe? Or that what was once known as plane sailing is now called circle sailing, so that means earth is a globe? These don't prove earth is not flat. So why use these examples? Unless you don't have proof that earth is a globe. Sorry, just being reasonable.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on March 20, 2017, 06:26:52 PM
Here is a quick lesson in great circle usefulness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDlc9a4AjnE
Why give us a map lesson on an object that does not exist? What is your point?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 22, 2017, 01:04:45 AM
Why give us a map lesson on an object that does not exist? What is your point?
The point is, the rhumb line is easy to follow because the bearing is kept constant and the navigator doesn't have to constantly adjust bearing to follow the great circle route in order to achieve the shortest distance. 

Near the end of this video it shows two points in the northern hemisphere, something like a city in Canada and a city in Scandinavia (or thereabouts) where the rhumb line distance (nearly constant latitude) is much greater than the great circle distance, the latter of which takes the course through the arctic. If viewed on a "flat" earth map with the north pole in the center, both courses are curved. The great circle course will appear to be longer than a route following an apparently straight line on the flat map, but if you actually plot those courses and measure the distance, the apparently straight line course is actually longer than the apparently curved great circle route!! 

But more tellingly, the rhumb line course takes the transit far afield in the other direction, which seems to be absurdly out of the way. It appears to be nearly twice as far as the apparently straight line route. (The rhumb line course is indeed longer but the video's drawing exaggerates it a lot.)

In the end, rhumb line courses are easy to follow because you don't have to adjust your course heading, you just keep it the same the whole way. But you end up traveling further, that is, unless your are traveling over the equator or along a meridian. By understanding how rhumb lines work, one is better able to comprehend the significance of great circle routes, which do not have any relation to a projection of the spherical earth on a flat map. In order to find the great circle route you need to consider the distance to the center of the earth from any given point on the route. This is often approximated by an average distance to the earth's center, and the results are close enough to allow for corrections near the end of the flight or course (air or water).
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 22, 2017, 01:29:00 AM
Here's a video that addresses flat-earth videos point by point, but I don't really agree with some of its claims. Interesting, nonetheless: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbVmM9ymjxA

A very important concept in geodetic surveying is briefly touched on at minute 21 - 22: spherical excess. 
When you expand this triangle sufficiently, you can get three 90-degree angles.
Anyone with familiarity with basic geometry knows that a triangle cannot have 3 right angles.
But on a sphere, you can have a triangle with 3 right angles, with spherical excess.

There are several examples of three points on the globe that conform to this principle.

The same guy has a 4-video series where he gently describes the various aspects of this argument:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9ksbh88OJs&list=PLAbO4DdyTGZpp-IOSB7qUbb_QYYg9ZA9B
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on March 22, 2017, 07:14:14 AM
ho ho.
Neil are you are aware that by now you have lost almost all credibility? You can't respond to our responses.

you know, I have this image you with an angry look on your face, frantically looking up all the anti-flat earth videos on youtube you can find.

You are totally uncritical in your analysis of these videos. That's why you don't respond to our responses to them.

About the first video, he states that there is speherical excess, but doesn't give us any practical examples or experience of engineers who have done it. It exists only in a textbook.

Here is an interview with an engineer of many years experience who says that they do not in practice measure curvature at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BSKVE9pp60&t=1490s

By the way, are you aware that engineers discount curvature for the first 20km squared? very convenient.


Another mistake he made in his video was talking about the dip every 69 miles. I'm sorry but that is beyond idiotic in his analysis. You can get the forumula for curvature with one simple google search.

8 inches per mile squared. If you don't square it, you end up with a straight line. Think about it.

I get the feeling in talking to neil that I am talking to one of these chat bots. No matter what you say, it will just come back to the default answer. Poor guy. He needs prayers.

I'll respond to the second video if I get time.

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on March 22, 2017, 10:45:29 AM
In order to find the great circle route you need to consider the distance to the center of the earth from any given point on the route. This is often approximated by an average distance to the earth's center, and the results are close enough to allow for corrections near the end of the flight or course (air or water).
One thing you absolutely DO NOT have to do inorder to go from point A to pont B on the face of the earth is "consider the distance to the center of the earth."
How ridiculous.
There is no "center of the earth."
There is only hell below us.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on March 22, 2017, 10:47:38 AM

When you expand this triangle sufficiently, you can get three 90-degree angles.
Anyone with familiarity with basic geometry knows that a triangle cannot have 3 right angles.
But on a sphere, you can have a triangle with 3 right angles, with spherical excess.

This has to go down on record as one of the dumbest things ever written at Cathinfo.
:facepalm:
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 24, 2017, 11:16:07 PM
This has to go down on record as one of the dumbest things ever written at Cathinfo.
:facepalm:
There are multiple sets of three locations on earth that fit this description. 
The simplest to describe is one at the north pole, two at the 90th longitude and equator, three at the prime meridian and equator. The angle between each adjacent location is 90 degrees in each case, yet together they form a triangle on the surface of the earth, since you can arrive at the next place by traveling in a straight line over the surface. You get from two to three by going due east. 
That can only happen on a globe, and it cannot happen on a "flat" earth. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 24, 2017, 11:19:35 PM
Here's a video with two simple experiments you can do at home, with a clear sky.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFU1A88N_6I

If you really want to know the truth, you can do these two experiments yourself and then you will know. Of course, flat earthers don't like to know the truth (apparently) so you won't do them, correct? 

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 24, 2017, 11:41:56 PM
Interestingly, when Mohammedans post replies at these video sites, they say Allah has revealed the earth is flat, and that's what Moslems believe: 

Quote
Allah said in the Koran name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate. And the earth, how it is spread. There are many signs in the Koran says
.. Did not make the earth a cradle. And the earth after that they spread the .ohua who spread out the earth and placed therein firm collapsed and all the fruits and make a couple where two blurred Night that day in that are signs for those who reflect ..
The God who made you a carpet on the ground .. and the earth and Tahaha. There are many signs speak for Earth
Who wants to know the real shape of the earth, Phil read the Koran verses which speak of the ground in the Koran because the God who created the earth, he said the earth was flat, not spherical thank you
Quote
I am a Muslim and the Koran of Islam and the Koran says so and the koran  word of God, and God knows the shape of the ground more than any scientist in the universe either NASA or other
Have you flat-earthers considered that you agree with Moslems more than you do with Christians? 

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 25, 2017, 12:17:07 AM
ho ho.
Neil are you are aware that by now you have lost almost all credibility? You can't respond to our responses.

you know, I have this image you with an angry look on your face, frantically looking up all the anti-flat earth videos on youtube you can find.

You are totally uncritical in your analysis of these videos. That's why you don't respond to our responses to them.

About the first video, he states that there is speherical excess, but doesn't give us any practical examples or experience of engineers who have done it. It exists only in a textbook.

Here is an interview with an engineer of many years experience who says that they do not in practice measure curvature at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BSKVE9pp60&t=1490s

By the way, are you aware that engineers discount curvature for the first 20km squared? very convenient.


Another mistake he made in his video was talking about the dip every 69 miles. I'm sorry but that is beyond idiotic in his analysis. You can get the forumula for curvature with one simple google search.

8 inches per mile squared. If you don't square it, you end up with a straight line. Think about it.

I get the feeling in talking to neil that I am talking to one of these chat bots. No matter what you say, it will just come back to the default answer. Poor guy. He needs prayers.

I'll respond to the second video if I get time.

You have made a number of typos, I guess. But I'm presuming they were accidental. Maybe that's a mistake of my own, I don't know.

In any event, the guy you refer to in the video who claims to be an "engineer" is faking it because all engineers know there are two grades or degrees of surveying, the lower one of which does not consider the curvature of the earth because it's too small. The higher one deals with larger distances like the perimeter of a state or a national park or the southwest USA or an entire continent, and that HAS to consider the curvature or else they'll have incorrect data.  

In California, since the state is so large north and south, there are three benchmarks for real estate because if they used only one the error would be too much for accuracy of property lines. If the earth were flat, they would not need more than one benchmark for real estate property descriptions. Every deed of property in Calif. has on it the name of the benchmark used in the description.

I know it is of no use, but AGAIN, if you could please try (I know it's so hard for you) to refrain from personal insult, it would be a big help. But on second thought, go ahead and continue to post how you think I must look or how I must think or how I must feel, or why I've done something or not in your estimation, because that way you expose your own character for all to see.

But if you'd like to make a case for yourself, then measure the angle between the sun and moon at the next quarter moon, which will be on April 3rd, as the video I posted above describes. Come back here, if you are capable that is, and post what your measurement was. Take your measurement in the late afternoon about a half hour before sunset, when you'll find the moon directly overhead and slightly to the north. Let's see if you can do something constructive for a change, instead of just complaining as if you were a woman.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on March 25, 2017, 10:32:07 AM
Interestingly, when Mohammedans post replies at these video sites, they say Allah has revealed the earth is flat, and that's what Moslems believe:
Have you flat-earthers considered that you agree with Moslems more than you do with Christians? 


:jester: :laugh1: :laugh2: :fryingpan:
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on March 25, 2017, 10:35:29 AM
:jester: :laugh1: :laugh2: :fryingpan:
Truth is Eternal and Neil,

Could it be that since the ancient Hebrew cosmology believed in a flat earth (according to OT scripture), and since the Muslims borrow quite heavily from the Old Testament, that this means that they believe as the ancient Hebrews rightly believed?

Though I seriously doubt that most or even many Muslims really believe in a flat earth.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on March 25, 2017, 12:18:06 PM
Truth is Eternal and Neil,

Could it be that since the ancient Hebrew cosmology believed in a flat earth (according to OT scripture), and since the Muslims borrow quite heavily from the Old Testament, that this means that they believe as the ancient Hebrews rightly believed?

Though I seriously doubt that most or even many Muslims really believe in a flat earth.
The earth is definitely flat, along with Neil's arguments.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on March 25, 2017, 01:59:30 PM
You have made a number of typos, I guess. But I'm presuming they were accidental. Maybe that's a mistake of my own, I don't know.

In any event, the guy you refer to in the video who claims to be an "engineer" is faking it because all engineers know there are two grades or degrees of surveying, the lower one of which does not consider the curvature of the earth because it's too small. The higher one deals with larger distances like the perimeter of a state or a national park or the southwest USA or an entire continent, and that HAS to consider the curvature or else they'll have incorrect data. 

In California, since the state is so large north and south, there are three benchmarks for real estate because if they used only one the error would be too much for accuracy of property lines. If the earth were flat, they would not need more than one benchmark for real estate property descriptions. Every deed of property in Calif. has on it the name of the benchmark used in the description.

I know it is of no use, but AGAIN, if you could please try (I know it's so hard for you) to refrain from personal insult, it would be a big help. But on second thought, go ahead and continue to post how you think I must look or how I must think or how I must feel, or why I've done something or not in your estimation, because that way you expose your own character for all to see.

But if you'd like to make a case for yourself, then measure the angle between the sun and moon at the next quarter moon, which will be on April 3rd, as the video I posted above describes. Come back here, if you are capable that is, and post what your measurement was. Take your measurement in the late afternoon about a half hour before sunset, when you'll find the moon directly overhead and slightly to the north. Let's see if you can do something constructive for a change, instead of just complaining as if you were a woman.

Good to see you are responding to me. Though not substantially. You still have not answered where hundreds of feet of that mountain came from. They're suppose to be behind the curve.

The video for anyone not up to speed


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4oT2EbDONs

Do you realise, that ultimately anything to do with the sky cannot disprove a proof of the earth? Our proofs are principally based on the earth. That why we are flat EARTHers.

I wasn't insulting at all. It is you who are insulting by talking down to us constantly.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: BumphreyHogart on March 25, 2017, 06:32:40 PM
Good to see you are responding to me. Though not substantially. You still have not answered where hundreds of feet of that mountain came from. They're suppose to be behind the curve.

The video for anyone not up to speed


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4oT2EbDONs

Do you realise, that ultimately anything to do with the sky cannot disprove a proof of the earth? Our proofs are principally based on the earth. That why we are flat EARTHers.

I wasn't insulting at all. It is you who are insulting by talking down to us constantly.

I have a bridge to sell you!

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on March 25, 2017, 09:21:18 PM
I have a bridge to sell you!
Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects. Canals, railways, bridges and tunnels for example are always cut and laid horizontally, often over hundreds of miles without any allowance for curvature.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on March 26, 2017, 12:14:21 AM
Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects. Canals, railways, bridges and tunnels for example are always cut and laid horizontally, often over hundreds of miles without any allowance for curvature.
Its kinda outrageous you make your case with simple facts, TiE.  These people hope to orbit the globe with Capt Kirk someday and you're crushing their dreams.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: BumphreyHogart on March 26, 2017, 11:42:59 AM
Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects. Canals, railways, bridges and tunnels for example are always cut and laid horizontally, often over hundreds of miles without any allowance for curvature.


No engineer has claimed that what they do are perfectly horizontal for miles.

The most naturally horizontal surface is a frozen body of water extending hundreds of miles, and that which is seen with a telescope that far away goes further and further below the horizon.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on March 26, 2017, 02:24:17 PM
You have made a number of typos, I guess. But I'm presuming they were accidental. Maybe that's a mistake of my own, I don't know.

In any event, the guy you refer to in the video who claims to be an "engineer" is faking it because all engineers know there are two grades or degrees of surveying, the lower one of which does not consider the curvature of the earth because it's too small. The higher one deals with larger distances like the perimeter of a state or a national park or the southwest USA or an entire continent, and that HAS to consider the curvature or else they'll have incorrect data. 

In California, since the state is so large north and south, there are three benchmarks for real estate because if they used only one the error would be too much for accuracy of property lines. If the earth were flat, they would not need more than one benchmark for real estate property descriptions. Every deed of property in Calif. has on it the name of the benchmark used in the description.

I know it is of no use, but AGAIN, if you could please try (I know it's so hard for you) to refrain from personal insult, it would be a big help. But on second thought, go ahead and continue to post how you think I must look or how I must think or how I must feel, or why I've done something or not in your estimation, because that way you expose your own character for all to see.

But if you'd like to make a case for yourself, then measure the angle between the sun and moon at the next quarter moon, which will be on April 3rd, as the video I posted above describes. Come back here, if you are capable that is, and post what your measurement was. Take your measurement in the late afternoon about a half hour before sunset, when you'll find the moon directly overhead and slightly to the north. Let's see if you can do something constructive for a change, instead of just complaining as if you were a woman.

I forgot to correct one very important mistake of Neil.

If you actually listen to the interview, you will hear that the engineer talks PRECISELY about the two types of surveys.

The smaller surveys should take into account the curvature but don't. Which is the problem.

The larger surveys are very rare.

Neil, you really have exposed yourself now. Calling it a fake, when you have not even listened to it, is bad, even for you.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 26, 2017, 03:15:27 PM
In this 4-minute video, at 0:40 +, they show a picture of how a triangle looks on the globe when it has three 90-degree interior angles. The top angle is at the north pole, and the lower two are at the equator: the Prime Meridian north of the equator and the 90 deg. west meridian north of the equator, respectively. In this map, GHA = 8 hours (one fourth of 24 hours -- if you don't know what GHA means then watch the last 5 videos below). The reason this triangle can have greater than 180 deg. total for its interior angles (which is the rule for triangles on a flat plane, such as "flat" earth) is that the figure occurs on the surface of a sphere, and this additional total degrees of the interior angles is due to spherical excess. As applied in the real world, when traveling at a right angle from the equator to the north pole along the Prime Meridian, one moves in a straight line ahead, even while gradually curving "downward" following the curvature of the earth. When traveling west from the Prime Meridian to the 90th meridian, likewise, one need not change compass direction due west, but moves straight ahead (due west) while necessarily curving "downward" following the curvature of the earth.

To pronounce the obvious, on a "flat" earth model, moving north along each of the two meridians one would not be turning but going straight ahead, however, when moving from the Prime Meridian to the 90th along the equator, one would be continually turning right because on the "flat" earth model, the equator is curved. Needless to say, any navigator knows that traveling thusly west on the equator does not require turning at all, but one only needs to maintain a dead-ahead rudder while he moves toward the horizon straight ahead.

This video gives a brief overview of what a navigator is doing when he fills out a Sight Reduction Form (shown at the end of the video at 3:37):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cbKcaTimMI&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cbKcaTimMI&feature=youtu.be)

None of this material makes any sense if one presumes the earth is flat.

Any so-called navigator who disagrees with these techniques is no navigator at all, but a fraud.  It might be possible to "get by," learning how to use a computer and mechanically putting in data as needed without understanding what the computer is doing with the data, but that's not what true navigators are supposed to be doing -- AND IF caught without access to a computer, they would be entirely lost as to how to navigate manually.

And their passengers would likely die. Even if they were to survive, such so-called navigators would lose their job that way, being exposed for the frauds they are.

This video is by a veteran military navigator who actually understands the theory behind what he was doing on the job:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWLZKmPU17M (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWLZKmPU17M)

Here is a set of 4 videos (three by one source and one by another) that covers the basics of navigation by air or by sea, which can be used for manual computation or with the help of a computer, but without GPS (Global Position Satellite). This is how sailors have been navigating for the past 4 centuries, and it is still used today, when one does not avail access to GPS or in an emergency when the GPS is for whatever reason inoperable.

Celestial Navigation part 1 CELESTIAL COORDINATE SYSTEM:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cun0DGZ6-sk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cun0DGZ6-sk)

(Note: these first 3 videos attempt to say that the earth really spins on its axis, however, for simplicity they presume the earth to be stationary "like ancient man believed" and conduct their calculations accordingly. It is noteworthy that when JPL computes the trajectory of a rocket taking off, they too presume the earth is stationary. Curious, eh?)

Celestial Navigation part 2 HORIZON COORDINATE SYSTEM:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfL1Bxo6RnE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfL1Bxo6RnE)

Celestial navigation part 3, INTERCEPT method:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrtiAko21h0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrtiAko21h0)

This video is over an hour long, but starting at 55 minutes, it shows application in great detail of the previous 3 videos that were very abbreviated:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZCwgoUxXWs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZCwgoUxXWs)

Finally, if anyone gets this far and actually wants to know the theory behind spherical excess, the following video provides a general formula in the context of a spherical triangle (which is defined as the interior shape bounded by three great circles) of any size on a sphere of given radius:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCIAN53oJVs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCIAN53oJVs)


Northern hemisphere in the polar aspect of Ginzburg's second modified azimuthal projection
Copyright © 2014 C.A.Furuti – All rights reserved – www.progonos.com/furuti (http://www.progonos.com/furuti)

Pasted from <http://www.progonos.com/furuti/MapProj/Dither/ProjAz/ProjAzNP/projAzNP.html (http://www.progonos.com/furuti/MapProj/Dither/ProjAz/ProjAzNP/projAzNP.html)>

(http://www.progonos.com/furuti/MapProj/Dither/ProjAz/ProjAzNP/Img/Z1/mp2_AzmGinzburg-s75-t2-a-90.png) (http://www.progonos.com/furuti/MapProj/Dither/ProjAz/ProjAzNP/Img/Z1/mp2_AzmGinzburg-s75-t2-a-90.png)

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 26, 2017, 03:28:57 PM
I forgot to correct one very important mistake of Neil.

If you actually listen to the interview, you will hear that the engineer talks PRECISELY about the two types of surveys.

The smaller surveys should take into account the curvature but don't. Which is the problem.

The larger surveys are very rare.

Neil, you really have exposed yourself now. Calling it a fake, when you have not even listened to it, is bad, even for you.
I heard the interview. The two types of surveys are used for two types of measurement, large scale and small scale. Most surveys are small scale because that's what most demand for surveys require. Large scale surveys are rare because they are not needed as often, obviously. 
But as is typical of your posts, you are ignoring the challenge I have given you.
Quote
If you'd like to make a case for yourself, then measure the angle between the sun and moon at the next quarter moon, which will be on April 3rd, as the video I posted above describes. Come back here, if you are capable that is, and post what your measurement was. Take your measurement in the late afternoon about a half hour before sunset, when you'll find the moon directly overhead and slightly to the north. Let's see if you can do something constructive for a change, instead of just complaining as if you were a woman.
Do you understand? Or not? 
Measure the angle between the sun and moon that you see in the sky on April 3rd.
You have already missed your chance to see where the sun rises and sets on the spring equinox. So you'll have to wait for the autumn equinox for your next chance -- which you'll no doubt miss as well, because you don't want to know the truth, do you.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Cera on March 26, 2017, 03:55:35 PM

No engineer has claimed that what they do are perfectly horizontal for miles.

The most naturally horizontal surface is a frozen body of water extending hundreds of miles, and that which is seen with a telescope that far away goes further and further below the horizon.
I used to think that too -- "below the horizon." Now I realize that I was brainwashed by the Kabbalasitic - Freemasonic NASA/ fake science/ fake media/ fake education system. Just as two parallel lines will APPEAR to merge in the distance, or a car driving down the two parallel lines will appear in disappear -- both are due only to the distance and perspective.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 26, 2017, 11:04:43 PM
Lambert's Azimuthal Equal-area Projection

(Updated source page):

http://www.progonos.com/furuti/MapProj/Normal/ProjAz/ProjAzNP/projAzNP.html


Azimuthal equal-area maps
(http://www.progonos.com/furuti/MapProj/Dither/ProjAz/ProjAzNP/Img/mp_AzmEqA-s60-z-95.png)(http://www.progonos.com/furuti/MapProj/Dither/ProjAz/ProjAzNP/Img/mp_AzmEqA-s60-z-95-x-90.png)
North polar aspectEquatorial aspect, central meridian 5°E
(http://www.progonos.com/furuti/MapProj/Dither/ProjAz/ProjAzNP/Img/mp_AzmEqA-s84.85-z20-x-90.png)(http://www.progonos.com/furuti/MapProj/Dither/ProjAz/ProjAzNP/Img/mp_AzmEqA-s84.85-z-160-x-90.png)
Western hemisphere, central meridian 110°WEastern hemisphere, central meridian 70°E
Like the superficially similar azimuthal equidistant, the azimuthal projection published by Johann H. Lambert in 1772 strongly distorts shapes in the boundary of a worldwide map. However, the radial scale is not constant: in the polar aspect, parallels get closer together towards the border, just enough to preserve areas.
Relatively simple in construction (http://www.progonos.com/furuti/MapProj/Dither/CartHow/HowAzEqDA/howAzEqDA.html), this projection is frequently used in all aspects.
The polar aspect of Lambert's azimuthal projection was independently devised by Anton-Mario Lorgna (1789), and during a short period named after him.


Equatorial aspect of azimuthal equidistant projection, showing all land surfaces on earth:
(http://www.progonos.com/furuti/MapProj/Dither/ProjAz/ProjAzNP/Img/Z1/mp2_AzmEqD-s40-z-90-x-90.png)



Equitorial aspect, central meridian 5 degrees east:

(http://www.progonos.com/furuti/MapProj/Dither/ProjAz/ProjAzNP/Img/Z1/mp3_AzmEqA-s60-z-95-x-90.png)



Western hemisphere in equatorial aspect of Lambert's azimuthal equal-area projection,
central meridian 110 deg. W:

(http://www.progonos.com/furuti/MapProj/Dither/ProjAz/ProjAzNP/Img/Z1/mp3_AzmEqA-s84.85-z20-x-90.png)



Eastern hemisphere in equatorial aspect of Lambert's azimuthal equal-area projection,
central meridian 70 deg. E:

(http://www.progonos.com/furuti/MapProj/Dither/ProjAz/ProjAzNP/Img/Z1/mp3_AzmEqA-s84.85-z-160-x-90.png)

This is 300 year-old news. Depending on your choice of how to distort the surface of the land masses and oceans on earth, you get different pictures of it on a flat surface. This is because you can't have everything when you translate a spherical surface onto a flat one. It's like trying to make an orange peel lie flat, or a deflated beach ball. 

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on March 27, 2017, 03:31:30 PM
I heard the interview. The two types of surveys are used for two types of measurement, large scale and small scale. Most surveys are small scale because that's what most demand for surveys require. Large scale surveys are rare because they are not needed as often, obviously.
But as is typical of your posts, you are ignoring the challenge I have given you.Do you understand? Or not?
Measure the angle between the sun and moon that you see in the sky on April 3rd.
You have already missed your chance to see where the sun rises and sets on the spring equinox. So you'll have to wait for the autumn equinox for your next chance -- which you'll no doubt miss as well, because you don't want to know the truth, do you.

If you watched the video, then you will retract what you said about him being a fraud.

I already explained how this experiment you  want me to do will prove nothing. If the earth can be shown to not have the curvature NASA says it does, then it matters little what is up in the sky. That is why I keep coming back to it and pressuring you to answer questions on it. And that is why you keep ignoring it.
And that is why you are clogging up the thread with such long posts - to distract.

By the way, I had a look at the video you posted "proving the earth is not flat". Most of these guys objections have been answered by intelligent flat earthers. But there were some sligtly new ones. His claim about the curvature of the earth is flat out wrong. There is a huge difference between two points 100 miles apart in the horizon. Look it up yourself and see.

Secondly the objection about the orange is ridiculous. A sphere by definition is a 3dimensional circle. So of course you would see a curve. His video even shows us cutting of the orange and having us place ourselves on the flat part of the orange. But we don't do that if we are on a ball! He asks us if we understand. Of course not! He's talking rubbish.

He talks about perspective and criticises the guy for saying that his sun is always the same size.  But they guy was using a cartoon as an ILLUSTRATION. We know from common sense observation that the sun changes size (as we look at it.)

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 28, 2017, 09:54:47 PM
If you watched the video, then you will retract what you said about him being a fraud.

I already explained how this experiment you  want me to do will prove nothing. If the earth can be shown to not have the curvature NASA says it does, then it matters little what is up in the sky. That is why I keep coming back to it and pressuring you to answer questions on it. And that is why you keep ignoring it.
And that is why you are clogging up the thread with such long posts - to distract.

By the way, I had a look at the video you posted "proving the earth is not flat". Most of these guys objections have been answered by intelligent flat earthers. But there were some sligtly new ones. His claim about the curvature of the earth is flat out wrong. There is a huge difference between two points 100 miles apart in the horizon. Look it up yourself and see.

Secondly the objection about the orange is ridiculous. A sphere by definition is a 3dimensional circle. So of course you would see a curve. His video even shows us cutting of the orange and having us place ourselves on the flat part of the orange. But we don't do that if we are on a ball! He asks us if we understand. Of course not! He's talking rubbish.

He talks about perspective and criticises the guy for saying that his sun is always the same size.  But they guy was using a cartoon as an ILLUSTRATION. We know from common sense observation that the sun changes size (as we look at it.)
I watched the video and he is a fraud. Why should I retract the truth? I have known professional navigators myself and they just laugh at frauds like that. Wake up!

So you refuse to make a simple observation, and the reason must be because you don't want to know the truth. I see very well, thank you.  You say that what is visible to us up in the sky doesn't matter. Your words speak for themselves. 

I am ignoring nothing. I look to the sky and see what I see and comment on it and you can't stand to hear about it because the truth is not in you.

The long posts I made above are for those who want to know, and apparently that's not you.

Quote
By the way, I had a look at the video you posted "proving the earth is not flat". Most of these guys objections have been answered by intelligent flat earthers. But there were some sligtly [slightly?] new ones. His claim about the curvature of the earth is flat out wrong. There is a huge difference between two points 100 miles apart in the horizon. Look it up yourself and see.
I have yet to see any "intelligent flat earthers" -- their words contradict themselves again and again, and they, like you, refuse to look in the sky and see what they see and recognize their ideas are all nonsense when compared to what is actually visible in the sky. 

Quote
He talks about perspective and criticises the guy for saying that his sun is always the same size.  But they guy was using a cartoon as an ILLUSTRATION. We know from common sense observation that the sun changes size (as we look at it.)
No, the sun does not change size as we look at it. (There are times when earth is closer or further away from the sun but the size of the sun is affected so minimally that the difference in apparent size is not even measurable without sophisticated equipment.) There are times when the sun is near the horizon, low in the sky, when distortion makes it appear larger as so does the moon at times, but notice those are when the sun ought to appear SMALLER if it were further away like flat-earthers claim it is (only 3,000 miles high, etc.). So that only further HURTS your incorrect perception of reality.

It's interesting to me that there are people alive today who continue to disregard the simple observations we can all make in the sky to demonstrate the fact that the earth is not flat but a spheroid. It has been helpful to me to have these conversations online because now I know what is happening, and it is the same kind of thing that happened in the Church when modern philosophers attacked the foundations of correct thinking. 

Flat-earthers don't care what is visible in the sky because they only see what they WANT to see, since it is their flatness paradigm that is to them a false god which they must protect at all costs. For them, reality is in the mind, just as it was for Karl Marx and Charles Darwin and Immanuel Kant. If they don't like what someone says, they simply deny the reality like the Irish Protestant "bishop" Berkeley did. 

There is nothing new under the sun. 


Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on March 29, 2017, 10:42:43 AM
I watched the video and he is a fraud. Why should I retract the truth? I have known professional navigators myself and they just laugh at frauds like that. Wake up!

So you refuse to make a simple observation, and the reason must be because you don't want to know the truth. I see very well, thank you.  You say that what is visible to us up in the sky doesn't matter. Your words speak for themselves.

I am ignoring nothing. I look to the sky and see what I see and comment on it and you can't stand to hear about it because the truth is not in you.

The long posts I made above are for those who want to know, and apparently that's not you.
I have yet to see any "intelligent flat earthers" -- their words contradict themselves again and again, and they, like you, refuse to look in the sky and see what they see and recognize their ideas are all nonsense when compared to what is actually visible in the sky.
No, the sun does not change size as we look at it. (There are times when earth is closer or further away from the sun but the size of the sun is affected so minimally that the difference in apparent size is not even measurable without sophisticated equipment.) There are times when the sun is near the horizon, low in the sky, when distortion makes it appear larger as so does the moon at times, but notice those are when the sun ought to appear SMALLER if it were further away like flat-earthers claim it is (only 3,000 miles high, etc.). So that only further HURTS your incorrect perception of reality.

It's interesting to me that there are people alive today who continue to disregard the simple observations we can all make in the sky to demonstrate the fact that the earth is not flat but a spheroid. It has been helpful to me to have these conversations online because now I know what is happening, and it is the same kind of thing that happened in the Church when modern philosophers attacked the foundations of correct thinking.

Flat-earthers don't care what is visible in the sky because they only see what they WANT to see, since it is their flatness paradigm that is to them a false god which they must protect at all costs. For them, reality is in the mind, just as it was for Karl Marx and Charles Darwin and Immanuel Kant. If they don't like what someone says, they simply deny the reality like the Irish Protestant "bishop" Berkeley did.

There is nothing new under the sun.



You cannot dismiss someone as a fraud because you don't like what he is saying. You have to give substantial, instrinsic reasons for saying so.

The sun does appear different in size. Not my problem if you want to deny it.

It all comes down to looking at the evidence. The earth appears flat because it IS flat. We see objects over the horizon because there is NOT the curvature that NASA says is there.

Let he who has ears to hear listen.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 29, 2017, 11:19:59 PM
There are multiple sets of three locations on earth that fit this description.
The simplest to describe is one at the north pole, two at the 90th longitude and equator, three at the prime meridian and equator. The angle between each adjacent location is 90 degrees in each case, yet together they form a triangle on the surface of the earth, since you can arrive at the next place by traveling in a straight line over the surface. You get from two to three by going due east.
That can only happen on a globe, and it cannot happen on a "flat" earth.
The quote referred to above is as follows:

(quote)
Quote from: Neil Obstat on March 22, 2017, 01:29:00 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/50-plus-reasons-the-earth-is-not-flat/msg544950/#msg544950)
Quote

When you expand this triangle sufficiently, you can get three 90-degree angles.
Anyone with familiarity with basic geometry knows that a triangle cannot have 3 right angles.
But on a sphere, you can have a triangle with 3 right angles, with spherical excess.

This has to go down on record as one of the dumbest things ever written at Cathinfo.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/facepalm.gif)
(unquote)
.

My description may have been a bit lacking in detail, and I can't post a drawing of it. The triangle I refer to on the globe is copied to a "flat earth" model showing the two due north legs of the triangle that converge at the north pole as straight lines. One goes from the pole to the equator at the 90th meridian and the other goes from the pole to the equator along the Prime Meridian. These two should be easy to understand for all readers.

However, the third leg of the (spherical) triangle is seen as a CURVED line on the "flat earth" model, proceeding along the equator from the 90th meridian to the Prime Meridian (0 degrees). Even so, on the globe this is a straight line when viewed from the plane of the equator, that is, directly above the equator with the rest of the equator going in a straight line right and left with the other half of the equatorial circle out of view since it's behind the globe.  

It is a simple fact that a ship or airplane proceeding along the equator does not need to turn right or left in order to remain on the equator. Any real navigator knows this. Therefore any course remaining on the equator follows a path straight ahead, or "dead rudder" which means this leg of the triangle is a straight line, and not a curve.

It is a spherical triangle, since it occurs on the surface of a sphere. It is defined by the geometrical shape bounded by three different great circles of the same sphere.

The spherical triangle I am describing is only possible on a sphere. The following video describes such triangles which occur on the face of a sphere:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCIAN53oJVs


Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Augustinus on March 29, 2017, 11:25:19 PM
No flat earthier has explained the Achilles heel of the flat earth theory:

The south celestial pole. Explain two poles in a flat earth where people in multiple locations in the southern ("outer") hemisphere observe the same celestial rotation around a single point.

Explain this without recourse to a sphere and I will become a flat earther.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 29, 2017, 11:33:54 PM
No flat earthier has explained the Achilles heel of the flat earth theory:

The south celestial pole. Explain two poles in a flat earth where people in multiple locations in the southern ("outer") hemisphere observe the same celestial rotation around a single point.

Explain this without recourse to a sphere and I will become a flat earther.
.
One of the videos I posted above points this out, what you say here, noting that three observers on the earth all see the Southern Cross and the Pointers (Alpha and Beta Centauri) in the southern sky. When one observer is in South Africa, one is in Argentina and the third in Australia, they all look south and see the same thing (although orientated differently about the south celestial pole).

But on the "flat earth" model, these three observers must be looking in 3 divergent directions like three spokes on a 3-spoke wheel. (Imagine the logo for Mercedes Benz.) By looking in 3 very different directions, how could they possibly be seeing the same point in the sky?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on March 30, 2017, 03:47:46 AM
No flat earthier has explained the Achilles heel of the flat earth theory:

The south celestial pole. Explain two poles in a flat earth where people in multiple locations in the southern ("outer") hemisphere observe the same celestial rotation around a single point.

Explain this without recourse to a sphere and I will become a flat earther.

I'd be interested  in seeing clear evidence of what you are talking about, and how exactly you feel this is impossible on a flat disc.

By the way,

Are you aware that flat earthers are open to question about maps?

Are you aware that our proofs are based on the earth on not on the sky? Lack of curvature: http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/f9-flat-earth-proofs
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on March 30, 2017, 02:14:51 PM
the answer to your question is contained in this video on the star trails actually.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahNfU7zYlmY

a few minutes in, but you need to watch the first few minutes to understand clearly what is going on.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 01, 2017, 03:07:51 PM
the answer to your question is contained in this video on the star trails actually.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahNfU7zYlmY

a few minutes in, but you need to watch the first few minutes to understand clearly what is going on.

The video you posted there has erroneous panels for each item, from beginning to end. It is a compendium of false premise, incorrect thinking, lack of reason, illogical conclusions and lies. 

Do you want examples? It would take me hours to list them all. 

Take minute 2, for instance. It says, 

"As you travel Southwards [sic] from the North Pole, Polaris and its surrounding stars decline in the sky due to perspective, so at the North Pole Polaris is situated directly 90 degrees above your head, but at the mid-Northern [sic] latitudes (like here) [Where?] it's about 45+/- degrees."

Nowhere in the video does it explain where "here" is, so perhaps he means the 45th parallel north. I don't know. If so, that would put him somewhere around the southern border of Canada, approximately. But we can't be sure since he doesn't really say. 

Ambiguity, like at Vatican II, is the rule of the day with flat-earthers.

The term "southwards" needs no capitalization, but curiously for a flat-earther, most of whom deny the very existence of the south direction, not only is it referred to, it is Capitalized. Odd. Perhaps this particular flat-earther denies south sometimes when it's a difficulty but refers to it at other times, like now, when it's convenient. I don't know if he does or not because flat-earthers are very difficult to keep track of with their opportune inconsistencies. But I digress.

While it's true that the stars in the sky seem to change position due to perspective, this change is extremely small compared to the constant and predictable change that occurs due to the curvature of the earth, which is a reasonably constant curve, very close to circular in all directions. For our purposes the amount of variation is negligible so we can say it is entirely circular. For each degree of movement from the north terrestrial pole toward the equator (and ultimately the south pole), the north star, Polaris, moves just one degree downward toward the north pole. One terrestrial degree is equivalent to 60 nautical miles. So for the first 10 degrees south from the north pole, Polaris moves 10 degrees downward, and for the next 10 degrees south on the earth's surface, Polaris moves another 10 degrees downward. By the time one arrives at the equator, which is 90 degrees from the north pole, Polaris has moved just 90 degrees downward, which is why it is then found at the horizon line. This is entirely explained by the curvature of the earth, and not by perspective, because if it were perspective, Polaris would only have moved perhaps one degree, since it is at such a great distance from earth. Flat-earthers claim that the distance to Polaris is only a few thousand miles in order to perpetrate this falsehood that the movement of Polaris is entirely due to perspective. 

But just as the enormously greater distance from earth to the sun compared to distance from earth to the moon is easily demonstrated by a simple observation you can make the day after tomorrow, April 3rd, 2017, so too the distance to Polaris is easily demonstrated to be many many times the distance to the sun. In fact it is thousands of times further to Polaris than it is to the sun from earth. Consequently, the light rays from Polaris reaching earth are effectively presumed (and rightly so) to be parallel lines. Again, flat-earthers deny this and claim they are far from parallel, but that only complicates their model for other reasons, leading them to additional self-contradictions. 

In only 27 more seconds (2:27) the video shows a very odd and self-contradictory drawing that points to the ground with an arrow "land horizon" and then draws a line to the right at 30 degrees inclination to a place on the right side labeled "sky horizon." A note under this triangle says, "everything in the dark section is behind the horizon." There is no explanation given for why something obviously straight ahead of the viewer would be "behind the horizon." What is being done here is an attempt to set up a false premise. The man figure on the left side as we all know, is a man standing on the ground, which we can do, and the flat line under his feet accurately describes the flat ground under our feet.  When we look to the right or to the left or straight ahead or behind us, we can see to the horizon and we can see the ground going to the horizon. There is no such thing as a "dark section (...) behind the horizon" that we can't see. By insinuating this illogical error, the author is hoping a gullible viewer will buy into his lie so that he can build more erroneous thinking on top of it. Our limitations on seeing things far away is aided by telescopes which bring into view things we would not be able to see without them. An improvement on the telescope is binoculars which give us the ability to see relative distance of things far away, even if they appear to be more flattened-out than they do when we are physically up close to them. If the author were referring to things that we could see if we had a telescope, he did not say that, and as you will find out later, that cannot be what he's talking about because he really wants the viewer to believe that there are things straight ahead of our viewing angle that we are incapable of seeing because they're in the "dark section behind the horizon," whatever that means.


That's one part of the first two and a half minutes of inaccuracies, half-truths and total errors.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 01, 2017, 03:25:02 PM
In the same way that binoculars give us an improved faculty over that of telescopes, because they help us to discern what distant objects are relatively closer to us than are others even though both of them are far away, we will be given a chance on Monday to make an objectively verifiable measurement using the scientific method of hypothesis, observation, tabulation, comparison, testing of the hypothesis and conclusion. 

There won't be any flat-earthers participating, though. Of that you can be sure, because to them their flat-earther false god is such a big idol of worship that they would not DARE to test it. 

I knew a lady who went on tour to Medjugorje and came home with a "rosary-turned-to-gold." When she showed it to me, it looked for all I could tell to be a brass core metal chain with a cheap chrome-like plating that had worn off. I have rosaries made of brass core material where the plating has worn off, and they look just like hers. I asked her if she has been to a Jєωeler to see if he can test it to find out if it's really gold or not. She replied, 

"Oh! I would never do that!! I would never TEST our LADY'S Miracle!"  

Well, that's exactly what we are SUPPOSED to do. It says so in Scripture. Test everything. Hold fast to that which is good. Therefore, we should DISCARD that which is bad, such as bad ideas that fail the test of truth. For example, the bad idea of a flat earth. We should discard it because it fails every test we can throw at it. 

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 01, 2017, 07:44:09 PM
I'd be interested  in seeing clear evidence of what you are talking about, and how exactly you feel this is impossible on a flat disc.

By the way,

Are you aware that flat earthers are open to question about maps?

Are you aware that our proofs are based on the earth on not on the sky? Lack of curvature: http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/f9-flat-earth-proofs
.
This post, above, didn't make sense to me before when I read it the first time. Going back now and reading it again, it seems the extra word: "...based on the earth on not on the sky?", made it confusing and not worth replying to.

Now it appears what you were trying to write was the following:

Are you aware that our proofs are based on the earth, on not on the sky?

In other words, you put "on" where you meant to insert a comma. I suppose.

So then you want to rule out half the evidence available to us (the sky) and that would be why? -- because, perhaps, the evidence in the sky is too irrefutable and easily verified? Perhaps. That would make your motive understandable, I suppose.

And then you claim to have "proofs" but fail to deliver any. Maybe you should take a class in Geometry and another one in Scholastic Logic, before you throw around claims of proving anything!

In any event, the site you refer to, flatearthtrads.forumga.net, is pretty pathetic, and about 8 months old. They have something like 10 members or less, and one post every what, week or two? Most members have never posted and most threads have very few views and no replies. So it's pretty dead over there. But I guess it's the kind of place you like to visit and even cherry-pick from, no?

Oh, I should also say they claim to be followers of Bishop Williamson but can't seem to manage any posts where +W has voiced support for their odd theory of flat-earthism. I have never heard +W say anything about "flat earth" except in jest. Maybe he doesn't want to make someone feel bad or whatever. Maybe he thinks it's not a battle worth trying to fight because it doesn't have any immediate consequence. I don't know what his intentions are unless he explains himself. But it's a crying shame that a website like that is dragging his good name into a controversy where he has not made his voice heard, so they're implying to speak in his name and in his absence. There's a term for that, you know, and it's not very flattering, to say the least.

(It's called detraction.)

They post videos of perhaps well-meaning you-tubers but these video makers have very little knowledge about how to sight level lines or how to determine if your viewfinder is level from left to right, nor do they appear to have any ability to sight or measure angles. In other words, they're not credible in their topic. More pathetic-ness, piled higher and deeper. But they're eager to jump to conclusions anyway.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on April 02, 2017, 12:23:45 AM
In the same way that binoculars give us an improved faculty over that of telescopes, because they help us to discern what distant objects are relatively closer to us than are others even though both of them are far away, we will be given a chance on Monday to make an objectively verifiable measurement using the scientific method of hypothesis, observation, tabulation, comparison, testing of the hypothesis and conclusion.

There won't be any flat-earthers participating, though. Of that you can be sure, because to them their flat-earther false god is such a big idol of worship that they would not DARE to test it.
What are you talking about? I'm game...
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 02, 2017, 06:30:48 PM
What are you talking about? I'm game...
.
Binoculars use two lines of sight to allow us to discern which objects in view are closer to us or further away. They do this because there is one direction viewing in the left lens a given object at a fixed distance, and a different direction viewing the same object at the same distance in the right lens. Effectively, your left eye's angle of view differs from your right eye's angle of view, by some amount, and this amount of difference varies according to how far away the object is.

Tomorrow, Monday April 3rd, the moon will enter its first quarter. If you are in the USA or Canada, you can go to the following website
http://www.almanac.com/astronomy/moon/calendar/CA/Santa%20Monica/2017-04
and you can enter the name of your city, and state or province, press ENTER, and the site will display the month of April in a calendar which shows the time of day in your city when the moon will be at exactly one quarter illuminated by the sun. Today, Sunday April 2nd, at 2:00 pm in the Pacific Daylight Savings Time Zone, the moon appears at 37% illuminated according to the Old Farmer's Almanac. In the past hour the same site has increased from 37% to 39%, so this figure is a changing feature for the day in progress, apparently.

They don't go into detail on this rapid change, but that 37% to 39% becomes 50% by mid-day tomorrow, so perhaps it was 35% early this morning and then in the afternoon today it's going to update to 40% or even more, so the moon's illuminated portion can increase to 50% by 20 hours from now. When the moon appears to earth as 50% full that is when we say it is a "quarter moon" because only half the moon is visible and half of that half (1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4) is a quarter. Effectively, the moon is a sphere with half of it being illuminated by the sun but we can only SEE half of the moon at one time, the other half being the far side of the moon, and only half of the part we can see is facing the sun. We are seeing one-fourth of the moon illuminated, and one-fourth equals one quarter.

We are seeing one-fourth of the moon illuminated when the moon appears as a "quarter moon."

Of course, if you are wont to deny that the sun's light shining on the moon makes it appear to us on earth as a quarter moon, or you would say something like, "the moon's light comes from inside the moon," then you can ignore this exercise because whatever else you have to say won't matter in this discussion. Some flat-earthers claim they can see starlight shining through the moon and therefore "it must be very thin, like about 3 inches thick," and that since it's so thin it can't be a sphere or a globe, implying that since the moon is flat, the earth must be flat as well. Similarly, there are flat-earthers who have made known their odd belief that there is a dark region all around us where we can't see parts of the sky because "everything in the dark section is behind the horizon." If this is the sort of comments you are prone to make then you should just skip this thread and go post on flatearthtrads.forumga.net because they're desperate for contributions since they only get one or two views each day. By the way, if you are wont to believe that it is something that emerges from our eye that goes to the object in view (moon) that enables us to see things, or that reality is in the mind or that truth or reality is in your eye and not in the thing you are looking at (the moon), then you can likewise give up on this discussion and head on over to some other forum of your liking.

Therefore, provided that you are willing to at least entertain for the moment that it's the SUN shining on the MOON and us looking at the MOON from EARTH that's the reason that we see a quarter moon -- that is, the moon as a globe, or spherical object, with light shining on its right side, while being almost entirely dark on its left side (in the northern hemisphere, obviously, USA or Canada), with the line separating the light side and dark side going somewhat vertically from the top of the moon to the bottom -- then we can move on to the next aspect of this observation, which is:  measurement of the angle between two different lines -- our line of sight toward the sun and our line of sight toward the moon. 

The link I provided above gives the time of day from the Los Angeles area as 11:40 am, when the first quarter moon will occur. That is the preferred time to make the observation I will describe below. It is of no great consequence if the observation is made in my area later in the day, for example one or two o'clock in the afternoon, or even until sunset, which occurs here at 7:16 pm. The time of the observation should be noted, however, so it can be used in the analysis that follows.

At 11:40 am tomorrow, I won't be able to see the moon yet because it will be lower than the horizon. We are in Daylight Savings Time, which has advanced our clocks one hour so by Standard Time (which is the time used for astrological position of the moon and sun) it will be 10:40 when the quarter moon occurs, and the moon won't be rising until after 12:00 pm, an hour and 20 minutes later. Therefore the first moment I can make my observation will be after 1:00 pm PDT (UTC -7). In other words, I'll be almost 2 hours late at best. But it won't really matter that much for our purposes.

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on April 02, 2017, 08:39:02 PM
So, cut to the chase: what is the experiment?

I believe the moon is a sphere and reflects light from the sun, and the change in position of the moon's shadow is due to perspective, as it circuits above the flat earth plane.

According to timeanddate.com my moonrise time tomorrow is 11:48 AM. I'm on Pacific time.

For Los Angeles, moonrise is at 12:12 PM.

https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/usa/los-angeles

What do you want to see?

I may not be able to view it right at rise, if it is a hazy day tomorrow.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on April 03, 2017, 07:20:35 AM
The video you posted there has erroneous panels for each item, from beginning to end. It is a compendium of false premise, incorrect thinking, lack of reason, illogical conclusions and lies.

Do you want examples? It would take me hours to list them all.

Take minute 2, for instance. It says,

"As you travel Southwards [sic] from the North Pole, Polaris and its surrounding stars decline in the sky due to perspective, so at the North Pole Polaris is situated directly 90 degrees above your head, but at the mid-Northern [sic] latitudes (like here) [Where?] it's about 45+/- degrees."

Nowhere in the video does it explain where "here" is, so perhaps he means the 45th parallel north. I don't know. If so, that would put him somewhere around the southern border of Canada, approximately. But we can't be sure since he doesn't really say.

Ambiguity, like at Vatican II, is the rule of the day with flat-earthers.

The term "southwards" needs no capitalization, but curiously for a flat-earther, most of whom deny the very existence of the south direction, not only is it referred to, it is Capitalized. Odd. Perhaps this particular flat-earther denies south sometimes when it's a difficulty but refers to it at other times, like now, when it's convenient. I don't know if he does or not because flat-earthers are very difficult to keep track of with their opportune inconsistencies. But I digress.

While it's true that the stars in the sky seem to change position due to perspective, this change is extremely small compared to the constant and predictable change that occurs due to the curvature of the earth, which is a reasonably constant curve, very close to circular in all directions. For our purposes the amount of variation is negligible so we can say it is entirely circular. For each degree of movement from the north terrestrial pole toward the equator (and ultimately the south pole), the north star, Polaris, moves just one degree downward toward the north pole. One terrestrial degree is equivalent to 60 nautical miles. So for the first 10 degrees south from the north pole, Polaris moves 10 degrees downward, and for the next 10 degrees south on the earth's surface, Polaris moves another 10 degrees downward. By the time one arrives at the equator, which is 90 degrees from the north pole, Polaris has moved just 90 degrees downward, which is why it is then found at the horizon line. This is entirely explained by the curvature of the earth, and not by perspective, because if it were perspective, Polaris would only have moved perhaps one degree, since it is at such a great distance from earth. Flat-earthers claim that the distance to Polaris is only a few thousand miles in order to perpetrate this falsehood that the movement of Polaris is entirely due to perspective.

But just as the enormously greater distance from earth to the sun compared to distance from earth to the moon is easily demonstrated by a simple observation you can make the day after tomorrow, April 3rd, 2017, so too the distance to Polaris is easily demonstrated to be many many times the distance to the sun. In fact it is thousands of times further to Polaris than it is to the sun from earth. Consequently, the light rays from Polaris reaching earth are effectively presumed (and rightly so) to be parallel lines. Again, flat-earthers deny this and claim they are far from parallel, but that only complicates their model for other reasons, leading them to additional self-contradictions.

In only 27 more seconds (2:27) the video shows a very odd and self-contradictory drawing that points to the ground with an arrow "land horizon" and then draws a line to the right at 30 degrees inclination to a place on the right side labeled "sky horizon." A note under this triangle says, "everything in the dark section is behind the horizon." There is no explanation given for why something obviously straight ahead of the viewer would be "behind the horizon." What is being done here is an attempt to set up a false premise. The man figure on the left side as we all know, is a man standing on the ground, which we can do, and the flat line under his feet accurately describes the flat ground under our feet.  When we look to the right or to the left or straight ahead or behind us, we can see to the horizon and we can see the ground going to the horizon. There is no such thing as a "dark section (...) behind the horizon" that we can't see. By insinuating this illogical error, the author is hoping a gullible viewer will buy into his lie so that he can build more erroneous thinking on top of it. Our limitations on seeing things far away is aided by telescopes which bring into view things we would not be able to see without them. An improvement on the telescope is binoculars which give us the ability to see relative distance of things far away, even if they appear to be more flattened-out than they do when we are physically up close to them. If the author were referring to things that we could see if we had a telescope, he did not say that, and as you will find out later, that cannot be what he's talking about because he really wants the viewer to believe that there are things straight ahead of our viewing angle that we are incapable of seeing because they're in the "dark section behind the horizon," whatever that means.


That's one part of the first two and a half minutes of inaccuracies, half-truths and total errors.

Almost all of what you just said is explained by your different notion of what perspective is.
For us it is much greater.

Explanations for the stars are just theories. Based on the presumption that the earth is flat. Since you don't share that presumption, your attempts to point out inaccuracies are very strange and inadequate. I for one, don't agree with the point made in the video that the stars could be on a flat disc. I believe there is a dome.

As an aside, your attempt to make me look stupid by pointing out grammatical mistakes, will only backfire against you, in the minds of reasonable people. You'd be better off, for your own sake, not going down that route.

As for your criticisms of the website, there is no substance to them. You just attack the people and try to ridicule it. Focus on the issues please.

For people just tuning in now, Neils Modus Operandi is to ignore when he is shown up as wrong. Psychologically, you have been programmed to accept that the earth is round and that flat earthism is stupid. Neil plays on that prejudice by making us, at all costs, appear to be stupid, and muddying the waters with silly objections, which aren't to the point.

Honest people reading; don't fall for this trickery. http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on April 03, 2017, 02:14:15 PM
Well, I'm here looking east at 12:11 pm PDT and I can't see the moon yet. Too much haze on the horizon, won't be able to see it until it rises above the haze.

But, what is the point? What am I supposed to be looking for, Neil, you still haven't responded?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Binechi on April 03, 2017, 04:56:12 PM
Try this one out  

The earth is fixed
The earth does not spin, move, tilt  wabble03/04/2017

The sun is only a couple thousand miles away...
The sun and moon travel around the earth
The universe does it works around the earth

God is mysterious
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 03, 2017, 07:56:29 PM
So, cut to the chase: what is the experiment?

I believe the moon is a sphere and reflects light from the sun, and the change in position of the moon's shadow is due to perspective, as it circuits above the flat earth plane.

According to timeanddate.com my moonrise time tomorrow is 11:48 AM. I'm on Pacific time.

For Los Angeles, moonrise is at 12:12 PM.

https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/usa/los-angeles

What do you want to see?

I may not be able to view it right at rise, if it is a hazy day tomorrow.
Moonrise is not key. The point is, just measure the angle between your viewline of the moon and your viewline of the sun today before the sun goes down. 

I just did it, later than I had hoped to do, and I got 93 degrees. 

The video I posted describes one method, of using a tripod and a digital protractor, with a ridge of paper taped to the protractor leg pointing at the sun, so you don't have to look at the sun -- NEVER LOOK DIRECTLY AT THE SUN.


The other leg is aligned by eye to point at the moon, and your reading on the display is the angle between the two lines of sight. 

__________________________________________________

I used a flat piece of rigid styrofoam about 18 x 30 in., and I taped a straight rigid tube to it while the foam board was taped to a picnic table and tilted to where the sun was shining directly through the straw. I could estimate the angle of the foam by seeing at what point the sunny side turns to shadow. Then I adjusted the foam board so that the other tube could be taped to its flat surface while pointing at the moon. This tube was a bit larger so I could look through it and see the moon inside like a gunsight. I traced the two tubes' attachment to the foam board and then measured the angle between them with a protractor, and I got 93 degrees. 

My measurement was about 5-1/3 hours after the quarter moon is listed on the Old Farmer's Almanac website (see above) for my area -- 11:40 am. 

As of right now, you still have an hour or more to measure this today, but if you're in the Eastern USA you'll have to wait until tomorrow, or two more weeks for the last quarter moon. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 03, 2017, 08:05:58 PM
Well, I'm here looking east at 12:11 pm PDT and I can't see the moon yet. Too much haze on the horizon, won't be able to see it until it rises above the haze.

But, what is the point? What am I supposed to be looking for, Neil, you still haven't responded?
Sorry for taking so long. You can still do this today, but your measurement will be a bit off. The moon moves across the sky at a rate different from the sun's so each day it changes significantly. 
I posted above what to do. You can make up your own method, but the point is to set up a plane, or a flat surface, or a pivoting device, which allows you to point it at the moon and at the sun at the same time. 
Mark the two lines of sight from your spot on the ground to the moon and your spot to the sun. DO NOT LOOK DIRECTLY AT THE SUN.
Then measure the angle between the two lines of sight: one to the moon, the other to the sun. Take note of the TIME it is when you measure this. For me it was 5:00 pm.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 03, 2017, 11:26:25 PM
.
The sun traverses the sky faster than the moon does. So every hour or two, the moon moves some number of degrees further away from the sun after the new moon and before the full moon. 

After the full moon, the sun starts to catch up to the moon and its approach makes the angle between their respective lines of sight from earth to get smaller, until at the moment of new moon, they are both in the same location in the sky, from the reference point of earth with the north star behind the viewer. 

Now that I have done this once, I see that it's a good idea to check the angle between the sun and moon the day BEFORE the quarter moon, noting the clock time when checking the angle. Then if you can again check the angle the following day at the same number of minutes after the Almanac shows the time of the quarter moon as your previous day's measurement time was BEFORE the same Almanac time, then you can estimate what the angle would have been if you had checked it at precisely the Almanac time. 

There will be times when measuring this angle at the moment of the Almanac time will not be possible, such as it was today. If you had to wait until two or three hours after moonrise, the sun was then in the afternoon sky, since it was about 3 or 4 o'clock P.M. 

The last quarter of April will be in 2 weeks, which will occur at 3:00 am on April 19th:

Old Farmer's Almanac moon phases for month of April from Santa Monica (http://www.almanac.com/astronomy/moon/calendar/CA/Santa%20Monica/2017-04)

Well, obviously, you won't be able to see the moon at 3 o'clock in the morning. Nor will you be able to see the sun, since it will be night time.

The first quarter moon follows the sun, and the second quarter moon leads the sun. 

The best plan is to look for a time when the moon and sun will both be visible in the sky at the moment of the quarter moon according to the Almanac. For the first quarter, look for a time from 1 pm to 7:30 pm (daylight savings time), a span of 6 or 7 hours. For the last quarter, look for an Almanac time from 6 am to 4 pm. Therefore, this measurement is more easily made during the last quarter, when the moon leads the sun across the sky, because you'll be able to see both of them from sunrise until the moon sets 10 hours later. But you'll have to do it in the first hours of daylight until mid-afternoon. If you can better find the time in the early evening, you should shoot for a first quarter moon viewing.

The last quarter moon of this past January was at 2:14 pm, which would have been a good time, since the moon would be close to the western horizon but still visible. 

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 04, 2017, 01:06:32 AM
Almost all of what you just said is explained by your different notion of what perspective is.
For us it is much greater.

Explanations for the stars are just theories. Based on the presumption that the earth is flat. Since you don't share that presumption, your attempts to point out inaccuracies are very strange and inadequate. I for one, don't agree with the point made in the video that the stars could be on a flat disc. I believe there is a dome.

As an aside, your attempt to make me look stupid by pointing out grammatical mistakes, will only backfire against you, in the minds of reasonable people. You'd be better off, for your own sake, not going down that route.

As for your criticisms of the website, there is no substance to them. You just attack the people and try to ridicule it. Focus on the issues please.

For people just tuning in now, Neils Modus Operandi is to ignore when he is shown up as wrong. Psychologically, you have been programmed to accept that the earth is round and that flat earthism is stupid. Neil plays on that prejudice by making us, at all costs, appear to be stupid, and muddying the waters with silly objections, which aren't to the point.

Honest people reading; don't fall for this trickery. http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/
.
Where to begin, where to begin -- how about the beginning?
Quote
Almost all of what you just said is explained by your different notion of what perspective is. 
For us it is much greater. 
.
Almost all? Well there you go -- when it comes to logic and reason, you have to be 100% accurate, so "almost all" is inadequate. Besides, my "different notion" is irrelevant when it comes to objective observation.  Facts are facts, and I'm sticking to facts here.

Quote
Explanations for the stars are just theories. Based on the presumption that the earth is flat. Since you don't share that presumption, your attempts to point out inaccuracies are very strange and inadequate. I for one, don't agree with the point made in the video that the stars could be on a flat disc. I believe there is a dome.
.
No, explanations for the stars, based on objective observations, are objective observations, not theories. Your next "sentence" is not a sentence ("Based on the presumption that the earth is flat." - not a sentence, so I have no idea what you're trying to say there.) Pointing out inaccuracies in statements that are easily shown to be fallacious are perhaps strange to someone who illogically believes in their fallacy. 

Quote
As an aside, your attempt to make me look stupid by pointing out grammatical mistakes, will only backfire against you, in the minds of reasonable people. You'd be better off, for your own sake, not going down that route.
.
As for making you look stupid, you don't need any help. If you check your posts with Preview before you send them you can avoid being incomprehensible, which see. 

Quote
As for your criticisms of the website, there is no substance to them. You just attack the people and try to ridicule it. Focus on the issues please.
.
I beg to differ. The website to which you refer, the flatearthtards forum (http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/) , is not credible for many objective reasons. For starters, they claim to be in accord with Bishop Richard Williamson, but he has never voiced any approval or agreement with flat-earthism. So that's a big, fat lie, i.e., not credible. Secondly, a large portion of their posts make unsupported claims such as "the horizon always rises to the level of the viewer," which is false. The horizon remains where it is, and a line of sight directs its view to wherever it will, even straight up, for example. The horizon does not rise to straight up, does it? Or, in the area called "Flat Earth Proofs" contains no proofs whatsoever. One video used for "proof" has a guy running around on the side of a hill with a topography map, without any compass nor demonstration that he is aware of magnetic declination or how to use it, and no awareness of what the actual location he occupies on the map. He says he took a trail off the road, presuming that an unmarked trail is the one he sees drawn on the map without any mileage or estimated mileage from a known monument to the head of the trail. He then describes wandering uphill and downhill off the trail in an attempt to get a view of the mountain peaks in the distance that he supposes are those shown on his topo map. The elevation to which he refers is the top of the peak above him but he has no idea in fact of how many feet above him this peak is because he has not walked up there nor has he employed any reasonable means of measuring his elevation decline to the place where he's at. 

Do you want more?

Quote
For people just tuning in now, Neils Modus Operandi is to ignore when he is shown up as wrong. Psychologically, you have been programmed to accept that the earth is round and that flat earthism is stupid. Neil plays on that prejudice by making us, at all costs, appear to be stupid, and muddying the waters with silly objections, which aren't to the point.
.
There's unlikely anyone "tuning in now," just as there are practically no readers at the said forum. So when have I been "shown up to be wrong?" Please be specific, if you can. 

Again, you don't need any help showing your stupidity. You're doing a great job all on your own.

.

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 04, 2017, 01:23:17 AM
What is perspective?

As applied to the current subject, the measurement of the angle between one's line of sight from a fixed point on the earth toward the quarter moon in the sky, to one's line of sight from the same point toward the sun at the same time, perspective is simply the direction of each of the two lines of sight. What we see is what is there. It has nothing to do with any reality in our mind. It is an objective observation, the angle of which we can measure with a 360-degree protractor. We can presume that our line of sight is not a curved line, provided the object viewed is not near the horizon because then a lot of atmospheric interference might cause distortion. So we ought to try to make our views when the sun or moon are about 15 degrees above the horizon, where their view is obstructed by a minimum of atmospheric effects.

Of course, a flat-earther who thinks that the atmosphere is continuous in all directions from earth to "the dome" (which has never been found to exist by the way) might say that we ought to pay special attention to celestial objects when they are close to the horizon because that's where their real secrets are revealed, or whatever. Maybe flat-earthers think that protractors are an integral part of a demonic conspiracy of lies?

I have noticed that flat-earthers don't like to talk about how atmospheric air pressure gets less when one goes to higher elevations, or what the reason for that fact could be. Maybe you're able to explain that anomaly?

Furthermore, if you are wont to claim that there is not variation in air pressure, perhaps you can pronounce for all to see, your description of the operation of a barometer. What does "millibar" mean, for example. Is it part of the worldwide conspiracy to hide the truth?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on April 04, 2017, 06:59:24 AM
Neil,
you are becoming quite pedantic at this point.

- you have not answered Mw's question about the experiment. What is it meant to prove?

-Flat Earth trads website never claims nor even implies that Bishop Williamson is flat earth.

-The horizon is suppose to descend on a ball earth as you ascend. Common sense tells us that. But you wish to deny that.

- "tuning in" was in reference to cathinfo and not flatearthtrads

- for nearly the 20th time, you were shown up wrong by not answering where hudnreds of feet came from on the mountain in a video which has been shown multiple times on this and other threads. There are other examples but that is the most important, because it is the base of the flat earth proof.

- Perspective is simply a description of the reality. It doesn't even need to be proven. Because we know the earth to be flat, and yet objects to be there, the way we explain it is by perspective. It doesn't make sense to you because you believe the earth to be round. I use BELIEVE in the true sense because you have no evidence for it. We see the earth to be flat.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on April 04, 2017, 07:05:28 AM
This is how Neil explains how curve appears,
and gravity works....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEhhbFXsbr0
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on April 04, 2017, 10:40:49 AM
.
The sun traverses the sky faster than the moon does. So every hour or two, the moon moves some number of degrees further away from the sun after the new moon and before the full moon.

After the full moon, the sun starts to catch up to the moon and its approach makes the angle between their respective lines of sight from earth to get smaller, until at the moment of new moon, they are both in the same location in the sky, from the reference point of earth with the north star behind the viewer.

Now that I have done this once, I see that it's a good idea to check the angle between the sun and moon the day BEFORE the quarter moon, noting the clock time when checking the angle. Then if you can again check the angle the following day at the same number of minutes after the Almanac shows the time of the quarter moon as your previous day's measurement time was BEFORE the same Almanac time, then you can estimate what the angle would have been if you had checked it at precisely the Almanac time.

There will be times when measuring this angle at the moment of the Almanac time will not be possible, such as it was today. If you had to wait until two or three hours after moonrise, the sun was then in the afternoon sky, since it was about 3 or 4 o'clock P.M.

The last quarter of April will be in 2 weeks, which will occur at 3:00 am on April 19th:

Old Farmer's Almanac moon phases for month of April from Santa Monica (http://www.almanac.com/astronomy/moon/calendar/CA/Santa%20Monica/2017-04)

Well, obviously, you won't be able to see the moon at 3 o'clock in the morning. Nor will you be able to see the sun, since it will be night time.

The first quarter moon follows the sun, and the second quarter moon leads the sun.

The best plan is to look for a time when the moon and sun will both be visible in the sky at the moment of the quarter moon according to the Almanac. For the first quarter, look for a time from 1 pm to 7:30 pm (daylight savings time), a span of 6 or 7 hours. For the last quarter, look for an Almanac time from 6 am to 4 pm. Therefore, this measurement is more easily made during the last quarter, when the moon leads the sun across the sky, because you'll be able to see both of them from sunrise until the moon sets 10 hours later. But you'll have to do it in the first hours of daylight until mid-afternoon. If you can better find the time in the early evening, you should shoot for a first quarter moon viewing.

The last quarter moon of this past January was at 2:14 pm, which would have been a good time, since the moon would be close to the western horizon but still visible.
You should have posted this before yesterday, if you wanted me to look at it and measure the angle between the moon and sun.
I can do it today because the moonrise time is only a few moments later.
But, you still have not explained what is the point of this experiment? Just get to the point. What is it you think can be shown by measuring the angle between moon's position at rise and where the sun is in relation to it at that moment?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on April 04, 2017, 10:52:47 AM
"the dome" (which has never been found to exist by the way)


Furthermore, if you are wont to claim that there is not variation in air pressure, perhaps you can pronounce for all to see, your description of the operation of a barometer. What does "millibar" mean, for example. Is it part of the worldwide conspiracy to hide the truth?
So, it seems you openly disagree with the Book of Genesis and its multiple verses describing the Firmament.
How do you square your disbelief of the Bible, with your Catholicism?
Also, I have never ever heard a FE'er say they do not believe in air pressure changing with altitude, so I'm not sure what your point is.
The "dome" or Firmament exists because the Bible tells us so. The Bible tells us it is hard, like brass or glass, and that it holds back the waters above. We have not seen Heaven, either, but we believe on faith that it is there - just like the "dome."
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on April 04, 2017, 04:52:11 PM
So, it seems you openly disagree with the Book of Genesis and its multiple verses describing the Firmament.
How do you square your disbelief of the Bible, with your Catholicism?
Also, I have never ever heard a FE'er say they do not believe in air pressure changing with altitude, so I'm not sure what your point is.
The "dome" or Firmament exists because the Bible tells us so. The Bible tells us it is hard, like brass or glass, and that it holds back the waters above. We have not seen Heaven, either, but we believe on faith that it is there - just like the "dome."
 
It seems, according to scripture, that the firmament may actually be visible, at times, and/or in certain places.  Psalm 19:1 "The heavens shew forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands."  Although not certain, it may be that thunder resounds against it and echos.  Rainbows, northern lights and sundogs appear to reflect aspects of the dome as well. The Primum Mobil was long considered to be the outer orbit of stars just below the firmament. Wiki: "The total number of celestial spheres (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres) was not fixed. In this 16th-century illustration, the firmament (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament) (sphere of fixed stars) is eighth, a "crystalline" sphere (posited to account for the reference to "waters . . . above the firmament" in Genesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis) 1:7) is ninth, and the Primum Mobile is tenth. Outside all is the Empyrean, the "habitation of God and all the elect." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_Mobile    There is plenty to consider and research with regards to the firmament.    
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 04, 2017, 05:32:57 PM
Neil,
you are becoming quite pedantic at this point.

- you have not answered Mw's question about the experiment. What is it meant to prove?

-Flat Earth trads website never claims nor even implies that Bishop Williamson is flat earth.

-The horizon is suppose to descend on a ball earth as you ascend. Common sense tells us that. But you wish to deny that.
[you are privy to my intentions??]

- "tuning in" was in reference to cathinfo and not flatearthtrads

- for nearly the 20th time, you were shown up wrong
[No, I wasn't]
by not answering where hudnreds of feet came from on the mountain in a video which has been shown multiple times on this and other threads. There are other examples but that is the most important, because it is the base of the flat earth proof.
[There is no such proof.]

- Perspective is simply a description of the reality.
[What reality? The one in your imagination?]
It doesn't even need to be proven.
[Perspective can be proven, but not by you, because you're too busy complaining.]
Because we know the earth to be flat,
[False premise, dude]
and yet objects to be there,
[grammar error?]
the way we explain it is by perspective.
[And you are not using perspective but your erroneous interpretation of the data.]
It doesn't make sense to you because you believe the earth to be round.
[You start at the conclusion, a false one, and work in reverse, which is deception and fallacy.]
 I use BELIEVE in the true sense because you have no evidence for it.
We see the earth to be flat.
[And I have seen it to have a viewable curvature, which I have described, but you apparently can't understand or don't want to understand.]
.
It's always the same attitude problem with you FEI, ain't it. Talk about pedantic. Why don't you do something constructive for once?
.

I answered Mw's question about the experiment. Maybe you didn't bother to read it. Take the measurement, if you can. But you can't, no? I mean, if you could, you would, but you don't, so you can't -- for whatever reason. But it seems to me you simply don't WANT to be involved. You only want to sit in the peanut gallery and whine and moan like a woman. Same old same old.
.

Whine, whine, whine.  Take a real measurement and can the rest, along with your bad grammar and spelling. But now you'll have to be patient and wait for at least 2 weeks until the next quarter moon.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 04, 2017, 06:22:39 PM
You should have posted this before yesterday, if you wanted me to look at it and measure the angle between the moon and sun.
I can do it today because the moonrise time is only a few moments later.
But, you still have not explained what is the point of this experiment? Just get to the point. What is it you think can be shown by measuring the angle between moon's position at rise and where the sun is in relation to it at that moment?
.
It's not moon's position at rise. You keep saying that and I have no idea where you got it. 
We're not concerned with moonrise, UNLESS that is the moment when the first or last quarter moon occurs that day. I have given you links to the Almanac website that displays the times for each quarter moon but maybe you think that's part of the great conspiracy or whatever. You're going to have to get OVER that prejudice if you want to observe the facts without prejudice.
.
I know, I should have posted it before yesterday. But what is, what is. Now we'll have to wait for the next opportunity. A measurement can be taken on May 1st in the evening, and two more on May 2nd in the morning and in the evening. The first quarter happens at 7:48 pm which is 9 minutes after sunset (7:39 pm). So the sun will be very low in the sky, and the moon will be somewhere overhead. --- Can you predict about where in the sky the moon will be on May 2nd when the sun is setting? 
.
The sun, moon and planets make regular motions in the sky, which allow us to predict where they will be, even many years in advance. Can you explain how that would be possible with a "flat" earth model? Are there any astronomical charts and tables written by flat-earthers? For example, if a viewer in California measures the angle between the moon and sun as 93 degrees like I did, and another viewer in Hawaii sees the same 93 degrees and another viewer in Quito, Equador and another in Calgary, Alberta, Canada sees 93 degrees and another in Houston TX also sees 93 degrees, all of them at the same hour (5:00 PDT, or UTC -7), how would you explain that set of data using a flat-earth model? But in any case, there is a lot more to this process, but it would only bog down the topic at this point. Go watch the video if you want the whole process.
.
Measurements taken today are not of no use, but they are unable to show the key picture that we need for the next phase. We need to see what the angle is between the moon and the sun as viewed from earth at the moment of the quarter moon. And that moment has passed for this phase. The next quarter will be the LAST quarter moon, on April 19th. Remember, during the last quarter, the moon leads the sun, so the moon will be about 6 hours ahead of the sun. The last quarter occurs at 3:00 am, therefore the moon will be around the 9 o'clock position of a 24-hour clock, which is 10:30 on a 12-hour clock. Since the sun moves faster than the moon, the sun will be catching up to the moon that morning on Wednesday the 19th of April. If we get a chance to measure the angle between them as the sun rises, it is going to be a smaller angle than it was at 3:00 am, but how much smaller is another question.
.
Today the area of the illuminated moon has increased 11% from yesterday, from 50% to 61%. So we can see that the angle of the sun to the moon is significantly changing. This has many implications.
.
The point of the experiment is to complete the picture of the relative positions of the earth, moon and sun at the moment of the first or last quarter moon each month. This position occurs 24 times each year, so the data is very available for those who want to know what reality has to show us. I already posted a video that goes through the whole process if you want to watch that again -- or, perhaps for the first time, if you have not yet watched the videos I've posted.  
.
I make it a point to watch the F-E-er's videos all right, but they don't bother to watch mine, apparently. Because if they had watched them they wouldn't be asking these questions over and over again. Maybe it's too much work to spend 20 minutes every few days or whatever. 
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 04, 2017, 06:28:50 PM
This is how Neil explains how curve appears, and gravity works....
So now you're presuming to speak for me? And you can't manage to speak for yourself?
You know, it's a sin against the 4th commandment to ridicule your teacher. Shame on you.

.

Why don't you go post at flatards where nobody else is posting? I'm sure they'd appreciate your help. You can go there and make 100% of the posts for the whole day! You can be KING of the flatards.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 04, 2017, 06:33:29 PM
Try this one out  

The earth is fixed
Was the earth broken? 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 04, 2017, 07:27:18 PM
Therefore, provided that you are willing to at least entertain for the moment that it's the SUN shining on the MOON and us looking at the MOON from EARTH that's the reason that we see a quarter moon -- that is, the moon as a globe, or spherical object, with light shining on its right side, while being almost entirely dark on its left side (in the northern hemisphere, obviously, USA or Canada), with the line separating the light side and dark side going somewhat vertically from the top of the moon to the bottom -- then we can move on to the next aspect of this observation, which is:  measurement of the angle between two different lines -- our line of sight toward the sun and our line of sight toward the moon.

The link I provided above gives the time of day from the Los Angeles area as 11:40 am, when the first quarter moon will occur. That is the preferred time to make the observation I will describe below. It is of no great consequence if the observation is made in my area later in the day, for example one or two o'clock in the afternoon, or even until sunset, which occurs here at 7:16 pm. The time of the observation should be noted, however, so it can be used in the analysis that follows.
.
The first quarter on April 3rd was at 11:40 am. That put the moon below the horizon where we can't see it yet, but it was moving upwards. Maybe that's where you got the idea of "moonrise", mw. 
.
The next opportunity on April 19th will be at 3:00 am and it will be the last quarter, which means the moon will lead the sun. The moon will already be high in the sky (can you predict how high??) when the sun rises in the eastern horizon. People in the eastern USA will be able to see the moon at that time because the last quarter moon optimum time will occur at 6:00 am there (which is objectively the same time as 3:00 am PDT), with sunrise at 16 minutes later, at 6:16 am. So they'll be able to measure the sun-moon angle less than a half-hour after the optimum viewing time. Even though it is a few minutes late when they'll have the ability to measure the sun-moon angle, it will be a better time to get this angle, than our time will be on the west coast, when the sun rises 3 hours later. For us, we'll be over 3 hours late, but in the Carolinas, they'll only be 16 minutes late.
(http://www.almanac.com/sites/default/files/siteui/header/almanac-sunlogo.png)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on April 05, 2017, 11:29:10 AM

Still no answer from Neil as to what this experiment has to do with whether the earth is round or flat.

You my teacher? I'm almost getting worried about your sanity Neil.

Here is the famous video that Neil has no coherent explanation for. He can only haggle over a few feet of the viewer which makes no essential difference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4oT2EbDONs
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: deutschcath on April 05, 2017, 11:31:12 AM
yes appears Mr Obstat is declining. He is writing a lot but not really producing much.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on April 05, 2017, 02:08:07 PM
Neil, 


There is no claim anywhere on that FE Trad website that Bp. Williamson is a flat earther.

I have never heard Bp. Williamson mention FE, but I wouldn't mind if someone asked him about it.


The website's statement says they are "supporters" of Bp. Williamson.


So what?


Also, why don't you answer my question about the Bible's description of the Firmament? Still waiting....
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on April 06, 2017, 05:27:39 AM
Hey guys,
Here is something I posted over on "the" forum. Hope you find it convincing.
Here is a pretty good example of something we should not see.
It is from the village hermanville in north France to le Havre, a well known port village, and the mountains above it.
The pictures I  got from google maps street view and from heywhatsthat.com, a website for viewing the contours of land at any given spot.

Here first map view of the place in question

(https://i58.servimg.com/u/f58/19/66/52/64/herman10.jpg)

It is from the pink X to the black X. It is this side profile which is shown below

(https://i58.servimg.com/u/f58/19/66/52/64/herman10.png)

For the earth curve calculator we are going to take 40 miles. You can see the elevation from the above image. It is just over 400 feet approximately.

We have given an allowance of 14 feet height for the camera from sea level. Pretty generous. Giving a few more feet will not alter our results significantly or detract from the point of the experiment as you will see.

Here is what we see

(https://i58.servimg.com/u/f58/19/66/52/64/le_hav13.png)


Here is what the earth curve calculator gives me. A whopping 836 feet. That's nearly 400 feet below the horizon. This would be impossible on a round earth.

(https://i58.servimg.com/u/f58/19/66/55/77/herman10.png)


Now the first objection usually given is refraction. That is why we took images from a sunny (warmer day) and a cooler cloudy day. There would be a variance in temperature and humidity, important factors in creating refraction and/or superior mirages.

Here are the results

A cloudy day

(https://i58.servimg.com/u/f58/19/66/52/64/le_hav14.png)

The first image was a sunny day.

Here are the two side by side, in case anyone thinks we are cheating with the different points at which the photo was taken

(https://i58.servimg.com/u/f58/19/66/52/64/deux_i10.jpg)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: noOneImportant on April 06, 2017, 06:44:42 PM
Cute, and deliberately misleading. Why are you measuring the distance to a point 15 miles into the plateau (or hill or whatever it is)? The cliff's edge is ~25 miles away. So you should expect to see 1-200 feet of cliff above the horizon (depending on the actual height above sea level of the camera, which we can't know exactly).
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on April 06, 2017, 07:40:45 PM
https://imgflip.com/i/1mtoaf (https://imgflip.com/i/1mtoaf)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on April 07, 2017, 05:14:00 AM
Cute, and deliberately misleading. Why are you measuring the distance to a point 15 miles into the plateau (or hill or whatever it is)? The cliff's edge is ~25 miles away. So you should expect to see 1-200 feet of cliff above the horizon (depending on the actual height above sea level of the camera, which we can't know exactly).

Actually, its only misleading if you are not paying attention.

And, as a matter of fact it is now you who is being misleading.

I'll explain how for people of good will (not you)...

Misleading, because you can look up the google street vie truck and see that it about this height. Also, you can see how close the camera is to the sea, and that it is pretty much at sea level.

Misleading, because at 25 miles there should be 278 feet below the horizon, according to the calculator. (the link is there for anyone who wants to verify it- and I encourage that) Now look again at the profile view and you see that at 25 miles, that is nearly all of the mountain! Q.E.D.

Now the reason I chose 40 miles is because it was a high point. But you have now given an excellent opportunity for the truth to shine even more.

Man, I love being right.

So, since you have nothing productive to say, would you like to admit your error?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on April 07, 2017, 05:20:41 AM
When you look at a mountain range, and it is blurred, you wouldn't see the cliff but the high point. And the high point is at 40 miles, as you can see.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on April 07, 2017, 05:32:31 AM
oh and please don't give me any false flattery, by saying it is a cute post. It is only to mask your derision. At least Neil is more honest in his derision.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on April 07, 2017, 05:34:49 AM
In my long reply, I meant to say nearly all of the cliff. Not mountain.
Just for the pedantic, hairsplitters out there.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 07, 2017, 05:40:08 PM
Neil,


There is no claim anywhere on that FE Trad website that Bp. Williamson is a flat earther.

I have never heard Bp. Williamson mention FE, but I wouldn't mind if someone asked him about it.


The website's statement says they are "supporters" of Bp. Williamson.


So what?


Also, why don't you answer my question about the Bible's description of the Firmament? Still waiting....
.
We can be pretty sure you're not going to hear +W pronouncing emphatically about anything in science or geodetic surveying. That's not his area of concern. He might say heaven is above and hell is below us but the rest will be poetry.
.
As for the Bible's description of the firmament, there is nothing in Scripture that describes the physical substance of the firmament, or if it HAS any physical properties.
.
Where it is and what it does and how it affects man is mentioned but not what it IS.
.
Therefore, we could easily take that to mean that it is being mentioned for the purpose of giving mankind a way of thinking about God's creation, and helping us put our minds into a topic that is far beyond our reach, in other words, how to think about spiritual things. The function of this "firmament" topic in scripture might be entirely to help mankind drag his mind out of materialism and into a higher level of thinking, such as the queen of the sciences, philosophy.
.
Modern man is prone to sneer at philosophy and deride the very thing that could be of great help to him in raising his consciousness to a higher level of awareness and appreciation of God's creation, that is, it could help him make of his soul a better, more virtuous being, which could endure all eternity. Alternatively, he could ignore all that and just be stuck in a material rut of ignorance, as if a brute animal. It has been said that the great project of the Old Testament was preparing ancient man for the arrival of Our Lord, and the contemplation of theology, but far too many people in those days strove to keep their minds on mundane things, and to a large degree, not much has changed in that regard for many alive today.
.
85% of Jєωs are atheists.
.
In ancient times the upper atmosphere was not something that could be experienced first hand. The X-15 was a later development.
.
What does Scripture say about the firmament?

Genesis 1:6 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=6#x)
 And God said: Let there be a
firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Genesis 1:7 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=7#x)
 And God made a
firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so.
Genesis 1:8 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=8#x)
 And God called the
firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day.
Genesis 1:14 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=14#x)
 And God said: Let there be lights made in the
firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:
Genesis 1:15 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=15#x)
 To shine in the
firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done.
Genesis 1:17 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=17#x)
 And he set them in the
firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth.
Genesis 1:20 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=20#x)
 God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the
firmament of heaven.
3 Kings (1 Kings) 8:43 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=11&ch=8&l=43#x)
 Then hear thou in heaven, in the
firmament of thy dwelling place, and do all those things, for which that stranger shall call upon thee: that all the people of the earth may learn to fear thy name, as do thy people Israel, and may prove that thy name is called upon on this house, which I have built.
3 Kings (1 Kings) 8:49 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=11&ch=8&l=49#x)
 Then hear thou in heaven, in the
firmament of thy throne, their prayers, and their supplications, and do judgment for them:
Psalms 17:3 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=17&l=3#x)
 The Lord is my
firmament, my refuge, and my deliverer. My God is my helper, and in him will I put my trust. My protector and the horn of my salvation, and my support.
Psalms 18:2 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=18&l=2#x)
 The heavens shew forth the glory of God, and the
firmament declareth the work of his hands.
Psalms 24:14 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=24&l=14#x)
 The Lord is a
firmament to them that fear him: and his covenant shall be made manifest to them.
Psalms 70:3 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=70&l=3#x)
 Be thou unto me a God, a protector, and a place of strength: that thou mayst make me safe. For thou art my
firmament and my refuge.
Psalms 71:16 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=71&l=16#x)
 And there shall be a
firmament on the earth on the tops of mountains, above Libanus shall the fruit thereof be exalted: and they of the city shall flourish like the grass of the earth.
Psalms 150:1 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=150&l=1#x)
 Praise ye the Lord in his holy places: praise ye him in the
firmament of his power.
Ecclesiasticus 43:1 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=26&ch=43&l=1#x)
 The
firmament on high is his beauty, the beauty of heaven with its glorious shew.
Ezechiel (Ezeckiel) 1:22 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=31&ch=1&l=22#x)
 And over the heads of the living creatures was the likeness of the
firmament, as the appearance of crystal terrible to behold, and stretched out over their heads above.
Ezechiel (Ezeckiel) 1:23 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=31&ch=1&l=23#x)
 And under the
firmament were their wings straight, the one toward the other, every one with two wings covered his body, and the other was covered in like manner.
Ezechiel (Ezeckiel) 1:25 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=31&ch=1&l=25#x)
 For when a voice came from above the
firmament, that was over their heads, they stood, and let down their wings.
Ezechiel (Ezeckiel) 1:26 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=31&ch=1&l=26#x)
 And above the
firmament that was over their heads, was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of the sapphire stone, and upon the likeness of the throne, was a likeness as of the appearance of a man above upon it.

 01
21 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?q=firmament&b=drb&t=0&p=40)
23 verses found.

.
We should be able to agree that heaven is an example of a non-material reality. Therefore, the "firmament of heaven," being not entirely unlike some aspect or property "of heaven," as Scripture literally says, is not necessarily a physically material reality.
.
For example, the north pole, the equator, the Prime Meridian and Mean Sea Level are examples of immaterial realities. Likewise, elevation above MSL, the spring equinox, and the first quarter phase of the moon are immaterial realities. These are examples of things that have no weight, no chemical composition, no alkalinity, no hardness, no transparency, no temperature and no inertia, which are immaterial properties. These are things not found in Scripture, but they are things that cannot be picked up and carried across the room. And they are not made of glass or some other hard material.
.
How many of these quotes refer to a "firmament" that is not necessarily of MATERIAL composition?




.
How many of these quotes refer to a "firmament" that is perhaps of IMMATERIAL composition?
.
.
.
(Answer: ALL of them.)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: noOneImportant on April 07, 2017, 05:43:08 PM
Misleading, because you can look up the google street vie truck and see that it about this height. Also, you can see how close the camera is to the sea, and that it is pretty much at sea level.

Misleading, because at 25 miles there should be 278 feet below the horizon, according to the calculator. (the link is there for anyone who wants to verify it- and I encourage that) Now look again at the profile view and you see that at 25 miles, that is nearly all of the mountain! Q.E.D.
14 feet is a pretty baseless estimation. There's no way to get a good one from that image. The camera is looking down on a small pickup, so I'd say that's at about 7-8 feet above the street, but there's no good reference to see how far the drop is from the street to the water. Could be 10 feet, could be 20. And that makes a fairly significant difference in horizon distance. So yes, your "estimate" was misleading.
Now the reason I chose 40 miles is because it was a high point. But you have now given an excellent opportunity for the truth to shine even more.

When you look at a mountain range, and it is blurred, you wouldn't see the cliff but the high point. And the high point is at 40 miles, as you can see.

Proving, once again, that flat earthers are bad at geometry. See below.
(http://i.imgur.com/fVvm3C2.png)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 07, 2017, 06:07:48 PM
Meteorology has a number of things (nouns) that are not material in substance. 


.
Of each of these kinds of things, you can ask, "How much does it weigh?" or "What is its Rockwell hardness number?" or "How many of them can you fit in one hectare?" but you won't get any answer that makes sense, because those are material criteria and these are non-materially substantive things. 


Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on April 07, 2017, 09:27:19 PM
.
We can be pretty sure you're not going to hear +W pronouncing emphatically about anything in science or geodetic surveying. That's not his area of concern. He might say heaven is above and hell is below us but the rest will be poetry.
.
As for the Bible's description of the firmament, there is nothing in Scripture that describes the physical substance of the firmament, or if it HAS any physical properties.
.
Where it is and what it does and how it affects man is mentioned but not what it IS.
.
Therefore, we could easily take that to mean that it is being mentioned for the purpose of giving mankind a way of thinking about God's creation, and helping us put our minds into a topic that is far beyond our reach, in other words, how to think about spiritual things. The function of this "firmament" topic in scripture might be entirely to help mankind drag his mind out of materialism and into a higher level of thinking, such as the queen of the sciences, philosophy.
.
Modern man is prone to sneer at philosophy and deride the very thing that could be of great help to him in raising his consciousness to a higher level of awareness and appreciation of God's creation, that is, it could help him make of his soul a better, more virtuous being, which could endure all eternity. Alternatively, he could ignore all that and just be stuck in a material rut of ignorance, as if a brute animal. It has been said that the great project of the Old Testament was preparing ancient man for the arrival of Our Lord, and the contemplation of theology, but far too many people in those days strove to keep their minds on mundane things, and to a large degree, not much has changed in that regard for many alive today.
.
85% of Jєωs are atheists.
.
In ancient times the upper atmosphere was not something that could be experienced first hand. The X-15 was a later development.
.
What does Scripture say about the firmament?

Genesis 1:6 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=6#x)
 And God said: Let there be a
firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Genesis 1:7 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=7#x)
 And God made a
firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so.
Genesis 1:8 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=8#x)
 And God called the
firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day.
Genesis 1:14 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=14#x)
 And God said: Let there be lights made in the
firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:
Genesis 1:15 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=15#x)
 To shine in the
firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done.
Genesis 1:17 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=17#x)
 And he set them in the
firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth.
Genesis 1:20 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=20#x)
 God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the
firmament of heaven.
3 Kings (1 Kings) 8:43 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=11&ch=8&l=43#x)
 Then hear thou in heaven, in the
firmament of thy dwelling place, and do all those things, for which that stranger shall call upon thee: that all the people of the earth may learn to fear thy name, as do thy people Israel, and may prove that thy name is called upon on this house, which I have built.
3 Kings (1 Kings) 8:49 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=11&ch=8&l=49#x)
 Then hear thou in heaven, in the
firmament of thy throne, their prayers, and their supplications, and do judgment for them:
Psalms 17:3 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=17&l=3#x)
 The Lord is my
firmament, my refuge, and my deliverer. My God is my helper, and in him will I put my trust. My protector and the horn of my salvation, and my support.
Psalms 18:2 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=18&l=2#x)
 The heavens shew forth the glory of God, and the
firmament declareth the work of his hands.
Psalms 24:14 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=24&l=14#x)
 The Lord is a
firmament to them that fear him: and his covenant shall be made manifest to them.
Psalms 70:3 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=70&l=3#x)
 Be thou unto me a God, a protector, and a place of strength: that thou mayst make me safe. For thou art my
firmament and my refuge.
Psalms 71:16 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=71&l=16#x)
 And there shall be a
firmament on the earth on the tops of mountains, above Libanus shall the fruit thereof be exalted: and they of the city shall flourish like the grass of the earth.
Psalms 150:1 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=150&l=1#x)
 Praise ye the Lord in his holy places: praise ye him in the
firmament of his power.
Ecclesiasticus 43:1 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=26&ch=43&l=1#x)
 The
firmament on high is his beauty, the beauty of heaven with its glorious shew.
Ezechiel (Ezeckiel) 1:22 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=31&ch=1&l=22#x)
 And over the heads of the living creatures was the likeness of the
firmament, as the appearance of crystal terrible to behold, and stretched out over their heads above.
Ezechiel (Ezeckiel) 1:23 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=31&ch=1&l=23#x)
 And under the
firmament were their wings straight, the one toward the other, every one with two wings covered his body, and the other was covered in like manner.
Ezechiel (Ezeckiel) 1:25 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=31&ch=1&l=25#x)
 For when a voice came from above the
firmament, that was over their heads, they stood, and let down their wings.
Ezechiel (Ezeckiel) 1:26 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=31&ch=1&l=26#x)
 And above the
firmament that was over their heads, was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of the sapphire stone, and upon the likeness of the throne, was a likeness as of the appearance of a man above upon it.

 01
21 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?q=firmament&b=drb&t=0&p=40)
23 verses found.

.
We should be able to agree that heaven is an example of a non-material reality. Therefore, the "firmament of heaven," being not entirely unlike some aspect or property "of heaven," as Scripture literally says, is not necessarily a physically material reality.
.
For example, the north pole, the equator, the Prime Meridian and Mean Sea Level are examples of immaterial realities. Likewise, elevation above MSL, the spring equinox, and the first quarter phase of the moon are immaterial realities. These are examples of things that have no weight, no chemical composition, no alkalinity, no hardness, no transparency, no temperature and no inertia, which are immaterial properties. These are things not found in Scripture, but they are things that cannot be picked up and carried across the room. And they are not made of glass or some other hard material.
.
How many of these quotes refer to a "firmament" that is not necessarily of MATERIAL composition?

  • And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters.
  • And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so.
  • And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day.
  • And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:
  • To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done.
  • And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth.
  • God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven.
  • Then hear thou in heaven, in the firmament of thy dwelling place, and do all those things, for which that stranger shall call upon thee: that all the people of the earth may learn to fear thy name, as do thy people Israel, and may prove that thy name is called upon on this house, which I have built.
  • Then hear thou in heaven, in the firmament of thy throne, their prayers, and their supplications, and do judgment for them:
  • The Lord is my firmament, my refuge, and my deliverer. My God is my helper, and in him will I put my trust. My protector and the horn of my salvation, and my support.
  • The heavens shew forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands.
  • The Lord is a firmament to them that fear him: and his covenant shall be made manifest to them.
  • Be thou unto me a God, a protector, and a place of strength: that thou mayst make me safe. For thou art my firmament and my refuge.
  • And there shall be a firmament on the earth on the tops of mountains, above Libanus shall the fruit thereof be exalted: and they of the city shall flourish like the grass of the earth.
  • Praise ye the Lord in his holy places: praise ye him in the firmament of his power.
  • The firmament on high is his beauty, the beauty of heaven with its glorious shew.
  • And over the heads of the living creatures was the likeness of the firmament, as the appearance of crystal terrible to behold, and stretched out over their heads above.
  • And under the firmament were their wings straight, the one toward the other, every one with two wings covered his body, and the other was covered in like manner.
  • For when a voice came from above the firmament, that was over their heads, they stood, and let down their wings.
  • And above the firmament that was over their heads, was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of the sapphire stone, and upon the likeness of the throne, was a likeness as of the appearance of a man above upon it.



.
How many of these quotes refer to a "firmament" that is perhaps of IMMATERIAL composition?
.
.
.
(Answer: ALL of them.)
You got nothing.  There is so much supposition in this rant, I can't even take the time to bother.  Catholic perspective of flat earth from the ancients has been shared here and scientific proofs prove flat earth. Just picked up another traditional priest a couple days ago. FE is gaining ground in many traditional Catholic circles. Its only a matter of time... 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on April 07, 2017, 11:54:43 PM

As for the Bible's description of the firmament, there is nothing in Scripture that describes the physical substance of the firmament, or if it HAS any physical properties.
The Bible most certainly describes the Firmament as physical. It is called firmamentum, in the Vulgate, which means "strong."
It is described in the Hebrew word as "pounded brass."
Neil, even the modern-day, heliocentric atheist scientists acknowledge that the Firmament is MATERIAL.
They call it DARK MATTER. It holds the galaxies together, has mass, and it interacts with light, but you can't SEE it.
Listen to it explained here in this short video:
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170315-why-almost-all-of-the-universe-is-utterly-invisible
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 08, 2017, 12:26:01 AM
You got nothing.  There is so much supposition in this rant, I can't even take the time to bother.  Catholic perspective of flat earth from the ancients has been shared here and scientific proofs prove flat earth. Just picked up another traditional priest a couple days ago. FE is gaining ground in many traditional Catholic circles. Its only a matter of time...
.
So if you can't take time to bother, why are you posting?
.
There are no scientific proofs of "flat" earth, as you say, so you're wrong.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 08, 2017, 01:09:28 AM
The Bible most certainly describes the Firmament as physical. It is called firmamentum, in the Vulgate, which means "strong."
It is described in the Hebrew word as "pounded brass."
Neil, even the modern-day, heliocentric atheist scientists acknowledge that the Firmament is MATERIAL.
They call it DARK MATTER. It holds the galaxies together, has mass, and it interacts with light, but you can't SEE it.
Listen to it explained here in this short video:
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170315-why-almost-all-of-the-universe-is-utterly-invisible
.
No, the Bible does not definitively describe the firmament as physical.
.
There are two different traditional contexts of the firmament, one is "stretched out" but what exactly is it that is stretched out is not specified. It refers to a vast overhead expanse, not necessarily a MATERIAL entity. The other is a material entity, but what that material must be, if any, has never been specified, and therefore, a material firmament is not a scientific entity or principle.
.
From the Bible Dictionary:

Quote
Firmament from the Vulgate firmamentum, which is used as the translation of the Hebrew raki'a . This word means simply "expansion." It denotes the space or expanse like an arch appearing immediately above us.

The language of Scripture is not scientific but popular, and hence we read of the sun rising and setting, and also here the use of this particular word. It is plain that it was used to denote solidity as well as expansion. It formed a division between the waters above and the waters below ( Genesis 1:7 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/genesis/1-7.html) ). The raki'a supported the upper reservoir ( Psalms 148:4 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/148-4.html) ). It was the support also of the heavenly bodies ( Genesis 1:14 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/genesis/1-14.html) ), and is spoken of as having "windows" and "doors" ( Genesis 7:11 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/genesis/7-11.html) ; Isaiah 24:18 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/24-18.html) ; Malachi 3:10 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/malachi/3-10.html) ) through which the rain and snow might descend.
.
The Bible author was not planning on making a 20th century material specification. The whole point of the term firmament is to denote SOMETHING that held the waters back from becoming rain, snow, freezing rain, sleet or hail upon the earth. Notice that the only terms among those in Scripture are rain, hail and snow. Why doesn't Scripture mention freezing rain or sleet? The first mention of hail was in the plagues of Egypt, Exodus 9 f.
.

From Catholic Encyclopedia -- I've included the referenced passages too:
Quote
Other passages e.g. Isaiah 42:5 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/isa042.htm#vrs5), emphasize rather the idea (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07630a.htm) of something extended: "Thus saith the Lord God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) that created the heavens and stretched them out" (Cf. Isaiah 44:24 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/isa044.htm#vrs24), and 40:22 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/isa040.htm#vrs22)).

Is. 44: 24 Thus says the Lord, thy ransomer, he who fashioned thee in the womb: I am the Lord, the author of all things; alone I spread out heaven’s canopy, looked for no help when I laid the floor of the earth.

Is. 40: 22 There is One sits so high above its orb, those who live on it seem tiny as locusts; One who has spread out the heavens like gossamer, as he were pitching a tent to dwell in.
.
You always have to be careful reading Scripture and immediately leaping to conclusions..........
.

2 Examples

1.  Which kinds of living creatures were killed in the flood, and were there any species of animals or plants outside the Ark that survived the Flood?

2.  How many of each kind or sort of animals, male and female, was Noe commanded to bring onto the Ark?

From Genesis 6:

Quote
[17] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=6&l=17#x) Behold I will bring the waters of a great flood upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, under heaven. All things that are in the earth shall be consumed. [18] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=6&l=18#x) And I will establish my covenant with thee, and thou shalt enter into the ark, thou and thy sons, and thy wife, and the wives of thy sons with thee. [19] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=6&l=19#x) And of every living creature of all flesh, thou shalt bring two of a sort into the ark, that they may live with thee: of the male sex, and the female. [20] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=6&l=20#x) Of fowls according to their kind, and of beasts in their kind, and of every thing that creepeth on the earth according to its kind; two of every sort shall go in with thee, that they may live.
.


.
.
.


I have two questions for you:

How old were Noe's three sons, Sem, Cham and Japheth when the Arc cast off and the flood covered the earth?

And how old was Noe?

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 08, 2017, 01:29:58 AM
.
I really find it most odd that flat-earthers who are eager to criticize Pythagoras, Newton, Copernicus and others because they followed the ideas of pagan Egyptians, Greeks, Romans or Babylonians, turn around and hang onto other fantastic doctrines of the ancients. Maybe it's a matter of perspective

HAHAHAHA

From an arched iron ceiling with stars suspended by cables, to an immense dome forged by the hand of Merodach out of the hardest metal, perhaps brass, and resting on a wall surrounding the (flat?!) earth, they don't sound much different from flat-earthers!
.

Quote
The notion that the sky was a vast solid dome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05100b.htm) seems to have been common among the ancient peoples whose ideas (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07630a.htm) of cosmology (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04413a.htm) have come down to us. Thus the Egyptians conceived the heavens to be an arched iron ceiling from which the stars were suspended by means of cables (Chabas, LÆAntiquiteÆ historique, Paris, 1873, pp. 64-67). Likewise to the mind of the Babylonians the sky was an immense dome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05100b.htm)forged out of the hardest metal by the hand of Merodach (Marduk) and resting on a wall surrounding the earth (Jensen, Die Kosmologie der Babylonier, Strasburg (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14313c.htm), 1890, pp. 253, 260). According to the notion prevalent among the Greeks and Romans, the sky was a great vault of crystal to which the fixed stars were attached, though by some it was held to be of iron or brass.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on April 08, 2017, 12:29:17 PM
.
So if you can't take time to bother, why are you posting?
.
There are no scientific proofs of "flat" earth, as you say, so you're wrong.
I just gave you 100% proof from your beloved "scientists" that the Firmament is MATERIAL, and you can't be bothered to respond.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on April 08, 2017, 01:21:26 PM
.
So if you can't take time to bother, why are you posting?
.
There are no scientific proofs of "flat" earth, as you say, so you're wrong.
.

Now that sir, is a lie.  There are scientific proofs for flat earth numbering in the hundreds.  Not to mention the teachings from scripture, popes, saints and the Church backing up the obvious geocentric nature of earth.  Scripture details clearly that there is a firmament dividing heaven and earth and that the lights in the firmament move over and across the face of the earth and therefore cannot possibly shine from hundreds of thousands of miles or millions of miles away.  Must be an awfully big dome to cover for that distant sun! Even if you reject truth for who knows what reason, you know scripture teaches about the firmament and the movement of the sun over the face of the earth.  Conversely, there are no proofs for round earth, except lies from Freemasons and pagans throughout history.  Good luck with that.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: noOneImportant on April 08, 2017, 01:28:12 PM
Can you all stop with the oversized fonts? Bigger text doesn't actually make your argument more convincing...
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on April 08, 2017, 01:30:22 PM
Can you all stop with the oversized fonts? Bigger text doesn't actually make your argument more convincing...
No, but it makes it readable for me on my smaller screen.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on April 08, 2017, 02:51:32 PM
14 feet is a pretty baseless estimation. There's no way to get a good one from that image. The camera is looking down on a small pickup, so I'd say that's at about 7-8 feet above the street, but there's no good reference to see how far the drop is from the street to the water. Could be 10 feet, could be 20. And that makes a fairly significant difference in horizon distance. So yes, your "estimate" was misleading.
Proving, once again, that flat earthers are bad at geometry. See below.
(http://i.imgur.com/fVvm3C2.png)

Oh this one is easy.

It absurd to claim that you don't know how much the drop is to the water. You can see it for yourself!

THINK!: even if it is only an estimation, and we are off, it does NOT make an essential difference to the point that you should not be able to see almost all of the cliff.

SEE it for yourself, and tap in a few figures into the calculator.

This claiming not to know if philosophically absurd. Philosophical agnosticism, if you will. "We can't know the truth." Grow up! The reality is before your face, you just have to be courageous enough to accept it.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: noOneImportant on April 08, 2017, 03:24:28 PM
I take it you are conceding the point about 25 miles being the correct distance to use then?

You cannot "see for yourself" the height, because there is no ruler marking height about sea level in the picture. You can estimate, which I did. Your estimate was on the extreme low end of what is reasonable, conveniently for you. Regardless of the fact, 14 feet at 25 miles, you STILL should expect to see a piece of the 300 foot cliff over the horizon. So even for the most conservative estimate possible, this does not, as you tried to imply, demonstrate the flatness of the earth.

Edit to add: Incidentally, the tide in that area varies by 7 meters or more, so well over 20 feet. So it's highly unlikely that the road is < 10 feet above the sea level at any given point. People don't typically build roads where they might flood.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: FlatEarthInquisitor on April 09, 2017, 11:06:35 AM
Not to offend you, but do you suffer from some kind of mental retardation? That is truly the charitable thing for me to say, because I am not clear if you understand what you are saying. (the other option is that you are a malicious troll)

A "piece" of the cliff? Does it look like you see "a piece" of the cliff in those photos? 278 feet are hidden. Look closely at the profile and you will realise that it is pretty much about that which is hidden.

By the way, I am not by any means accepting that 25 miles is the "correct" distance to use. Being open to the earth being flat, one can accept that this is the high point. In fact I could get a cross profile from the other direction, showing the various shapes of the mountains, and comparing them with what you see in the photo. This would probably show that you see the peak which is at 40 miles. Thus cementing my argument all the more.

I was merely condescending to your slightly pedantic objection, to get you to see something that is impossible on a round earth. I hope you have the humility to accept that I am right. (I did not invent the flat earth - so it is God you would be arguing with ultimately)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 09, 2017, 04:22:28 PM
I just gave you 100% proof from your beloved "scientists" that the Firmament is MATERIAL, and you can't be bothered to respond.
How about Scripture?
Quote
Psalms 150:1 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=150&l=1#x)
 Praise ye the Lord in his holy places: praise ye him in the
firmament of his power.
.
Since when is the power of God a material thing?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 09, 2017, 07:47:44 PM
.
As for the Bible's description of the firmament, there is nothing in Scripture that describes the physical substance of the firmament, or if it HAS any physical properties.
.

What does Scripture say about the firmament?

Genesis 1:8 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=8#x)
And God called the
firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day.
Genesis 1:14 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=14#x)
And God said: Let there be lights made in the
firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:
Genesis 1:15 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=15#x)
To shine in the
firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done.
Genesis 1:17 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=17#x)
And he set them in the
firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth.
Genesis 1:20 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=20#x)
God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the
firmament of heaven.
3 Kings (1 Kings) 8:43 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=11&ch=8&l=43#x)
Then hear thou in heaven, in the
firmament of thy dwelling place, and do all those things, for which that stranger shall call upon thee: that all the people of the earth may learn to fear thy name, as do thy people Israel, and may prove that thy name is called upon on this house, which I have built.
3 Kings (1 Kings) 8:49 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=11&ch=8&l=49#x)
Then hear thou in heaven, in the
firmament of thy throne, their prayers, and their supplications, and do judgment for them:
Psalms 17:3 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=17&l=3#x)
The Lord is my
firmament, my refuge, and my deliverer. My God is my helper, and in him will I put my trust. My protector and the horn of my salvation, and my support.
Psalms 70:3 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=70&l=3#x)
Be thou unto me a God, a protector, and a place of strength: that thou mayst make me safe. For thou art my
firmament and my refuge.
Psalms 150:1 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=150&l=1#x)
Praise ye the Lord in his holy places: praise ye him in the
firmament of his power.
Ecclesiasticus 43:1 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=26&ch=43&l=1#x)
The
firmament on high is his beauty, the beauty of heaven with its glorious shew.
.
Praise ye the Lord in the firmament of His power, in the firmament of His dwelling place, heaven.
.
Heaven is not a material reality.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on April 09, 2017, 08:22:11 PM
.
Praise ye the Lord in the firmament of His power, in the firmament of His dwelling place, heaven.
.
Heaven is not a material reality.
.
That is a lie.  The body of Our Lady is material and It is in heaven.  Heaven is a place.  Material place.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on April 09, 2017, 08:22:50 PM
 You sure know how to go on about what you don't know.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: BumphreyHogart on April 09, 2017, 08:31:43 PM
That is a lie.  The body of Our Lady is material and It is in heaven.  Heaven is a place.  Material place. 

Unfortunately, as a fake Catholic that you are, you don't understand what a spiritualized material body means.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on April 09, 2017, 09:40:55 PM

.
Heaven is not a material reality.
.
Did you just have a TOTAL brain lapse??
The catechism teaches us that heaven (and hell, for that matter) are both a state and a place. A state of being with or without God, and a material place.
Good grief.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 09, 2017, 10:10:16 PM
Did you just have a TOTAL brain lapse??
The catechism teaches us that heaven (and hell, for that matter) are both a state and a place. A state of being with or without God, and a material place.
Good grief.
Heaven is not a material place. Nor is the firmament. It is God's power. God's power is not material. God is not material. God is outside of the material universe. God is outside of time. Time is a creation of God's and is for the purpose of man's material existence on earth. 
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on April 09, 2017, 10:35:43 PM
Heaven is not a material place. Nor is the firmament. It is God's power. God's power is not material. God is not material. God is outside of the material universe. God is outside of time. Time is a creation of God's and is for the purpose of man's material existence on earth.
.
Oh my goodness, you're mumbling incoherently.  God is both spiritual AND material. Materially speaking, His name is Jesus. Mary is material. Heaven is a place that houses both persons, glorified material.  Heaven sits above the firmament as described by the saints and scripture and it is a material thing.  Go to bed Neil.   
 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).   
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 09, 2017, 10:41:13 PM
.
Before the Flood, there was no rain on earth.
.
When Noe built his Ark, the doomed people all around him mocked him (kind of like flat-earthers mocking others today) because they couldn't imagine what such a huge ship would be good for in the middle of land where there was no sea. There had never been rain, so they could not imagine rain. Even if they COULD imagine rain, they could not have imagined rain that would flood the earth giving buoyancy to a ship built on land.
.
But when the rains came and the Flood waters rose, they cried outside the Ark to be saved, but it was too late for them.
.
Today, we have rain clouds that give rain, but sometimes we have overcast skies where the sun does not shine through with power and brightness, because of the water vapor that obscures it. Even so, often times there is no rain on such days. The water vapor remains high in the atmosphere and does not come down to earth. That is a similar state as the skies before the Flood, when all the water vapor was held high in the atmosphere and did not rain. 
.
But imagine what it would be like on earth with most of the water now found in the oceans all suspended high in the atmosphere, kept from raining down by the power of God, e.g., by His firmament (the power of God). The air pressure on earth would have been three or four times as great. Instead of 14.7 psi at sea level, it could have been 50 or 60 psi. With such enormous pressure, life would have been different here. 
.
Perhaps you're not aware of the experiments done during the previous century where they kept primates in a pressurized environment, with greater oxygen content, and found that their life spans increased dramatically. Before the Flood, men lived much longer lifespans. I asked you before, and you did not answer, what was Noe's age when he began to build the Ark. So I'll tell you now. He was 400 years old. He spent his 5th century of life building the Ark. So being 400 years old, he was strong, mature, and able to build the Ark. He had the help of his three sons, who were all born in the same year. Why would a man 400 years old suddenly have three sons all in the same year? It is not spelled out, but they may have been triplets. He had one wife, not three wives. How could she have had three pregnancies in one year if not by triplets?
.
With the vastly higher air pressure and probably much more oxygen in the air, just like the monkeys that today can be made to live vastly longer lives with such an atmosphere, the water held up high in the sky weighed down on earth making men live much longer lives.
.
God works miracles, of course, but usually when He makes His power manifest worldwide for many years, it is through some natural means. The firmament holding back the waters without rain for several centuries could explain how God kept lifespans extended on earth until such time as He allowed the "gates of heaven" to open and thus allowed the rain to fall 40 days and 40 nights. The waters of the deep were opened as well -- the waters that had been welling up over the land in smaller rates to give plants their sustenance from creation until the Flood. Together, the rushing waters of the deep coming to the surface, perhaps due to the reduced air pressure consequent to the falling rain that alleviated the air pressure as the rain fell, along with the volume of rain water, is what made the earth to be flooded such that all the mountains were covered 15 cubits higher than their highest peaks. The mountains could have then risen as well, as geologists today say they do. In fact, during large earthquakes, mountain ranges have been measured to rise as much as 6 feet during one earthquake. That happened here in Los Angeles during the 1994 Northridge quake, when the San Gabriel mountains increased as much as 6 feet in elevation in one day.

.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 09, 2017, 10:46:08 PM
 God is both spiritual AND material. Materially speaking, His name is Jesus. 
At the time of the Flood, Jesus had not been incarnated. 
.
Material being is something that BECAME one with God at the time of the Incarnation, and not before. God was made man. Before God became man, Jesus was only spiritual, and He took on a material being. God's material existence had a beginning with the life of Jesus on earth. This is what we commemorate at Christmas.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 09, 2017, 10:49:32 PM
That is a lie.  The body of Our Lady is material and It is in heaven.  Heaven is a place.  Material place.  
.
So you are a materialist, then? You have a lot in common with Karl Marx and Charles Darwin.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on April 10, 2017, 12:33:17 AM
.
So you are a materialist, then? You have a lot in common with Karl Marx and Charles Darwin.
.
Neil.  You are embarrassing yourself. You get quotes from saints, the Church and scripture and what do you contribute? You opine. <sigh> Do us both a favor and get in your little red wagon, drive home and ask mommy to tuck you in.  Its over.  Everything you've attempted to do to prove heliocentrism is a logical theory has long ago been trashed by greater and more saintly minds than yours.  Earth is geocentric and flat.  Do yourself a favor, take a couple of aspirin and call the doctor in the morning.    
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on April 10, 2017, 12:42:30 AM
Heaven is not a material place. Nor is the firmament. It is God's power. God's power is not material. God is not material. God is outside of the material universe. God is outside of time. Time is a creation of God's and is for the purpose of man's material existence on earth.
.
Herp derp.
Time = measure of motion (of the sun)
Eternity = always now
God the Father is in Heaven, which is in eternity, which is the material place ABOVE the sun, ABOVE the Firmament. Please read your Bible. Thanks.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on April 10, 2017, 12:47:24 AM
We need a designated sandbox for our intellectual midgets, Bumphrey Hogart and Neil Obstat, to go play in together.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on April 10, 2017, 12:48:12 AM
Hey Neil.  Know what gray matter is?  Its matter.  In the head. Just not yours.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on April 10, 2017, 12:49:55 AM
We need a designated sandbox for our intellectual midgets, Bumphrey Hogart and Neil Obstat, to go play in together.
Yea, maybe gravity will keep them in the box.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on April 10, 2017, 02:18:27 AM
I want to apologize to mw2016, Truth is Eternal, FlatEarthInquisitor, happenby, etc. for my harsh comments directed at them earlier in this thread.

I still reject "flat earth", but I just wanted to apologize.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: CatholicJoe on April 10, 2017, 09:45:06 AM
How many of you have sailed across an ocean before?  I have.  When I was approaching land, I saw it low on the horizon, and as I got closer it grew taller.  I'm pretty sure that means the earth is round. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on April 10, 2017, 10:30:10 AM
I want to apologize to mw2016, Truth is Eternal, FlatEarthInquisitor, happenby, etc. for my harsh comments directed at them earlier in this thread.

I still reject "flat earth", but I just wanted to apologize.
Thank you, that is very kind of you.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: mw2016 on April 10, 2017, 10:36:54 AM
How many of you have sailed across an ocean before?  I have.  When I was approaching land, I saw it low on the horizon, and as I got closer it grew taller.  I'm pretty sure that means the earth is round.
Well, now this one is just silly.
I'll show you how:
In my city, we have a large valley that is ringed by mountains on three sides, with one small but tallish mountain in the center.
On my side of the valley, I am up a little bit on the side of the mountain, and if I look at the mountain in the center, it appears to be only at eye-level, even though it is only about 6 miles away. Does that mean the mountain is only 5 1/2 feet tall (my height)? No, of course not. If I could instantly teleport myself to the location at the base of the mountain, it would "grow taller" as I got closer, and standing at its base I would suddenly find that the mountain is actually 2,700 feet high! 
The phenomenon of the mountain looking shorter on the horizon the further you get away from it is due to perspective - NOT curvature.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: BumphreyHogart on April 10, 2017, 11:52:14 AM
Well, now this one is just silly.
I'll show you how:
In my city, we have a large valley that is ringed by mountains on three sides, with one small but tallish mountain in the center.
On my side of the valley, I am up a little bit on the side of the mountain, and if I look at the mountain in the center, it appears to be only at eye-level, even though it is only about 6 miles away. Does that mean the mountain is only 5 1/2 feet tall (my height)? No, of course not. If I could instantly teleport myself to the location at the base of the mountain, it would "grow taller" as I got closer, and standing at its base I would suddenly find that the mountain is actually 2,700 feet high!
The phenomenon of the mountain looking shorter on the horizon the further you get away from it is due to perspective - NOT curvature.


Geometry and science is logical, and all you have is a warped wishful thinking to the contrary.
We know that on a plane, without refraction, the only perspective change is distance, making a full object be totally in view, only smaller the further away it is. We know what the refraction rate of the atmosphere is, it is not a mystery. There is no way a full mountain is below the horizon due to refraction. Break out of your fantasy.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: backdownunder on April 10, 2017, 12:34:54 PM
How many of you have sailed across an ocean before?  I have.  When I was approaching land, I saw it low on the horizon, and as I got closer it grew taller.  I'm pretty sure that means the earth is round.
I have sailed across an ocean.
Would you be able to explain how that disproves the flat earth?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 10, 2017, 10:57:42 PM
Neil.  You are embarrassing yourself. You get quotes from saints, the Church and scripture and what do you contribute? You opine. <sigh> Do us both a favor and get in your little red wagon, drive home and ask mommy to tuck you in.  Its over.  Everything you've attempted to do to prove heliocentrism is a logical theory has long ago been trashed by greater and more saintly minds than yours.  Earth is geocentric and flat.  Do yourself a favor, take a couple of aspirin and call the doctor in the morning.  
.
No, I'm not embarrassing myself. But apparently what I wrote embarrassed you. If it did, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to make you embarrassed.
.
As for "heliocentrism" apparently you're confusing me with someone else, so you don't need any help embarrassing yourself. I have never once made a post that tried to "prove heliocentrism." Get your facts straight. Geocentric, okay, but flat? No way.
.
And aspirin does nothing for me, so go ahead and take two for me, will you? Maybe it will help your memory. Maybe you can be comfy with your buddies, Karl Marx and Charles Darwin.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 10, 2017, 11:17:48 PM

Geometry and science is logical, and all you have is a warped wishful thinking to the contrary.
We know that on a plane, without refraction, the only perspective change is distance, making a full object be totally in view, only smaller the further away it is. We know what the refraction rate of the atmosphere is, it is not a mystery. There is no way a full mountain is below the horizon due to refraction. Break out of your fantasy.
.
The problem with this kind of post is, around flat-earthers, you're trying to be reasonable and work off of real life experience and logical inquiry, but they're only interested in repeating patently false premises like, "It's all explained by perspective," and "The horizon rises to the eye of the viewer," both of which are false, obviously. Perspective disproves flat-earthism and the horizon stays right where it is when the viewer changes elevation.
.
I took a builder's level to the top of Mount Whitney and set it up to find that my line of sight was higher than every peak within view, and my scope pointed with level crosshairs into the clouds above Death Valley, 50 miles away. But for flat-earthers, such reporting is heresy. Maybe I ought to be burned at the stake!
.
Everything we can see and test on a small scale they say suddenly disappears when you go to a large scale. They claim the mountains in the distance are not in view because we cannot see past the horizon even when objects below the horizon would be in a straight line of sight if the earth were flat.
.
It doesn't help to tell them facts in your own experience because they won't believe your testimony, or when you show them photographs they say it must be Photoshop or CGI. So it will never make any difference what evidence you bring to the table, they'll immediately reject it without even thinking about it, so they say they can't be bothered, and then resort to insult and ad hominem. They do that because to die-hard flat-earthers, their flat earthism is a false god that they worship, then they prattle on and on in the name of the Holy Bible, but actually reading it is too difficult for them, especially when it says things they don't want to hear.
.
If it were not so sad and pathetic, it would be really funny. But it's just sad and pathetic, sorry to say.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 11, 2017, 09:27:09 PM
.
Take a nice, long look at the full moon tonight. 
.
Notice it does not rise in the east until the sun goes down in the west.
.
Notice that it crosses the sky at a very high angle, nearly directly overhead.
.
Notice that it is at its highest point in the sky at astronomical midnight (1:00 am Daylight Savings Time).

Notice there is no shadow under the moon as one would expect to see if the sun were hovering nearby over a "flat" earth and shining across the surface of the earth to shine on the moon like this.
.
There is no shadow under the moon nor anywhere else on the edges of the moon.

But just a few days ago, there was a shadow on the eastern edge of the moon before it became full.
.
Why was that shadow there?
.
That shadow was there because the moon was not yet directly opposite the earth from the sun.
.
But the moon was well on its way, and NOW, it has ARRIVED.

.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 13, 2017, 09:40:17 PM
.
Take a nice, long look at the full moon tonight.
.
Notice it does not rise in the east until the sun goes down in the west.
.
Notice that it crosses the sky at a very high angle, nearly directly overhead.
.
Notice that it is at its highest point in the sky at astronomical midnight (1:00 am Daylight Savings Time).
.
Notice there is no shadow under the moon as one would expect to see if the sun were hovering nearby over a "flat" earth and shining across the surface of the earth to shine on the moon like this.
.
There is no shadow under the moon nor anywhere else on the edges of the moon.
.
But just a few days ago, there was a shadow on the eastern edge of the moon before it became full.
.
Why was that shadow there?
.
That shadow was there because the moon was not yet directly opposite the earth from the sun.
.
But the moon was well on its way, and NOW, it has ARRIVED.
.
Two days ago the full moon had no shadow on the underside as it would have if the sun were shining across a "flat" earth, but today, the moon is starting to show a shadow on the western side, and a little on top as well.
.
There was no shadow under the moon nor anywhere else on the edges of the moon, two days ago, and the absence of shadow under the moon continues to be the case during the first quarter, as the moon approaches the new moon phase.
.
As the moon approaches its first quarter (which will happen next week) the shadow on TOP of the moon gradually grows, but there is no shadow on the moon's bottom side (closest to earth). The quarter moon appears to be reclining toward the rising sun. If the earth were "flat" with the sun making its rounds over the surface of earth, the sun would not be shining from below the horizon, for it would have to be positioned below the earth's surface. But we know that when it's night here in the western hemisphere it's daylight in India and Asia, which is not on the bottom of a "flat" earth model. The angle of the sun's light comes from an impossible angle in the "flat" earth model, showing that it cannot be the truth.
.
Incidentally, the Western (Roman) Church has placed Easter in the week following the first full moon of spring for good reason. This was the case when Our Lord was crucified, under a full moon. Since a total solar eclipse can only occur during a new moon, we will never have such an eclipse in Easter Week, just as it could not have happened on Good Friday. Thus it is total fabrication to say that when the earth was darkened for 3 hours that day that the cause of that darkness was an eclipse of the sun. Such an eclipse could only happen two weeks later during the new moon phase. Besides, a total solar eclipse does not darken the whole world nor does it ever last for 3 hours. The longest total solar eclipse is no more than about 7 minutes.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 14, 2017, 07:54:00 PM
.
It looks like our flat-earthers are deciding not to look at the moon's phases anymore.
.
So there are two kinds of ignorance:
.
1.  Those who have not been told and haven't thought of the principle in question.
2.  Those who have been told and have chosen to remain ignorant.
.
Which kind are you?
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: TomGubbinsKimmage on April 15, 2017, 07:45:30 AM
.
Two days ago the full moon had no shadow on the underside as it would have if the sun were shining across a "flat" earth, but today, the moon is starting to show a shadow on the western side, and a little on top as well.
.
There was no shadow under the moon nor anywhere else on the edges of the moon, two days ago, and the absence of shadow under the moon continues to be the case during the first quarter, as the moon approaches the new moon phase.
.
As the moon approaches its first quarter (which will happen next week) the shadow on TOP of the moon gradually grows, but there is no shadow on the moon's bottom side (closest to earth). The quarter moon appears to be reclining toward the rising sun. If the earth were "flat" with the sun making its rounds over the surface of earth, the sun would not be shining from below the horizon, for it would have to be positioned below the earth's surface. But we know that when it's night here in the western hemisphere it's daylight in India and Asia, which is not on the bottom of a "flat" earth model. The angle of the sun's light comes from an impossible angle in the "flat" earth model, showing that it cannot be the truth.
.
Incidentally, the Western (Roman) Church has placed Easter in the week following the first full moon of spring for good reason. This was the case when Our Lord was crucified, under a full moon. Since a total solar eclipse can only occur during a new moon, we will never have such an eclipse in Easter Week, just as it could not have happened on Good Friday. Thus it is total fabrication to say that when the earth was darkened for 3 hours that day that the cause of that darkness was an eclipse of the sun. Such an eclipse could only happen two weeks later during the new moon phase. Besides, a total solar eclipse does not darken the whole world nor does it ever last for 3 hours. The longest total solar eclipse is no more than about 7 minutes.
.


You're a very strange man Mr obstat. you have been told repeatedly that something in the sky cannot prove that the earth is round, because our proofs are of the earth.

Remember that we deny that ANYone has been to space. We deny that there are galaxies millions of miles away. We say that the stars are just lights, a few thousand miles away, as are the sun and moon. All under a dome.

The precise details of what causes eclipses are unknown to us because we have not traveled up there to see more closely.

What we cannot accept is someone saying to us that the earth is a ball 25000 miles in circuмference. Which is what you say. You have no proof for it, and yet you believe it anyway. Your "proofs" are extrinsic and not intrinsic. Not scientific, because they are based on lies. If your earth is round why can't you combat us based on the curvature, instead of going off into the sky? You have just again ignored another post on the lack of curvature.

You didn't even try this time to say anything against it. Because you know it's right.

So to be clear. WE DON'T KNOW THE CAUSES OF ECLIPSES AND THAT DOES NOT DISPROVE THE FLAT EARTH. WE SPECULATE, BUT THAT IS ALL.

It is a good thing we can admit what we don't know. Our scientific system is coherent because it is based on solid foundation. Yours is based on a lie, namely that there is curvature and builds lies upon that.



"Vir insipiens non cognoscet et stultus non intelleget haec" Psalm 91
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 15, 2017, 06:40:59 PM
.
You can repeat nonsense all you want and it doesn't make it true. Something in the sky CAN prove the earth is round, but you have to LOOK at it first and you have to THINK logically instead of narrow-mindedly with your false premise first and foremost, which is what all flat-earthers insist on doing. When someone won't stoop to your ridiculous level of illogic and nonsense, you hurl epithets of insult. 
.
So you have nothing objectively verifiable to offer. And you refuse to participate in any such objective verification, by simply looking at the moon.
.

You're a very strange man Mr obstat. you have been told repeatedly that something in the sky cannot prove that the earth is round, because our proofs are of the earth.

Remember that we deny that ANYone has been to space. We deny that there are galaxies millions of miles away. We say that the stars are just lights, a few thousand miles away, as are the sun and moon. All under a dome.

The precise details of what causes eclipses are unknown to us because we have not traveled up there to see more closely.

What we cannot accept is someone saying to us that the earth is a ball 25000 miles in circuмference. Which is what you say. You have no proof for it, and yet you believe it anyway. Your "proofs" are extrinsic and not intrinsic. Not scientific, because they are based on lies. If your earth is round why can't you combat us based on the curvature, instead of going off into the sky? You have just again ignored another post on the lack of curvature.

You didn't even try this time to say anything against it. Because you know it's right.

So to be clear. WE DON'T KNOW THE CAUSES OF ECLIPSES AND THAT DOES NOT DISPROVE THE FLAT EARTH. WE SPECULATE, BUT THAT IS ALL.

It is a good thing we can admit what we don't know. Our scientific system is coherent because it is based on solid foundation. Yours is based on a lie, namely that there is curvature and builds lies upon that.
.
This one is really special. It shows what you're made of:
.
Quote
The precise details of what causes eclipses are unknown to us because we have not traveled up there to see more closely.

WE DON'T KNOW THE CAUSES OF ECLIPSES AND THAT DOES NOT DISPROVE THE FLAT EARTH. WE SPECULATE, BUT THAT IS ALL.
.
So why don't you "speculateabout the timing and location of the eclipse in August, and defend your speculation by showing how it's based on your flat-earthism? 
.
Answer: You don't because you can't.
.
We don't have to travel up there to see anything more closely.  What we need to see is perfectly viewable from where we are. Besides, even if we WERE to "travel up there to see more closely" you would no doubt complain that all the photographs were CGI and Photoshop, and that the witnesses are lying just to promote the Freemasonic Pagan nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr agenda.
.
You claim that what causes eclipses are unknown because your flat-earth nonsense is incapable of being true with the evidence of eclipses before our eyes.  Your refusal to take what God has given to us for our observation and simply reason out the necessary consequences of what we consistently see, proves that you are not only ignorant but are quite comfortable remaining in your ignorance. 
.
How can total solar eclipses be predicted time and time again with incredible accuracy if the theory behind the predictions is all wrong? There is another one forecast for late August this year. Do you want to go on record saying that it is all fake and will not occur as predicted, traversing diagonally across the central United States passing over St. Louis Missouri?
.
Are you aware that hotels are taking reservations for this event? Why would they do that if flat-earthism were a fact? Where is there a flat-earther who can predict solar eclipses? Are you going to show up and demonstrate in the streets of St. Louis complaining that eclipses do not testify to your flat-earthism therefore they're impossible?

https://www.greatamericaneclipse.com/missouri/

(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53c358b6e4b01b8adb4d5870/t/57d75f059de4bb8b142651f5/1473732359032/TSE2017_state_overview_Missouri.jpg?format=1000w)
.
The very minutes and seconds of the eclipse duration based on the observers' precise location is predicted months in advance. Do you honestly think this is possible using your flat-earth premise of where the sun and moon are located in the sky??
.
More personal insults from flat-earthers? Pile them up. Your actions speak volumes. 
.
You're accusing me of "lies" but all I am saying is, "look at the moon." 
.
You say say we "can't go up there" but I'm not talking about going up there, all I'm saying is look at the moon from where you stand. You are very uncomfortable with that because it's something that you don't want to do: make a first hand observation.
.
You have chosen to be ignorant even when given the challenge to observe first hand and report your observation, so you fall into the second category of ignorant ones -- those who have been told and have chosen to remain ignorant.
.
You remind me of some Moslems I know. Maybe you'd be much more at home with Mohammedans.
.
This site is offered by booking reservations service showing you a map so you can plan your visit for seeing the eclipse: 
https://explorestlouis.com/discover/2017-total-solar-eclipse/

(https://explorestlouis.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Solar-Eclipse-2017_Missouri.png)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 15, 2017, 06:55:00 PM
.
TO ANY FLAT-EARTHER:

Please post here your explanation for how the August 2017 eclipse
of the sun shown by the following diagram
is something that can be explained presuming
that the earth is "flat"
and the sun and moon move in quasi-spirals above the earth's surface.

Alternatively, 
if you think the following diagram is somehow fake
or false or unreliable,
please explain WHY you think it's wrong
and describe what you think it OUGHT to say
to make it reliable. 


(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/SE2017Aug21T.png/480px-SE2017Aug21T.png)

Explain for example the DIRECTION that the shadow
cast by the moon on the earth will move:
Will it move from west to east, or from east to west,
and WHY. 

Why does the shadow move in that direction
presuming the earth is flat?

And how can the precise location of the moon's 
shadow be predicted presuming a "flat" earth?
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 15, 2017, 07:18:19 PM
.
This is really cool:
.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/SE2017Aug21T.gif)
.
You can see the blue shadow of the night fading off the left or western side (that's sunrise in the Pacific Ocean), and then you can see the night time shadow emerging in the eastern Atlantic Ocean where the eclipse shadow fades away at sunset there.
.
Notice only a small speck of black (the umbra) in the middle of the penumbra, indicating how small the umbra is, the area of totality, compared to the much larger penumbra. The cause of this difference is a function of the relative sizes of the moon and the sun, and how close the moon is to earth compared to how far the sun is from earth. 
.
The precise distances from earth to moon and earth to sun change by very small amounts constantly, so whether there is going to be any umbra during a given eclipse is a very delicate question. If the moon is too far from the earth the umbra will only be from the moon tapering down to a point somewhere short of the earth's surface, and so an observer would have to be in an airplane or spacecraft to be in the umbra, and anyone trying to see the eclipse on the earth's surface would only be able to see the antumbra instead, which is seen during an annular eclipse.
.
The figures they are using are very precise. But in round numbers the moon is 240,000 miles away and the sun is 92 million miles away. That is how they can make this animation IN ADVANCE of the fact. 
.
If you don't think that it will actually take place in this manner, then it is your duty to post witnesses and establish that the eclipse penumbra and focus do NOT actually traverse the earth with this appearance.
.
Notice how the penumbra is in the shape of a circle shadow moving across the face of a globe earth. Why would this shape occur in this way if the earth were flat? If it were, then the shadow of the moon would not appear oblong or pear-shaped at the beginning and at the end of the eclipse, where it stretches out over the increasingly steep curvature of the globe earth.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 15, 2017, 07:25:58 PM
.
By the way, I just recalled something a flat-earther said before, that we can't be sure the eclipse is being caused by the moon moving in between the sun and the earth. 
.
That is just about the dumbest thing you can say about a total solar eclipse. 
.
So if you want to show how well you understand flat-earth eclipses, post here and explain yourself. 
.
Go ahead!
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 15, 2017, 07:41:14 PM
.
This one is even MORE cool, but it's by NASA, and we all KNOW how FAKE that must be.
So don't watch it whatever you do!!!
.
Click here (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/2017_Total_Solar_Eclipse_in_the_U.S.webm/200px--2017_Total_Solar_Eclipse_in_the_U.S.webm.jpg)
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 15, 2017, 07:49:49 PM
Well, that didn't work. Try this:
.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/2017_Total_Solar_Eclipse_in_the_U.S.webm (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/2017_Total_Solar_Eclipse_in_the_U.S.webm)
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: wilders on April 16, 2017, 10:39:06 AM
Yes Mr. Obstat is strange.
He does not seem to answer questions he does not like. He is attacking persons.
Eclipses do not have to be cause by the shadows of the earth, or moon or sun.
This doesn't make sense to a globalist who thinks he has the explanation for everything. In fact, he has a lot of lies.
There is not curvature on the earth. Anyone who is honest can see that, and study that, as had been pointed out on this forum.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 17, 2017, 12:48:54 AM
The moon is approaching its last quarter now.
.
Observe how it rises later in the evening, with the illuminated side angled downward.
.
The sun would have to be shining on it from inside the earth to light up the moon with that appearance.
.
But obviously, the sun cannot shine from inside the earth.
.
Therefore, the sun must be shining on the moon from the opposite side of the earth.
.
That is not what the "flat" earth premise allows. It demands that the sun is always ABOVE the earth, and we can easily see by looking at the moon that is not what is going on.
.
As the moon gets closer to its last quarter, it appears closer in its orbit to the sun's position every day.
.
The stars behind the moon move in the same general direction, but they traverse the night sky faster than the moon does, so every night the moon appears more toward the east compared to the stars.
.
These are all objective observations we can make, and to be honest, all these facts have to be considered for us to know the truth of what is going on in the heavens, even if we remain here on earth making these observations. It does not require that we travel into space to get a second point of view on everything, as some flat-earthers are wont to claim.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 17, 2017, 12:59:51 AM
The eclipse coming in August is part of a long list of them going on for many centuries:

Saros series 145[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solar_eclipse_of_August_21,_2017&action=edit&section=18)]
Quote
This solar eclipse is a part of Saros cycle 145 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Saros_145), repeating every 18 years, 11 days, containing 77 events. The series started with partial solar eclipse on January 4, 1639, and reached a first annular eclipse on June 6, 1891. It was a hybrid event on June 17, 1909, and total eclipses from June 29, 1927 through September 9, 2648. The series ends at member 77 as a partial eclipse on April 17, 3009. The longest eclipse will occur on June 25, 2522, with a maximum duration of totality of 7 minutes, 12 seconds. [33] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_August_21,_2017#cite_note-33)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: wilders on April 17, 2017, 05:59:52 AM
the moon can have it's own light. (this would be in greater conformity with Sacred Scripture.)
And most flat earthers do not say that the sun goes under the earth, but over and around.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 17, 2017, 11:16:33 PM
.
Tomorrow, Tuesday, April 18th, the moon rises in the east in my area at 1:10 am and sets at 11:44 am.
.
The moon's last quarter (as seen from UTC-7) occurs at 3:00 am Wednesday, April 19th, 2017.
.
Considering the previous chance we had to measure the angle between the sun and quarter moon, here is an improved plan. Since the sun will not be up at 3 o'clock in the morning when the last quarter will be exactly in view, I'm going to make at least two observations (before and after), at times as close to equal as I can get, from that ideal time.
.
For example, if I take a reading at 11:00 am on Tuesday (45 minutes before the moon sets), then the best I can do Wednesday is 12 noon, since the moon sets at 12:38 on the 19th. The first reading will be 16 hours before the quarter moon, and the second reading will be 9 hours after the quarter moon.
.
A few measurements before 11:00 am Tuesday, like two hours and one hour before, will give me a good idea of how many degrees the angle changes each hour before the quarter moon. Likewise a few measurements prior to 12:00 pm Wednesday will give me a good idea of how many degrees the angle changes each hour after the quarter moon.
.
Since the moon's quarter is at 3:00 am this time, I won't be able to measure the angle to the sun directly, since I am at UTC -7. Someone located in Greenland or Iceland or perhaps Europe will have a better shot at it, since for them, the moon and sun will both be visible at the precise time of the quarter moon.
.
Naturally, I expect all the flat-earthers to complain that this is far too complicated. Believe me, astronomers go to a LOT more trouble than this to get measurements. Whereas, flat-earthers typically just moan and complain about how hard it is, while doing nothing constructive.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: wilders on April 18, 2017, 04:12:49 AM
No flat earther (at least not me) is dismissing your work. It is very interesting and I credit you for it.
The problem is that it does not prove or disprove the flat earth.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 19, 2017, 11:25:42 PM
No flat earther (at least not me) is dismissing your work. It is very interesting and I credit you for it.
The problem is that it does not prove or disprove the flat earth.
.
What I am proposing here is nothing new. There are plenty of observers for many centuries now who have been doing these things, and their observations are instructive, that is, if one bothers to pay attention.
.
The scientific method properly followed allows the observer to confirm or deny a hypothesis based on empirical evidence. It cannot define whether something will always be the case in the future -- such as dropping a rock and observing that it falls to the ground even 100 times, does not prove that the rock will ALWAYS fall to the ground in the future; it does, however, support the hypothesis that something must be pulling the rock to the ground.
.
I am suggesting that anyone who wants to learn more about the movement of the sun and moon in the sky above, and is also interested to learn what our observations from earth can tell us about the relative distance from earth to the moon compared to earth to the sun, can find out the truth about these things by watching and measuring the angle between the sun and moon during the key phases of the moon: its first and last quarter.
.
Today is shown on your calendar as the day of the last quarter moon, April 19th, 2017. However, most calendars do not bother to mention the precise TIME of the day when the last quarter actually was at 100%. A very convenient reference for that time is the Old Farmer's Almanac, for those living in the continental United States and Canada. (The website does not process locations for other places like Europe or South America.)
.
Going to the Old Farmer's Almanac website, I found that the last quarter moon took full development at 3:00 am today in my time zone, and another page of the same site has the moon rise at 1:59 am. Therefore, by looking at the moon this morning at 3:00 am (it was low in the eastern sky) I was able to see the moon at its 100% last quarter time. This was interesting for a reason I had not expected to see, which is the fact that the angle of the dividing line between light side and dark side of the moon was not what I had expected to see. This kind of thing often happens while testing a hypothesis -- you observe something surprising, just by reason of your critical attention being paid to something that you simply did not take the time to notice in the past.
.
At 3:00 am I could see the moon all right, but I could not yet see the sun, so I could not measure the angle between the two bodies. I had to wait until 8:00 am (5 hours later) before the sun cleared the mountains near me, and at that time I measured an angle of 91 degrees.  That was another surprise, because I had expected a lower figure. Later, at 10:00 I used a different method which I thought would be more accurate, and found the angle to be 89 degrees. Note: this was taken 7 hours AFTER the official quarter moon time in the Almanac. Since the moon's location in the sky is gradually getting closer to the sun this week, it makes sense that the angle would be smaller later in the day, but a difference of 3 degrees seems excessive. So my first measurement was probably questionable. I know this is not very scientific, but I'm using crude devices and there might be that much error in them. In any case I am very certain that the angle was not 80 degrees or 100. It was much closer to 90.
.
Two weeks ago when I measured the first quarter, I found the angle to be larger than 90 degrees by as much as 3 degrees. Still this is close to 90 and definitely larger than 80 and less than 100.
.
Therefore we are collecting readings that are very close to 90 degrees. I was hoping to have other readers mention what they have found, but no one has posted what the angle is they measured between the sun and the moon.
.
Once someone else posts then we can go on to the next phase. But not having any participation makes it kind of pointless to proceed. 
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: wilders on April 20, 2017, 03:30:41 AM
Neil,
We would have an incentive to participate if you could tell us where this is going. MW participated in your experiment, but when she asked where this was all going, you just ignored her.
Not very honest really of you.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 20, 2017, 05:52:47 PM
Neil,
We would have an incentive to participate if you could tell us where this is going. MW participated in your experiment, but when she asked where this was all going, you just ignored her.
Not very honest really of you.
.
"MW" never replied with her measurement. Did she tell you what it was? If not, then how exactly did she "participate?" 
.
I said we could go to the next step once you supply your observed angle. But if you don't supply it then you can go watch the video I posted -- probably for the first time! You see, when you behave in a suspicious way you ruin it for everyone who identifies with you. I have tried to carry on conversations with flat-earthers before and they accuse me of not watching the videos they post, but that's false because I DID watch their videos. I just came to different conclusions they did because with my practical experience in surveying, engineering, navigation, mathematics, compass map corrections, etc., I could see where the false premises crept into the videos and consequently I could identify where their erroneous conclusions came from. But the flat-earthers won't listen to experience. They presume that since their silly falsified videos convinced THEM, that they should also convince everyone else.
.
BUT THEN, when I post videos, the flat-earthers claim to have seen them. Okay, so if you have seen my videos I posted, you would know how to use a sextant, for example. Oh, sorry, you don't know how to use a sextant, do you, so then you have not watched my videos. Or, for example (getting back to the topic here) you would know exactly where this measuring of the sun and moon's angle is headed because one of my videos explained the whole thing. But now, why would no flat-earther be able to say he understands what I am doing, even while they all claim to have watched the videos I post?! 
.
Oh, there is one other type, like happenby, who is not ashamed to admit that she wants no part of watching my videos because they're all nonsense. She knows everything, you see.
.
It's a simple matter of following the steps, but flat-earthers are well-known for not following direction. They see where they are headed and then they want to change the ground rules, so they can make a left turn before they get to the inevitable end of the block. That is the same pattern of behavior that atheists and agnostics use in regards to religion, by the way.
.
If you refuse to measure the moon-sun angle and you can't bother to watch the video that explains it, then try this alternative method:
.
Here is another method of doing almost the same thing, using measurements from the Old Farmer's Almanac. But I won't at all be surprised if some flat-earther chimes in accusing the Almanac of being witchcraft or made up by Freemasons. They've already accused Pythagoras of devil worship because of his discovery of the proportions of a right triangle (sum of squares of two legs equals square of hypotenuse). Apparently any scientific discovery that detracts from the "flat" earth agenda must be equivalent to devil worship, okay?

Anyway, here it is -- an alternative to measuring the angle of the sun and moon

If you observe the sunrise and sunset times for the past 4 days, you find that (in Daylight Saving time zones) the mid-point, or "high noon" time is 12:51 pm. (I expect that means if you are in a Standard Time zone, it would be 11:51 am, but that's kind of beside the point.) This means that there are the same number of minutes from sunrise to this mid-point time as there are from the mid-point time to sunset. You have to calculate this mid-point time, because it is not provided in the charts.
.
Therefore, I have a question for anyone who has bothered to read this far:
.
When, by the positions of the sun and moon, or at what TIME would we expect to find the last quarter moon setting in the west on the day that it turns into a quarter moon? This time, the zero hour was 3:00 am and that is 9:51 hrs. before the sun's mid-point time (12:51). 
.
If you are basing your reasoning on a "flat" earth model, you're going to be obliged to explain how you get your times, because I have yet to see anyone describe the exact time that the moon is supposed to set or the sun is supposed to rise using a "flat" earth model. 
.
Even so, we can look in the sky, see the moon and the sun, check our watch, and measure the angle between the two bodies and observe the rotational position of the waning quarter moon at different points as it traverses the sky. By comparing what we see in consecutive days, we find that the scene changes very gradually, but it also changes INEXORABLY, such that there is absolutely NOTHING that any man on earth can do to change the timing of these heavenly bodies.
.
This fact is going to come to a climax of sorts in August when a Total Solar Eclipse traverses the contiguous US from Newport/Salem, Oregon to Columbia/Charleston, South Carolina, narrowly glancing by St. Louis, Missouri and Nashville, Tennessee on the way, and there is absolutely NOTHING anyone can do about it.
.
And, again, as we might expect, there is no flat-earther on this (flat?) earth who can describe a comprehensible method of predicting this or any other total solar eclipse, NOR can they explain what an eclipse of the sun IS, NOR can they pronounce its efficient cause, NOR can they convincingly describe the reason for its existence.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 20, 2017, 06:56:29 PM
.
I forgot to mention that the mid-point time of the sun's daily journey across the sky is quickly found by taking the "Day Length" time for a given day and divide by two, then add those hours and minutes to the sunrise time for that day (for the "first figure"). If you want to check if you've done the math right, subtract the same half day length time from the sunset time and the difference should be the same as your first figure.
.
This mid-point time or "high noon" time is an astronomical quantity that is not necessarily the same as clock time (noon would be 12:00 pm Standard Time or one might think it's 1:00 pm if using Daylight Saving Time but we call 12:00 pm DST noon just to avoid confusing people apparently). In fact the Old Farmer's Almanac provides a column for "SUN FAST/SLOW" which is described in their Table of Contents as: 
.
          "A sundial reads natural time or "Sun time" which is neither Standard 
          nor Daylight Time except by coincidence.  Subtract or add the minutes 
          given in the Sun Fast/Slow column from/to sundial time to get clock time." 
.
The method I described in the post above uses this sundial time, or natural time, as if we had a very accurate sundial that we want to be reading 12:00 high noon, because we want to pinpoint the moment when the sun is directly overhead from our typical position on the earth, which is approximated in the charts by our local time zone. This is to anticipate the moment that we would expect to see the sun at natural high noon while the moon is setting in the west on the day when its setting is closest to the hour and minute of its 100% last quarter, as listed in the Almanac (see above). 
.
And the question, again, for flat-earthers is, "How do you determine in advance the time or place of the sun and moon when the moon sets on the day closest to its last quarter, and how do you explain your reasoning using a 'flat-earth' model?" 
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on April 20, 2017, 10:10:13 PM
A lot of :cussing: without the usual input from flat earthers.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 20, 2017, 11:09:26 PM
.
As usual, nothing constructive to offer? 
.
Here is another one of your faves, but this one's not CGI. 
The topic here is the shadow south of the Aleutian Islands, called "in eclipse."
The eclipse shadow is shown as it was photographed so you can see what it looked like.
Of course, flat-earthers are most welcome to whine and moan about how fake it all is:
.

Quote
(https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/LRO_3.png)

May 2012 solar eclipse

Credit: NASA/LRO


An image of the May 2012 solar eclipse captured by NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera. The Moon’s shadow is seen passing over the Aleutian Islands. Annotated NAC Image E192199689L. Credit: NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University.


Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on April 21, 2017, 01:41:42 AM
The globe above is CGI.  All NASA photos are admittedly, by NASA, composites images.  They can't take a picture of the earth with a camera and must use ribbons of imagery and other manipulations according to them.  You can see the funny shading, the hotspot from lighting in the center as well as the weird sheen. In no way is it a photo of earth.    
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on April 21, 2017, 01:50:35 AM
With scripture describing a celestial firmament which is fastened to the earth like a block, where is that dome on the "globe"? How does a dome fit over a globe? Where is the water above the dome?  How can the sun be 93,000,000 miles away and still be housed under the dome?  Globers have so much to answer before drilling out a bunch of mumbo jumbo while they hide behind in relativity, imprecision and hooey, talking about how curve is level and level is curve and water is sticky.   :facepalm:  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: SVincentL on April 21, 2017, 08:32:38 AM
I have not posted on Cathinfo in quite some time. There always seems to be something better to do. I must confess I do read many of the posts from time to time in the morning. I am a 58 year old man with 9 kids and 20 grandkids; I'm not a physicist or an astronomer. I am a simple businessman who is a cradle Catholic and a sedevacantist for the past 30 years. There is no desire on my part to get in on the technical argument that has evolved here, it reminds me of feenyite arguments way too much, but I admit that it fascinates me to read this elongated discussion. 
Please excuse my drivel; my question is a simple one, I think. I have a childhood chum who flew in the Navy for 12 years and whose father was also a Navy pilot and lifelong pilot for Delta. In the late 80's before the death of his father, they completed a dream they both had. They flew from New Orleans , going east, to London. From there they flew to Germany where they both had friends. Then they flew directly, I do not know the exact route, to Japan and on the Hawaii where again, they both had military friends. They spent a week there then flew to California and back home to New Orleans. A veritable trip around the world. My question is this (remember from a non scientist) if the earth is indeed flat,, how did they fly only east and get back to the exact place from where they departed. Again, I apologize for the seemingly simpleness of this question, I am only curious. I am sure the answer to this is equally as simple. Thanks in advance for the response.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 22, 2017, 01:02:40 AM
I have not posted on Cathinfo in quite some time. There always seems to be something better to do. I must confess I do read many of the posts from time to time in the morning. I am a 58 year old man with 9 kids and 20 grandkids; I'm not a physicist or an astronomer. I am a simple businessman who is a cradle Catholic and a sedevacantist for the past 30 years. There is no desire on my part to get in on the technical argument that has evolved here, it reminds me of feenyite arguments way too much, but I admit that it fascinates me to read this elongated discussion.

Please excuse my drivel; my question is a simple one, I think. I have a childhood chum who flew in the Navy for 12 years and whose father was also a Navy pilot and lifelong pilot for Delta. In the late 80's before the death of his father, they completed a dream they both had. They flew from New Orleans , going east, to London. From there they flew to Germany where they both had friends. Then they flew directly, I do not know the exact route, to Japan and on the Hawaii where again, they both had military friends. They spent a week there then flew to California and back home to New Orleans. A veritable trip around the world.

My question is this (remember from a non-scientist) if the earth is indeed flat, how did they fly only east and get back to the exact place from where they departed?

Again, I apologize for the seemingly simpleness of this question, I am only curious. I am sure the answer to this is equally as simple. Thanks in advance for the response.
.
The nice thing about fulfilling a lifelong dream is, it's a memory no one can ever take away from you.
.
You'll have to wait for the flat-earthers to answer your question about flying east. In the past they've said there is no such thing as "east," or that "east and west" are cօռspιʀαcιҽs by Freemasons. Then other times they've said that east is a relative entity and it changes direction based on your point of reference. And yet at other times they've said that it's all due to perspective. (Does that mean everyone has a different way of looking at the same thing, like the Opinion section of the newspaper?)
.
In any event, if it's not too much trouble, perhaps you could ask your childhood chum the following: Does he have to change his course bearing constantly when flying east or west directly over the equator? 
.
Flat-earthers are wont to say that pilots and navigators have to constantly turn their aircraft either right or left, in order to remain exactly above the equator.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 22, 2017, 01:14:06 AM
With scripture describing a celestial firmament which is fastened to the earth like a block, where is that dome on the "globe"? How does a dome fit over a globe? Where is the water above the dome?  How can the sun be 93,000,000 miles away and still be housed under the dome?  Globers have so much to answer before drilling out a bunch of mumbo jumbo while they hide behind in relativity, imprecision and hooey, talking about how curve is level and level is curve and water is sticky.  
.
Following are my answers to your questions  (Lest you come back whining that I ignored you)
.
Where is that dome on the globe? 
That dome is not a sheet of glass or stone but a transition zone between lower atmosphere and upper atmosphere. Its location is wherever God wants it to be at a given time. It is not something that man can reach out and touch.
.
How does a dome fit over a globe?
The dome completely encircles the globe. Remember, the Bible doesn't say anything about where to find the beginning or end of the dome.
.
Where is the water above the dome?
The water is retained as water vapor in the higher atmosphere, wherever God would have it located. In recent years, man has attempted to tamper with weather patterns because man likes to play God. But God is still in control.
.
How can the sun be 93,000,000 miles away and still be housed under the dome? 
Who said the sun must be housed under the dome? Are you just making that up with your "perspective" again?
.
Now how about you exchange the favor and answer my questions, which you have ignored.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: wilders on April 22, 2017, 05:15:47 AM
Neil,
you still have not answered the question. In spite of that incredibly long post.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: wilders on April 22, 2017, 05:17:53 AM
I have not posted on Cathinfo in quite some time. There always seems to be something better to do. I must confess I do read many of the posts from time to time in the morning. I am a 58 year old man with 9 kids and 20 grandkids; I'm not a physicist or an astronomer. I am a simple businessman who is a cradle Catholic and a sedevacantist for the past 30 years. There is no desire on my part to get in on the technical argument that has evolved here, it reminds me of feenyite arguments way too much, but I admit that it fascinates me to read this elongated discussion.
Please excuse my drivel; my question is a simple one, I think. I have a childhood chum who flew in the Navy for 12 years and whose father was also a Navy pilot and lifelong pilot for Delta. In the late 80's before the death of his father, they completed a dream they both had. They flew from New Orleans , going east, to London. From there they flew to Germany where they both had friends. Then they flew directly, I do not know the exact route, to Japan and on the Hawaii where again, they both had military friends. They spent a week there then flew to California and back home to New Orleans. A veritable trip around the world. My question is this (remember from a non scientist) if the earth is indeed flat,, how did they fly only east and get back to the exact place from where they departed. Again, I apologize for the seemingly simpleness of this question, I am only curious. I am sure the answer to this is equally as simple. Thanks in advance for the response.
Sir,
There is a presumption on your part that going from point to point in certain directions can only work on a ball.
Why is that? Simply look at a flat earth map, and you will see that the route you describe can be done on a flat earth. They admit to not flying over the north pole because they say it is "too cold".
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: SVincentL on April 22, 2017, 09:46:05 AM
Well I suppose it is a presumption, but it is based on simple observation, I believe. It just seems that if you travel east, going one direction, and you are on a limited by distance flat plane at some point in time you would reach the edge. At that point if you kept flying east you would no longer be over the plane but in this particular case you would end up in space. However if you are travelling over a globe and follow the curvature with a consistent altitude, you would at some point be back at the original point of departure. I can take a basketball and hover a marble 2 inches from the surface and travel around the ball at 2 inches in a complete circle and end right back at the point I began. I realize that is a childish experiment but it seems to work. I can also take a plate and hover the same marble and move it in one direction only and in short order I am no longer over the plate and unless I turn it and go back in the opposite direction I will never be over the plate again. 

I apologize for the simpleness of this thought, but I do believe it is a valid example, minus any mathematics , physics or whistles and bells. 

Neil I will try and get in touch with my friend and ask him the question you posed. Thanks for the responses. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: TomGubbinsKimmage on April 22, 2017, 09:57:01 AM
Flights go from point to point.

Just like in a car, pilots are constantly "redirecting" their plane. Meaning they are steering it.

If you're interested in flights, there is a good post on the flat earth forum on this topic. It doesn't "prove" the flat earth, but ought to get you thinking.

http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t97-flights-from-nz-to-a-america
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: SVincentL on April 22, 2017, 10:04:26 AM
Perhaps it is just my stubbornness, or even my ignorance, but I just can't see how the pilot "redirecting" changes the observable fact that the plane travels in one direction, agreeing that it does in fact move north or south along the flight path, and then arrives, without turning around, to the point of departure. If the earth is flat, I will have a hard time understanding how you can get to your point of departure without turning around. Is this really that complicated. My pilot friend made the remark, which I did not add to my original post because I really don't intend to stay in this long lest the ad hominens start flying, that those that deny the curvature must have never flown on the Concord. He continued that during his time in the Navy he had the pleasure of seeing the vast curvature on numerous occasions. My assumption is he is not lying to me, he would have no reason to do that.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: SVincentL on April 22, 2017, 10:39:48 AM
Neil; I just spoke to my friend and he told me that you do not have to constantly change directions to remain directly over the equator. He also said that he has, in fact flown over the North Pole, for whatever that is worth. On a humorous note he added that he suspected the moon was actually made of cheese. I apologize if that sounds condescending. I realize that flat earthers do have their opinions and defenses of their position. I find all of this quite interesting, probably due to my skepticism on moon landings. But that is another story. Thanks Neil...
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: TomGubbinsKimmage on April 22, 2017, 12:12:24 PM
Flat earthers never say that there are never flights over the north pole, just that they don't do it for commercial routes and/or on a regular basis. It's really not all that funny.

I'm not really understanding why it is necessary for the earth to be round to go from point to point.

If you want to talk about flying, one interesting point is that planes would have to continually point their noses downwards in order to account for the curvature.
 
I know you said you don't want to much maths, but to show this it is really necessary. They fly at high speeds. The curvature of the earth is such that if after 120 miles there is a drop of 1.8 miles. If you are doing that at 500 miles an hour (or faster if you are in concorde - 1354mph) that is is an incredible drop. Just think about it. Yet pilots NEVER speak about having to do this.

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: SVincentL on April 22, 2017, 01:11:24 PM
Tom, out of curiosity, who said it was "funny", if anyone? If I insinuated that I apologize. 

It seems to me from logic that the earth needs to be a globe for a pilot to fly continually in one direction (more or less) to end up back at the starting point. As I said, as an opinion,  if the earth were flat and one continued in one direction you would never return to the staring point, but go further and further away from it (unless of course you were to turn around), and in this case actually no longer be above the earth, assuming there was a point the earth stopped, leaving you out in "space" and no longer above it. I will give your point on flying some thought and consultation, if I may. Thanks for the reply.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: SVincentL on April 22, 2017, 03:30:52 PM
Tom, I can't say that I personally gave a lot of thought to your plane hypothesis, due to my own ignorance, however I discussed it with my pilot friend at length. I believe that I have borrowed his knowledge for the last time. He is not as curious about these Issues, and was amused that you claimed Pilots don't discuss this ("pilots NEVER speak about having to do this" is what you stated). He said it is discussed and taught repetitively in flight school before one even leaves the ground. Anyway, the following is a response he gave me trying to make it simple for a simpleton like me.  " There isn't an adjustment for altitude, it naturally follows the curvature of the earth. This is because the aircraft flies through the atmosphere which also follows the curvature. The aircraft is usually flown along the "density altitude." As long as the aircraft is flown at a certain altitude it will follow the earth's curvature (as the atmosphere is "attached" to the spherical earth) as the altitude is measured from the surface, which is curved, and not a plane. The weight of the aircraft always acts towards the center of the earth, and is matched (in level flight) by the lift of the wings. You trim for level flight by finding the pitch attitude where your speed and altitude remain constant (or at least stable). That attitude might be a touch more nose-down than it would be if the earth were flat, but it is imperceptible. Bottom Line: Pilots follow the air pressure gradient trying to keep the aircraft at a set air pressure. This pressure is used rather then a GPS or "straight flight" because its one of the many factors that effects flight efficiency. Speed vs air resistance vs load bearing capacity of the aircraft. They fly in a pressure range that is going to cost the least to accomplish the flight goal. By flying in this specific range of pressure, they maintain a reasonably constant height from sea level. Since sea level pressure is curved along with the earth, they then follow automatically the earth's curvature.

I see your point that you made and I trust this particular answer to the question. I do not think this is the most obvious question either way. It remains my contention that you could not fly around the world heading in the same direction (east or west) and end up back at your starting point unless the earth was spherical. At least it appears that way to me. If the earth were flat at some point the plane would fly over the edge of flat earth into nothingness unless the flat earth were perpetual in length; however you still would not return to your starting point in a perpetual flat earth. You would be forced to "turn around"and go an equal length in the opposite direction to accomplish this. At least that is my perception of the issue.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: SVincentL on April 22, 2017, 04:09:38 PM
If I might add an additional question to those arguing in favor of the Flat earth hypothesis. Do you accept the photos taken from high altitude planes such as the SR-71 Blackbird that flies in excess of 85,000 feet? I realize, I believe, that most of you reject the photos from "space" but I was curious about the others. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: TomGubbinsKimmage on April 22, 2017, 04:32:34 PM
SVincentL

Thanks for having the maturity to discuss this issue in a civil manner. Believe me, this is to be noted.

When I said pilots don't speak about this, I meant publicly.

Here is a link to once of the most accurate flat earth maps of the world. There is some legitimate debate among flat earthers about it, but it gets the point across:

https://fedora.digitalcommonwealth.org/fedora/objects/commonwealth:7h149v867/datastreams/access800/content

Since pilots admit (a pilot said to another flat earth friend of mine) that they do not commercially fly across the north pole, the routes look silly, but essentially it is simply from point to point around the "centre" of the earth as you see on this map. That's simply how it is done.

As for the explanation given by your friend, it is a little convenient. It is a little bit strange to say that you would not feel the drop especially when you are going on the high speed planes.

The air pressure argument is very odd, and while I understand it from the perspective of altitude, it doesn't really argue much against the point I am making.

I posted this over on the other thread, but I think it is important that you break from the round earth circular logic. Proofs of the flat earth are based on the earth principally, not the sky, nor even the numerous curiousities which we are discussing. If all flat earthers could understand this, then the movement would be a lot more credible.

Here is the video to ponder:

https://youtu.be/S4oT2EbDONs


As for your last post, I personally would say that high flying aircraft are plausible ( and the images that come from them). Certainly satellites are not.
 



Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: TomGubbinsKimmage on April 22, 2017, 04:37:15 PM
oh and by the way you might forward this video to your pilot friend.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaUBrui9L1I
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: SVincentL on April 22, 2017, 05:18:41 PM
Thanks Tom, I will watch the videos and get back with you on this.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: SVincentL on April 22, 2017, 06:04:45 PM
I diligently watched the videos you posted Tom. Perhaps I am not up to the task of finding the proof they represent and this might in fact be why I don't engage in this argument very often, but I must admit the proof escaped me. It was interesting and I found the map of "flat earth" quite interesting. I always admit to bias in the conversations I have and I am obviously biased in this one toward a spherical earth. I think what concerns me about the map is this - if that map were accurate then I would assume that the photos in existence from high altitude planes such as the SR-71 would be able to show all the land mass on earth in the one photo as opposed to showing half the land mass with the other half presumably on the other side. There are many photos of this evidence not originating from satellites but from manned planes. Do you know, may I inquire, what is on the other side of the "flat earth?" I am not inclined to engage in any of the discussions that incorporate mathematics into the equation as it would eventually evolve into a discussion beyond my capabilities. I really attempt to stay in the realm of logic and what I can see. Recognizing that this can be quite subjective it remains never the less what I do.

So as boring as it is, if a plane went east and did not follow the curvature of the earth, yet kept travelling east, it seems to me it could never reach the point of departure. If all the land mass is on one side of the flat earth, what is on the other side of the flat earth? Wouldn't that beg the question why no  one has gone on the other side to see or does something prevent that exploration? We all know that there is great depth to the earth by a plethora of observable, tested data. Is there an edge on the sides of the earth and if so, how thick is it? Has this been observed?

It dawns on me that I am boorishly hogging this conversation with questions. I do not remember if you asked me anything that I have not answered, a charge which appears often here. I really haven't claimed anything other then the curvature can be objectively seen from high altitude planes and that I believe heading just east can"t get you back to your point of departure on a flat earth. I was hoping for others on both sides of this discussion would chime in, and maybe they will, but I am not sure how long I will remain here, just as a matter of prudence. I am unconvinced that this discussion is a matter of necessity as such, but I do appreciate the conversation.   
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 23, 2017, 12:24:39 AM
Neil; I just spoke to my friend and he told me that you do not have to constantly change directions to remain directly over the equator.

He also said that he has, in fact flown over the North Pole, for whatever that is worth. On a humorous note he added that he suspected the moon was actually made of cheese. I apologize if that sounds condescending. I realize that flat earthers do have their opinions and defenses of their position. I find all of this quite interesting, probably due to my skepticism on moon landings. But that is another story. Thanks Neil...
.
Thank you - one does not have to constantly change directions to remain directly over the equator.
.
Simple question, straight answer. Very nice. Much obliged.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 23, 2017, 12:48:44 AM
Perhaps it is just my stubbornness, or even my ignorance, but I just can't see how the pilot "redirecting" changes the observable fact that the plane travels in one direction, agreeing that it does in fact move north or south along the flight path, and then arrives, without turning around, to the point of departure. If the earth is flat, I will have a hard time understanding how you can get to your point of departure without turning around. Is this really that complicated. My pilot friend made the remark, which I did not add to my original post because I really don't intend to stay in this long lest the ad hominens start flying, that those that deny the curvature must have never flown on the Concord. He continued that during his time in the Navy he had the pleasure of seeing the vast curvature on numerous occasions. My assumption is he is not lying to me, he would have no reason to do that.
.
I don't know what you mean by "redirecting." Are you referring to changing the airplane's course? 
.
You asked your friend if he could fly over the equator either eastward or westward without having to steer right or left to correct his course and remain over the equator. He replied that to remain over the equator no turning right or left is necessary. 
.
It is important to understand how this works to keep in mind that so long as you are traveling over the equator, no turning the airplane is required. If you are flying west, then you keep a dead ahead bearing due west, and unless there are cross winds that try to blow you off course, you don't have to turn the aircraft right (north) or left (south) in order to remain directly over the equator.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: SVincentL on April 23, 2017, 10:19:03 AM
Neil I was referring to the fact that when my friend traveled around the world they zig zagged (as from London to Germany etc.) but always flew east. He indeed also told me that he could fly over the equator without moving left or right. It was two separate issues.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: TomGubbinsKimmage on April 23, 2017, 02:31:40 PM
.... but I must admit the proof escaped me.

.... I think what concerns me about the map is this - if that map were accurate then I would assume that the photos in existence from high altitude planes such as the SR-71 would be able to show all the land mass on earth in the one photo as opposed to showing half the land mass with the other half presumably on the other side.

.... Do you know, may I inquire, what is on the other side of the "flat earth?"

....So as boring as it is, if a plane went east and did not follow the curvature of the earth, yet kept travelling east, it seems to me it could never reach the point of departure.....

.... Wouldn't that beg the question why no  one has gone on the other side to see or does something prevent that exploration? We all know that there is great depth to the earth by a plethora of observable, tested data. Is there an edge on the sides of the earth and if so, how thick is it? Has this been observed?
   

SVincentL

Again, I appreciate your civility, honesty and openness. Much unlike the troll on this thread who won't listen to anybody.
So to answer your questions. There are many ways of proofing that the earth is flat. This particular one deals with the fact that you can see objects over the horizon, which should not be there.
 Sorry, but I jumped the gun a bit here and should explain myself more clearly. I'm just going to recommend that for an introduction to the whole topic of the flat earth and the various proofs here is an excellent video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlYqw-C-F1o
Anyway the reason the video is a proof is because the curvature of the earth is such that this mountain should not at all be visible (at least most of it.) if the earth is round according to what NASA says.
As for the map, the reason we can't see it all is simply because our vision is limited. There is a lot more to be said on this issue, but it is a rabbit hole for someone who has not studied the proofs first, so I don't, for the moment, want to go there.
The other side of the flat earth? You guess is as good as mine. Personally I think hell is underneath the earth. Scripture and the Fathers seem to indicate that creation is a sphere (Yes yes!), that is a dome above and a dome below. After that it is simply Heaven. The stars are not millions, but thousands of miles away, just underneath the dome.
I realise this sounds totally ridiculous, and I would not have believed somebody three years ago telling me I would be saying this, but it is after a lot of hard study on the issue, and trying my best to honest in my seeking the truth.
East is in reference to north, which is the centre. Therefore it would curve around.(if you accept that map which not all do) If you went in any one direction, and kept going straight,  you  ultimately come to Antartica. And then.... the dome.
Sorry, I know this is mind-blowing stuff, but do keep trying to bear with me.
The deepest people have dug I think is 8 miles. But I really am open to correction on that.
There is indeed attempts by the powers that be (in this life), to restrict travel and legitimate exploration. The UN flag is a hint at this.
The reason they want to maintain the lie is because the round earth is the beginning of subjectivism. If you can get people to deny the foundations of the reality they live in, then pushing other lies is much easier. And when they become subjective enough, they become liberal... or don't want to seek the objective truth about God and His religion. That is the motivation and it is a big one.

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 25, 2017, 12:33:31 AM
Neil I was referring to the fact that when my friend traveled around the world they zig zagged (as from London to Germany etc.) but always flew east. He indeed also told me that he could fly over the equator without moving left or right. It was two separate issues.
.
Flying over the equator is something that few pilots ever do, nonetheless anyone familiar with navigation of aircraft and ships knows that it's not necessary to compensate by course correction when moving along the equator, either at sea or over the equator by air. No turning is necessary to remain on course at the equator.
.
However, when trying to sail (or fly) for example from Japan due east to California by remaining on the 34th parallel, one must constantly make course adjustments to stay on course 34 degrees north of the equator, because the 34th parallel is a curved line on the ground (or surface of the ocean). In other words, even though the course (34 deg. north) is PARALLEL to the equator (where no turning is necessary to remain on course), the vessel (or plane) has to continually turn LEFT a slight amount in order to remain eastbound on the 34th parallel. If corrections are not made every few minutes, in short order the craft will be off course, drifting toward the equator. If no corrections are made at all, the vessel or plane will not reach California, but will end up approaching South America instead.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 25, 2017, 12:53:13 AM
.
On the south side of the equator, the opposite condition exists, such that traveling eastward for example from Australia to Chile along the 33rd parallel south, the ship (or plane) must continually adjust its course by turning to the right a small amount. If no such correction is made, the course will drift north all by itself, automatically, and will take the vessel (or aircraft) to North America instead of to Chile.
.
Even though the course begins due east, parallel with the equator, and proceeds due east, parallel with the equator, the rudder must be turned to the right to keep the vessel from drifting toward the equator.
.
This is very basic navigation. All navigators who know anything at all about navigation, know this.
.
Putting all this together, the equator then appears as a straight line on the ground (or surface of the ocean), as far as the eye can see, and a very fast aircraft flying over the earth could follow this very straight line on the ground as if it were a line painted on an airport runway that goes on to the horizon.
.
However, all parallels north of the equator would appear as if a curved line on the ground. In the northern hemisphere, they would curve to the left ahead, and in the southern hemisphere they would curve to the right (both of these going eastward, again).
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 26, 2017, 01:17:56 AM

.
On the south side of the equator, the opposite condition exists, such that traveling eastward for example from Australia to Chile along the 33rd parallel south, the ship (or plane) must continually adjust its course by turning to the right a small amount. If no such correction is made, the course will drift north all by itself, automatically, and will take the vessel (or aircraft) to North America instead of to Chile.
.
Even though the course begins due east, parallel with the equator, and proceeds due east, parallel with the equator, the rudder must be turned to the right to keep the vessel from drifting toward the equator.
.
This is very basic navigation. All navigators who know anything at all about navigation, know this.
.
Putting all this together, the equator then appears as a straight line on the ground (or surface of the ocean), as far as the eye can see, and a very fast aircraft flying over the earth could follow this very straight line on the ground as if it were a line painted on an airport runway that goes on to the horizon.
.
However, all parallels north of the equator would appear as if a curved line on the ground. In the northern hemisphere, they would curve to the left ahead, and in the southern hemisphere they would curve to the right (both of these going eastward, again).
.
.
To be clear, all parallel "baselines" in the northern hemisphere curve to the left up ahead if you're headed east, but if you turn around and face west, they all curve to the right up ahead in the distance.
.
Likewise, in the southern hemisphere, they curve to the right in the distance ahead if you're facing east, but (180 degrees behind you) when you turn around and face west, the parallel baselines in the distance curve to the left.
.
These lines of parallel are not great circles like the equator is, and that is why they curve in the distance toward the horizon. Any great circle route when viewed IRL, even with a telescope, appears as a straight line in the distance toward the horizon.
.
Here is a map showing the Michigan Base Line and Meridian, names circled in red. Look at your screen sideways  and observe how Base Line curves ever so slightly to the left going east and to the right going west:

(http://www.highlandtownshiphistoricalsociety.com/Highland%20Photo%20Tour/Maps/Baseline_Meridian.jpg)

.
It's not too hard to imagine that without instruments it is pretty hard to see this curve because it is so gradual and broad. Remember, it is a curve with the center at the north pole, so with the naked eye, it's going to appear to be a straight line. You'd have to go to a high lookout point and see into the distance with a telescope on a VERY clear day, before you would see any curve.
.
The following map shows at least 3 Base Lines, two in California and one in Arizona. You can peek sideways at these as well and observe their curve right on your Internet device screen. The Baseline in San Bernardino County (the largest county in the entire United States) is the centerline of Base Line Street, "San Berdoo":
.

(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clui.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Fclui-image%2Fclui%2Fpost_images%2Fsan_bernardino_2.jpg&sp=92002b812879a24bf8c4cd7d21d9b234)
.
The next exhibit in evidence is a map showing the three Base Line and Meridians in California used to identify real estate property lines, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian, Mt. Diablo Baseline and Meridian (near San Francisco) and the Humboldt Baseline and Meridian (near Humboldt), complete with longitude and latitude in degrees, minutes and seconds:

(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mdshs.org%2Fpicture_library%2Fmaps%2FCA-3IP-Map.jpg&sp=f24965f8bac8d6db7f7855c852f77e77)
.
The centerline of Base Line Street, San Bernardino, is this very line used for land surveys.
.
It's kind of a crude map, but even here if you look from the side you can see the curvature of the two southern Baselines. The Humboldt one is too short, only about 100 miles on the map. By definition, the meridian lines, having the same bearing west of Greenwich, would be accurately shown as straight lines, however, since California is so long north to south, some curve has crept into the map in the San Berdo. region. Curiously, even though the Mt. Diablo Meridian is longer, it appears to be straighter on this map.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: TomGubbinsKimmage on April 27, 2017, 07:05:46 AM
Thats all very nice, but as you admit, a crude map. Doesn't prove anything.
Here is an engineer land surveyor who testfies to the flat earth. They don't use the curvature in practice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BSKVE9pp60&t=1496s
we should all understand what circular logic is. If the expert refers to the expert and back again with neither looking at the evidence infront of their eyes, then all the talk in the world means nothing.
There is no curvature, and the maths shows it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlYqw-C-F1o
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 30, 2017, 09:52:11 PM
Thats all very nice, but as you admit, a crude map. Doesn't prove anything.
Here is an engineer land surveyor who testfies to the flat earth. They don't use the curvature in practice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BSKVE9pp60&t=1496s
we should all understand what circular logic is. If the expert refers to the expert and back again with neither looking at the evidence infront of their eyes, then all the talk in the world means nothing.
There is no curvature, and the maths shows it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlYqw-C-F1o
.
You keep posting these silly, nonsense videos by the flake and ignoramus Mark Sargent. That says all we need to know about you.
.
I just posted several examples of base lines used in surveying which are obviously curved. In fact, every baseline in every land survey follows the curvature of the earth. But most surveyors do not have to deal with the curvature because their scope of practice is too small to have any dealings with it.
.
There are two kinds of surveying, plane surveying and geodetic surveying, and the larger scope one, geodetic surveying, specifically specializes in the earth's curvature.
.
Any surveyor who denies this is either lying or is ignorant.
.
In fact, without geodetic surveying, plane surveying would not be accurate or practical since adjoining regions would have discrepancies that could not be reconciled unless the earth's curvature were taken into account. This is why in California there are 3 (three) base lines and meridians instead of just one. See previous post I made, above.
.
https://www.reference.com/math/geodetic-surveying-4909bd65107dc61e
What is geodetic surveying?
A:
QUICK ANSWER
Geodetic surveying is a specific type of surveying that takes the curvature of the Earth into account. These surveys cover large areas of land and provide high levels of accuracy.
 CONTINUE READING (https://www.reference.com/math/geodetic-surveying-4909bd65107dc61e#)

KEEP LEARNING
  • (https://www.reference.com/math/typology-chart-c0e8d81d8c924b77)
    What is a typology chart?
     (https://www.reference.com/math/typology-chart-c0e8d81d8c924b77)
  • (https://www.reference.com/math/double-bubble-map-e18bd14434a12d9c)
    What is a double bubble map?
     (https://www.reference.com/math/double-bubble-map-e18bd14434a12d9c)
  • (https://www.reference.com/math/nonlinear-graph-fa9dfdfdbd2560b)
    What is a nonlinear graph?
     (https://www.reference.com/math/nonlinear-graph-fa9dfdfdbd2560b)

(https://aos.iacpublishinglabs.com/question/aq/700px-394px/geodetic-surveying_4909bd65107dc61e.jpg?domain=cx.aos.ask.com)
Credit: Bart Coenders E+ Getty Images


FULL ANSWER
Providing that a survey area covers up to 100 square miles, plane surveying is a useful survey technique. Plane surveys ignore any curvature of the Earth's surface. Lines between two points are straight lines and all angles are plane angles. Plane surveys are economical and are suitable for most major construction projects, like highways, bridges and factories. However, for plane surveys to be accurate, control points must exist between those straight lines. This is where geodetic surveying is useful.
.
Geodetic surveys cover much larger land areas and take the curvature of the Earth's surface into account. All lines in geodetic surveys are arcs and angles are spherical angles. These measurements are useful for making corrections for curvature on maps and plans. Geodetic surveys also provide the series of control points across the Earth's surface that make accurate plane surveys possible.
.
In the United States, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA - operates the National Geodetic Survey. This effort provides the backbone of all positioning projects in the nation. The National Geodetic Survey also maintains and provides access to the National Spacial Reference System, a consistent and definitive coordinate system with information on data such as latitude, longitude, gravity and shorelines.
.
LEARN MORE ABOUT DATA GRAPHS (https://www.reference.com/math/explore/data-graphs)
Sources:
geography.about.com (http://geography.about.com/od/geographyintern/a/datums.htm)
 
civilengineersforum.com (http://civilengineersforum.com/geodetic-surveying/)
 
dictionary.reference.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/geodetic+survey)
 
civilengineersforum.com (http://civilengineersforum.com/plane-surveying/)
ngs.noaa.gov (http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/INFO/WhatWeDo.shtml)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 30, 2017, 11:44:01 PM
.
The moon is currently in the phase of waxing crescent, having just gone through the New Moon phase. The First Quarter phase is coming up in two days, Tuesday, at 7:48 pm in Los Angeles, just 11 minutes after the sun sets.
.
This will be an ideal opportunity to measure the angle between the sun and moon at the First Quarter.
.
When the sky is clear in the evening (like right now in L.A.) you can get a very good look at the moon, and you can readily see which direction the sun is shining from, since that portion of the moon illuminated by the sun is angled downward at about 40 degrees from the horizontal (the crescent's angle of repose), in the direction of where the sun just set.
.
You measure this angle of repose by holding a straight edge up to the moon with the two points of the moon's crescent touching the straight edge, and then measure the angle from the horizontal. It measures 40 degrees by sight, without any optical instruments, with a margin of error of about 5 degrees plus or minus. If you use a simple optical instrument you can get that error down to less than one degree.
.
It is most instructive to watch the moon right now because you can easily see (if you want to see, that is -- but most flat-earthers just don't want to see!) that the sun is moving DOWNWARD over the horizon, not horizontally as flat-earthers are wont to proclaim.
.
The moon continues its aspect of pointing downward toward the distant sun while the moon is still visible in the sky, and after the sun has set. If the sun were to take a ridiculous right turn upon setting (as the flat-earthers imply with their silly nonsense videos taken out of context) the illuminated side of the moon would reveal that change of direction in the sun, and the crescent would lie at an increased angle as it arcs toward moon-set, approaching 90 degrees from the horizontal. BUT IT DOES NOT DO THAT. The moon, in fact does the precise OPPOSITE of what flat-earthers want it to do: its waxing crescent reclines increasingly every day more toward the horizontal instead of toward the vertical.
.
The moon's crescent shows its angle of 40 degrees (approximately) at this time in the evening, and the angle decreases slightly as it moves over a 60-degree arc in the sky today. Tomorrow, it will move over a 75 degree arc, and Tuesday it will move over a 90 degree arc, increasing every day by about 15 degrees. (A few days ago at the New Moon, this angle was zero, since the sun and moon were in the same place in the sky.)
.
When the moon sets today, I expect to see an angle of repose of about 35 degrees. Tomorrow, it will increase to 60 degrees in the evening, decreasing to 30 degrees at moon-set, and so on, each day until the First Quarter arrives on Tuesday evening. Tuesday evening, the moon will be high in the sky, at astronomical high noon when the sun sets. The quarter moon illuminated will show a straight line dividing the moon in half from top to bottom, with the line of division only very slightly angled downward, about 2 degrees. This goes to show the immense distance from the sun to the moon relative to the distance from the earth to the moon. It is not a proportion that is explained by anything less than many tens of thousands of times different. 
.
As the moon arcs down to its setting position, the angle of repose will approach about 15 degrees, which will account for the declination of the sun's path around the earth, which this time of year is angled about 15 degrees from the vertical. When the summer solstice arrives, this angle of declination will be 11.5 degrees, for at high noon the sun will be directly overhead, as in Los Angeles we are at latitude 34 degrees, and the sun reaches 23.5 degrees north of the equator.
.
Then the moon will remain a quarter moon as it arcs through those 90 degrees toward the eastern horizon. All the while, the illuminated side of the moon will angle downward more steeply from sunset to moon-set, further substantiating that the direction to the sun follows its course around and under the earth from our perspective on the earth's surface. That means the sun is shining on the moon from under our feet at a great distance from the earth, a distance measurable at many tens of thousands of times the distance from the earth to the moon.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 01, 2017, 12:00:10 AM
.
That last paragraph has a typo:
.
Then [should say "Tuesday"] the moon will remain a quarter moon as it arcs through those 90 degrees toward the eastern horizon. All the while, the illuminated side of the moon will angle downward more steeply from sunset to moon-set, further substantiating that the direction to the sun follows its course around and under the earth from our perspective on the earth's surface. That means the sun is shining on the moon from under our feet at a great distance from the earth, a distance measurable at many tens of thousands of times the distance from the earth to the moon.
.
The sun does not move horizontally over the earth like the flat-earthers claim. Simply by watching the moon and taking a few simple measurements, you can see for yourself where the sun is, and how tremendously far away it is relative to the distance from earth to the moon.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 01, 2017, 03:05:07 PM
.
If it's proof you're looking for (you can prove that's the case by answering this question) then do tell, what is the surface area of the earth, in square miles, or square kilometers?
.
If you claim that it cannot be known, then you fail, and you fall into the category defined by the ancient Greeks 2500 years ago:  a great heretic.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 01, 2017, 03:22:24 PM
Sorry. I had to stop laughing or I couldn't type. ;D
.
I fully expect all the flat-earthers to chime in (if they dare, but if they're too afraid to answer it discredits all their claims) and proclaim with one voice that the surface area of the earth is something that cannot be determined, nor can it be measured. This, even though measuring the area of a flat plane (in which they profess to believe) is a very simple matter.
.
Of course, you can prove me wrong by surprising me with something else.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 01, 2017, 11:49:53 PM
.
Whattaya know. Looks like flat-earthers are all afraid to answer. (The question was, what is the surface area of the earth?)
.
No shock there.
.
Anyway,  the moon had a surprise for me today. I had expected to see it at astronomical high noon (moon time) with an angle of repose at 15 degrees from the vertical, or 75 degrees from the horizontal. But it was much less than that, about 3 or 4 degrees (87 or 86 from the horizontal). This by the way was with the sun nearly setting. Shortly after sunset, the angle of repose increased to 8 degrees from the vertical, which is 82 degrees from the horizontal.
.
So the sun appearing to be very low in the sky at sunset is shining at the moon with a surprisingly high angle, so as to make the illuminated side of the moon appear to be spotlighted by a source much higher in the sky than the sun appeared to be. The reason the moon's angle of repose was so steep has to be that the sun's distance from the moon is so immense that the light shining on the moon seems to come from infinity. By the way, that's because of perspective, properly understood. You can learn a lot by watching the moon, but you have to WANT to learn. Flat-earthers apparently prefer to remain in their ignorance.
.
Two hours later now, the moon's angle of repose has predictably reclined, as I thought it would, and has now further decreased to 30 degrees from the horizontal.  The moon is higher in the sky today than it was yesterday at this time, since it traverses the sky 15 degrees (+/-) less each day than the sun does. The sun moves faster than the moon, in other words. At the New Moon, the sun passes the moon by which is why eclipses always move from west to east. But that's over the heads of flat-earthers, isn't it? They don't know what causes eclipses because their flat-earthism cannot account for them, not now, not ever.
.
We will be able to see the moon continue in its reclining aspect for another nearly 3 hours (2-3/4 hours), at which time we will be seeing a moon that has reached a reclining angle of about 15 degrees, if it goes as I expect it will. That means the sun will be shining on it from directly under our feet, at an immense distance away from the earth. If the earth were "flat" only the bottom of it would be getting sunlight after midnight our time. But since we know that in Asia and Australia it will be broad daylight at that time, we know that Asia and Australia are directly under our feet, on the other side of the globe of the earth.
.
That further destroys the flat-earth nonsense, but flat-earthers are not short on platitudes to spout at times like this, such as "Nothing you say is true, and it doesn't prove anything." Yeah, right.  :facepalm:
.
Tomorrow is your chance to measure the angle between the sun and moon as the moon approaches its first quarter.  That is, if you want to know the truth. Flat-earthers don't like to learn the truth, as they have shown time and again.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 04, 2017, 12:09:56 AM
.
Can the flat-earthers measure any area, like a football field -- or a lake, like Lake Tahoe or Lake Erie?
.
Maybe not. They might be averse to measuring area because of emotional problems with it.
.
Yesterday I measured the angle between the sun and quarter moon again. This time it was much easier to do. The sun set at just 8 minutes before the minute the Almanac has for the First Quarter in my time zone ( 7:48 pm ). So I was able to measure the angle very easily 45 minutes in advance. It was so close to 90 degrees I couldn't tell how much off it was, more or less than 90. I took several readings and they were all right at 90 degrees. I used a plumb line, and it split the moon right in half at the line of light/dark sides, and the line (on the moon) was perfectly plumb, which was very interesting to see first hand.
.
As I was doing this exercise, it occurred to me that my time zone is several hundred miles wide, but the minute for the First Quarter is the same for the whole zone. I checked the next time zone over (east) from me and found that the First Quarter moon was listed at just 60 minutes later, which means that the first quarter occurs less than one minute different in these two time zones. OR else, the moment the moon reaches its First Quarter has no bearing on what time zone the observer is in, and it will be the same minute all over the world (adjusted for time zone). The Old Farmer's Almanac does not provide First Quarter time (or any other times) for Greenwich England (UTC) because it's not in the continental USA. So I checked Miami, Florida and found 10:48 pm, which is the same minute as in Los Angeles, adjusted for time zone.
.
Therefore, it appears that the moon reaches its First Quarter at a moment in time, regardless of from where on earth one is viewing it. That's something to think about. 
.
Take the "flat earth" precept for a moment, with the sun and moon making inexplicable squibbles around the north pole. With the sun at 90 degrees from the moon viewed from Los Angeles, would it also be 90 degrees from the moon when viewed from Miami? And would the moon reach its First Quarter at the same minute in California as it does in Florida? 
.
Obviously not.
.
So this poses a huge problem for the flat-earthers, and we have not even started to deal with the 90 degree angle I keep getting between the sun and moon at the First Quarter.
.
For the record, I observed the angle of repose of the moon yesterday. As I described above, it was very much at 90 degrees from the horizontal at 7:30 pm, when the moon was just about to achieve its First Quarter, and the moon was directly overhead at astronomical high noon, as I had expected it would be.
.
Now, considering the data from Miami, I have no reason to expect that someone there would be seeing anything different from what I see here, that is, the angle of repose of the moon would be 90 degrees from the horizontal in Miami, too, and the moon would be located at astronomical high noon from Miami, both of which make utterly no sense with the sun and moon conforming to the flat-earthers' dictum of 3,000 miles above the earth and whirling around like a slow motion tornado, at once a day.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 06, 2017, 06:48:23 PM
Flat-earthers are making a real spectacle of themselves. 
.
They can't manage to measure the area of anything, much less the surface of the earth.
.
They can't be bothered to observe the fact of what the moon looks like at night, lest by measuring and thinking about it they might come to unanswerable challenges to their sacred cow dogma.
.
When invited to look, listen and think, they run away scared.
.
So it speaks for itself, what they do is what they are.

All they have to offer is the same hackneyed nonsense, each point of which I have refuted with simple statements and observations, but in reply to each refutation (if they mention it at all) they return with a silly smiley or a platitude of incredulity, such as "the horizon always rises to the level of the observer" (which is patently false, and I have proved its falsehood for all to see, but the flat-earthers cannot refrain from denying the fact).
.
But they selectively ignore the things that are most annoying to them, such as my most recent dozen posts on this thread, because they have no intelligent response.
.
The moon is now in its gibbous crescent phase, during which time its angle of repose is dramatically steep in the early evening, at a negative 30 degrees from the vertical. Only past midnight does it reach zero degrees (which the Last Quarter moon had from the moment of sunset), and from there it gradually repeats the angles of repose that we saw before and after the First Quarter moon:  from 90 degrees receding sequentially to 45 and ultimately to 35 degrees as the moon sets in the east. 
.
This, again, proves to us that the direction from which the sun is shining on the waning crescent moon in the early hours of the morning is identical to the direction from which the sun is shining on the waxing crescent moon in the late hours of night:  the sun shines on the moon at these times from directly below our feet and at a tremendously long distance, not from above the surface of the earth and a very nearby distance.
.
Flat earthers run with terror from such observations and simple logic, because they're afraid of the truth.
.
Simple.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 06, 2017, 07:03:00 PM
.
I'm surprised that there have been no flat-earthers asking me why I'm counting on the moon for all this observation and commentary.
.
They must be thinking that question, but they must equally be too scared to ask the question, perhaps because they know I'll have an answer for them that is a very bitter pill for them to swallow.
.
They would not be wrong, for once.  ???
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on May 13, 2017, 04:29:07 AM
My, oh my.  So many words, so little said.  For those who are Catholic, the Church teaches that Jerusalem is in the middle of the world.  This is doctrine.  It is a teaching without dissent for or over a thousand years which makes it doctrine. Since it is impossible for Jerusalem to be in the center of the ball (in hell as it were) earth is not a globe.

Every argument here against flat earth is riddled with conjecture, misrepresentation, confusion and a consistently unscientific approach nearly every time, the most common being,  "...How can this (insert long drawn out diatribe that fills the page) be possible?"  Then draw a conclusion from thin air:  "So therefore, earth is not flat." 

Just because someone has no answers to their twisted notions doesn't mean the answers aren't available, provable, logical and true.  Earth is not a globe.  Catholic teaching.  Scientific fact.  Obvious reality.  

Prove Jerusalem is inside the center of a ball earth and flat earth will go away.  

Tick Tock....   

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on May 13, 2017, 10:32:30 AM
My, oh my.  So many words, so little said.  For those who are Catholic, the Church teaches that Jerusalem is in the middle of the world.  This is doctrine.  It is a teaching without dissent for or over a thousand years which makes it doctrine. Since it is impossible for Jerusalem to be in the center of the ball (in hell as it were) earth is not a globe.

Every argument here against flat earth is riddled with conjecture, misrepresentation, confusion and a consistently unscientific approach nearly every time, the most common being,  "...How can this (insert long drawn out diatribe that fills the page) be possible?"  Then draw a conclusion from thin air:  "So therefore, earth is not flat."

Just because someone has no answers to their twisted notions doesn't mean the answers aren't available, provable, logical and true.  Earth is not a globe.  Catholic teaching.  Scientific fact.  Obvious reality.  

Prove Jerusalem is inside the center of a ball earth and flat earth will go away.  

Tick Tock....  

well said, Happenby.

A question for the globe-earthers....where is Heaven, then, on a globe model? Is it above Jerusalem, since Our Lord ascended into Heaven near Jerusalem? Or is it located somewhere else? On a flat earth, Heaven is above us. Where, or what is it above, then, on a globe? 

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on May 13, 2017, 10:52:54 AM
 Matthew 4:8
Again the devil took him up into a very high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them,

Matthew 24:30
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all tribes of the earth mourn: and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with much power and majesty.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 13, 2017, 10:10:47 PM
My, oh my.  So many words, so little said.  For those who are Catholic, the Church teaches that Jerusalem is in the middle of the world.  This is doctrine.  It is a teaching without dissent for or over a thousand years which makes it doctrine. Since it is impossible for Jerusalem to be in the center of the ball (in hell as it were) earth is not a globe.

Every argument here against flat earth is riddled with conjecture, misrepresentation, confusion and a consistently unscientific approach nearly every time, the most common being,  "...How can this (insert long drawn out diatribe that fills the page) be possible?"  Then draw a conclusion from thin air:  "So therefore, earth is not flat."

Just because someone has no answers to their twisted notions doesn't mean the answers aren't available, provable, logical and true.  Earth is not a globe.  Catholic teaching.  Scientific fact.  Obvious reality.  

Prove Jerusalem is inside the center of a ball earth and flat earth will go away.  

Tick Tock....  
.
The Virgin of Guadalupe appeared on Tepeyac Hill in Mexico City in 1531.  This location has been determined to be in the geographical center of North and South America, and that is on a globe earth, with curvature, parallel lines of latitude, and non-parallel lines of longitude. But flat-earthers can't seem to understand that kind of thing, to their discredit.
.
Therefore it is most possible to determine whether Jerusalem is in the center of something, or not. But as far as that goes, any point on the surface of the earth could be considered the center of all the earth's surface. Again, flat-earthers will find that going right over their heads, like the moon and sun do.
.
The fact that the earth is a globe is in evidence all around us, if we will open our eyes and use our minds to think logically. But flat-earthers abhor logic and reason, because it challenges their sacred cow, a false god by the way. They're breaking the First Commandment! 
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 13, 2017, 10:17:34 PM
By the way, 

.

I'm still waiting for any flat-earther to produce their measurement of the angle between the sun and moon at the hour of first or last quarter moon. 
.
This is not "conjecture" or "misrepresentation" or "confusion and a consistently unscientific approach," but rather it is objective fact, which flat-earthers run from like the plague. 
.
And they do so, complaining all the way!!
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on May 14, 2017, 12:38:15 AM
.
The Virgin of Guadalupe appeared on Tepeyac Hill in Mexico City in 1531.  This location has been determined to be in the geographical center of North and South America, and that is on a globe earth, with curvature, parallel lines of latitude, and non-parallel lines of longitude. But flat-earthers can't seem to understand that kind of thing, to their discredit.
.
Therefore it is most possible to determine whether Jerusalem is in the center of something, or not. But as far as that goes, any point on the surface of the earth could be considered the center of all the earth's surface. Again, flat-earthers will find that going right over their heads, like the moon and sun do.
.
The fact that the earth is a globe is in evidence all around us, if we will open our eyes and use our minds to think logically. But flat-earthers abhor logic and reason, because it challenges their sacred cow, a false god by the way. They're breaking the First Commandment!
.
Again, the same kind of argument that insists that your version of what *you think* somehow can't include flat earth. However, what you think IS, will not change what actually IS.  

Not only is Jerusalem in the middle of the world according to Catholic teaching, it is also certain that the Church taught that there are no antipodes, which was widely accepted and promoted for a thousand years or more.

The great authority of Augustine, and the cogency of his scriptural argument, held the Church firmly against the doctrine of the antipodes; all schools of interpretation were now agreed--the followers of the allegorical tendencies of Alexandria, the strictly literals exegetes of Syria, the more eclectic theologians of the West. For over a thousand years it was held in the Church, "always, everywhere, and by all," that there could not be human beings on the opposite sides of the earth, even if the earth had opposite sides; and, when attacked by gainsayers the great mass of true believers, from the fourth century to the fifteenth, simply used that opiate which had so soothing an effect on John Henry Newman in the nineteenth century--securus judicat orbis terrarum.

pg 104 War Between Science and Theology…White


Regarding Jerusalem in the center of the world:

The book of Ezekiel speaks of Jerusalem as in the middle of the earth, and all other parts of the world as set around the holy city.  Throughout the "ages of faith" this was very generally accepted as the direct revelation from the Almighty regarding the earth's form.  St. Jerome, the greatest authority of the early Church upon the Bible, declared, on the strength of this utterance of the prophet, that Jerusalem could be nowhere but at the earth's center; in the ninth century Archbishop Rabanus Maurus reiterated the same argument; in the eleventh century Hugh of St. Victor gave to the doctrine another scriptural demonstration; and Poe Urban, in his great sermon at Clermont urging the Franks to the crusade, declared, "Jerusalem is the middle point of the earth"; in the thirteenth century and ecclesiastical writer much in vogue, the monk Caesarious of Heisterbach declared, "As the heart in the midst of the body, so is Jerusalem situated in the midst of our in habited earth,--so it was that Christ was crucified at the center of the earth."  

Ezekiel 5:5 This is what the Sovereign LORD says: This is Jerusalem, which I have set in the center of the nations, with countries all around her.

Ezekiel 38:12, the Jєωιѕн people are referred to as the people who live at the "center of the world." And actually, the literal Hebrew reads, "the navel of the world."

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on May 14, 2017, 12:39:33 AM
Waiting for answers on  Church teaching.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 14, 2017, 01:02:12 AM
Again, the same kind of argument that insists that your version of what *you think* somehow can't include flat earth. However, what you think IS, will not change what actually IS.  

Not only is Jerusalem in the middle of the world according to Catholic teaching, it is also certain that the Church taught that there are no antipodes, which was widely accepted and promoted for a thousand years or more.

•The great authority of Augustine, and the cogency of his scriptural argument, held the Church firmly against the doctrine of the antipodes; all schools of interpretation were now agreed--the followers of the allegorical tendencies of Alexandria, the strictly literals exegetes of Syria, the more eclectic theologians of the West. For over a thousand years it was held in the Church, "always, everywhere, and by all," that there could not be human beings on the opposite sides of the earth, even if the earth had opposite sides; and, when attacked by gainsayers the great mass of true believers, from the fourth century to the fifteenth, simply used that opiate which had so soothing an effect on John Henry Newman in the nineteenth century--securus judicat orbis terrarum.



•pg 104 War Between Science and Theology…White




Regarding Jerusalem in the center of the world:

The book of Ezekiel speaks of Jerusalem as in the middle of the earth, and all other parts of the world as set around the holy city.  Throughout the "ages of faith" this was very generally accepted as the direct revelation from the Almighty regarding the earth's form.  St. Jerome, the greatest authority of the early Church upon the Bible, declared, on the strength of this utterance of the prophet, that Jerusalem could be nowhere but at the earth's center; in the ninth century Archbishop Rabanus Maurus reiterated the same argument; in the eleventh century Hugh of St. Victor gave to the doctrine another scriptural demonstration; and Poe Urban, in his great sermon at Clermont urging the Franks to the crusade, declared, "Jerusalem is the middle point of the earth"; in the thirteenth century and ecclesiastical writer much in vogue, the monk Caesarious of Heisterbach declared, "As the heart in the midst of the body, so is Jerusalem situated in the midst of our in habited earth,--so it was that Christ was crucified at the center of the earth."  

Ezekiel 5:5 This is what the Sovereign LORD says: This is Jerusalem, which I have set in the center of the nations, with countries all around her.

Ezekiel 38:12, the Jєωιѕн people are referred to as the people who live at the "center of the world." And actually, the literal Hebrew reads, "the navel of the world."
"My, oh my.  So many words, so little said."

:fryingpan:
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 14, 2017, 01:11:35 AM
.
Here is a map of the world showing Jerusalem in the center:

(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.acsu.buffalo.edu%2F%7Edbertuca%2Fmaps%2Fcat%2Fheart-werner2.jpg&sp=44456073eaa46991d1348d3c0e124d7d)

...and here is another:

(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FBernhard_Jenny%2Fpublication%2F266016878%2Ffigure%2Ffig5%2FAS%3A311432454393860%401451262691831%2FFigure-5-The-Natural-Earth-projection-applied-to-the-Natural-Earth-II-dataset-see-page.png&sp=60c2a783340fed619c5e3a015c2ac6da)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 14, 2017, 01:15:51 AM
Waiting for answers on Church teaching.
.
You're way late, my dear.  You can't change the subject that easily around here. Maybe that works for you at home, but this isn't your turf.
.
I have been waiting for 5 weeks for your answer on the angle between sun and moon.
.
So you go first. 
.
First you supply your response to my simple question, and then we can talk.
.
Alternatively, you can prove you're not interested in facts, by running away scared, again.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 14, 2017, 01:18:03 AM
By the way,
.
I'm still waiting for any flat-earther to produce their measurement of the angle between the sun and moon at the hour of first or last quarter moon.
.
This is not "conjecture" or "misrepresentation" or "confusion and a consistently unscientific approach," but rather it is objective fact, which flat-earthers run from like the plague.
.
And they do so, complaining all the way!!
.
Same question, from which the flat-earthers run away like it's radioactive or something.
.
By the way, get your measurement just before the first quarter (will be in early evening) and just after the last quarter (will be in early morning), for best results.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on May 14, 2017, 01:51:26 AM
"My, oh my.  So many words, so little said."

:fryingpan:
Uh,  wrong.  The Church has spoken and you have nothing to say except to mock the messenger.  Proving once again, against the truth there is no argument. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on May 14, 2017, 08:28:16 AM
.
The Virgin of Guadalupe appeared on Tepeyac Hill in Mexico City in 1531.  This location has been determined to be in the geographical center of North and South America, and that is on a globe earth, with curvature, parallel lines of latitude, and non-parallel lines of longitude. But flat-earthers can't seem to understand that kind of thing, to their discredit.
.
Therefore it is most possible to determine whether Jerusalem is in the center of something, or not. But as far as that goes, any point on the surface of the earth could be considered the center of all the earth's surface. Again, flat-earthers will find that going right over their heads, like the moon and sun do.
.
The fact that the earth is a globe is in evidence all around us, if we will open our eyes and use our minds to think logically. But flat-earthers abhor logic and reason, because it challenges their sacred cow, a false god by the way. They're breaking the First Commandment!
.

It's embarrassing to see your continual lack of charity toward those Catholics here who believe in a flat earth. Haven't you noticed that it's not getting you anywhere to continually treat flat-earthers as being really stupid, with continual put-downs? And now, you are saying that we are breaking the first commandment. That is going too far.

I fail to see how the location of Our Lady of Guadalupe has anything to do with a flat earth.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on May 14, 2017, 08:36:52 AM
.
Here is a map of the world showing Jerusalem in the center:

(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.acsu.buffalo.edu%2F%7Edbertuca%2Fmaps%2Fcat%2Fheart-werner2.jpg&sp=44456073eaa46991d1348d3c0e124d7d)

...and here is another:

(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FBernhard_Jenny%2Fpublication%2F266016878%2Ffigure%2Ffig5%2FAS%3A311432454393860%401451262691831%2FFigure-5-The-Natural-Earth-projection-applied-to-the-Natural-Earth-II-dataset-see-page.png&sp=60c2a783340fed619c5e3a015c2ac6da)

What sort of earth do these images represent? Are you saying that the equator is the "center of the earth," on a globe? Is the equator commonly known in scientific terms as being the "center of the earth?"
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on May 14, 2017, 10:11:16 AM
What sort of earth do these images represent? Are you saying that the equator is the "center of the earth," on a globe? Is the equator commonly known in scientific terms as being the "center of the earth?"
Come on,  now.  In the center on a globe is an oxymoron. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on May 14, 2017, 10:30:28 AM
Yes, he is trying to say the earth is a heart shaped ball and that it has a center.  :facepalm:
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on May 14, 2017, 03:45:40 PM
Irrefutable proof NASA fakes space and ISS. Totally busted! VR glitches tell all. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0kcc5UrlkMU&feature=share
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 14, 2017, 10:39:56 PM
Irrefutable proof? Don't make me laugh. Oh, wait. You already did.
.
Here is irrefutable proof for you:
.
Get out and measure the angle between the sun and the moon during the last quarter moon, which is coming up this coming Thursday, May 18th, at 5:35 pm in the west coast USA.

There should be three measurements, one at around 11 am on Wednesday (because the moon sets at 11:26 am in the west), and a second one around 12 pm on Thursday (moon sets at 12:22 pm), and a third one around 1:00 pm on Friday (moon sets at 1:21 pm).
.
If you can only do one in the morning then that's better than nothing. Thursday morning and/or Friday morning would be great. The moon will be high in the sky when the sun rises, so measure the angle between the two, and post it here.
.
By measuring the angle between the sun and the moon at the quarter moon, you can observe the reality that moon phases provide for us to know.  Of course, flat-earthers don't want to know the truth, so they won't take the measurement.
.
You can prove me wrong by taking the measurement.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 14, 2017, 10:47:47 PM
It's embarrassing to see your continual lack of charity toward those Catholics here who believe in a flat earth. Haven't you noticed that it's not getting you anywhere to continually treat flat-earthers as being really stupid, with continual put-downs? And now, you are saying that we are breaking the first commandment. That is going too far.

I fail to see how the location of Our Lady of Guadalupe has anything to do with a flat earth.
Flat-earthers don't need any help because they put themselves down. They embarrass themselves. They have shown interminably here on this thread alone that they are entirely unwilling to participate in a simple experiment (measuring the angle between the sun and the moon at quarter moon) and thereby reveal that they are not interested in the truth.
.
The location of the apparition of the Virgin of Guadalupe is mentioned because it has been found to be at the geographical center of north and south America. I was challenged to explain why Jerusalem can be at the center of the world, and I was giving an example of how some other place is at the center of the Americas. Maybe that's over your head, but that's par for the course.
.
It's hard to have a conversation with someone who refuses to think.
.
This is a discussion board, and the topic is a DEBATE in nature. If you can't cope with logic and direct statements then perhaps you ought to go read a soft, cushy thread that makes no demands on your intellect.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 14, 2017, 10:57:54 PM
Uh,  wrong.  The Church has spoken and you have nothing to say except to mock the messenger.  Proving once again, against the truth there is no argument.
"Uh, wrong?" I was quoting you. 
.
You are not the messenger of the Church.
.
The Church has not spoken on the subject of "flat earth." You just don't comprehend what you're reading. The shape of the world is not a matter for religious faith, just as it's not a spiritual matter to describe the electrical charge of an atom or Ohm's Law. So they're not in the Bible. The Church has not proclaimed any ruling on the shape of chromosomes, either.  Even though Our Lord began life in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary with the same shape of chromosomes that we have today, it is not a matter of faith for us to believe that the shape of chromosomes is one thing or another. It is a matter of scientific investigation. So too, the shape of the earth is a matter of scientific investigation. You can know the truth if you investigate scientifically, by taking the measurement.
.
If you are looking for the truth, take the measurement. 
.
But you are not looking for truth, are you. Because you refuse to do the experiment. Your actions speak for themselves.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on May 15, 2017, 01:19:52 AM
"Uh, wrong?" I was quoting you.
.
You are not the messenger of the Church.
.
The Church has not spoken on the subject of "flat earth." You just don't comprehend what you're reading. The shape of the world is not a matter for religious faith, just as it's not a spiritual matter to describe the electrical charge of an atom or Ohm's Law. So they're not in the Bible. The Church has not proclaimed any ruling on the shape of chromosomes, either.  Even though Our Lord began life in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary with the same shape of chromosomes that we have today, it is not a matter of faith for us to believe that the shape of chromosomes is one thing or another. It is a matter of scientific investigation. So too, the shape of the earth is a matter of scientific investigation. You can know the truth if you investigate scientifically, by taking the measurement.
.
If you are looking for the truth, take the measurement.
.
But you are not looking for truth, are you. Because you refuse to do the experiment. Your actions speak for themselves.
.
The Church has condemned heliocentrism.  Scripture describes a flat earth CONSITENTLY.  The saints proclaim a flat earth. Science supports a flat earth.  Reason and experience prove a flat earth.  There is nothing that even begins to demonstrate a ball earth.  Earth is flat.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on May 15, 2017, 01:35:19 AM
"Uh, wrong?" I was quoting you.
.
You are not the messenger of the Church.
.
The Church has not spoken on the subject of "flat earth." You just don't comprehend what you're reading. The shape of the world is not a matter for religious faith, just as it's not a spiritual matter to describe the electrical charge of an atom or Ohm's Law. So they're not in the Bible. The Church has not proclaimed any ruling on the shape of chromosomes, either.  Even though Our Lord began life in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary with the same shape of chromosomes that we have today, it is not a matter of faith for us to believe that the shape of chromosomes is one thing or another. It is a matter of scientific investigation. So too, the shape of the earth is a matter of scientific investigation. You can know the truth if you investigate scientifically, by taking the measurement.
.
If you are looking for the truth, take the measurement.
.
But you are not looking for truth, are you. Because you refuse to do the experiment. Your actions speak for themselves.
.
Saint quotes, scripture quotes, science, and reason have been provided and remain without any serious contest.  You have provided nothing Catholic, nothing scriptural, nothing from the saints, nothing from the Church, nothing reasonable. The science so-called you proclaim has been refuted.  Your entire argument is based on heliocentric model sophistries at odds with reality all couched in high sounding, long winded mumbo jumbo written by pagans poised against the Church who are utterly "global". Nothing even remotely Catholic comes from you. Since against the truth there is no argument, all creation speaks clearly, earth is not a globe.  We can continue this for the benefit of readers, but really, you lost this argument the minute you decided to take it personal, swatting about with unrelated nonsense that adds up to negative black holes of conjecture in contention with truth. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 16, 2017, 06:18:19 PM
Saint quotes, scripture quotes, science, and reason have been provided and remain without any serious contest.  You have provided nothing Catholic, nothing scriptural, nothing from the saints, nothing from the Church, nothing reasonable. The science so-called you proclaim has been refuted.  Your entire argument is based on heliocentric model sophistries at odds with reality all couched in high sounding, long winded mumbo jumbo written by pagans poised against the Church who are utterly "global". Nothing even remotely Catholic comes from you. Since against the truth there is no argument, all creation speaks clearly, earth is not a globe.  We can continue this for the benefit of readers, but really, you lost this argument the minute you decided to take it personal, swatting about with unrelated nonsense that adds up to negative black holes of conjecture in contention with truth.
.
Are you having a mental breakdown or what?
.
Your post above is a string of falsehoods.
.
The Church nor the saints have had anything authoritative to say about the shape of the earth because that is not their area of authority. The Church and the saints have reliable things to say in regards to spiritual matters, but the shape of the earth is not a spiritual matter.  
.
God has revealed that He will remake the earth -- there will be a new earth and the sea will be no more.  We have no idea what that will be like and frankly, it's none of our business. It is our place to have faith, and to believe that God's revelation is true. But God has not revealed the shape of the earth in words -- what He has done is given us the earth and a pair of eyes and a reasoning mind so we can figure it out by observation.
.
That is precisely what I am proposing here by inviting everyone to measure the angle between the sun and the moon as the moon reaches its first and last quarter.
.
You are accusing me of using a heliocentric model, which only goes to prove you don't understand what that is. I have never claimed to support heliocentrism on this forum. 
.
You're hurling the ad hominem of "mumbo jumbo" at me while your whole post which see, is just that, mumbo jumbo.  
.
If you're so miserable reading what I post, then why do you torture yourself?
.
You and everyone else are cordially invited to measure the angle between the sun and the moon on the upcoming last quarter moon.
.
Show that you are willing to observe the reality that God has given us by taking the measurement.
.
Twice each month we are given God's testimony in this way, but it is up to us to look at what He has given us. You have to ask yourself if you are willing to look, or if instead you will insist on not looking at what God has given us to know.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 16, 2017, 06:32:54 PM
.
Measure the angle between the sun and the moon during the last quarter moon, which is coming up this coming Thursday, May 18th, at 5:35 pm in the west coast USA.
.
There should be three measurements, one at around 11 am on Wednesday (because the moon sets at 11:26 am in the west), and a second one around 12 pm on Thursday (moon sets at 12:22 pm), and a third one around 1:00 pm on Friday (moon sets at 1:21 pm).
.
If you can only do one in the morning then that's better than nothing. Thursday morning and/or Friday morning would be great. The moon will be high in the sky when the sun rises, so measure the angle between the two, and post it here.
.
By measuring the angle between the sun and the moon at the quarter moon, you can observe the reality that moon phases provide for us to know.  Of course, flat-earthers don't want to know the truth, so they won't take the measurement.
.
You can prove me wrong by taking the measurement.
.
.
The day after tomorrow, the best place to view the angle between the sun and moon will be Hawaii, New Zealand or anywhere else in the Pacific Ocean. The moon will set in the west later there, and so it will still be visible in the sky when it's 5:35 pm here in California, the time of the quarter moon.
.
By the way, you'll have a very hard time finding any source founded on flat-earthism that can list the times of the phases of the moon, or times of sunrise and sunset, all according to time zones. That's because there is no way to calculate the time the sun or moon rises or sets when they are presumed to whirl around above a "flat" earth.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on May 17, 2017, 04:17:49 PM
.
Are you having a mental breakdown or what?
.
Your post above is a string of falsehoods.
.
The Church nor the saints have had anything authoritative to say about the shape of the earth because that is not their area of authority. The Church and the saints have reliable things to say in regards to spiritual matters, but the shape of the earth is not a spiritual matter.  
.
God has revealed that He will remake the earth -- there will be a new earth and the sea will be no more.  We have no idea what that will be like and frankly, it's none of our business. It is our place to have faith, and to believe that God's revelation is true. But God has not revealed the shape of the earth in words -- what He has done is given us the earth and a pair of eyes and a reasoning mind so we can figure it out by observation.
.
That is precisely what I am proposing here by inviting everyone to measure the angle between the sun and the moon as the moon reaches its first and last quarter.
.
You are accusing me of using a heliocentric model, which only goes to prove you don't understand what that is. I have never claimed to support heliocentrism on this forum.
.
You're hurling the ad hominem of "mumbo jumbo" at me while your whole post which see, is just that, mumbo jumbo.  
.
If you're so miserable reading what I post, then why do you torture yourself?
.
You and everyone else are cordially invited to measure the angle between the sun and the moon on the upcoming last quarter moon.
.
Show that you are willing to observe the reality that God has given us by taking the measurement.
.
Twice each month we are given God's testimony in this way, but it is up to us to look at what He has given us. You have to ask yourself if you are willing to look, or if instead you will insist on not looking at what God has given us to know.
.
The shape of the earth is a spiritual matter because it was revealed to us in scripture.  And yes, the saints have spoken, on antipodes, Jerusalem in the middle of the earth, the tabernacle (which is designed from the shape of the earth) and against heliocentrism, the modern NASA lie that embodies a moving globe.  When you come up to speed on Church teaching on the matter, all will be light for you.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 17, 2017, 11:44:06 PM
The shape of the earth is a spiritual matter because it was revealed to us in scripture.  And yes, the saints have spoken, on antipodes, Jerusalem in the middle of the earth, the tabernacle (which is designed from the shape of the earth) and against heliocentrism, the modern NASA lie that embodies a moving globe.  When you come up to speed on Church teaching on the matter, all will be light for you.
.
No, the shape of the earth is not a spiritual matter. You are wrong.
.
There has never been a pope who has decreed the earth is flat. The popes since the middle ages have specifically avoided the topic because they don't want mud on their faces, and they know better, unlike you.
.
The popes have been careful to stick to spiritual matters, that is, up to Vatican II. And since then they haven't pronounced authoritatively about anything at all. That's another story.
.
The condemnation of Galileo is a case in point. It has nothing to do with the shape of the earth, only the question of whether the earth moves. They said it does not move. That doesn't mean it's "flat."
.
All of our observations of the heavens tell us the earth is a globe, just like all the other large heavenly bodies.
.
And all of our observations of the universe tell us that we are unable to determine whether the earth moves or not, but since the Church has said it does not move, it helps us to see that those who claim that it does move are pridefully mocking the Church, like Galileo dared to do. Notice he was not handed over to the secular authority for capital punishment, but was subjected to years of house arrest - free room and board, basically.
.
Our discussion is regarding the physical dimensions and observable parameters of the earth, not whether it moves or not.
.
This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with heliocentrism. Your confusion on this point is redundant and tiresome.
.
Back to the matter at hand....
.
Today the moon has been approaching its last quarter, and the angle between the moon and the sun is decreasing. Do you know what it is today? No, you do not, nor do you want to know because you are not interested in the truth.
.
You and other flat-earthers like you are dug in to your erroneous thinking, your sacred cow false god of flat-earthism. When you realize your error it will be a light to you.
.
It's a sad case when people get confused between the material and the spiritual. This has been the case in other areas too, and it does nothing for your faith.
.
I can't blame you guys for being disillusioned with all the lies in the media and all the deceptions in world events, politics and popular culture. The French Revolution is still believed by atheists to have been a wonderful thing. Not a few of these have fallen into devil worship as a consequence of their error, which is a fulfillment of prophesy, by the way, see Romans chapter one. Animals and "creeping things" have become their replacement for God. I heard a woman preaching on the radio the other day saying that the Virgin Mary (in regards to the Fatima apparitions) is one and the same as Gaia (Greek Gaea, goddess or personification of earth), or "Mother Earth." She said that "She has revealed herself in many forms through the ages" and Our Lady of Fatima is just another one of those ways. Sad.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 17, 2017, 11:58:03 PM
.
When it is a NEW moon, the angle between the earth and sun is ZERO.
.
When the moon's phase is a FULL moon, the angle between the sun and earth is 180 degrees (360 degrees being a full circle).
.
These angles can be observed at the SAME TIME in any place on planet earth, north hemisphere as well as south.
.
Wherever you are on earth, you can see these angles are the same at any given time.
.
Now, if the earth were flat, the moon would be appear FULL in one place on earth while it appears as some other phase from another place on earth. That never happens in reality.
.
When the moon reaches its quarter phase as observed from America, if the earth were flat, the moon would appear as a crescent or gibbous from Europe or Asia. It does not. Therefore the earth is not flat.
.
But there are many more specific observations to make, which we can talk about later.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 18, 2017, 12:07:06 AM
.
So you want Scripture: How about Isaias xl?
.
[21] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=40&l=21-#x) Do you not know? hath it not been heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have you not understood the foundations of the earth? [22] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=40&l=22-#x) It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in. (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=40&l=22-22&q=1#x) [23] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=40&l=23-#x) He that bringeth the searchers of secrets to nothing, that hath made the judges of the earth as vanity. [24] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=40&l=24-#x) And surely their stock was neither planted, nor sown, nor rooted in the earth: suddenly he hath blown upon them, and they are withered, and a whirlwind shall take them away as stubble. [25] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=40&l=25-#x) And to whom have ye likened me, or made me equal, saith the Holy One?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 18, 2017, 01:24:54 AM
You want Scripture: How about Wisdom xi?

[23] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=25&ch=11&l=23-#x) For the whole world before thee is as the least grain of the balance, and as a drop of the morning dew, that falleth down upon the earth:

Drops of dew are spherical. Grains of the balance are globular, not flat.

How about I Kings ii?

[8] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=9&ch=2&l=8-#x) He raiseth up the needy from the dust, and lifteth up the poor from the dunghill: that he may sit with princes, and hold the throne of glory. For the poles of the earth are the Lord's, and upon them he hath set the world.

Note, poles of the earth, e.g., north and south poles. A flat earth can't have two poles - it doesn't even have one, actually.

I Paralipamemon xvi - this is where the immovable earth comes from (Galileo's problem topic):

[30] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=13&ch=16&l=30-#x) Let all the earth be moved at his presence: for he hath founded the world immovable.

And Psalms xcii and xcv:

[1] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=92&l=1-#x) The Lord hath reigned, he is clothed with beauty: the Lord is clothed with strength, and hath girded himself. For he hath established the world which shall not be moved.

[10] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=95&l=10-#x) Say ye among the Gentiles, the Lord hath reigned. For he hath corrected the world, which shall not be moved: he will judge the people with justice.

Here's a good one, matter without form, Wisdom xi:

 [18] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=25&ch=11&l=18-#x) For thy almighty hand, which made the world of matter without form, was not unable to send upon them a multitude of bears, or fierce lions,

Any blob of matter without form left to its own equilibrium settles into a sphere, not a pancake. Examples: drops of dew, inflated balloons, liquid projectiles from a volcano, a blob of water drifting in a vacuum (before it boils away that is). The reason is that adhesion of matter makes it collect into the shape with the greatest stability and the least amount of surface tension, which is a sphere, not a flying carpet.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on May 18, 2017, 10:54:10 AM
.
So you want Scripture: How about Isaias xl?
.
[21] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=40&l=21-#x) Do you not know? hath it not been heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have you not understood the foundations of the earth? [22] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=40&l=22-#x) It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in. (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=40&l=22-22&q=1#x) [23] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=40&l=23-#x) He that bringeth the searchers of secrets to nothing, that hath made the judges of the earth as vanity. [24] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=40&l=24-#x) And surely their stock was neither planted, nor sown, nor rooted in the earth: suddenly he hath blown upon them, and they are withered, and a whirlwind shall take them away as stubble. [25] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=40&l=25-#x) And to whom have ye likened me, or made me equal, saith the Holy One?
Here is a picture that represents the globe of the earth.
(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/HebrewConceptEarth1_zpsvsgwjwlh.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/HebrewConceptEarth1_zpsvsgwjwlh.jpg.html)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on May 18, 2017, 11:17:43 AM
Here is a picture that represents the globe of the earth.
(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/HebrewConceptEarth1_zpsvsgwjwlh.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/HebrewConceptEarth1_zpsvsgwjwlh.jpg.html)


Thank you for posting the above illustration.

It shows the ancient Hebrew conception of the universe; based mainly on Scripture. It does show a globe perspective when including the earth and that which surrounds the earth, such as the sky, firmament, and gate of Heaven, as well as sheol and the Great Deep.



Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 18, 2017, 05:50:47 PM
.
So now you resort to your silly cartoons again?
.
How about Mickey Mouse or Elmer Fudd or Felix the Cat? Why are they missing?
.
I've presented objective observation, and flat-earthers accuse me of being non-scientific, then you come up with half-baked fantasy to do what, show what science is all about?
.
Or are you competing with your own version of being non-scientific?
.
Your attempt to make the Catholic faith look laughable fails because it's just you that's laughable.
.
Are you going to look at the moon and draw corny lumps under it too?
.
How about the sun? Where are the goofy dome and silly dribbles on the sun?
.
Aren't you forgetting something?
.
Like reality?
.
You see, there is a problem with the Great Deep of your fantasy world. Unlike the days when dreamers let their imagination run wild without any evidence to support it, we are now able to send robots to the bottom of the great deep and have found the ocean floor down there, just like we do at the beach and sea shore. 
.
So, you're wrong again. Rack 'em up.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on May 18, 2017, 06:18:06 PM
.
So now you resort to your silly cartoons again?
.
How about Mickey Mouse or Elmer Fudd or Felix the Cat? Why are they missing?
.
I've presented objective observation, and flat-earthers accuse me of being non-scientific, then you come up with half-baked fantasy to do what, show what science is all about?
.
Or are you competing with your own version of being non-scientific?
.
Your attempt to make the Catholic faith look laughable fails because it's just you that's laughable.
.
Are you going to look at the moon and draw corny lumps under it too?
.
How about the sun? Where are the goofy dome and silly dribbles on the sun?
.
Aren't you forgetting something?
.
Like reality?
.
You see, there is a problem with the Great Deep of your fantasy world. Unlike the days when dreamers let their imagination run wild without any evidence to support it, we are now able to send robots to the bottom of the great deep and have found the ocean floor down there, just like we do at the beach and sea shore.
.
So, you're wrong again. Rack 'em up.
.
Very strange response. No use even trying to reply to something like what you've written above.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Binechi on May 18, 2017, 06:53:02 PM
Flat Earth under the "   dome"

"Water Always seek s its own level   " No getting around it "
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 18, 2017, 07:02:58 PM
.
The moon is presently approaching its last quarter, but from my place in the western USA, the moon has been below the horizon for a few hours already so I can't see it. My last observation was earlier in the day when the moon was visible in the sky, and so was the sun. I checked the angle between the sun and moon just after sunrise, later in the morning, and then just before noon as the moon was getting close to the western horizon.
.
What I found really noteworthy was the angle of repose of the moon throughout this series of observations, and the same thing can be seen tomorrow early in the day anywhere on earth there is a clear sky.
.
You see, what God has to show us when we look into the sky isn't the musings of dreamers who make their wandering imaginations the authors of pure fantasy (like your ancient Hebrew gibberish, above). When man thinks he knows something and proceeds to draw conclusions based on incomprehension of God's revelation, you see how wrong he can be by looking at those silly cartoons.
.
When we look into the sky today, we can see a sun and a moon that tell us a lot about the real world if we are willing to actually notice what there is to see before our eyes.
.
With the sun rising in the east this morning, the moon's angle of repose was rotated clockwise about 10 degrees from the vertical.  Another way of saying that is that the moon's bright side facing the sun was tilted upward, toward a place high in the eastern sky that appeared to be much higher than where the sun is found. .
If the moon were very close to the earth, as the flat-earthers claim, the angle of repose of the moon would have been exactly vertical, that is, with the straight part of the quarter moon going up and down, vertically, since the sun would be also close to the earth but even closer to the moon, since our line of sight from earth to sun is the hypotenuse of the triangle and that's the longest side, consequently the greatest distance.
.
There are (at least) two big problems with that proposed set of locations for the sun and moon. One is, the angle of repose was not straight up and down with the moon's light side facing a nearby sun. The bright side of the moon was angled upward toward a sun that is just as high in the sky from the moon's point of view as it is from our point of view on the earth. In other words, the astronomical direction we look toward the sun from earth is the very same astronomical direction we would look toward the sun if we were on the moon. That means the sun is SO FAR AWAY from us that it makes no difference whether our point of view is anywhere on the earth or on the moon, the sun is still found in the very same place in the distant sky in either case, our direction of observation having the same astronomical direction from either position.
.
Or so it would seem at first glance.
.
The other big problem with proposing the sun and moon are nearby the earth (set off by a few thousand miles) is that regardless of where we are on the earth, we see the same phases of the moon at any moment of time. In California the moon reaches its last quarter at 5:35 pm this afternoon (even though the moon is not visible in California at that time), and the same quarter moon event is occurring everywhere else on earth at the same minute, 5:35 pm our time (12:35 am UTC).  Someone in Australia could look up in the sky in the next hour and observe the moon reaching its last quarter, live, real time, as it happens. For them, the last quarter occurs at 10:35 am, while the moon is still visible in the sky.
.
If the earth were "flat," the measured angle between the sun and moon if both were only a few thousand miles away and as the moon approaches its quarter phase would be something like 30 or maybe 40 degrees, and depending on where one is located on earth, the angle would be different. But as a matter of fact, when we observe what God has given us to see in the sky, we find the angle between the sun and moon to be greater than 90 degrees as the moon approaches its last quarter, and it is the SAME angle regardless of where we are standing on the earth when we take the measurement.
.
When I first checked this morning, I found the angle to be 94 degrees. Later it gradually become 93 degrees, and that was just before the moon set in the western sky at 11:44 am. I had a range of mountains in the way so I had to check by 11:00 if I wanted to still see the moon before it went behind the mountains. But I could have gone to the top of the mountains just to see the moon for another 44 minutes. I've done that in the past.
.
So over the course of several hours, the angle between the sun and moon reduced at least one degree, and probably more like two degrees. The sun moves across the sky faster than the moon, although their precise angular speed varies from month to month since their orbits are not circular but somewhat elliptical.  If the sun happens to be moving faster one day and the moon slower, the change of angle between the sun and moon as observed from earth will be more rapid on that day compared to another day when the moon is moving faster and the sun is moving slower, relatively speaking. But the range of difference is pretty small and we can give an approximate speed that will apply to any day, year after year.
.
Tomorrow morning I might be able to check this angle again, between the sun and moon. By checking how many hours have elapsed after 5:35 pm today, I will be able to estimate what the angle between the sun and moon was when the moon reached its last quarter.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 18, 2017, 07:07:07 PM
.
So which one is this, CGI or Photoshop?

(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=43219.0;attach=10239;image)
.
           :facepalm:               :laugh1:              :fryingpan:
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on May 18, 2017, 08:33:17 PM
.
So which one is this, CGI or Photoshop?

(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=43219.0;attach=10239;image)
.
           :facepalm:               :laugh1:              :fryingpan:

Do you believe this is the Virgin Mary?
(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/Image-Workshop-dot-comproduct-photography-Virgin-Mary-statue-011_zpsjqm3f7b3.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/Image-Workshop-dot-comproduct-photography-Virgin-Mary-statue-011_zpsjqm3f7b3.jpg.html)

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 18, 2017, 09:40:51 PM
(https://i2.wp.com/www.imageworkshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Image-Workshop-dot-comproduct-photography-Virgin-Mary-statue-01.jpg?zoom=1.25&resize=582%2C800)
.
This is an image from an untrustworthy website, if that makes any difference to you.
.


(https://i0.wp.com/www.imageworkshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Image-Workshop-dot-com-Virgin-Mary-Setup-6.jpg?zoom=1.25&resize=636%2C423)
.
It's a photograph composed in a studio, which see.

(https://i1.wp.com/www.imageworkshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Image-Workshop-dot-com-Virgin-Mary-Setup-5.jpg?zoom=1.25&resize=636%2C423)
.
Photographs taken from two different angles!
.
Any more questions?
.
You'll have to do a lot better than that to try to trip me up, buster.
.
BTW this statue is not done in the traditional manner. But you probably don't know why, do you?
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 18, 2017, 09:49:33 PM

.
Do you believe this is the Pope?
.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/ec/fd/4e/ecfd4e84a8b8773a0aab6ddacfbe5b7d.jpg)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on May 18, 2017, 10:13:07 PM
.
Do you believe this is the Pope?
.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/ec/fd/4e/ecfd4e84a8b8773a0aab6ddacfbe5b7d.jpg)
You are proving my point quite well; thank you. 8)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 18, 2017, 10:40:11 PM
.
Translation:
.
You've demonstrated that you have no idea why your picture is not of a traditional Virgin Mary statue.
.
Nor do you have any answer for the several other questions I have posted.
.
You don't know the answers.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Binechi on May 19, 2017, 05:10:01 AM
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on May 19, 2017, 11:14:48 AM
Flat Earth under the "   dome"

"Water Always seek s its own level   " No getting around it "

Thanks for posting the above image. It makes sense that water always seeks its own level. Water is a very heavy substance. I know that it is supposedly "gravity" that keeps the water "in" on a globe earth, but that doesn't really make sense to me.

On the upper planets, there is evidence that there is some frozen water, but nowhere on the other planets is water free-flowing, as on earth.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 21, 2017, 08:45:41 PM
.
As the moon now passes its last quarter, the angle between the moon and sun continues to get smaller.
.
It is approaching the New Moon phase, when the angle between them shrinks to zero, that is, it would become zero under a particular condition which occurs every so often, called an eclipse of the sun.
.
If there is no eclipse at the New Moon, then the angle between the sun and moon gets very small, down to just a few degrees, or one degree or even less.  There can only be a total solar eclipse at the moment of the New Moon.
.
With the "flat" earth model, none of this is happening, but we can literally see that it in fact DOES happen. Therefore the "flat" earth model is a myth.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 21, 2017, 08:51:03 PM
.
Translation:
.
You've demonstrated that you have no idea why your picture is not of a traditional Virgin Mary statue.
.
Nor do you have any answer for the several other questions I have posted.
.
You don't know the answers.
.
.
The feature common to the flat-earthers' replies is that they don't know any answers to these questions.
.
It is a dearth of knowledge in flat-earthism, an arid desert, a vacuum where facts belong.
.
And the curious thing is, they don't want to know the answers, apparently.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 21, 2017, 09:05:24 PM
Quote
 It makes sense that water always seeks its own level. Water is a very heavy substance.
.
The heaviness of water has nothing to do with the first statement. Only under particular conditions does water seek its own level. There must be a confinement, for example. Water unconfined and in a free-fall environment does not seek its own level, but floats around in the air eventually forming a sphere or a globe. This globular action is due to the cohesion of the water molecules as well as the inherent surface tension , and it happens to any liquid substance in the same situation, none of which "seek their own level."
.
Surface tension is a phenomenon which causes the meniscus in small samples like a drinking glass or a test tube, under different conditions such as those found on the surface of the earth, such as a common laboratory.
.
These substances, such as oil or mineral spirits (which are lighter than water) also form a globular sphere, and do not seek their own level; so do mercury or liquid iron (both much heavier than water). 
.
Therefore the statement that "water always seeks its own level" is false.
.
If this were your answer on a basic physics class test you would get marked off for being incorrect.
.
Flat-earthers would do really poorly in any basic physics class. 
.
There are no physicists who believe in a "flat earth." They would have to be literally insane first.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: congaudeant on May 21, 2017, 10:31:01 PM
I never realized that there was such a strong belief among some traditional Catholics that the Earth is flat. And yet, numerous commercial direct flights going from Australia to South America take place all the time, running within a bit more than half a day's time and no mid-air refuelling.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 21, 2017, 11:37:12 PM
I never realized that there was such a strong belief among some traditional Catholics that the Earth is flat. And yet, numerous commercial direct flights going from Australia to South America take place all the time, running within a bit more than half a day's time and no mid-air refuelling.
.
Flat-earthers have posted here claiming that no direct flights between S. America and Australia take place, and have shown there are videos where this proposition is promoted. They have said that a flight for example from Argentina to Australia crosses over some city in the mid-east (Arabia as I recall) as a refueling stop. They claim this proves that the route they're taking is a much straighter line than it would be to take a route that crosses the south Atlantic and the Indian Ocean.
.
(Obviously, this S. Am. to Austr. is a flight of longer distance and going the opposite direction from the one you mention:  Austr. to S. Am.)
.
However, they have failed to recognize that the shorter Great Circle route for this journey would take them over the South Pole region which is not temperature-friendly for commercial jumbo jets, and the fuel consumption (partially due to the need to heat the aircraft while flying through such a cold zone) would necessitate a re-fueling stop in Antarctica, which would be extremely expensive, if not well-nigh impossible.
.
The problem reduces to the flat-earthers' refusal to recognize the reality of any Great Circle route, since they claim that the earth is flat and THEREFORE no such "Great Circle" can exist.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 21, 2017, 11:39:34 PM
(https://pics.me.me/if-the-earth-was-flat-cats-would-have-pushed-everything-21523779.png)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 22, 2017, 12:52:57 AM
Great Circle Sydney to Santiago on "Google Earth"
    about 11,400 km

(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20Great%20Circle%20-%20Google%20Earth_zpso0htsooh.png)



Shortest Sydney to Santiago on "Gleason Map"
    about 25,400 km

(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20-%20Gleasons%20Map_zpsfdlirlhm.png)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 22, 2017, 01:01:20 AM
.
Here is a good diagram that pictorially describes what I have been talking about with the "angle between the sun and the moon at the phase of quarter moon."

(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fiwebpd.saschina.org%2Fjameshapper%2FPhysPage%2FUnits%2FWandererUnit%2FAssignmentStuff%2FSun-Earth-Moon%2520Sizes%2520and%2520Distances%2520--%2520THE%2520SUN_files%2FFirst_quarter.gif&sp=82cb7614dd1d256c0802ab03eace5759)
This is how it looks during the First Quarter moon, which will be coming up in about 2 weeks.
.
We just had the Last Quarter moon last week, on Thursday. I measured the angle between the sun and the moon and found it to be greater than 89 degrees and less than 90 degrees.
.
There are consequences to these measurements, since as you can see in the diagram, the three corners of the geometrical figure described by the earth, moon and sun is a right triangle.
.
Right triangles are very easy to use in determining proportions between the lengths of the sides when one of the not-square interior angles is known. We already know that the angle at the moon is 90 degrees because it is a quarter moon, which see. 
.
We have measured one of the other two angles, the angle from earth between the sun and moon, and have found it to be consistently close to 90 degrees at the quarter moon phase.
.
Therefore, without having to travel to the moon or the sun to check the angles of the other two bodies, we can surmise what the angle between the earth and moon as viewed from the sun would be.
.
Since any triangle has 3 interior angles and their sum is always 180 degrees, we subtract the 90 degrees at the moon and the 89-plus degrees at the earth and come up with an angle of less than one degree at the sun.
.
ETC............
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 28, 2017, 04:28:13 PM
.
See how flat-earthers run away scared whenever you post a little geometry?
.
Flat-earthism has nothing to do with observed facts and verifiable reality.
.
It's all subjectivism, rumor and innuendo of the willfully ignorant. 
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 28, 2017, 05:03:38 PM
Great Circle Sydney to Santiago on "Google Earth"
   about 11,400 km

(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20Great%20Circle%20-%20Google%20Earth_zpso0htsooh.png)



Shortest Sydney to Santiago on "Gleason Map"
   about 25,400 km

(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20-%20Gleasons%20Map_zpsfdlirlhm.png)
.
There have been commercial flights between Sydney and Santiago -- they've had a duration and mileage comparable with the former (11,400 km) but not with the latter (25,400 km).
.
Again, no flat-earthers to reply:  they'd have to say, NO THATS(sic)NOT TRUE, or something like that.
(Leaving out the apostrophe, of course.)
.
.
.

Great Circle route flights between Perth, Australia and Buenos Aires, Argentina would take the plane almost directly over the South Pole:
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgc.kls2.com%2Fcgi-bin%2Fgcmap%3FPATH%3DEZE-PER%2CSYD-EZE%26amp%3BPATH-UNITS%3Dmi%26amp%3BPATH-COLOR%3Dred%26amp%3BSPEED-UNITS%3Dkts&sp=4691a177dd74edf9bf1fd4d6a7025483)
.
The alternative route on the bottom appears obviously curved here - between Buenos Aires and Sydney. That's a Great Circle route too, but our angle of view is not right above its coordinates. This view is directly above the South Pole, so the top route between Perth and Buenos Aires appears only very slightly curved.
.
If you understand what Great Circle route is, you'll understand the difference and reasons. If you don't, you won't. And if you don't want to, you NEVER WILL.
.
Simple.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: congaudeant on May 29, 2017, 08:40:04 AM
There are regular direct flights from Australia to South America. A flat earth proponent merely has to do a search. If you feel so strongly that the Earth is flat, call up Qantas Airlines and ask them for yourself if they think the Earth is flat. You will enjoy a nice, hearty Aussie laugh on the other end of the line!
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on May 29, 2017, 11:16:14 AM
Scripture is clear for those who read it, earth is flat.  The Church teaches it. Science confirms it. Only the ill-informed, blind or confirmed globalist/pagan denies it.  There is not one single teaching that the earth is a moving ball.  Nor that it is a hanging ball in mid-air. Scripture says the earth has a foundation.  A firm foundation.  Pillars.  Bounds. A firmament that divides the corporal on earth from the spiritual in heaven above, and also within that hardened dome, the sun, moon and stars move.  Scripture teaches that stars have fallen to earth and that stars will fall to earth, an absurd notion to those who believe stars are hundreds of times larger than earth and made of earthly elements like rock. The saints teach there is a center on earth, which is Jerusalem. They teach there are no people walking upside down relative to the rest.  These are Catholic teachings, and cannot be denied without demonstrating a loss of Faith in truth.  Those who persist in the fallacy of a ball earth are deniers of God and His Word.

  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on May 29, 2017, 11:41:05 AM
Scripture is clear for those who read it, earth is flat.  The Church teaches it. Science confirms it. Only the ill-informed, blind or confirmed globalist/pagan denies it.  There is not one single teaching that the earth is a moving ball.  Nor that it is a hanging ball in mid-air. Scripture says the earth has a foundation.  A firm foundation.  Pillars.  Bounds. A firmament that divides the corporal on earth from the spiritual in heaven above, and also within that hardened dome, the sun, moon and stars move.  Scripture teaches that stars have fallen to earth and that stars will fall to earth, an absurd notion to those who believe stars are hundreds of times larger than earth and made of earthly elements like rock. The saints teach there is a center on earth, which is Jerusalem. They teach there are no people walking upside down relative to the rest.  These are Catholic teachings, and cannot be denied without demonstrating a loss of Faith in truth.  Those who persist in the fallacy of a ball earth are deniers of God and His Word.

  
Well said. Unfortunately, there are those Catholics who seem to believe that the Old Testament is not accurate, and that science has replaced and corrected the OT in regards to the form of the earth.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on May 29, 2017, 02:47:28 PM
Well said. Unfortunately, there are those Catholics who seem to believe that the Old Testament is not accurate, and that science has replaced and corrected the OT in regards to the form of the earth.
Yes, it is unfortunate that Catholics cannot read scripture and know that what it says is gospel. They play the Protestant game of not understanding the words because they are in love with their own notions.  The same Catholics will get into wars over the founding of the papacy passages or Jesus on the Blessed Sacrament because scripture says what it means, then say that scripture isn't saying what it means when is speaks of the four corners of the earth, or the firmament, or the bounds on the waters, the pillars, the foundation of earth, or the celestial realm under the dome.  For this ridiculous kind of equivocation there is little excuse. They are the type of Catholics who refuse to learn unless the Pope converts and makes a papal pronouncement on it. Of course, not even that would work for the naysayers as scripture testifies so clearly: Luke 16:31   And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rise from the dead. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: hismajesty on May 30, 2017, 04:58:38 PM
There are regular direct flights from Australia to South America. A flat earth proponent merely has to do a search. If you feel so strongly that the Earth is flat, call up Qantas Airlines and ask them for yourself if they think the Earth is flat. You will enjoy a nice, hearty Aussie laugh on the other end of the line!

You should have a read of this:
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t97-flights-from-nz-to-a-america
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 03, 2017, 01:46:33 PM
.
See how flat-earthers run away scared whenever you post a little geometry?
.
Flat-earthism has nothing to do with observed facts and verifiable reality.
.
It's all subjectivism, rumor and innuendo of the willfully ignorant.
.
.
Sorry, looks like flat-earthers flee to their hackneyed misinterpretation of Scripture.
.
What does Scripture have to say about the solubility of amino acids?
.
If you are a doctor treating a patient for illness do you go to the Bible to find out about God's revelation concerning the solubility of amino acids?
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 03, 2017, 02:02:46 PM
Scripture is clear for those who read it, earth is flat.  The Church teaches it. Science confirms it. Only the ill-informed, blind or confirmed globalist/pagan denies it.  There is not one single teaching that the earth is a moving ball.  Nor that it is a hanging ball in mid-air. Scripture says the earth has a foundation.  A firm foundation.  Pillars.  Bounds. A firmament that divides the corporal on earth from the spiritual in heaven above, and also within that hardened dome, the sun, moon and stars move.  Scripture teaches that stars have fallen to earth and that stars will fall to earth, an absurd notion to those who believe stars are hundreds of times larger than earth and made of earthly elements like rock. The saints teach there is a center on earth, which is Jerusalem. They teach there are no people walking upside down relative to the rest.  These are Catholic teachings, and cannot be denied without demonstrating a loss of Faith in truth.  Those who persist in the fallacy of a ball earth are deniers of God and His Word.
.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
.
Numerous Catholic exegetes have observed that when Scripture has stars falling to earth it is saying that priests (guiding lights whom the faithful use for spiritual navigation) who lose the faith and fall from grace are the cause of believers being deceived.
.
Scripture does not pronounce on the shape of the earth.
.
The Church does not teach the earth is flat.
.
Science does not confirm the earth is flat. Science, in fact, is not in the business of confirming anything!
.
Every day the moon proclaims from its place in the sky that the earth is a globe, but you have to pay attention.
.
If the earth were "flat" the phase of the moon would change from moonrise to moonset daily, but it does not.
.
From the time it rises in the east until it sets in the west every day, the moon maintains the same phase by casual appearances. It takes very sensitive instruments to measure the difference.
.
If the moon and sun were only a few thousand miles above the earth (as the flat-earthers claim, falsely) the phase of the moon would change quite visibly every day from rise to set of the moon in the sky, but it does not do that.
.
Of course, flat-earthers are not interested in observation, measurement and thinking. Geometry frightens them away, and measuring angles is for them equivalent to devil worship.
.
Okay, then a devil worshiper has defined the real estate you think you own. Therefore you owe your house and home to those who practice the dark arts of witchcraft.
.
And the car you drive was engineered by satanists who pretend to be engineers but since they use trigonometry and measurements and angles and mathematics they must be witches or warlocks.
.
Not.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 03, 2017, 02:46:56 PM
I didn't post this week about the first quarter moon, but it happened anyway. Imagine that!
.
The moon doesn't wait for Internet posts before it changes phases.
.
The moon had its first quarter again, at 7:48 pm Tuesday June 2nd, as scheduled on the Old Farmer's Almanac website -- a place where the words "flat earth" have never appeared because it's not a ridiculous publication.
.
Therefore, farmers all over America have been purchasing and using a publication for well over 200 years (since 1792) that has never mentioned a "flat earth." But what do farmers know, anyway? 
.
But I digress. The moon rose, as predicted, and I measured the angle between it and the sun just before the quarter moon phase and just after.  It started at less than 88 degrees (waxing crescent moon), became Quarter Moon at less than 90 degrees and greater than 89 degrees, and finished at greater than 90 degrees (waxing gibbous moon).
.
This is the same results I got last month. Surprise, surprise. I expect it's going to be the same every time I check it, until the cows come home (or the sheep and goats if you're lactose intolerant).
.
This figure of 89-plus degrees is very interesting. It is always less than 90 degrees, which is comforting, because it actually makes sense this way. 
.
Triangles have the consistent property of having three interior angles that add up to 180 degrees. I know, I know, that's witchcraft HAHAHAHAHA.  NOT.
.
When the moon is at just one quarter (a state that lasts for a minute or two but who's counting that closely?), the angle as observed from the moon between the earth and sun is just 90 degrees, which is why we can see the moon appearing as a Quarter Moon. That means the earth, moon and sun (for a minute or two anyway) are located just at the points of a right triangle. 
.
Right triangles are great because trig functions are very easy to use with them.
.
Therefore, we have one known angle, 90 degrees between earth and sun as viewed from the moon, and we didn't have to travel to the moon to know this.
.
And we have a second known angle, the angle between the moon and sun as viewed from earth, which is where we are so we didn't have to travel anywhere.
.
Consequently we can calculate the third angle, namely, the angle between the earth and moon as viewed from the sun, and we didn't have to travel to the sun (fortunately).
.
180 - 90 - 89.5 = 0.5 degrees.  But we do not have an accurate number, only an approximation, since our instruments are crude. We know the angle between sun and moon is greater than 89 and less than 90 so I have approximated it at 89.5 here. If that is a good number, then the angle between earth and moon as viewed from the sun would be one half of one degree.
.
More witchcraft!! 
.
Burn him at the stake!! 
.
Apostate!! Heretic!! Calumniator!! Ingrate!! Malefactor!!
.
Curiously, all the accusations against me for being "uncharitable" toward flat-earthers, the flat-earthers practice toward me without restraint. Interesting. That could be called duplicity and hypocrisy, but we can't say that because it's "uncharitable." Correct?
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 03, 2017, 02:52:04 PM
There are regular direct flights from Australia to South America. A flat earth proponent merely has to do a search. If you feel so strongly that the Earth is flat, call up Qantas Airlines and ask them for yourself if they think the Earth is flat. You will enjoy a nice, hearty Aussie laugh on the other end of the line!
.
Aww -- what do those "Down-Unders" know, anyway?
.
The armchair blogger, happenby, has already assured us that the Bible absolutely has nothing about people walking around on their heads, therefore the Down-Unders are not down under at all!
.
As for a flat-earther having to merely do a search presupposes that the flat-earther is interested in the truth.
.
The flat-earthers won't do any search because they don't want to know whether there are in fact any regular direct flights from Australia to South America.
.
Nor do they have any interest in learning how Quantas or any other airline uses Great Circle routes to make their flights more efficient. Nor do they care that navigators approximate Great Circle routes by using Rumb lines. Flat-earthers don't want to know about Rumb lines.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 04, 2017, 08:40:35 PM
Every day, the moon proclaims in a loud voice (for those with ears to hear and eyes to see) that the earth is a globe.
.
The phase of the moon observed in all parts of the world are exactly the same at any time.
.
Whether you are in Nebraska or Argentina, Hawaii or South Africa, Antarctica or Australia, China or France, Greenland or Canada, the phase of the moon at any moment is the same from all over the earth.
.
If the earth were "flat" that would not be the case, and depending on where you are on the earth you would see various phases of the moon because your angle of view and the sun's angle to the moon would vary depending on your position. But that's not what happens. Never has, and it never will.
.
In fact, when the moon reaches its first quarter (as it did just last week), the time when the quarter moon occurs is the same all over the earth. The moon reaches its quarter phase at the same moment regardless of where the observer is on earth, but that would not be the case if the earth were "flat" with the sun and moon twirling around in inexplicable silly spirals above it like flies on (redacted) on a dinner plate.  
.
5:43 am in California (UTC-7) is 8:43 am in New York and it's 12:43 pm in London, England. Therefore, the First Quarter moon occurred just (43 minutes) after noon in London, at the same moment when it occurred in California. If the earth were "flat," that would not be the case as the moon's phases would occur at different times in different parts of the world. But they don't, so the earth is not "flat."
.
The earth is not "flat" and the earth is at great distance from the moon which is why the moon appears with the same phase all over the earth every day, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 12 months a year, even on leap years.

The moon appears as it does for all to see (those with eyes to see, that is), exactly the same at all times, because the moon is very far away, where it has the same appearance from great distance. If the moon were only a few thousand miles from earth (as the flat-earthers falsely claim) it would not appear the same to people all over the earth at all times and in all ages.
.
The evidence is everywhere you look, if you bother to  open your eyes and take a look.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 04, 2017, 08:59:12 PM
WHY THE MIDWEST IS SQUARE
Ever wonder about all of those right angles?
(http://www.almanac.com/sites/default/files/styles/primary_image_in_article/public/dec2015amuse.jpg?itok=rQ5t8UXc)
.
Credit for the squaring of the Midwest is often given to Thomas Hutchins, the first geographer of the United States.
.
Due partially to his influence, in 1785, Congress passed a law stipulating that the Midwest would be surveyed in a grid pattern of 6-mile squares, each square (or township) to be further subdivided into 36 1-mile squares (sections) of 640 acres each. Surveying the first tract, Hutchins stuck his Jacob staff on the north bank of the Ohio River, square on the Pennsylvania border, and ran a line due west 42 miles. And so it went.
.
Many towns, even before they were platted, were set aside as 1-mile squares. Platting started with a public square, then little squares or blocks pushed out in all directions until they ran blindly into a river or lake. Thus began the pattern of land survey that was to persist throughout the rest of the country, with few exceptions. The pattern provided a way to locate precisely any piece of land within a tract to be surveyed.
.
(http://www.almanac.com/sites/default/files/users/Almanac%20Staff/ohio_grid_thinkstock_full_width.jpg)
Photo credit: Thinkstock
.
Blame for the squaring of the Midwest goes to the road builders. A survey line is only a mark on a map, not visible on the land like a river or three oak trees growing from one root. In hill country, delineations of roadway by necessity followed the lines of least resistance. When the lines reached the flat land of Indiana and Illinois, it became possible to mark them physically. Roads were built on the section lines.
.
At least it is impossible to get lost: Heading west on a township road, you can count the perpendicular roads you pass and know how many miles you have gone. If the road you are on ends at a river, you just take a right angle and go until you find another east-west road that crosses the river.
.
Unfortunately, you can’t lay down a straight line on a curved surface (such as that of planet earth) for very far. Furthermore, a magnetic compass will not keep to a consistently straight line over a great distance. (It does at some parts of the equator, but Illinois is far from the equator.) For both of these reasons, Squaredom is not nearly as accurate as the square mind would like it to be.
.
Many 640-acre sections of land actually contain a few more or a few less acres than 640. The extras may have been added on to all of the quarters of a section, or they may, as in Illinois, all have been thrown into the northwest quarter, so that only three-fourths of the land possesses undefiled rectitude.
.
Another kind of inaccuracy is inherent in the rectitude of forcing imperfect Earth into perfect geometric squares: Deeply undulating terrain contains considerably more surface acreage than flat terrain of the same survey dimensions. And for that, many Midwesterners are grateful.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 05, 2017, 12:37:44 AM
This is not news. It's been going on for centuries.


http://www.public.asu.edu/~atpcs/atpcs/Univ10e/chapter03-06.html

Chapter 3-6: Ancient astronomers measured the size of the Earth and attempted to determine distances to the Sun and Moon
Quote
Ancient (Greek) astronomers had a good knowledge of the shapes, sizes and distances (http://www.public.asu.edu/~atpcs/atpcs/Univ10e/Images/table_03_03.jpg) of the Earth, Moon, and Sun
.

They knew the Earth is spherical because

Quote
The Earth's shadow (apparent during lunar eclipses) is always circular

On the open sea, only the tops of distant ships are visible - the lower portions are below the horizon (i.e., the ships don't just appear smaller)

Different parts of the celestial sphere are visible if one travels north or south
They knew the Moon is spherical because
.

Quote
This is the easiest way to explain the sequence of lunar phases
Eratosthenes determined the size of the Earth (http://www.public.asu.edu/~atpcs/atpcs/Univ10e/Images/figure_03_14_nb.jpg) by measuring the angle of the noontime Sun from different locations (http://epod.typepad.com/blog/2001/06/eratosthenes-the-solstice-and-the-size-of-the-earth.html) on Earth
.
Quote
At a well in Syene, the Sun is at the zenith at noon on the beginning of summer
.
But an obelisk at Alexandria, the Sun casts a short shadow - indicating the Sun is about 7.2 degrees away from the zenith
.
The difference in angle (zero versus 7.2 degrees) is a measure of the difference in latitude (using today's terminology)
.
Therefore, the linear distance between Syene and Alexandria - about 5000 stades - is 7.2/360 of the Earth's circuмference
.
Using our best guess of the length of a stade, Erathosthenes' value for the size (diameter) of the Earth is accurate to a few percent!
From this, one can estimate the size of the Moon
.

Quote
Observations of lunar eclipses show that the diameter Moon is about 3/8 that of Earth
.
Hence, the ancient astronomers could calculate a reasonable estimate of the Moon's size
From this, one can estimate the distance to the Moon
.

Quote
The Moon has an angular size of 1/2 degree
.
Hence, knowing the angular size and the true (physical) size, the ancient astronomers could calculate a reasonable estimate of the distance to the Moon by applying the small-angle formula
Aristarchus determined the distance to the Sun (http://www.public.asu.edu/~atpcs/atpcs/Univ10e/Images/figure_03_15_nb.jpg) by trying to measure the angle between the Sun  and Moon (as seen by an observer on Earth) at the time of the first quarter (or last quarter) moon
.

Quote
This angle is close to - but slightly less than - 90 degrees and is very difficult to measure
.
A large value means the Sun is far away, while a small one means the Sun is close
.
Aristarchus got an angle that is too small and estimated the Sun is only about 20 times further than the Moon
.
This also yields an estimated size of the Sun that is 20 times larger than the Moon
.
The correct values are 400 not 20, but the technique showed that the Sun is the largest of these objects!
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on June 05, 2017, 09:58:54 AM
This is not news. It's been going on for centuries.


http://www.public.asu.edu/~atpcs/atpcs/Univ10e/chapter03-06.html

Chapter 3-6: Ancient astronomers measured the size of the Earth and attempted to determine distances to the Sun and MoonThey knew the Moon is spherical because
.
Eratosthenes determined the size of the Earth (http://www.public.asu.edu/~atpcs/atpcs/Univ10e/Images/figure_03_14_nb.jpg) by measuring the angle of the noontime Sun from different locations (http://epod.typepad.com/blog/2001/06/eratosthenes-the-solstice-and-the-size-of-the-earth.html) on Earth
.From this, one can estimate the size of the Moon
.
From this, one can estimate the distance to the Moon
.
Aristarchus determined the distance to the Sun (http://www.public.asu.edu/~atpcs/atpcs/Univ10e/Images/figure_03_15_nb.jpg) by trying to measure the angle between the Sun  and Moon (as seen by an observer on Earth) at the time of the first quarter (or last quarter) moon
.

This is all a bunch of garbage.  No one cares what pagans measure because their stick is crooked. Eratosthenes was a liar in the manner of Hom and his progeny Pythagoras.  He and Copernicus, Keplar, Newton and Galileo were occult dabbling pagan philosophers and full on liars.  With a stack of saints against this rabble, along with the teachings of scripture and Catholic writings, not to mention empirical science, the heliocentric model continues to crash to hell.  So many words from the pagans, so little content.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on June 05, 2017, 10:08:42 AM
.
Here is a good diagram that pictorially describes what I have been talking about with the "angle between the sun and the moon at the phase of quarter moon."

(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fiwebpd.saschina.org%2Fjameshapper%2FPhysPage%2FUnits%2FWandererUnit%2FAssignmentStuff%2FSun-Earth-Moon%2520Sizes%2520and%2520Distances%2520--%2520THE%2520SUN_files%2FFirst_quarter.gif&sp=82cb7614dd1d256c0802ab03eace5759)
This is how it looks during the First Quarter moon, which will be coming up in about 2 weeks.
.
We just had the Last Quarter moon last week, on Thursday. I measured the angle between the sun and the moon and found it to be greater than 89 degrees and less than 90 degrees.
.
There are consequences to these measurements, since as you can see in the diagram, the three corners of the geometrical figure described by the earth, moon and sun is a right triangle.
.
Right triangles are very easy to use in determining proportions between the lengths of the sides when one of the not-square interior angles is known. We already know that the angle at the moon is 90 degrees because it is a quarter moon, which see.
.
We have measured one of the other two angles, the angle from earth between the sun and moon, and have found it to be consistently close to 90 degrees at the quarter moon phase.
.
Therefore, without having to travel to the moon or the sun to check the angles of the other two bodies, we can surmise what the angle between the earth and moon as viewed from the sun would be.
.
Since any triangle has 3 interior angles and their sum is always 180 degrees, we subtract the 90 degrees at the moon and the 89-plus degrees at the earth and come up with an angle of less than one degree at the sun.
.
ETC............
Ha ha, using this example, with the 93,000,000 miles distance to the heliocentric sun, the angles for said triangle (specifically the smallest angle near the sun, would not even produce a triangle, but a straight line, nearly parallel to the next side of the "triangle" for several million miles, if not the entire distances to earth. To even suggest this graphic might work means the sun has to be a lot less than 100,000 miles from earth for the outer angle near the sun to even present itself as measurable. Oops.  Back to your debunking Catholic teaching drawing board. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on June 05, 2017, 11:27:59 AM
St. John Chrysostom (considered a “doctor of the Church”, bishop of Antioch, archbishop of Constantinople in 398) –opposed the earth’s sphericity based on Scripture.  Regularly refers to the Earth having four corners as the Bible does in his sermons.  For example, the following quotations come from Homilies Against the Jєωs: “every corner of the earth”, “her action is known in every corner of the earth”, “every corner of the earth seen by the sun” [27]  Exerted his influence against a spherical earth. [2]  He is quoted by Kosmas (Cosmas) as stating “Where are those who say that the heaven is in motion?  Where are those who think it is spherical?  For both these opinions are here swept away.”(in commenting on Hebrews 8:1.)Knew that truly ending the ‘heretical’ study of the Greeks meant wiping out Greek writings –  happily declared, “Every trace of the old philosophy and literature of the ancient world has vanished from the face of the earth.”


In his“Homily 2, Trinity, Sophists, Philosophers”, Para 5, he takes pleasure in the fact that the Church is successfully silencing the Greeks – “And as for the writings of the Greeks, they are all put out and vanished, but this man’s shine brighter day by day.  …since then the (doctrines) of Pythagoras and of Plato, which seemed before to prevail, have ceased to be spoken of, and most men do not know them even by name.”   [77], [78]  He continues to claim, “Pythagoras… practiced there ten thousand kinds of sorcery…. but by his magic tricks he deceived the foolish.  And neglecting to teach men anything useful.”  He then callPythagoras a “barbarian”! 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on June 05, 2017, 11:30:29 AM
Severian, Bishop of Gabala – Depended upon Scriptures for view of the earth.  “The earth is flat and the sun does not pass under it in the night, but travels through the northern parts as if hidden by a wall”  [15]  He shared John Chrysostom’s fundamentalism and opposition to pagan learning.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on June 12, 2017, 11:29:21 PM
Start @ 3:26


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jjymPmTzKE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jjymPmTzKE)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 18, 2017, 04:36:01 PM
This is all a bunch of garbage.  No one cares what pagans measure because their stick is crooked. Eratosthenes was a liar in the manner of Hom and his progeny Pythagoras.  He and Copernicus, Keplar, Newton and Galileo were occult dabbling pagan philosophers and full on liars.  With a stack of saints against this rabble, along with the teachings of scripture and Catholic writings, not to mention empirical science, the heliocentric model continues to crash to hell.  So many words from the pagans, so little content.  
Ha ha, using this example, with the 93,000,000 miles distance to the heliocentric sun, the angles for said triangle (specifically the smallest angle near the sun, would not even produce a triangle, but a straight line, nearly parallel to the next side of the "triangle" for several million miles, if not the entire distances to earth. To even suggest this graphic might work means the sun has to be a lot less than 100,000 miles from earth for the outer angle near the sun to even present itself as measurable. Oops.  Back to your debunking Catholic teaching drawing board. 
.
Are you having another emotional breakdown?
.
Garbage? Math tables are garbage? Tell that to the engineer who designed your car or the telephone you use every day. Tell the truck driver who delivers your ice cubes or your e-Bay purchases that he's a pagan and his stick is crooked. Let the pizza delivery boy know he's working for corrupt occult-dabbling pagans and full-on liars.
.
What I have shown you above is empirical science, which I have invited you to join in, but you don't know the first thing about what it means to use empirical science. Typing the words accomplishes nothing.
.
Heliocentric sun, you say? When did I say anything about heliocentric sun? Those are your words.
.
The next time you go to paint the living room, make sure you buy the proper brand of paint...
(https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpittsburghorbit.files.wordpress.com%2F2015%2F06%2Fsherwin-williams-logo.png&sp=5ed276c70bf614aeb6d32927fa686082)
.
Flat earthers really show themselves up for being dunces and ignorant snobs.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on June 18, 2017, 04:52:12 PM
.
Are you having another emotional breakdown?
.
Garbage? Math tables are garbage? Tell that to the engineer who designed your car or the telephone you use every day. Tell the truck driver who delivers your ice cubes or your e-Bay purchases that he's a pagan and his stick is crooked. Let the pizza delivery boy know he's working for corrupt occult-dabbling pagans and full-on liars.
.
What I have shown you above is empirical science, which I have invited you to join in, but you don't know the first thing about what it means to use empirical science. Typing the words accomplishes nothing.
.
Heliocentric sun, you say? When did I say anything about heliocentric sun? Those are your words.
.
The next time you go to paint the living room, make sure you buy the proper brand of paint...
(https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpittsburghorbit.files.wordpress.com%2F2015%2F06%2Fsherwin-williams-logo.png&sp=5ed276c70bf614aeb6d32927fa686082)
.
Flat earthers really show themselves up for being dunces and ignorant snobs.
.

Interesting response, but you didn't actually address any of the points that Happenby was making. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 18, 2017, 05:14:59 PM
.
We just had another quarter moon!
.
And all over the earth, the quarter moon was visible at the same minute, which was 5:43 am Pacific Daylight Time (UTC -7).  The angle between the sun and the moon was just like it always has been and always will be, indicating the sun's enormously greater distance from earth compared to the distance of the moon from earth (which is already inconceivably large from our earth-bound perspective).
.
Everywhere on this spherical planet earth, shaped like a ball, the moon was seen illuminated by the sun with the same phase:  One Quarter. 
.
From Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, and from South Africa to the northern tundra: One Quarter Moon.
.
By the way, if the earth were flat, different points of observation all over the earth would have had different shapes or phases for their view of the moon. People in the southern hemisphere, where it is now close to winter, would have seen the top of the moon illuminated and the shadowed area on the bottom of the moon, but they don't see that. They don't see that because the earth isn't flat. It is spheroid. They see the illuminated part of the quarter moon on the same side that we see in the northern hemisphere, the side facing the rising sun in the east.
.
Every day the moon declares for all with eyes to see that the earth is not flat. 
.
But if you're dug in to believe what you want to believe against all the evidence, then have a nice time exercising your free will. You can choose to ignore all the facts and hurl epithets at those who notice reality for what it is. 
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 18, 2017, 05:16:29 PM
Interesting response, but you didn't actually address any of the points that Happenby was making.
.
Points? What "points" did happenby make, pray tell? That I have not provided any empirical science?
.
Do you know what empirical science is?
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 18, 2017, 05:57:01 PM
Start @ 3:26


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jjymPmTzKE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jjymPmTzKE)
.
"It begs the question: Why are shills pushing the flat earth model?"
.
Good question! Let's ask their comrades, the flat-earthers!!
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 18, 2017, 07:12:24 PM
.
We are soon going to have worldwide news coverage of the upcoming total solar eclipse in August.
.
There is absolutely no way that anyone who pushes flat-earthism can explain how their concept is useful for predicting solar eclipses.
.
The fact that for many years in advance, these eclipses can be predicted with great accuracy is proof positive that the calculations that go into defining their scope and range and timing is sound and true. We are told with great confidence the precise path of the moon's shadow, so that people who want to be there to witness it can know in advance where to go and when to get there.
.
No amount of heckling, sneering, ridiculing and harassment from the foot-stomping, foaming-at-the-mouth flat-earthers will make a whit of difference, because the sun will rise, the moon's shadow will traverse the United States, and the sun will set that day all the while the flat-earthers will be crying in their milk shakes. Unless they're opposed to animal products. Then they'll cry in their Teavana shaken iced tea, I suppose.
.
Check out the hotel reservations. Hotels are booking up all across the country, and the few still available are getting really pricey. People are renting out spaces in their yards for motor homes. Farmers are staking out parking lots on fallow farmland. American industrial ingenuity is hard at work, all because lots of people who understand that the earth is spherical and the moon casts its extended elliptical shadow over a curved surface know just where to be at the right moment. The one thing they'll have to gamble on is for a clear sky at the critical moments.
.
They have to make plans to be away from home weeks in advance. Tens of thousands of Americans are planning their summer vacations around this astronomical event.
.
Maybe they should all stop and think, "If the earth is flat, there won't be any eclipse because then the moon's shadow would never look like this."
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 18, 2017, 07:21:04 PM
There are some informative websites up and running that cover many aspects of the imminent eclipse.

(https://astronomylive-site-content.s3.amazonaws.com/media/cache/53/56/5356f2416695ed6579a9e8025f57ce46.jpg)

This is from a site called http://www.astronomylive.com/events/events/total-solar-eclipse-2/

They show a live counter that counts down the seconds for the eclipse to start.
.
Right now it's at 63 21 29 2
.
But that's obsolete already. You have to visit the page to see the counter in action.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on June 18, 2017, 07:24:51 PM
.
Points? What "points" did happenby make, pray tell? That I have not provided any empirical science?
.
Do you know what empirical science is?
.

See reply#693. Perhaps you missed it....though you did quote it. You didn't address it at all. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 18, 2017, 07:37:20 PM
Already known as the 'Great American Eclipse', the 2017 total solar eclipse is a spectacular one. Not only because the United States almost patented this eclipse, but because it runs from beginning till end through the US. Exactly parallel with the long axis of this country, it goes from west to east, through a staggering 10 states with maximum eclipse being visible in Kentucky at 18.25.32 Universal Coordinated Time (UTC, or "UT" for short). Second, it occurs high in the sky during the peak of the summer. This is as good as it can get! Expect many astronomers to broadcast this amazing event, brought to you through their own telescope.

The 114.7 km wide path of totality will ensure that millions will be able to watch it. The rest of North America, including the north of South America and even small parts of western Europa and Africa will see a partial block of the solar disk. You will get a good idea of the Sun-Moon-Earth system when watching the solar disk coverage from your location and comparing this with how it looks from different locations through different live streams.

If you are a US citizen and reading this, we hope you realize the impact of this grant astronomical phenomenon. Although the majority will be able to see a partial blockage of the solar disk, from almost everywhere in the US, it is NOT comparable with experiencing totality. Totality is a phenomenon where your eyes (+ eclipse glasses!) are able to see incredible details that are normally hidden. Most intriguing is the Sun's outer environment called the 'corona' which is Latin for crown. The corona is normally invisible to the human eye, due to the extreme brightness of the Sun's glare.

Also you might spot a solar flare! Solar flares are a thousand-fold more powerful than atomic bomb explosions, being blasted in space. Because these flares occur regularly, you should be able to watch some small versions at the edge of the solar disk. Imagine a situation where the sky shifts to deep twilight in minutes, birds go silent, it gets colder very quickly and the incredible celestial dance taking place in front of your eyes. Most people say this is the most incredible thing to see. An event that silences the most loud people. And this all will not be visible when you are "one inch" outside the path of totality.

So let's say we have convinced you to travel to the path of totality. You should know some facts for an optimal experience! Imagine if you were standing right on the outer edges of the 114.7 km path (North or South side), your totality will last only a fraction of a second. Going more to the middle will increase the time you are able to enjoy it, with a maximum of 2 minutes and 41.6 seconds, depending on your location.

Author: Sander Klieverik
Main image: Total Solar Eclipse 2012 by Phil Hart - http://philhart.com
Map image; copyright Fred Espenak - NASA's GSFC
Image right (below): Solar eclipse 2009 by Aaron Favila 


(https://astronomylive-site-content.s3.amazonaws.com/media/cache/29/92/2992d7c2b75856774de2705d19a8d967.jpg)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 18, 2017, 07:45:14 PM
See reply#693. Perhaps you missed it....though you did quote it. You didn't address it at all.
Are you talking about this?
.
Quote from: happenby on June 05, 2017, 07:58:54 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/50-plus-reasons-the-earth-is-not-flat/msg552660/#msg552660)
Quote
This is all a bunch of garbage.  No one cares what pagans measure because their stick is crooked. Eratosthenes was a liar in the manner of Hom and his progeny Pythagoras.  He and Copernicus, Keplar, Newton and Galileo were occult dabbling pagan philosophers and full on liars.  With a stack of saints against this rabble, along with the teachings of scripture and Catholic writings, not to mention empirical science, the heliocentric model continues to crash to hell.  So many words from the pagans, so little content.  

Quote from: happenby on June 05, 2017, 08:08:42 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/50-plus-reasons-the-earth-is-not-flat/msg552662/#msg552662)
Quote
Ha ha, using this example, with the 93,000,000 miles distance to the heliocentric sun, the angles for said triangle (specifically the smallest angle near the sun, would not even produce a triangle, but a straight line, nearly parallel to the next side of the "triangle" for several million miles, if not the entire distances to earth. To even suggest this graphic might work means the sun has to be a lot less than 100,000 miles from earth for the outer angle near the sun to even present itself as measurable. Oops.  Back to your debunking Catholic teaching drawing board. 
.
Would you like me to break it down into a list of questions for you?
.
1. This is all a bunch of garbage.
.
What should I say about that? I have been very diligent in providing details and it is all thrown back in my face calling my work "garbage." What would you do?
.
2. No one cares what pagans measure because their stick is crooked. 
.
Now my measurements are pagan and my stick is crooked? I didn't use a stick. And I am not pagan. 
.
Sorry, I fail to see what "points" it is to which you refer. Please make a list of intelligent questions and then we can talk.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 18, 2017, 08:27:46 PM
(https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eclipsegeeks.com%2Fcommunities%2F3%2F004%2F009%2F983%2F113%2F%2Fimages%2F4619470635.png&sp=5b570d86e33b1a55efe45ddaadec4385)
.
This is a little chart showing the four stages of contact in a total solar eclipse.
.
Is this "pagan" too?  :facepalm:
.
The sun is the yellow disc and the moon is the black disc. The first contact is when the moon's disc "touches" or first comes in contact with the edge of the sun's disc, from the point of view of the observer on earth. That is, the curved surface of the spherical earth. The fact that the earth's surface is curved is proved by the path of the eclipse over the planet: it is a curved path, the shape of the moon's shadow is stretched out in one direction at the start and in another direction at the end, due to the curvature of the earth's surface and the way the circular shadow of the moon falls on the curved surface of the earth.
.
These "contact 2" and "contact 3" diagrams are depicted here a bit off so you can still see the sun, in order to show you how the sun is moving behind the moon, for during totality the sun is entirely hidden behind the moon, as the viewer is standing under the umbra portion of the moon's shadow. The umbra owes its existence to the fact that the moon is much smaller than the sun, about 400 times smaller in diameter. But the moon is much closer to earth than the sun is, about 410 times closer. Since these two figures are so close to the same (400 and 410), the sun's disc and the moon's disc appear to be more or less the same size.

Sometimes the sun looks larger (when the earth is closer to the sun in their paths) than the moon (when the moon is further away in its path from the earth), and sometimes the sun appears smaller than the moon. When the umbra reaches the earth we get a total solar eclipse. When the umbra extends only to a point short of the earth's surface we get partial solar eclipse. Sometimes a particular eclipse can start out partial, become total in the middle, and then fade away as a partial eclipse at the end. There are many possibilities, all due to the fact that the earth's surface is curved and the relative paths of the earth, moon and sun are curved as well.
.
The following diagram was made after the 2006 eclipse of March 29th:

(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.slideplayer.com%2F14%2F4369968%2Fslides%2Fslide_30.jpg&sp=fbd485cf59bad4803ca09c1c870c0fca)

The sun's perimeter is shown as a dotted line here instead of a bright ring around the moon's disc in the first diagram, above.
.
It's worth noting that while the little grey arrow in the moon here points left, both sun and moon are moving across the sky from left to right, but the moon appears to move to the left because the sun is effectively passing it up as they both traverse the sky above.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: deutschcath on June 19, 2017, 05:15:04 AM
Mr. Obstat,

you are a very strange man. None of these things you post disprove the flat earth. Simply because globalists have an "explanation" for phenomena and flat earthers do not, does not prove that the earth is a globe, and is not flat.

Your theory, that the earth is round is visibly false to anyone who has eyes. This is the motivation for getting people to believe it.

People should watch this video which would be impossible on a round earth of your size.

https://youtu.be/S4oT2EbDONs
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on June 19, 2017, 11:26:35 AM

Despite some atheist rhetoric (just ignore it), this video exposes "flat earth" retardation.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/JgY8zNZ35uw[/youtube]
The only retardation here is the denial of flat earth seen by the senses, denial of Church teaching, denial of scripture, denial of Fathers and Saints.  Either these globalists cannot read, or retardation applies.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on June 19, 2017, 11:31:39 AM
(https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eclipsegeeks.com%2Fcommunities%2F3%2F004%2F009%2F983%2F113%2F%2Fimages%2F4619470635.png&sp=5b570d86e33b1a55efe45ddaadec4385)
.
This is a little chart showing the four stages of contact in a total solar eclipse.
.
Is this "pagan" too?  :facepalm:
.
The sun is the yellow disc and the moon is the black disc. The first contact is when the moon's disc "touches" or first comes in contact with the edge of the sun's disc, from the point of view of the observer on earth. That is, the curved surface of the spherical earth. The fact that the earth's surface is curved is proved by the path of the eclipse over the planet: it is a curved path, the shape of the moon's shadow is stretched out in one direction at the start and in another direction at the end, due to the curvature of the earth's surface and the way the circular shadow of the moon falls on the curved surface of the earth.
.
These "contact 2" and "contact 3" diagrams are depicted here a bit off so you can still see the sun, in order to show you how the sun is moving behind the moon, for during totality the sun is entirely hidden behind the moon, as the viewer is standing under the umbra portion of the moon's shadow. The umbra owes its existence to the fact that the moon is much smaller than the sun, about 400 times smaller in diameter. But the moon is much closer to earth than the sun is, about 410 times closer. Since these two figures are so close to the same (400 and 410), the sun's disc and the moon's disc appear to be more or less the same size.

Sometimes the sun looks larger (when the earth is closer to the sun in their paths) than the moon (when the moon is further away in its path from the earth), and sometimes the sun appears smaller than the moon. When the umbra reaches the earth we get a total solar eclipse. When the umbra extends only to a point short of the earth's surface we get partial solar eclipse. Sometimes a particular eclipse can start out partial, become total in the middle, and then fade away as a partial eclipse at the end. There are many possibilities, all due to the fact that the earth's surface is curved and the relative paths of the earth, moon and sun are curved as well.
.
The following diagram was made after the 2006 eclipse of March 29th:

(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.slideplayer.com%2F14%2F4369968%2Fslides%2Fslide_30.jpg&sp=fbd485cf59bad4803ca09c1c870c0fca)

The sun's perimeter is shown as a dotted line here instead of a bright ring around the moon's disc in the first diagram, above.
.
It's worth noting that while the little grey arrow in the moon here points left, both sun and moon are moving across the sky from left to right, but the moon appears to move to the left because the sun is effectively passing it up as they both traverse the sky above.
.
One wonders where these Baal earthers come up with this stuff.  What's funny is that they go to the ends of the internet to find something to show their understanding while they refuse to understand.  And refuse Church teaching.  This is all parroted garbage from the indoctrinated.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 24, 2017, 02:16:47 PM
Mr. Obstat,

you are a very strange man. None of these things you post disprove the flat earth. Simply because globalists have an "explanation" for phenomena and flat earthers do not, does not prove that the earth is a globe, and is not flat.

Your theory, that the earth is round is visibly false to anyone who has eyes. This is the motivation for getting people to believe it.

People should watch this video which would be impossible on a round earth of your size.

https://youtu.be/S4oT2EbDONs
.
I've seen that video and I've critiqued it from beginning to end. It's full of lies, half-truths and deceptions.
See previous posts. Please do not quote nonsense. It makes you look stupid.
.
Please explain to me how the phases of the moon that we see are what would be expected if the earth were "flat."
.
Take any phase you like, and describe how it is seen in any given time zone from the northern latitudes to the southern latitudes, such as Greenland to South Africa.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 24, 2017, 02:25:41 PM
One wonders where these Baal earthers come up with this stuff.  What's funny is that they go to the ends of the internet to find something to show their understanding while they refuse to understand.  And refuse Church teaching.  This is all parroted garbage from the indoctrinated.
.
You keep blathering on and on about "Church teaching" when the Church has never pronounced on the shape of the earth.
.
Nor has the Church ever been definitive about the chemical structure of water, or the molecular weight of Hydrogen, or the solubility of amino acids. 
.
Get a clue.
.
Every time the moon rises in the east it shows us the earth is not flat.
.
We see the same phase of the moon from the north pole to the south pole, every day, 365 days a year. If the earth were "flat" that would not be the case.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 24, 2017, 02:36:00 PM
Already known as the 'Great American Eclipse', the 2017 total solar eclipse is a spectacular one. Not only because the United States almost patented this eclipse, but because it runs from beginning till end through the US. Exactly parallel with the long axis of this country, it goes from west to east, through a staggering 10 states with maximum eclipse being visible in Kentucky at 18.25.32 Universal Coordinated Time (UTC, or "UT" for short). Second, it occurs high in the sky during the peak of the summer. This is as good as it can get! Expect many astronomers to broadcast this amazing event, brought to you through their own telescope.

The 114.7 km wide path of totality will ensure that millions will be able to watch it. The rest of North America, including the north of South America and even small parts of western Europa and Africa will see a partial block of the solar disk. You will get a good idea of the Sun-Moon-Earth system when watching the solar disk coverage from your location and comparing this with how it looks from different locations through different live streams.

If you are a US citizen and reading this, we hope you realize the impact of this grant astronomical phenomenon. Although the majority will be able to see a partial blockage of the solar disk, from almost everywhere in the US, it is NOT comparable with experiencing totality. Totality is a phenomenon where your eyes (+ eclipse glasses!) are able to see incredible details that are normally hidden. Most intriguing is the Sun's outer environment called the 'corona' which is Latin for crown. The corona is normally invisible to the human eye, due to the extreme brightness of the Sun's glare.

Also you might spot a solar flare! Solar flares are a thousand-fold more powerful than atomic bomb explosions, being blasted in space. Because these flares occur regularly, you should be able to watch some small versions at the edge of the solar disk. Imagine a situation where the sky shifts to deep twilight in minutes, birds go silent, it gets colder very quickly and the incredible celestial dance taking place in front of your eyes. Most people say this is the most incredible thing to see. An event that silences the most loud people. And this all will not be visible when you are "one inch" outside the path of totality.

So let's say we have convinced you to travel to the path of totality. You should know some facts for an optimal experience! Imagine if you were standing right on the outer edges of the 114.7 km path (North or South side), your totality will last only a fraction of a second. Going more to the middle will increase the time you are able to enjoy it, with a maximum of 2 minutes and 41.6 seconds, depending on your location.

Author: Sander Klieverik
Main image: Total Solar Eclipse 2012 by Phil Hart - http://philhart.com
Map image; copyright Fred Espenak - NASA's GSFC
Image right (below): Solar eclipse 2009 by Aaron Favila

(https://astronomylive-site-content.s3.amazonaws.com/media/cache/29/92/2992d7c2b75856774de2705d19a8d967.jpg)
.
We are counting down to the biggest nationwide one-day party in the history of astronomy in the USA, less than 2 months away now.
.
Millions of people are making plans to see the total solar eclipse in August.
.
If the earth were "flat" there would be no way of predicting this event.
.
Flat-earthers are honest enough to admit they have no idea what causes a solar eclipse, and that is the case because their model is false and there is no way a solar eclipse could take place in their model. Not only that, the precise timing, location and path of the moon's shadow could not be predicted with the flat-earth model due to the simple fact that the relative locations of the sun and moon in their model cannot be determined nor described.
.
Before you can say where the eclipse will begin and at what time, you have to first obtain the precise location of the sun and moon, and flat-earthers categorically cannot describe where the sun is in their model, nor where the moon is, at any given time. 
.
Flat-earthism is entirely non-scientific, nonsensical and self-contradictory.
.
Get used to the truth.
.
Wake up.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 24, 2017, 02:41:25 PM
One wonders where these Baal earthers come up with this stuff.  What's funny is that they go to the ends of the internet to find something to show their understanding while they refuse to understand.  And refuse Church teaching.  This is all parroted garbage from the indoctrinated.
.
Have you ever seen a total solar eclipse? Maybe this one coming in August will be your chance to experience it first hand, and then you will know something real, for a change.
.
I have several books in my library with hundreds of diagrams and photos of solar eclipses and all the technical names for the various components thereof. But I can't post pages of hard copies here, so I found some images on the Internet to take their place, and what happens? You complain about it.
.
Go figure.
.
No matter what I provide to substantiate what I'm saying you complain.
.
But notice you have nothing to post to support your own claims, and there is a reason for that.
.
Your claims are nonsense, and unsupportable.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: deutschcath on June 24, 2017, 03:34:15 PM
.
I've seen that video and I've critiqued it from beginning to end. It's full of lies, half-truths and deceptions.
See previous posts. Please do not quote nonsense. It makes you look stupid.
.
Please explain to me how the phases of the moon that we see are what would be expected if the earth were "flat."
.
Take any phase you like, and describe how it is seen in any given time zone from the northern latitudes to the southern latitudes, such as Greenland to South Africa.
.
Mr obstat,
You did critique, but did not explain. How is there over 500 feet that we can see?
We don't have to answer any of your questions until you can explain this.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 24, 2017, 03:52:30 PM
Mr obstat,
You did critique, but did not explain. How is there over 500 feet that we can see?
We don't have to answer any of your questions until you can explain this.
.
It seems this one thing is really important to you, no? Then please make your question accurate.
.
You'll have to be a bit more clear: 500 feet of what that we can see?
.
Use complete sentences if you want to be understood.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: deutschcath on June 24, 2017, 04:13:02 PM
.
It seems this one thing is really important to you, no? Then please make your question accurate.
.
You'll have to be a bit more clear: 500 feet of what that we can see?
.
Use complete sentences if you want to be understood.
.
focus on the issue instead of my grammar
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 25, 2017, 01:06:15 AM
focus on the issue instead of my grammar
Can you even answer a simple question? What 500 feet are you talking about?
.
And by the way, when you post in other threads about flat-earthism, you are violating the forum rules and you could get banned for trolling. So watch out.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: deutschcath on June 25, 2017, 10:41:05 AM
shaking in my boots.

Regarding your question. I can't make myself any plainer. I think you are being deliberately silly, or else have been drinking.

Did you have too many whiskeys today? Bit early for it isn't it?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on June 25, 2017, 11:01:19 AM
.
You keep blathering on and on about "Church teaching" when the Church has never pronounced on the shape of the earth.
.
Nor has the Church ever been definitive about the chemical structure of water, or the molecular weight of Hydrogen, or the solubility of amino acids.
.
Get a clue.
.
Every time the moon rises in the east it shows us the earth is not flat.
.
We see the same phase of the moon from the north pole to the south pole, every day, 365 days a year. If the earth were "flat" that would not be the case.
.
Scripture expounds in many places all kinds of ways about the form of the earth, always incompatible with a ball.  Earth is described as a stamp under a seal, with pillars, having a foundation, a dome, with a face, breadth and width, four corners, celestials under the dome, hell below and Jerusalem in the middle.  The Church also condemned the heliocentric model.  If even the pagans are responsible for what they "don't know" because in fact they don't WANT to know, then yes, the Church has spoken.  And if that isn't enough, its crazy peculiar that people insist everyone is walking upside down in relation to each other and that water surface curves to conform to the outside of a ball.  For the childlike who discerns, that kind of circular thinking falls flat.  
Then you say silly stuff like, "Every time the moon rises in the east, it shows us the earth is not flat" which doesn't prove earth is not flat, but that someone has not fully considered the the subject at all.   
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on June 25, 2017, 11:06:35 AM
.
We are counting down to the biggest nationwide one-day party in the history of astronomy in the USA, less than 2 months away now.
.
Millions of people are making plans to see the total solar eclipse in August.
.
If the earth were "flat" there would be no way of predicting this event.
.
Flat-earthers are honest enough to admit they have no idea what causes a solar eclipse, and that is the case because their model is false and there is no way a solar eclipse could take place in their model. Not only that, the precise timing, location and path of the moon's shadow could not be predicted with the flat-earth model due to the simple fact that the relative locations of the sun and moon in their model cannot be determined nor described.
.
Before you can say where the eclipse will begin and at what time, you have to first obtain the precise location of the sun and moon, and flat-earthers categorically cannot describe where the sun is in their model, nor where the moon is, at any given time.
.
Flat-earthism is entirely non-scientific, nonsensical and self-contradictory.
.
Get used to the truth.
.
Wake up.
.
What's so funny here, is that you claim that if earth were flat there would be no way of predicting this event.  Uh no.  Eclipses are calculated in a way that doesn't even include the shape of the earth, but by calculating the patterns of sun and moon and stars in the sky.  Again, your closed minded attitude forces you to adopt a faulty position because you really don't understand how anything works.  Whether you do or don't understand how things work, its to your advantage to adopt what the Church Fathers and scripture teach and that certainly isn't a round earth. The very laws of science deny it as well.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 25, 2017, 04:26:39 PM
What's so funny here, is that you claim that if earth were flat there would be no way of predicting this event.  Uh no.  Eclipses are calculated in a way that doesn't even include the shape of the earth, but by calculating the patterns of sun and moon and stars in the sky.  Again, your closed minded attitude forces you to adopt a faulty position because you really don't understand how anything works.  Whether you do or don't understand how things work, its to your advantage to adopt what the Church Fathers and scripture teach and that certainly isn't a round earth. The very laws of science deny it as well.  
It has become clear that you don't really believe in a flat earth, which would be ridiculous. What you're doing is practicing your communist dialectic, which uses ridicule and invective to assert false statements and then proceeds as if those falsehoods were correct. But they're wrong and you're wrong: wrong, wrong, wrong!
.
Because it is true that if the earth were flat, there would be no way of predicting the solar eclipses. Especially in regards to this one coming in August, because the starting location of the moon's shadow on the surface of the earth is a direct consequence of the spherical shape of the sun, the moon and the earth, as well as their placement in space, with the moon at 240,000 miles from earth and the sun at 93,000,000 miles from earth. (approximate figures for the purpose of this discussion) And then, the curved path the eclipse will take is further a function of the curved shape of the earth's surface, since it is spherical. The moon's shadow becomes more circular in the middle of America then grows oblong again as it enters the Atlantic Ocean, again a consequence of the curved surface of the earth.
.
If the sun and moon were only 3,000 miles (give or take) from the "flat" earth (as the flat-earthers claim) none of this would be happening in August. There would be no penumbra that covers the entire North American continent nor would there be a small concentrated umbra that passes from the Pacific coast to the Atlantic coast of America. The moon's shadow (flat-earthers say it's not the moon's shadow at all but some other body but they can't seem to identify what the body is) begins with an oblong shape (not round) due to the projection of its round shape onto the curved surface of the spherical earth. The shape of this shadow is possible to become verified by aerial photographs when it takes place, for one, but the flat-earthers will no doubt claim that's all Photoshop or CGI. Riiiight. It's a conspiracy of disinformation worldwide concentrated on making flat-earthism look ridiculous, you see. ....... NOT!
.
Flat-earthism doesn't need any help looking ridiculous. It does a great job all on its own looking ridiculous.  :laugh1: 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 25, 2017, 04:49:45 PM
.
The path of this eclipse would make no sense if the earth were "flat". 
.
There is no way for a nearby sun and nearby moon to produce the effect shown below:

(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fc.tadst.com%2Fgfx%2Feclipses2%2F20170821%2Fpath-760.png&sp=668ed6bf24b725a88f65788851951283)
.
Furthermore, this is the case with all eclipses, the paths of many having been mapped out:

(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Feclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov%2FSEatlas%2FSEatlas2%2FSEatlas1981.GIF&sp=d8472dade63d676558c8f2bedecfeca6)

(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcs.astronomy.com%2Fcfs-file.ashx%2F__key%2Fcommunityserver-blogs-components-weblogfiles%2F00-00-00-00-51-Solar%2Bsystem%2Bobjects%2F5822.2008_2D00_2028eclipses.jpg&sp=146b3bbfce6abe6dfb976b32ec65a741)

Notice especially the curious eclipses of November 12th, 1985, January 26th, 1990, March 9th, 1997, March 20th, 2015, December 4th, 2021, and August 12th, 2026. They are much WIDER in their path than the ones that occur nearer the equator. This is due to their location near the poles where the earth's surface curves away from the sun and the moon's shadow.
.




Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 25, 2017, 04:59:54 PM
.
Aircraft are booking flights that will follow the moon's shadow.
.
If you're a flat-earther, you won't be allowed to buy a ticket. HAHAHA
.
This is how their view is anticipated in one advertisement:
.

(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi.vimeocdn.com%2Fvideo%2F447733816_1280x720.jpg&sp=6060ac4f89c50b8da13ff1a10115e1f0)
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: TomGubbinsKimmage on June 25, 2017, 05:38:19 PM
Neil,
https://www.livescience.com/26070-maya-predicted-1991-solar-eclipse.html
Ancient Mayas predict solar eclipse in 1991.

Maybe they did this with the help of their alien friends? The ones you like to believe.

Or maybe, as said earlier, you have bee drinking/drugging too much.

At least it's better than saying you are being malicious or stupid.

Hey, it's a hard life today. Crazy world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oa-ae6_okmg
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 25, 2017, 08:34:54 PM
.
Aircraft are booking flights that will follow the moon's shadow.
.
If you're a flat-earther, you won't be allowed to buy a ticket. HAHAHA
.
This is how their view is anticipated in one advertisement:
.
[CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE]

(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi.vimeocdn.com%2Fvideo%2F447733816_1280x720.jpg&sp=6060ac4f89c50b8da13ff1a10115e1f0)
.
.
Another site shows the same area depicted above with the durations charted:
.
(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53c358b6e4b01b8adb4d5870/55eb57c5e4b048d1ed3b94da/55eb5937e4b043ba11ebdbf6/1470592132524/Carbondale.jpg?format=1000w)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 25, 2017, 08:58:22 PM
Neil,
https://www.livescience.com/26070-maya-predicted-1991-solar-eclipse.html
Ancient Mayas predict solar eclipse in 1991.

Maybe they did this with the help of their alien friends? The ones you like to believe.

Or maybe, as said earlier, you have bee drinking/drugging too much.

At least it's better than saying you are being malicious or stupid.

.
The site you're linking to depicts the earth as a globe:
.
(https://img.purch.com/h/1400/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5saXZlc2NpZW5jZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzAzNS8yNzIvb3JpZ2luYWwvc29sYXItZWNsaXBzZS1wYXRoLTE5OTEuanBnPzEzNTc2Njc4MTg=)

.
Maybe the ancient Mayans were smarter than today's flat-earthers?
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on June 26, 2017, 01:08:05 AM
It has become clear that you don't really believe in a flat earth, which would be ridiculous. What you're doing is practicing your communist dialectic, which uses ridicule and invective to assert false statements and then proceeds as if those falsehoods were correct. But they're wrong and you're wrong: wrong, wrong, wrong!
.
Because it is true that if the earth were flat, there would be no way of predicting the solar eclipses. Especially in regards to this one coming in August, because the starting location of the moon's shadow on the surface of the earth is a direct consequence of the spherical shape of the sun, the moon and the earth, as well as their placement in space, with the moon at 240,000 miles from earth and the sun at 93,000,000 miles from earth. (approximate figures for the purpose of this discussion) And then, the curved path the eclipse will take is further a function of the curved shape of the earth's surface, since it is spherical. The moon's shadow becomes more circular in the middle of America then grows oblong again as it enters the Atlantic Ocean, again a consequence of the curved surface of the earth.
.
If the sun and moon were only 3,000 miles (give or take) from the "flat" earth (as the flat-earthers claim) none of this would be happening in August. There would be no penumbra that covers the entire North American continent nor would there be a small concentrated umbra that passes from the Pacific coast to the Atlantic coast of America. The moon's shadow (flat-earthers say it's not the moon's shadow at all but some other body but they can't seem to identify what the body is) begins with an oblong shape (not round) due to the projection of its round shape onto the curved surface of the spherical earth. The shape of this shadow is possible to become verified by aerial photographs when it takes place, for one, but the flat-earthers will no doubt claim that's all Photoshop or CGI. Riiiight. It's a conspiracy of disinformation worldwide concentrated on making flat-earthism look ridiculous, you see. ....... NOT!
.
Flat-earthism doesn't need any help looking ridiculous. It does a great job all on its own looking ridiculous.  :laugh1:
The starting location of the moon's shadow on the surface of the earth is a direct consequence of the spherical shape of the sun, the moon and the earth, as well as their placement in space...  
This line is so convoluted, I don't know where to begin. Nobody in the world could make sense of that if they were paid to do it.  Then you say: The moon's shadow on earth comes from the spherical shape of the sun, the moon and the earth.  Seriously?  Can you even hear yourself?  Neil, you aren't even trying anymore.  Again and again, all you say is, if this is true, then the earth can't be flat.  This is not only not scientific, it isn't reasonable and it proves nothing. You have no idea how the sun and moon work on a flat earth, so just saying so doesn't make it so.  But we've been through all this.  Saying outrageous nonsense for which there is no evidence, like this: the moon's shadow begins with an oblong shape due to the projection of its round shape onto the curved surface of the spherical earth.  Um...what?  I have no words.  Everything coming from you Neil is mumbo jumbo.  None of it makes sense.  Your attempt to debunk flat earth has gone into the far reaches of silly.  At least read what you write and decide not to put it down.  You're embarrassing yourself.    
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: OHCA on June 26, 2017, 07:58:25 AM
.
The site you're linking to depicts the earth as a globe:
.
(https://img.purch.com/h/1400/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5saXZlc2NpZW5jZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzAzNS8yNzIvb3JpZ2luYWwvc29sYXItZWNsaXBzZS1wYXRoLTE5OTEuanBnPzEzNTc2Njc4MTg=)

.
Maybe the ancient Mayans were smarter than today's flat-earthers?
.
Ultimate fail when a cite uses an exhibit that is contrary to the claim.
Ancient Mayans smarter?  There used to be a big ole mutt down the road that played in the road, chasing its tail and and cars all day that I'm pretty sure was smarter than flat-earthers.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on June 26, 2017, 12:09:45 PM
Ultimate fail when a cite uses an exhibit that is contrary to the claim.
Ancient Mayans smarter?  There used to be a big ole mutt down the road that played in the road, chasing its tail and and cars all day that I'm pretty sure was smarter than flat-earthers.
Typical response of globalists.  No content, proof, or reason in this comment, just disparaging remarks in defense of the heliocentric religion. 
religion


[ri-lij-uh n] 
Spell Syllables


See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/religion)
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhumanagency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 27, 2017, 02:01:02 PM
Ultimate fail when a site uses an exhibit that is contrary to the claim.
Ancient Mayans smarter?  There used to be a big ole mutt down the road that played in the road, chasing its tail and and cars all day that I'm pretty sure was smarter than flat-earthers.
.
The only charts showing the path of solar eclipses are those mapping the path of the moon's shadow on the globe of planet earth.
.
That's because nobody bothers to make up a fake map using a "flat" earth model. And they don't bother because if they tried, it would only show how ridiculous the model is.
.
Flat-earthers have resorted to denying that the light of the moon is due to the sun shining on it, and they go so far as to proclaim that the moon's light comes from INSIDE the moon! Talk about nonsense! Oh, but wait -- that's not silly enough: then they admit that they have no idea how the light is produced inside the moon or what causes it. You can't make this stuff up!
.
They cannot show any dimensions for their placement of the sun and moon above their mythical "flat" earth and therefore they cannot manage to demonstrate the alignment of the two that happens during an eclipse. Consequently, they say that they don't know what makes an eclipse happen.
.
Let's see: They don't know what makes an eclipse happen, they can't predict one, and they have no idea how to foretell the time and location of a solar eclipse.
.
What are they going to do when this one coming in August takes place?
.
What are the flat-earthers going to tell all the tourists who are lining up their summer vacations so as to be at a choice spot on the map when the eclipse passes overhead? Will the flat-earthers protect their eyes by purchasing eclipse glasses in advance? Or are they going to try to see what everyone is looking at anyway, without protecting their eyes?
.
We can call those the willfully blind.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 27, 2017, 02:21:38 PM
The starting location of the moon's shadow on the surface of the earth is a direct consequence of the spherical shape of the sun, the moon and the earth, as well as their placement in space...  
This line is so convoluted, I don't know where to begin. Nobody in the world could make sense of that if they were paid to do it.  Then you say: The moon's shadow on earth comes from the spherical shape of the sun, the moon and the earth.  Seriously?  Can you even hear yourself?  Neil, you aren't even trying anymore.  Again and again, all you say is, if this is true, then the earth can't be flat.  This is not only not scientific, it isn't reasonable and it proves nothing. You have no idea how the sun and moon work on a flat earth, so just saying so doesn't make it so.  But we've been through all this.  Saying outrageous nonsense for which there is no evidence, like this: the moon's shadow begins with an oblong shape due to the projection of its round shape onto the curved surface of the spherical earth.  Um...what?  I have no words.  Everything coming from you Neil is mumbo jumbo.  None of it makes sense.  Your attempt to debunk flat earth has gone into the far reaches of silly.  At least read what you write and decide not to put it down.  You're embarrassing yourself.    
.
"This line is so convoluted, I don't know where to begin."
.
Sorry, I presumed you could THINK. Maybe I expected too much. The moon's shadow on earth comes from the spherical shape of the sun, the moon and the earth. If you don't know what I'm talking about maybe you should look up the definition of the words in the sentence, like "shadow" or "spherical" or "moon."
.
Take for example this global earth projection provided by Tom Kribbage:
(https://img.purch.com/h/1400/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5saXZlc2NpZW5jZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzAzNS8yNzIvb3JpZ2luYWwvc29sYXItZWNsaXBzZS1wYXRoLTE5OTEuanBnPzEzNTc2Njc4MTg=)
The band of blue circular figures in the middle stands for the path of the total solar eclipse. The path is not a straight line, nor is it a simple curve. It is an s-shaped curve. Starting on the left, the first figure is an oval that is wider than it is tall. That is because the shadow of the moon when it first appears falling on the curved surface of the earth is not a round shadow due to the angle of the curved earth's surface. As the shadow moves to the east (that means to the right) the shape becomes gradually more circular, as it passes over Central America (where the Mayans lived), and then as it passes further, the shadow again stretches out and becomes wider than it is tall.
.
Maybe this is too complicated for a simple-minded flat-earther to understand.
.
Quote
You have no idea how the sun and moon work on a flat earth
.
Well, then that makes two of us. We have something in common! 
.
Because you don't know how the sun and moon work on a flat earth either. Nobody does, actually, because the earth isn't "flat" and there isn't anything to understand about how the sun and moon "work" on it.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on June 27, 2017, 03:32:52 PM
.
The only charts showing the path of solar eclipses are those mapping the path of the moon's shadow on the globe of planet earth.
.
That's because nobody bothers to make up a fake map using a "flat" earth model. And they don't bother because if they tried, it would only show how ridiculous the model is.
.
Flat-earthers have resorted to denying that the light of the moon is due to the sun shining on it, and they go so far as to proclaim that the moon's light comes from INSIDE the moon! Talk about nonsense! Oh, but wait -- that's not silly enough: then they admit that they have no idea how the light is produced inside the moon or what causes it. You can't make this stuff up!
.
They cannot show any dimensions for their placement of the sun and moon above their mythical "flat" earth and therefore they cannot manage to demonstrate the alignment of the two that happens during an eclipse. Consequently, they say that they don't know what makes an eclipse happen.
.
Let's see: They don't know what makes an eclipse happen, they can't predict one, and they have no idea how to foretell the time and location of a solar eclipse.
.
What are they going to do when this one coming in August takes place?
.
What are the flat-earthers going to tell all the tourists who are lining up their summer vacations so as to be at a choice spot on the map when the eclipse passes overhead? Will the flat-earthers protect their eyes by purchasing eclipse glasses in advance? Or are they going to try to see what everyone is looking at anyway, without protecting their eyes?
.
We can call those the willfully blind.
.
Everyone who determines eclipses does so by the position of the sun moon and stars and not by the form of the earth, so saying flat earthers cannot predetermine eclipses is false.  Not every flat earther trusts the common model of flat earth, so that argument is also false.  Enoch, Moses and Cosmas provide a more likely model.  I do know that the sun and moon produce completely different lights and have done experiments of my own to prove it.  I bought a laser thermometer and pointed it at the sun just before sunset.  The temp was over 100 degrees.  I pointed the same thermometer at the moon that night and it read -2 degrees.  While the laser cannot reach either sun or moon, the light emanating from each is different.  What experiments have you personally done, Neil? The moon may obtain some energy from the sun, but it isn't the same light at all. Moonlight is cold and silvery.  Sunlight is warm and golden.  The differences are obvious.  Again, your arguments fall short.  That's at least 3 for 3, for Happenby.  0 for Neil.     
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on June 27, 2017, 03:34:07 PM
.
"This line is so convoluted, I don't know where to begin."
.
Sorry, I presumed you could THINK. Maybe I expected too much. The moon's shadow on earth comes from the spherical shape of the sun, the moon and the earth. If you don't know what I'm talking about maybe you should look up the definition of the words in the sentence, like "shadow" or "spherical" or "moon."
.
Take for example this global earth projection provided by Tom Kribbage:
(https://img.purch.com/h/1400/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5saXZlc2NpZW5jZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzAzNS8yNzIvb3JpZ2luYWwvc29sYXItZWNsaXBzZS1wYXRoLTE5OTEuanBnPzEzNTc2Njc4MTg=)
The band of blue circular figures in the middle stands for the path of the total solar eclipse. The path is not a straight line, nor is it a simple curve. It is an s-shaped curve. Starting on the left, the first figure is an oval that is wider than it is tall. That is because the shadow of the moon when it first appears falling on the curved surface of the earth is not a round shadow due to the angle of the curved earth's surface. As the shadow moves to the east (that means to the right) the shape becomes gradually more circular, as it passes over Central America (where the Mayans lived), and then as it passes further, the shadow again stretches out and becomes wider than it is tall.
.
Maybe this is too complicated for a simple-minded flat-earther to understand.
..
Well, then that makes two of us. We have something in common!
.
Because you don't know how the sun and moon work on a flat earth either. Nobody does, actually, because the earth isn't "flat" and there isn't anything to understand about how the sun and moon "work" on it.
.
Next thing you know this Obstinate guy will be coming out with excuses for aliens.  LOL
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 01, 2017, 02:33:03 PM
.
Oh, by the way, did you manage to get out and measure the angle between the sun and moon yesterday?
.
No?
.
You missed a great opportunity, then. But like always, you're not interested in the truth, are you.
.
I guess not.
.
Yesterday the moon was in full splendor all afternoon, while the sun went from directly overhead to sunset. During this prime time, you could see the entire spectrum of these angles in question, as the moon approached its First Quarter phase after 5 and before 6 pm, Pacific Daylight Time. Everyone from the Rocky Mountains westward to Hawaii had front row center seats in this show. You could have measured an angle of 89+ degrees until 5:51 pm, after which the angle became 90 degrees, and increasing hourly. It gave the whole show that we need to see, once and for all. The moon does not lie, but tells the truth for all to see.
.
But you don't care about that, do you.
.
No, flat-earthers are much more content to whine and moan about you-name-it. Mostly nonsense, and no specific data to offer for objective criticism. A bunch of crybabies, I guess. Flat-earthers practice nothing scientific and all the while complain that observing what the moon has to show us is "unscientific," or so they say.
.
Wrong, again, as per usual.
.
But don't give up, because you haven't missed everything yet. No, this afternoon and evening you can watch the First Quarter moon slide down its course in the sky toward where the sun just set. And you can think about where the sun must be in order to make the moon look the way it does.
.
Ask yourself, "Is the sun hiding behind the horizon and skirting the limits of our view going northward as the flat-earthers claim it does every day? Or, is the moon revealing to us the direction from which the sun shines by the illuminated side of the moon which points downward, far below the horizon, at an angle which increases by the minute to the point when the moon as it sets in the west is reclining toward the sun at over 45 degrees from the horizontal, which puts the sun below our feet on the other side of the earth?"
.
Or, which is most likely the case, flat-earthers will once again ignore the reality before their eyes and come back ignorantly proclaiming some manner of nonsensical drivel like the sun wasn't shining on the moon because the moon's light comes from inside the moon, or whatever.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 01, 2017, 02:47:27 PM
.
Yes, every day now for the next week, when the sky is clear in the early evening, all you have to do is look up at the moon right there in plain view for all who have eyes to see. 
.
Do you have eyes to see, and ears to hear, as Our Lord said?
.
If so, then hear the word of the Lord. For the moon is the Lord's creation and He cannot deceive nor be deceived.
.
For the next few days, the sharp points on the ends of the moon's waxing gibbous phase make it very easy for us to estimate the angle of repose of the moon. Hold a straight edge (ruler, pencil, or if you have one a protractor) up to touch these two points of the moon and think about what the angle is between that and horizontal. 
.
As the moon gets closer to full it gets harder to see where those two points are. So the best time to do this is tonight or tomorrow night, when the points are still sharp.
.
It's not difficult. Even a child in Kindergarten can do this.
.
Of course, if you're a flat-earther and you have such a child, you will absolutely forbid him to measure the image of the moon because you'll be worried he might be practicing paganism or witchcraft, like Pythagoras or Archimedes or Copernicus. Horrors.
.
:facepalm:
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 11, 2017, 04:30:19 PM
This past week, the full moon has been very low in the sky compared to the sun.
 .
The moon has been crossing the sky at night this week, while the sun (obviously) traverses the sky during daytime. But if you keep track of where on the horizon the sun rises and sets, and its elevation overhead at various times of the day, you can compare that to the moon's path.
.
Since there is a total solar eclipse coming next month, one might expect that the path of the moon would be very close to the path of the sun this month, as the two have to coincide during a total eclipse.
.
However, that is not what is happening. The sun crosses the sky very high these days (especially due to the fact that we recently had the summer solstice which is the longest day of the year, when the sun is highest in the sky in the northern hemisphere). But the moon has been just about as LOW in the sky as it ever is, only about half as high as the sun.
.
And the moon has been rising in the east around 30 degrees further south than the sun rises, and it's been setting around 30 degrees further south from where the sun has been setting.
.
It is noteworthy to see this happen because there will have to be a dramatic change in these alignments during the next month in order for the eclipse to occur.
.
This eclipse (like all eclipses of the sun) will occur on a New Moon. That will be when the moon crosses the sky during the daytime. The moon is very difficult to see when it's a new moon, since the brightness of the sun in our atmosphere obscures the moon especially when it is close to the sun. Most people watching a solar eclipse have no idea where the moon is until it starts to move across the visible disc of the sun.
.
It is really important not to look directly at the sun in the sky because it can destroy your retinas in your eyes.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on July 12, 2017, 01:42:54 PM
This past week, the full moon has been very low in the sky compared to the sun.
 .
The moon has been crossing the sky at night this week, while the sun (obviously) traverses the sky during daytime. But if you keep track of where on the horizon the sun rises and sets, and its elevation overhead at various times of the day, you can compare that to the moon's path.
.
Since there is a total solar eclipse coming next month, one might expect that the path of the moon would be very close to the path of the sun this month, as the two have to coincide during a total eclipse.
.
However, that is not what is happening. The sun crosses the sky very high these days (especially due to the fact that we recently had the summer solstice which is the longest day of the year, when the sun is highest in the sky in the northern hemisphere). But the moon has been just about as LOW in the sky as it ever is, only about half as high as the sun.
.
And the moon has been rising in the east around 30 degrees further south than the sun rises, and it's been setting around 30 degrees further south from where the sun has been setting.
.
It is noteworthy to see this happen because there will have to be a dramatic change in these alignments during the next month in order for the eclipse to occur.
.
This eclipse (like all eclipses of the sun) will occur on a New Moon. That will be when the moon crosses the sky during the daytime. The moon is very difficult to see when it's a new moon, since the brightness of the sun in our atmosphere obscures the moon especially when it is close to the sun. Most people watching a solar eclipse have no idea where the moon is until it starts to move across the visible disc of the sun.
.
It is really important not to look directly at the sun in the sky because it can destroy your retinas in your eyes.
.
Enoch explains the movement of the sun and moon.  Early Church Fathers support his teachings.  Sun and moon pass through windows in the east, traverse a path across the earth, then exit through windows in the west.  They traverse at different speeds and paths; and the position of the window they enter or exit determines the time of year and the seasons.  Until you rule this out, and provide grounds for doing so, you are obliged to reconcile your preconceived notions with this biblical model that includes detailed operations of celestials within the firmament.    
There are plenty of clues that modern science is lying to us anyway.  
    
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: TomGubbinsKimmage on July 14, 2017, 04:05:53 AM
Neil,

What are you on? Bourbon or Scotch?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: St.Patrick on July 14, 2017, 04:10:10 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CWIIoSf4nw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CWIIoSf4nw)



As I went home on Monday night as drunk as drunk could be
I saw a horse outside the door where my old horse should be
Well, I called me wife and I said to her: Will you kindly tell to me
Who owns that horse outside the door where my old horse should be?

Ah, you're drunk,
you're drunk you silly old fool,
still you can not see
That's a lovely sow that me mother sent to me
Well, it's many a day I've travelled a hundred miles or more
But a saddle on a sow sure I never saw before

And as I went home on Tuesday night as drunk as drunk could be
I saw a coat behind the door where my old coat should be
Well, I called me wife and I said to her: Will you kindly tell to me
Who owns that coat behind the door where my old coat should be

Ah, you're drunk,
you're drunk you silly old fool,
still you can not see
That's a woollen blanket that me mother sent to me
Well, it's many a day I've travelled a hundred miles or more
But buttons in a blanket sure I never saw before

And as I went home on Wednesday night as drunk as drunk could be
I saw a pipe up on the chair where my old pipe should be
Well, I called me wife and I said to her: Will you kindly tell to me
Who owns that pipe up on the chair where my old pipe should be

Ah, you're drunk,
you're drunk you silly old fool,
still you can not see
That's a lovely tin whistle that me mother sent to me
Well, it's many a day I've travelled a hundred miles or more
But tobacco in a tin whistle sure I never saw before

And as I went home on Thursday night as drunk as drunk could be
I saw two boots beneath the bed where my old boots should be
Well, I called me wife and I said to her: Will you kindly tell to me
Who owns them boots beneath the bed where my old boots should be

Ah, you're drunk,
you're drunk you silly old fool,
still you can not see
They're two lovely Geranium pots me mother sent to me
Well, it's many a day I've travelled a hundred miles or more
But laces in Geranium pots I never saw before

And as I went home on Friday night as drunk as drunk could be
I saw a head upon the bed where my old head should be
Well, I called me wife and I said to her: Will you kindly tell to me
Who owns that head upon the bed where my old head should be

Ah, you're drunk,
you're drunk you silly old fool,
still you can not see
That's a baby boy that me mother sent to me
Well, it's many a day I've travelled a hundred miles or more
But a baby boy with his whiskers on sure I never saw before

And as I went home on Saturday night as drunk as drunk could be
I saw....
Well, I called me wife and I said to her: Will you kindly tell to me
Who owns ....where ....

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on July 15, 2017, 01:56:15 PM
Oh, its humor time!
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 15, 2017, 08:51:59 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CWIIoSf4nw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CWIIoSf4nw)



As I went home on Monday night as drunk as drunk could be
I saw a horse outside the door where my old horse should be
Well, I called me wife and I said to her: Will you kindly tell to me
Who owns that horse outside the door where my old horse should be?

Ah, you're drunk,
you're drunk you silly old fool,
still you can not see
That's a lovely sow that me mother sent to me
Well, it's many a day I've travelled a hundred miles or more
But a saddle on a sow sure I never saw before

And as I went home on Tuesday night as drunk as drunk could be
I saw a coat behind the door where my old coat should be
Well, I called me wife and I said to her: Will you kindly tell to me
Who owns that coat behind the door where my old coat should be

Ah, you're drunk,
you're drunk you silly old fool,
still you can not see
That's a woollen blanket that me mother sent to me
Well, it's many a day I've travelled a hundred miles or more
But buttons in a blanket sure I never saw before

And as I went home on Wednesday night as drunk as drunk could be
I saw a pipe up on the chair where my old pipe should be
Well, I called me wife and I said to her: Will you kindly tell to me
Who owns that pipe up on the chair where my old pipe should be

Ah, you're drunk,
you're drunk you silly old fool,
still you can not see
That's a lovely tin whistle that me mother sent to me
Well, it's many a day I've travelled a hundred miles or more
But tobacco in a tin whistle sure I never saw before

And as I went home on Thursday night as drunk as drunk could be
I saw two boots beneath the bed where my old boots should be
Well, I called me wife and I said to her: Will you kindly tell to me
Who owns them boots beneath the bed where my old boots should be

Ah, you're drunk,
you're drunk you silly old fool,
still you can not see
They're two lovely Geranium pots me mother sent to me
Well, it's many a day I've travelled a hundred miles or more
But laces in Geranium pots I never saw before

And as I went home on Friday night as drunk as drunk could be
I saw a head upon the bed where my old head should be
Well, I called me wife and I said to her: Will you kindly tell to me
Who owns that head upon the bed where my old head should be

Ah, you're drunk,
you're drunk you silly old fool,
still you can not see
That's a baby boy that me mother sent to me
Well, it's many a day I've travelled a hundred miles or more
But a baby boy with his whiskers on sure I never saw before

And as I went home on Saturday night as drunk as drunk could be
I saw....
Well, I called me wife and I said to her: Will you kindly tell to me
Who owns ....where ....
.
God bless the Irish folk song musicians who keep this ancient art alive.
.
There just isn't anything else quite like Irish folk songs. There are a lot of them that aren't prurient, you know.

I have a CD somewhere of an Australian group of Irish musicians who sing a song about importing various geographical and cultural aspects of Ireland to Australia. Can't find it, though.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 15, 2017, 08:56:39 PM
Oh, its humor time!
.
It's pretty funny (but too sorry to laugh) how they manage to dream up an entire creature from one bone fragment. 
.
Reminds me of how flat-earthers imagine a silly nonsense system with no data to base it on. And meanwhile they refuse to make any observations like the appearance of the moon from different parts of the earth at the same time of day, or the angle between the sun and quarter moon. Just like those academy award-winning dreamers in the cartoon!! HAHAHA
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 15, 2017, 08:59:51 PM
Neil,

What are you on? Bourbon or Scotch?
.
More evidence to convict the accused:  calumny, derision, disrespect, and no evidence.
.
And no willingness to engage in any intelligent discussion.
.
Epithets, slander and falsehood is all you can come up with? Speaks volumes, dude.
.
Answer me this: what positive contribution to this discussion have you contributed? Anything?
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 15, 2017, 09:17:50 PM
.
Tomorrow, Sunday, June 16th, 2017, the moon will reach its last quarter at 12:28 pm in the Pacific Time Zone, but the moon sets at 12:04 pm. 
.
So this is an excellent opportunity to check the angle between the sun and moon, provided it's a clear western sky, and you don't wait too long, when the moon will go down below the horizon. 
.
If you check the angle at 9, 10, 11 and 12, you'll see if it changes much during those hours. 
.
Remember that both the moon and the sun traverse the sky, but at different rates. The sun moves faster. And you can look up the number of minutes of a degree it changes every minute, on an average. The rate is not absolutely constant since the rates of the sun and of the moon are not absolutely consistent, but they are generally the same from day to day, and year to year, within a limited range.
.
But flat-earthers do not enjoy specific measurements and objective data. They don't like to think about where anyone can expect to find the sun or moon in the sky at a given time and date, for example. They say things like this has nothing to do with Scripture, cannot be found in the Bible, and it smacks of devil worship.
.
There is a name for people who ascribe any kind of real objective knowledge to devil worship.
.
The astronomers who guided the Three Kings, Melchior, Caspar and Balthazar to Bethlehem must have been practitioners of evil, no?
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 21, 2017, 10:21:00 PM
.
No surprise, again. Flat-earthers are not interested, apparently, in making observations of astronomical fact.
.
So I guess they only want to think about their subjective fantasy. Prove me wrong by making observations.
.
Anyone interested in seeing the total Solar Eclipse of August 21st should be prepared to protect your eyes from blindness by getting a cheap pair of eclipse goggles:

.
http://www.eclipse2017.org/glasses_order.htm
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on July 24, 2017, 02:02:55 AM

More evidence of the earth's curvature.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJQ4SMR2_aw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJQ4SMR2_aw)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BFXNfM57QY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BFXNfM57QY)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 26, 2017, 12:00:32 AM
Here's a video the flat-earthers forgot to watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3GD9gXzUBk
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 26, 2017, 11:42:11 PM
The video above barely scratches the surface.
.
They completely miss mentioning how the moon appears the same in the sky when viewed from the far northern hemisphere to the far southern hemisphere. In the USA today, the moon appears in the early evening sky , low toward the west, as a waxing crescent. It appears that way in the arctic tundra of Canada, all the way south to Tierra del Fuego. It appears low in the western sky with the same portion illuminated by the sun, no matter where on earth you're standing when you see it.
.
This fact would not be what we see if the earth were "flat." And the reason is as follows:  the earth is not "flat." Simple.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 27, 2017, 02:28:51 AM
Video showing the entire earth from a satellite camera, which flat-earthers say don't exist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7j-0orCtYs

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on July 27, 2017, 09:58:22 AM
Video showing the entire earth from a satellite camera, which flat-earthers say don't exist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7j-0orCtYs

Obviously a fake video. But then that's what NASA produces. If the pause button on the video is pressed, we can see that the continents are in the wrong places for a "globe" earth.

Africa is WAY too far north, and Canada is at the North Pole.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 30, 2017, 04:31:39 PM
Obviously a fake video. But then that's what NASA produces. If the pause button on the video is pressed, we can see that the continents are in the wrong places for a "globe" earth.

Africa is WAY too far north, and Canada is at the North Pole.
.
Have you considered perhaps you're mistaking Greenland for Africa and Canada for the arctic circle?
.
Another flat-earther earlier in the thread accused inaccuracy for the Sinai peninsula, when she was actually looking at a photo of the Arabian peninsula, which included Sinai as a tiny part of the upper left side. She had no idea how to read the scale legend.
.
It's a good idea to learn how to identify what you're looking at before you try to criticize it.
.
In THIS video, the camera is close to earth which distorts the scale. If you have paid attention, you would see that the view is directly over the equator, but you can only see about 45 degrees north and south. For example, you never get a look at Australia, nor do you ever see Greenland, so Canada appears to be at the north pole but that's because you can't see that far north from this vantage point. The earth is a very big place, after all.
.
The First Quarter moon happened today. In the western states, it was at 8:23 am and that means the moon was not visible yet. Even this afternoon at 2:00 the moon was not yet visible, after it rose at 12:10 pm, probably due to the heavy haze in the high noon eastern sky. So this was not a good day to view the sun and moon together at the minute of the Quarter moon.
.
And the next one will be Aug. 14th, at 6:16 pm, which won't be a good time, again, since the sun will be close to setting but the moon will have set at 1:07 pm, so it will be below the horizon over 5 hours.
.
There are about 26 possible viewings of the first and/or last quarter moons every year. Out of these, only about a fourth are likely good viewings, since there are four possible orientations for the sun and moon at any given time. So in a year you'll only get about 6 or 7 good views of the sun and moon in the sky when the moon achieves its quarter moon phase. Out of those, about half may well be in cloudy skies, perhaps more.  Therefore, when a good opportunity presents itself, it's a good idea to not let it slip by.
.
Incidentally, next month on the 21st, a once in a lifetime opportunity will present itself.
.
We ought to be praying for safe environments for the millions of visitors who are due to descend on the numerous remote areas along the path of the umbra of totality. With crowds that dense, if there is any kind of emergency the traffic jams will be impassible. They'll have to resort to helicopters.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 30, 2017, 05:00:49 PM
International Space Station, over 10 million views..

In minutes 14, 15 and 16 they provide shots out of the cupola -- earth, complete with curvature.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGP6Y0Pnhe4

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: moosy on July 30, 2017, 05:32:53 PM
Hey Neil!

Do you like my picture?

(https://i11.servimg.com/u/f11/19/66/52/64/nasa_a10.jpg)



Oh and in case anyone is wondering why no one is responding to Neil it is because it has all been responded to already, he just keeps trolling. You can do a post search of his profile and see how he can't be reasoned with.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: JohnAnthonyMarie on July 30, 2017, 06:41:08 PM
Silly trolls. Can't prove your assertion so you resort to fallacious tactics.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 01, 2017, 12:07:15 AM
Silly trolls. Can't prove your assertion so you resort to fallacious tactics.
.
Hey, how about moosey's photo of the "dome?" Ain't that something?
.
You've missed your chance to make an objective observation again, but resort to ad-hominems as usual?
.
Surprise, surprise. *not*  ::)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 01, 2017, 12:13:40 AM
International Space Station, over 10 million views..

In minutes 14, 15 and 16 they provide shots out of the cupola -- earth, complete with curvature.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGP6Y0Pnhe4
Question: How do they get a wide-angle view of what's outside the window when the same shot of what's inside the window shows no such perspective? 
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 01, 2017, 12:39:01 AM
.
Have you considered perhaps you're mistaking Greenland for Africa and Canada for the arctic circle?
.
Another flat-earther earlier in the thread accused inaccuracy for the Sinai peninsula, when she was actually looking at a photo of the Arabian peninsula, which included Sinai as a tiny part of the upper left side. She had no idea how to read the scale legend.
.
It's a good idea to learn how to identify what you're looking at before you try to criticize it.
.
In THIS video, the camera is close to earth which distorts the scale. If you have paid attention, you would see that the view is directly over the equator, but you can only see about 45 degrees north and south. For example, you never get a look at Australia, nor do you ever see Greenland, so Canada appears to be at the north pole but that's because you can't see that far north from this vantage point. The earth is a very big place, after all.
.
The First Quarter moon happened today. In the western states, it was at 8:23 am and that means the moon was not visible yet. Even this afternoon at 2:00 the moon was not yet visible, after it rose at 12:10 pm, probably due to the heavy haze in the high noon eastern sky. So this was not a good day to view the sun and moon together at the minute of the Quarter moon.
.
And the next one will be Aug. 14th, at 6:16 pm, which won't be a good time, again, since the sun will be close to setting but the moon will have set at 1:07 pm, so it will be below the horizon over 5 hours.
.
There are about 26 possible viewings of the first and/or last quarter moons every year. Out of these, only about a fourth are likely good viewings, since there are four possible orientations for the sun and moon at any given time. So in a year you'll only get about 6 or 7 good views of the sun and moon in the sky when the moon achieves its quarter moon phase. Out of those, about half may well be in cloudy skies, perhaps more.  Therefore, when a good opportunity presents itself, it's a good idea to not let it slip by.
.
Incidentally, next month on the 21st, a once in a lifetime opportunity will present itself.
.
We ought to be praying for safe environments for the millions of visitors who are due to descend on the numerous remote areas along the path of the umbra of totality. With crowds that dense, if there is any kind of emergency the traffic jams will be impassible. They'll have to resort to helicopters.
.
Nasa admits these images are not photos, but artist conceptions.  Naturally.  Earth is not a globe.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 01, 2017, 12:52:12 AM
International Space Station, over 10 million views..

In minutes 14, 15 and 16 they provide shots out of the cupola -- earth, complete with curvature.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGP6Y0Pnhe4
Follow the curve shown to complete a ball using the picture provided.  The completed sphere would be a wee bit too small to be the earth. Trying to represent curvature of the earth 25,000 mi around using this ridiculous fish eye curve is so juvenile it boggles the mind.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: JohnAnthonyMarie on August 01, 2017, 01:06:47 AM
.
Hey, how about moosey's photo of the "dome?" Ain't that something?
.
You've missed your chance to make an objective observation again, but resort to ad-hominems as usual?
.
Surprise, surprise. *not*  ::)
I apologize 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 01, 2017, 04:52:31 AM
Flat-earthers today are apparently unfit to learn the truth. Like a growing mass of modern minds today are so incapable any longer of thinking or reasoning that any attempt to dispel their errors can seem to risk only increasing their confusion. For how many times has this simple experiment been replied to with nothing but snide ad-hominems of derision and disrespect? They're all on record. Flat-earthers persistently rely on their laundry list of false maxims and erroneous precepts, none of which they are apparently capable of recognizing their falsehood. For them, their erroneous principles are non-negotiables, as it were dogma. That is, dogmatic error!
 
It takes a special grace today for modern man to understand what to one may seem evident via unbiased observation. People just don't understand things  today. They don't have ears to hear. The Holy Ghost enlightens different souls at different speeds. You or I can crash into a soul thinking they should understand, for example by requesting of them to measure the angle between the sun and moon at the minute of the moon's quarter phase, as we think they're going to understand, when we try to tell it like it is, and they just push us off. The moment has not come for them yet. The moment maybe will come one day.
 
In the meantime, it is their hardened will that stands in the way, blocking their understanding. It's like walking with someone down the way, someone who does not want to approach the destination that lies in the distance ahead;  that same someone will choose to take a right turn, or a left turn, for no apparent reason. When you or I ask them why they are turning off the path, we will hear them say any of many possible explanations, but none of them will admit to the truth, which is the following:  They have chosen to turn off the path, the "narrow way" that leads to salvation, because they know what is coming up ahead if they were to remain in that path, and not wanting to be face to face with that objective decision up ahead, instead, they choose to divert their route elsewhere, to avoid the inevitable. This fierce determined resistance to the inevitable truth is what they have set up to obstruct their understanding and realization of the truth, the truth they simply will not accept.
 

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 01, 2017, 10:27:10 AM
Flat-earthers today are apparently unfit to learn the truth. Like a growing mass of modern minds today are so incapable any longer of thinking or reasoning that any attempt to dispel their errors can seem to risk only increasing their confusion. For how many times has this simple experiment been replied to with nothing but snide ad-hominems of derision and disrespect? They're all on record. Flat-earthers persistently rely on their laundry list of false maxims and erroneous precepts, none of which they are apparently capable of recognizing their falsehood. For them, their erroneous principles are non-negotiables, as it were dogma. That is, dogmatic error!
 
It takes a special grace today for modern man to understand what to one may seem evident via unbiased observation. People just don't understand things  today. They don't have ears to hear. The Holy Ghost enlightens different souls at different speeds. You or I can crash into a soul thinking they should understand, for example by requesting of them to measure the angle between the sun and moon at the minute of the moon's quarter phase, as we think they're going to understand, when we try to tell it like it is, and they just push us off. The moment has not come for them yet. The moment maybe will come one day.
 
In the meantime, it is their hardened will that stands in the way, blocking their understanding. It's like walking with someone down the way, someone who does not want to approach the destination that lies in the distance ahead;  that same someone will choose to take a right turn, or a left turn, for no apparent reason. When you or I ask them why they are turning off the path, we will hear them say any of many possible explanations, but none of them will admit to the truth, which is the following:  They have chosen to turn off the path, the "narrow way" that leads to salvation, because they know what is coming up ahead if they were to remain in that path, and not wanting to be face to face with that objective decision up ahead, instead, they choose to divert their route elsewhere, to avoid the inevitable. This fierce determined resistance to the inevitable truth is what they have set up to obstruct their understanding and realization of the truth, the truth they simply will not accept.
 

Just a couple of questions on what you've written above.

You say that...."The Holy Ghost enlightens souls at different speeds."
Neil, do you believe that the Holy Ghost gives you (or enlightens you) with information regarding the shape of the earth? I'm not joking. I really would like to know the answer.

You also wrote...."They have chosen to turn off the path, the "narrow way" that leads to salvation, because they know what is up ahead if they were to remain in that path [...]."
Neil, Do you believe that it's necessary to believe in a ball-shaped earth in order to attain salvation?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: OHCA on August 01, 2017, 10:31:34 AM
Hey Neil!

Do you like my picture?

(https://i11.servimg.com/u/f11/19/66/52/64/nasa_a10.jpg)



Oh and in case anyone is wondering why no one is responding to Neil it is because it has all been responded to already, he just keeps trolling. You can do a post search of his profile and see how he can't be reasoned with.
LMAO at the twit with 3 posts accusing Neil of "trolling."  Flat-earthers live in their own flat little world.  Maybe flat earth can be their safe space.   :jester:
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: OHCA on August 01, 2017, 10:53:01 AM
Typical response of globalists.  No content, proof, or reason in this comment, just disparaging remarks in defense of the heliocentric religion.
religion


[ri-lij-uh n]
Spell Syllables

  • Examples
  • Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/religion)
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhumanagency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

I am an anti-globalist who detests seeing extreme idiotic nonsense assertions masquerading as "anti-globalist" and discrediting the movement and its legitimate issues.  Making anti-globalists look like silly toothless backward people is the MO of the Jєω & it's NWO allies.  Is this what you are, or are you an unwitting pawn?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croixalist on August 01, 2017, 04:26:09 PM
International Space Station, over 10 million views..

In minutes 14, 15 and 16 they provide shots out of the cupola -- earth, complete with curvature.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGP6Y0Pnhe4
Thank you Neil for hanging in there despite the onslaught of flathead screwtape demoralization coming our way. I have a special challenge for all supposedly "genuine" flatearthers: in light of this video and well everything else we know about the international space scene out there, can you please be sure to include Roscosmos along with Nasa every time you want to slam a space agency? In theory, you ought to be slamming all of these agencies. Considering how deeply involved Russia is in this area, I don't see a reason for leaving them out. Thanks!
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: JohnAnthonyMarie on August 01, 2017, 05:25:13 PM
I apologize
To be clear, I was not referring to you Neil, but you are correct, I should not have lost patience with the proponents of this flat earth orientation. Sorry
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: kiwiboy on August 02, 2017, 03:15:52 AM
Thank you Neil for hanging in there despite the onslaught of flathead screwtape demoralization coming our way. I have a special challenge for all supposedly "genuine" flatearthers: in light of this video and well everything else we know about the international space scene out there, can you please be sure to include Roscosmos along with Nasa every time you want to slam a space agency? In theory, you ought to be slamming all of these agencies. Considering how deeply involved Russia is in this area, I don't see a reason for leaving them out. Thanks!
Well considering this is an english speaking forum, it's kind of understandable.
In any case the others take the lead from NASA.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: kiwiboy on August 02, 2017, 03:56:03 AM
Chinese faking space exploration....

https://youtu.be/6Y7ZIQRNV7g
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 02, 2017, 04:29:31 AM
LMAO at the twit with 3 posts accusing Neil of "trolling."  Flat-earthers live in their own flat little world.  Maybe flat earth can be their safe space.   :jester:
.
The twit with 3 posts (troll to be sure-- the pot calling the kettle black) posted a nonsense photo with no explanation and then asked me how I like it. What could I say? (I didn't like it actually but I didn't want to offend him!)
.
He posted the same nonsense on another thread with no explanation.
.
Flat-earthers don't need any help making themselves look bad.
.
They do it all on their own.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 02, 2017, 04:45:10 AM
Thank you Neil for hanging in there despite the onslaught of flathead screwtape demoralization coming our way. I have a special challenge for all supposedly "genuine" flatearthers: in light of this video and well everything else we know about the international space scene out there, can you please be sure to include Roscosmos along with Nasa every time you want to slam a space agency? In theory, you ought to be slamming all of these agencies. Considering how deeply involved Russia is in this area, I don't see a reason for leaving them out. Thanks!
.
You're welcome.
.
I really must thank the flat-earthers for this incentive to look for videos that answer their drivel because here I was a year out and never had seen this 10-million times viewed video. It's only 28 minutes long but wow! what a wealth of information. The woman astronaut leading the camera around is a real natural. Check out the comments in the area below (there are thousands of comments) and you'll see that some of them are from people in India who actually know her family. They're very proud of their home girl!
.
She goes right to the loo and demonstrates how they go potty on the ISS. Makes me glad I'm NOT an astronaut. She brushes her teeth (and swallows the toothpaste!  :barf:) THAT makes it two for two.
.
Then she squeezes out some water, making a wobbly sphere (globe) of water the flat-earthers claim can't happen because water flows downhill (?) forgetting it's zero gravity -- no, wait they don't believe in gravity.
.
Ugh.
.
The shots out the cupola window are very revealing. No curved lines anywhere but on the surface of the globular earth. And all the shots of her turning 90 degrees right, left, up and down make it clear that they are in a large format station. I'm so glad I'm not there.
.
The final seal is when she describes the central emergency place where they all meet if there is a FIRE or an ammonia leak. Okay, I'm done. Beam me DOWN, Scotty! 
.
There's no place like home. There's no place like home. There's no place like home...
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 02, 2017, 05:44:24 AM
Well considering this is an english speaking forum, it's kind of understandable.
In any case the others take the lead from NASA.
.
Flat-earthers don't mention the Russians because they don't have any friends in Russia.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 02, 2017, 10:40:33 AM
Neil,

I asked you a couple of questions yesterday, in post number 762 on this thread. You may have missed it. It regarded a post you made yesterday. Given that you brought the Holy Ghost into the debate, and said that the Holy Ghost enlightens people at different speeds, I would like to know if you believe that the Holy Ghost enlightens you as to the shape of the earth.

You also mentioned that we flat-earthers are risking our salvation, presumably because of our obstinate thinking, so I'd like to know if you believe that we must believe in a ball-shaped earth in order to obtain salvation. If you don't want to answer, that's fine. But in not answering, I think that that in itself would give a "yes" answer to both questions.

Also, someone asked you to confirm that you don't work for NASA. I don't think you responded to that question. I think it's a good question, which needs an answer.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: JohnAnthonyMarie on August 02, 2017, 11:37:06 AM
Also, someone asked you to confirm that you don't work for NASA. I don't think you responded to that question. I think it's a good question, which needs an answer.
Neil,
It's interesting that these people are not worried about involvement with the other seventy (or so) space agencies.

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 03, 2017, 02:43:08 AM
Neil,

I asked you a couple of questions yesterday, in post number 762 on this thread. You may have missed it. It regarded a post you made yesterday. Given that you brought the Holy Ghost into the debate, and said that the Holy Ghost enlightens people at different speeds, I would like to know if you believe that the Holy Ghost enlightens you as to the shape of the earth.

You also mentioned that we flat-earthers are risking our salvation, presumably because of our obstinate thinking, so I'd like to know if you believe that we must believe in a ball-shaped earth in order to obtain salvation. If you don't want to answer, that's fine. But in not answering, I think that that in itself would give a "yes" answer to both questions.

Also, someone asked you to confirm that you don't work for NASA. I don't think you responded to that question. I think it's a good question, which needs an answer.
Dear Meg,
Thank you for asking these questions. The Holy Ghost gives people grace in answer to their request for it, if it is for their good. He does not give us answers to questions that we can figure out by our own observation of what God has given us in His creation, and that includes the necessary conclusions that are consequent to directly observable phenomena such as the phases of the moon.
.
The moon's phases are exactly (not approximately but EXACTLY) the same everywhere on earth every day. What we see in America is what they see in Australia, Africa, Asia, Europe and Oceania. A full moon is a full moon everywhere on earth the same day. And there is no shadow on the bottom of the moon or on the top of the moon. The full moon is illuminated ALL AROUND, from top to bottom, right side to left side, as viewed from everywhere on the earth. The only way for that to happen is for the moon to be a GREAT DISTANCE away from earth, not only a few thousand miles, but many tens of thousands of miles. If it were any closer to earth we would not be seeing the moon phases appearing as they do every day, year round.
.
You don't need to ask the Holy Ghost how to understand what you see in the phases of the moon. That is simply logic and common sense.
.
When God provides us with two eyes and a mind to know what we see and logical thinking to draw necessary conclusions but we prescind from thinking logically and obstinately presume to ignore that which God has provided for our edification and consequently refuse to discuss any of the component aspects with others while hurling abusive and insulting epithets along with patently false presumptions that we rely on to bolster our unreasonable and illogical subjective reality, it can become sinful. It can become mortally sinful when someone with patience and verifiable evidence is absolutely rejected a priori because we don't agree with his conclusions.
.
As for whether or not I work for NASA, I'm sorry, but I fail to understand what that could possibly have to do with anything. Do you work for NASA? Do you know anyone who does? I have some schoolmates who work at JPL in Pasadena. Does that help? Or do flat-earthers contend that jet propulsion is a myth or whatever?
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 03, 2017, 09:40:10 AM
Dear Meg,
Thank you for asking these questions. The Holy Ghost gives people grace in answer to their request for it, if it is for their good. He does not give us answers to questions that we can figure out by our own observation of what God has given us in His creation, and that includes the necessary conclusions that are consequent to directly observable phenomena such as the phases of the moon.
.
The moon's phases are exactly (not approximately but EXACTLY) the same everywhere on earth every day. What we see in America is what they see in Australia, Africa, Asia, Europe and Oceania. A full moon is a full moon everywhere on earth the same day. And there is no shadow on the bottom of the moon or on the top of the moon. The full moon is illuminated ALL AROUND, from top to bottom, right side to left side, as viewed from everywhere on the earth. The only way for that to happen is for the moon to be a GREAT DISTANCE away from earth, not only a few thousand miles, but many tens of thousands of miles. If it were any closer to earth we would not be seeing the moon phases appearing as they do every day, year round.
.
You don't need to ask the Holy Ghost how to understand what you see in the phases of the moon. That is simply logic and common sense.
.
When God provides us with two eyes and a mind to know what we see and logical thinking to draw necessary conclusions but we prescind from thinking logically and obstinately presume to ignore that which God has provided for our edification and consequently refuse to discuss any of the component aspects with others while hurling abusive and insulting epithets along with patently false presumptions that we rely on to bolster our unreasonable and illogical subjective reality, it can become sinful. It can become mortally sinful when someone with patience and verifiable evidence is absolutely rejected a priori because we don't agree with his conclusions.
.
As for whether or not I work for NASA, I'm sorry, but I fail to understand what that could possibly have to do with anything. Do you work for NASA? Do you know anyone who does? I have some schoolmates who work at JPL in Pasadena. Does that help? Or do flat-earthers contend that jet propulsion is a myth or whatever?
.

Okay, so why then why did you bring the Holy Ghost into the debate if you don't think that you have been enlightened as to the shape of the earth by the Holy Ghost? 

You wrote also that...."It can become mortally sinful when someone with patience and verifiable evidence is absolutely rejected a priori because we don't agree with his conclusions."

Well, that is beyond ridiculous, Neil, to say that it can be mortally sinful to disagree with you and your evidence. And you have NOT been patient. You have been very abusive toward flat-earthers, except in a few posts. You seem to believe that you and the evidence you provide is infallible that that it's a sin to not accept what Pope Neil infallibly declares. Sadly, highly educated people such as yourself can be extremely arrogant and self-righteous, thinking that they are above everyone else.

Why refuse to say that you do or do not work for NASA? What's up with that, Pope Neil?

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croixalist on August 03, 2017, 11:54:32 AM
Oh that's alright, when in doubt just say it's CGI. Am I right flatearthers? I haven't checked the official counter argument, but let me guess, it goes something like this: it was taken on a parabolic flight and the windows were CG'd...

Well considering this is an english speaking forum, it's kind of understandable.
In any case the others take the lead from NASA.

I've seen most of you go to great lengths to defend the indefensible, but when it comes to this you are suddenly very selective in your target. The prospect of having to include all the many international organizations that contribute on a regular basis to such a gigantic conspiracy may be too much for the maniacally myopic flatearther. But like other completely unreasonable assumptions against rational thought, the flatearthers would like us to believe NASA really controls the paradigm despite the fact that NASA and Roscosmos have a long, well docuмented, and often bitter rivalry. Like everything else in your flat fiat statements of "fact" you couldn't be bothered substantiating any of it.

Minds like these are begging for satanic interference and once they get it, they need to spread it like a virus. Because they have foolishly yoked their faith with these ideas, they will likely lose the little faith they have if they ever do change their view about the shape of the earth.

Once again, ocean navigators have been using latitude and longitude to help them get from point A to point B since the age of exploration. Knowledge of a spherical Earth had solid practical applications throughout that era, long before CGI could ever be employed. If it wasn't true, it would have been amply docuмented by every long distance seafarer who lived to tell the tale. Nobody would have been able to use the sextant to get where they were going due to the use of longitude in the calculations.  

But this along with the multitude of simple and easy to follow refutations fall like pearls before swine. You guys need to relocate your sense of shame.

As for whether or not I work for NASA, I'm sorry, but I fail to understand what that could possibly have to do with anything. Do you work for NASA? Do you know anyone who does? I have some schoolmates who work at JPL in Pasadena. Does that help? Or do flat-earthers contend that jet propulsion is a myth or whatever?
.
If you worked for NASA, you might as well be a Satan-worshipper to the Flatheads! "Team NASA"="Me A Satan!"
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: kiwiboy on August 03, 2017, 12:51:30 PM
Nobody is saying Neil, that if you work for NASA we are not going to listen to you, or that you can't post on forums relating the flat earth.

As mentioned, you don't have to say which part you work for. I think the answer though is clear from what you said above for discerning readers.

Some may consider it a conflict of interests and they have a right to know.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: JohnAnthonyMarie on August 03, 2017, 07:47:37 PM
Hey Neil, there is a job opening downstairs...

https://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 04, 2017, 03:21:08 AM
Okay, so why then why did you bring the Holy Ghost into the debate if you don't think that you have been enlightened as to the shape of the earth by the Holy Ghost?

You wrote also that...."It can become mortally sinful when someone with patience and verifiable evidence is absolutely rejected a priori because we don't agree with his conclusions."

Well, that is beyond ridiculous, Neil, to say that it can be mortally sinful to disagree with you and your evidence. And you have NOT been patient. You have been very abusive toward flat-earthers, except in a few posts. You seem to believe that you and the evidence you provide is infallible that that it's a sin to not accept what Pope Neil infallibly declares. Sadly, highly educated people such as yourself can be extremely arrogant and self-righteous, thinking that they are above everyone else.

Why refuse to say that you do or do not work for NASA? What's up with that, Pope Neil?
.
I'm sorry. I was mistaken. I thought you were interested in having a conversation. You have specifically ignored everything I said except for the things that you want to argue about, ignoring all the evidence. 
.
If you will not accept the evidence before your eyes, then I cannot help you.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 04, 2017, 03:34:21 AM
Quote
The moon's phases are exactly (not approximately but EXACTLY) the same everywhere on earth every day. What we see in America is what they see in Australia, Africa, Asia, Europe and Oceania. A full moon is a full moon everywhere on earth the same day. And there is no shadow on the bottom of the full moon or on the top of the full moon. The full moon is illuminated ALL AROUND, from top to bottom, right side to left side, as viewed from everywhere on the earth. The only way for that to happen is for the moon to be a GREAT DISTANCE away from earth, not only a few thousand miles, but many tens of thousands of miles. If it were any closer to earth we would not be seeing the moon phases appearing as they do every day, year round.
.
Does anyone have an intelligent response to this paragraph?
.
This coming Monday is the next full moon. Look for a shadow. Look really hard.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 04, 2017, 09:38:24 AM
Neil,

I don't see how you can expect to be taken seriously when you have said that it can be a mortal sin to reject your "evidence." 

From what church doctrine is this derived? Certainly not from the Catholic Church. Maybe it's from the Church of NASA. 

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 04, 2017, 12:24:40 PM
NASA reps miserably fail to explain how moon and earth, moving the same direction (according to modern heliocentric science), can produce the 2017 eclipse. :applause: 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 04, 2017, 12:33:17 PM
Gregory of Nyssa: “For just as those skilled in astronomy tell us that the whole universe is full of light, and darkness is made to cast its shadow by the interposition of the body formed by the earth; and that this darkness is shut off from the rays of the sun, in the shape of a cone, according to the figure of the sphere‐shaped body, and behind it; while the sun, exceeding the earth by a size many times as great as its own, enfolding it round about on all sides with its rays, unites at the limit of cone the concurrent streams of light; so that if ሺto suppose the caseሻ any one had the power of passing beyond the measure to which the shadow extends, he would certainly find himself in light unbroken by darkness.”54


Well said, St. Gregory! Yet globers will tell you that you are wrong.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 04, 2017, 06:41:50 PM
NASA reps miserably fail to explain how moon and earth, moving the same direction (according to modern heliocentric science), can produce the 2017 eclipse. :applause:


The video asks an interesting question: if the moon rises in the east (and sets in the west), then why is the shadow (from the eclipse) moving from west to east, all the way from Oregon to South Carolina?

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 04, 2017, 07:06:15 PM
Neil,

I don't see how you can expect to be taken seriously when you have said that it can be a mortal sin to reject your "evidence."

From what church doctrine is this derived? Certainly not from the Catholic Church. Maybe it's from the Church of NASA.
.
The problem is, you are rejecting the truth. Truth is the conformity of the mind to reality. Reality is what we see every day with our eyes, but you have repeatedly refused to look and see. Ignoring the evidence God has given you every day is obstinacy in error. How can you expect to be in the state of grace when you reject the truth that God gives you before your eyes? Our Lord told the Pharisees in His day they were sons of satan when they refused the reality of what He gave them to see with their eyes. What do you think He would tell you today?
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 04, 2017, 07:09:15 PM
.
Does anyone have an intelligent response to this paragraph?
.
This coming Monday is the next full moon. Look for a shadow. Look really hard.
.
No intelligent response? Why am I surprised?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 04, 2017, 07:52:50 PM
.
What do you think He would tell you today?
.
Maybe he would tell me that He designed a beautiful earth for us, and while we are here, we are to know, love and serve Him. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 04, 2017, 07:59:49 PM
Maybe he would tell me that He designed a beautiful earth for us, and while we are here, we are to know, love and serve Him.
....And that you show Him how you know, love and serve Him by ignoring what He has provided for you to see, and by ignoring the simple questions placed before you by your contemporaries? 
.
How can you know if you won't look? 
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 04, 2017, 09:17:35 PM
....And that you show Him how you know, love and serve Him by ignoring what He has provided for you to see, and by ignoring the simple questions placed before you by your contemporaries?
.
How can you know if you won't look?
.

Maybe to could try to answer a question that I've already posted on this thread, seeing as how you claim to know so much about the subject of the moon.

The moon rises in the east and sets in the west, right? So how is it that the shadow which is cast by the moon in the upcoming eclipse goes from west to east? It's takes one hour and 33 minutes to cross the U.S., from Oregon to South Carolina. This should be an easy one for you to explain, so I'll wait for your response. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on August 04, 2017, 09:24:06 PM
.
The problem is, you are rejecting the truth. Truth is the conformity of the mind to reality. Reality is what we see every day with our eyes, but you have repeatedly refused to look and see. Ignoring the evidence God has given you every day is obstinacy in error. How can you expect to be in the state of grace when you reject the truth that God gives you before your eyes? Our Lord told the Pharisees in His day they were sons of satan when they refused the reality of what He gave them to see with their eyes. What do you think He would tell you today?
.
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government "space agencies" show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.


The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.

 


Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 05, 2017, 12:05:25 AM
Maybe to could try to answer a question that I've already posted on this thread, seeing as how you claim to know so much about the subject of the moon.

The moon rises in the east and sets in the west, right? So how is it that the shadow which is cast by the moon in the upcoming eclipse goes from west to east? It's takes one hour and 33 minutes to cross the U.S., from Oregon to South Carolina. This should be an easy one for you to explain, so I'll wait for your response.
.
Looky there -- you only had to wait 2-1/2 hours!
.
The things I've posted about the moon are right there in front of your face if you bother to look. The sun is moving faster and it passes up the moon in the sky. Simple.
.
During a total solar eclipse (one of which I have already seen in person) the sun's course across the sky is FASTER than the moon's course across the sky. NASA doesn't explain it that way in those words because their paradigm and premise is heliocentrism, even while JPL and Mission Control for all the space flights presumes a stationary earth.
.
NASA doesn't want to have too many people asking how the sun can move across the sky if the earth is moving around the sun.
.
The shadow of the moon crossing the USA on August 21st will take as long as it takes the sun to pass up the moon in the sky. The sun does this same thing every time we have a new moon, but the moon is very hard to find, usually, due to the overbearing brightness of the sun's light. You can see the new moon being passed up by the sun every month, but you need to know where to look and you have to use special equipment to see the moon and prevent the sun from causing blindness. 
.
Of course, about half the time the sun is on the other side of the earth when it passes by the moon. That's what is going on when there is an eclipse of the sun on the other side of the planet, such as in Asia: then people in America won't be able to see the sun pass by the moon.
.
In case you were unaware, Galileo Galilei spent the last years of his life not only under house arrest, but blind, because he had foolishly looked at the sun through a telescope without using eye protection. 
.
Unfortunately, there will be perhaps hundreds of people who will suffer permanent eye and retina damage this month from failing to protect their eyes while trying to view the eclipse. The vast majority of America will not be in the umbra of totality, but will see some portion of the bright sun unobstructed by the moon. Anyone who tries to look at the partially obscured sun without sufficient eye protection risks going permanently BLIND. So don't do it.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 05, 2017, 12:09:14 AM
.
Looky there -- you only had to wait 2-1/2 hours!
.
The things I've posted about the moon are right there in front of your face if you bother to look. The sun is moving faster and it passes up the moon in the sky. Simple.
.
During a total solar eclipse (one of which I have already seen in person) the sun's course across the sky is FASTER than the moon's course across the sky. NASA doesn't explain it that way in those words because their paradigm and premise is heliocentrism, even while JPL and Mission Control for all the space flights presumes a stationary earth.
.
NASA doesn't want to have too many people asking how the sun can move across the sky if the earth is moving around the sun.
.
The shadow of the moon crossing the USA on August 21st will take as long as it takes the sun to pass up the moon in the sky. The sun does this same thing every time we have a new moon, but the moon is very hard to find, usually, due to the overbearing brightness of the sun's light. You can see the new moon being passed up by the sun every month, but you need to know where to look and you have to use special equipment to see the moon and prevent the sun from causing blindness.
.
Of course, about half the time the sun is on the other side of the earth when it passes by the moon. That's what is going on when there is an eclipse of the sun on the other side of the planet, such as in Asia: then people in America won't be able to see the sun pass by the moon.
.
In case you were unaware, Galileo Galilei spent the last years of his life not only under house arrest, but blind, because he had foolishly looked at the sun through a telescope without using eye protection.
.
Unfortunately, there will be perhaps hundreds of people who will suffer permanent eye and retina damage this month from failing to protect their eyes while trying to view the eclipse. The vast majority of America will not be in the umbra of totality, but will see some portion of the bright sun unobstructed by the moon. Anyone who tries to look at the partially obscured sun without sufficient eye protection risks going permanently BLIND. So don't do it.
.

Okay, thanks for the explanation. I have another question. Why is it that the shadow cast by the moon on the land is only between 50 and 100 miles wide?
Since the moon is supposedly 2,159 miles wide, it should cast a much wider shadow.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 05, 2017, 12:13:53 AM
Unfortunately, there will be perhaps hundreds of people who will suffer permanent eye and retina damage this month from failing to protect their eyes while trying to view the eclipse. The vast majority of America will not be in the umbra of totality, but will see some portion of the bright sun unobstructed by the moon. Anyone who tries to look at the partially obscured sun without sufficient eye protection risks going permanently BLIND. So don't do it.
.
Good advice. Fortunately, the store where I work sells viewing glasses for two bucks each. I bought ten pairs. :)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 05, 2017, 12:19:25 AM
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government "space agencies" show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.


The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.
.
Oh, it's you again.
.
The horizon might APPEAR flat 360 degrees around the observer, but if the observer knows how to use instruments he can immediately see that his untrained eye is deceived, because the horizon does not MEASURE that way. I know this for a fact from using surveying instruments. The horizon does not "rise" to the level of the observer. The horizon remains exactly where it is and your level line of sight remains above it.
.
There never has been, nor will there ever be a balloon, rocket, plane or drone view of the horizon using a reliably stable support for the instrument. The camera sways around and you cannot measure the elevation of a distant target. Astronomical measurements are made from "terra firma" instruments at best, or a second best is a satellite in orbit such as Hubble where there is no wind resistance. Oh, but you don't think Hubble exists. I know.
.
The horizon does not rise to the level of the observer. That is a patent LIE that you numbskulls keep repeating. I know it's false because I have personally seen it being proved false, with my own instruments and my own eyes.
.
You flat-earthers are deceived by your own lies, and you like it that way. Your principles are false and you keep repeating the falsehood premises, but that doesn't make them any more believable. You are fake, your model is fake and your followers are falling with you into the pit. 
.
Sad.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 05, 2017, 12:22:31 AM
Okay, thanks for the explanation. I have another question. Why is it that the shadow cast by the moon on the land is only between 50 and 100 miles wide?
Since the moon is supposedly 2,159 miles wide, it should cast a much wider shadow.

I forgot to mention that the above question is in reference to the eclipse, and the shadow cast by the moon during the eclipse.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 05, 2017, 12:34:29 AM
.
The problem is, you are rejecting the truth. Truth is the conformity of the mind to reality. Reality is what we see every day with our eyes, but you have repeatedly refused to look and see. Ignoring the evidence God has given you every day is obstinacy in error. How can you expect to be in the state of grace when you reject the truth that God gives you before your eyes? Our Lord told the Pharisees in His day they were sons of satan when they refused the reality of what He gave them to see with their eyes. What do you think He would tell you today?
.
What truth has she rejected? You still haven't stated any Catholic teaching to support your junk theory.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 05, 2017, 12:47:50 AM
What truth has she rejected? You still haven't stated any Catholic teaching to support your junk theory.

Thanks happenby. The only "truth" I've rejected, of course, is doctrine according to the Church of NASA.
I think that Neal may have a more difficult time explaining the issue of the shadow cast by the moon during the eclipse, as this has already been discussed in a good pro-flat earth video, here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CCLbyRLQyo
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 05, 2017, 01:02:35 AM
Okay, thanks for the explanation. I have another question. Why is it that the shadow cast by the moon on the land is only between 50 and 100 miles wide?
Since the moon is supposedly 2,159 miles wide, it should cast a much wider shadow.
.
The size of the umbra varies from one eclipse to another mostly due to how close the moon is to the earth each time. The distance from the earth to the moon is constantly changing since the moon's orbit is not circular but rather it's elliptical or parabolic, really. Kind of like a hula hoop being twirled around your waist.
.
That's the umbra, or the totally dark area of the moon's shadow. If the moon were further away from the earth this time, the umbra would be smaller. And if it were far enough away, there would be no umbra at all because its total shadow would reduce to a point before it reaches the earth's surface. That's what happens when we have an "annular" eclipse, when the sun is seen as a ring all around the moon.
.
(https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimage.slidesharecdn.com%2Fsolarandlunareclipses-140621203913-phpapp01%2F95%2Fshadows-and-solarlunar-eclipses-17-638.jpg%3Fcb%3D1403383923&sp=af5a218f743c2ce9d52336ca6361a87f)
.
This time, I expect many thousands of people viewing this "Great American Eclipse" to see the "Diamond Ring" effect, when just before totality, one speck of the sun's perimeter keeps shining through some crevice or valley of the moon's surface and everyone sees the circular center which is the shape of the moon, looking like the open space in a ring where you put your finger, but the sun's shine splays out in one place on the "ring" as if it were a huge diamond mounted there.
.
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fminaday.com%2Fmovies%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2Fdiamond-ring-eclipse2.png&sp=f1d839e70a701b0f5a6e45dc8f837a7c)
.
The width or diameter of the moon casts a shadow toward earth that has a two-aspect conical shape. One cone is the total darkness where the sun is totally covered by the moon, and this shadow gets smaller the further away from the moon you go. The open end of the cone is the perimeter of the moon where the light side of the moon (lit by the sun) transitions to the dark side of the moon (in the shadow side). The point of this cone is the very end of the moon's shadow where a viewer would see the sun emerging all around the moon.
.
The other cone is one where the moon itself is the point end as it were, and the cone gets wider moving away from the moon and away from the sun. This is what people on earth will see when they are far from the total eclipse path, as far away as in South America where the moon will only obstruct some small portion of the sun, like 1% for example. Beyond that point, where the moon obscures nothing of the sun, is outside this second conical shadow.
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fstartswithabang%2Ffiles%2F2017%2F02%2FTotal-solar-eclipse-illustration.jpg%3Fwidth%3D960&sp=ede5ff007c76433fda5f7976f2725397)
.
I don't really like this picture because it does not show the shadows accurately considering the displayed size of the sun. It's not to scale so you have to imagine the sun much further away for this to make sense. Think of the sun about 10 feet to the left and it's a little closer to reality, however that's just an approximation because the sun is much larger than that and much further away, but perspective wise, this size and 10 feet isn't too bad. The point is, the top line of the umbra should be pointing at the top edge of the sun. Likewise, the top edge of the earth's shadow should be pointing at the top edge of the sun, too. But this is just for the sake of names, where it shows the umbra (full shadow) and the penumbra (partial shadow). 
.
Here is another picture, with a little different style:
.
(https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cyberphysics.co.uk%2Ftopics%2Fspace%2FWhat%2520causes%2520an%2520Eclipse_files%2Fillus.gif&sp=ff5ce0ec9fedb91152609736e4b3673c)
.
They admit the diagram is not to scale! That's correct!! 
.
The sunlight appears to be coming in parallel lines (they're not actually parallel but they APPEAR to be). That's why the moon's penumbra appears to be a cylindrical shape, when in fact it is a conical shape with the moon at the small end of the cone. Likewise, the earth's shadow (not shown here) is conical too, with the earth being at the small end of the cone and the cone getting larger as one moves away from the earth on the shadow side away from the sun.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 05, 2017, 01:04:14 AM
What truth has she rejected? You still haven't stated any Catholic teaching to support your junk theory.
You really have a snarky, disrespectful tone, and with that kind of sour attitude you shouldn't be surprised when you don't get replies to your hateful diatribe. Shame on you.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 05, 2017, 01:09:18 AM
.
The size of the umbra varies from one eclipse to another mostly due to how close the moon is to the earth each time. The distance from the earth to the moon is constantly changing since the moon's orbit is not circular but rather it's elliptical or parabolic, really. Kind of like a hula hoop being twirled around your waist.
.
That's the umbra, or the totally dark area of the moon's shadow. If the moon were further away from the earth this time, the umbra would be smaller. And if it were far enough away, there would be no umbra at all because its total shadow would reduce to a point before it reaches the earth's surface. That's what happens when we have an "annular" eclipse, when the sun is seen as a ring all around the moon.
.
(https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimage.slidesharecdn.com%2Fsolarandlunareclipses-140621203913-phpapp01%2F95%2Fshadows-and-solarlunar-eclipses-17-638.jpg%3Fcb%3D1403383923&sp=af5a218f743c2ce9d52336ca6361a87f)
.
This time, I expect many thousands of people viewing this "Great American Eclipse" to see the "Diamond Ring" effect, when just before totality, one speck of the sun's perimeter keeps shining through some crevice or valley of the moon's surface and everyone sees the circular center which is the shape of the moon, looking like the open space in a ring where you put your finger, but the sun's shine splays out in one place on the "ring" as if it were a huge diamond mounted there.
.
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fminaday.com%2Fmovies%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2Fdiamond-ring-eclipse2.png&sp=f1d839e70a701b0f5a6e45dc8f837a7c)
.
The width or diameter of the moon casts a shadow toward earth that has a two-aspect conical shape. One cone is the total darkness where the sun is totally covered by the moon, and this shadow gets smaller the further away from the moon you go. The open end of the cone is the perimeter of the moon where the light side of the moon (lit by the sun) transitions to the dark side of the moon (in the shadow side). The point of this cone is the very end of the moon's shadow where a viewer would see the sun emerging all around the moon.
.
The other cone is one where the moon itself is the point end as it were, and the cone gets wider moving away from the moon and away from the sun. This is what people on earth will see when they are far from the total eclipse path, as far away as in South America where the moon will only obstruct some small portion of the sun, like 1% for example. Beyond that point, where the moon obscures nothing of the sun, is outside this second conical shadow.
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fstartswithabang%2Ffiles%2F2017%2F02%2FTotal-solar-eclipse-illustration.jpg%3Fwidth%3D960&sp=ede5ff007c76433fda5f7976f2725397)
.
I don't really like this picture because it does not show the shadows accurately considering the displayed size of the sun. It's not to scale so you have to imagine the sun much further away for this to make sense. Think of the sun about 10 feet to the left and it's a little closer to reality, however that's just an approximation because the sun is much larger than that and much further away, but perspective wise, this size and 10 feet isn't too bad. The point is, the top line of the umbra should be pointing at the top edge of the sun. Likewise, the top edge of the earth's shadow should be pointing at the top edge of the sun, too. But this is just for the sake of names, where it shows the umbra (full shadow) and the penumbra (partial shadow).
.
Here is another picture, with a little different style:
.
(https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cyberphysics.co.uk%2Ftopics%2Fspace%2FWhat%2520causes%2520an%2520Eclipse_files%2Fillus.gif&sp=ff5ce0ec9fedb91152609736e4b3673c)
.
They admit the diagram is not to scale! That's correct!!
.
The sunlight appears to be coming in parallel lines (they're not actually parallel but they APPEAR to be). That's why the moon's penumbra appears to be a cylindrical shape, when in fact it is a conical shape with the moon at the small end of the cone. Likewise, the earth's shadow (not shown here) is conical too, with the earth being at the small end of the cone and the cone getting larger as one moves away from the earth on the shadow side away from the sun.
.

No, that doesn't work at all. There is no "cone." That's not how light works. I did a little experiment this afternoon, and the shadow was the same size as the object that I put between the flashlight and the surface on the other side of the object. Light does not travel the way you have described it.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 05, 2017, 01:14:51 AM
And I should mention that the first model in your post - the one where the sun is WAY more huge than the moon - well, that doesn't work either. In our viewpoint from earth, the size of the sun and moon are relatively the same. The sun in that model of yours would be way, way WAY farther out, and not anywhere near the moon or earth.  Remember that the earth is just a tiny speck in size compared to the sun on a globe model. So in order for the globe model to work, the sun has to be extremely far away from the earth.

You said it was not to scale. That's a huge understatement. It isn't anywhere near to scale, or reality, for a globe model to work, that is. But then we aren't on a globe.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 05, 2017, 01:24:14 AM
Thanks happenby. The only "truth" I've rejected, of course, is doctrine according to the Church of NASA.
I think that Neal may have a more difficult time explaining the issue of the shadow cast by the moon during the eclipse, as this has already been discussed in a good pro-flat earth video, here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CCLbyRLQyo
.
This is a great example of how ignorance can produce nonsense. This video is full of misunderstanding and convoluted contradiction. So it's nice to see that this eclipse is rattling the cage of flat-earthers. Because they can't predict its course using their model, and with their preconceived wrong idea, they cannot fathom to comprehend what is happening. Every which way they're off course. It would take PAGES to comment on all their mistakes in this video.
.
The post I made above gives an idea of the two kinds of shadow the moon will cast, and the two kinds of view people on earth will see. I will be in Los Angeles, where about 50% of the sun will be covered by the moon. That puts us in the penumbra (not the umbra), and many shadows under trees and the like will show images of the eclipse in the sky like this:
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7633%2F16831042551_152a35aba2_o.jpg&sp=801405ef3b24169b7ef4f0b10bb76df7)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 05, 2017, 01:24:43 AM
I gotta turn in for the night. Will check back tomorrow.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 05, 2017, 01:25:17 AM
.
This is a great example of how ignorance can produce nonsense. This video is full of misunderstanding and convoluted contradiction. So it's nice to see that this eclipse is rattling the cage of flat-earthers. Because they can't predict its course using their model, and with their preconceived wrong idea, they cannot fathom to comprehend what is happening. Every which way they're off course. It would take PAGES to comment on all their mistakes in this video.
.
The post I made above gives an idea of the two kinds of shadow the moon will cast, and the two kinds of view people on earth will see. I will be in Los Angeles, where about 50% of the sun will be covered by the moon. That puts us in the penumbra (not the umbra), and many shadows under trees and the like will show images of the eclipse in the sky like this:
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7633%2F16831042551_152a35aba2_o.jpg&sp=801405ef3b24169b7ef4f0b10bb76df7)

Complete nonsense, Neal. Goodnight.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 05, 2017, 01:33:06 AM
No, that doesn't work at all. There is no "cone." That's not how light works. I did a little experiment this afternoon, and the shadow was the same size as the object that I put between the flashlight and the surface on the other side of the object. Light does not travel the way you have described it.
.
You can't use a flashlight. Duuh. It's too small. You need a LARGE light source. The sun is a lot larger than the moon.
.
There is no cone? What are you talking about? If you have a LARGE light source (larger than the ball you're shining it on), up close you can see two shadows. If you move further away the outside shadow quickly disburses and only the inside shadow remains. Of course, in our limited environment it's hard to get the same results you can get in space and a vacuum with no atmosphere. 
.
The point is, at the great distances of the sun and moon, their light and shadow are cast at great intensity and long distance, which is very hard to image in scale and even harder to duplicate without distortion. You would really need a 5' diameter LASER light source at 100' and a ping-pong ball casting a shadow over a basketball separated by about 30 feet. Something like that. Have to go. Sorry.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 05, 2017, 04:37:23 AM
Complete nonsense, Neal. Goodnight.
.
The image I posted isn't fake. It's just a photograph someone posted of the ground during an eclipse. There are hundreds of photos like this. I know they're accurate because I have seen this effect in person. Anyone who watches for shadows during an eclipse will see this sort of thing on the ground and building walls all around them, unless the sky is cloudy or very smoggy or full of smoke, etc.

Here are some more photos:
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Fcc%2F2a%2F8c%2Fcc2a8cae7a3b193739953649c13ee4c5--leaf-ring-amazing-photos.jpg&sp=af162cdee2e60fe99e061acce6afe1e9)
That's on the siding of a house, from the shadow under a tree during an annular eclipse.
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Ficons.wxug.com%2Fdata%2Fwximagenew%2Fm%2Fmidwestgal%2F3.jpg&sp=da7f54a783b9e9fea1409681c9d8d992)
This one is on a fence, showing a partial eclipse shadow under tree branches.
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Flshore2014.files.wordpress.com%2F2014%2F10%2Fsolar-eclipse-may-20-6-30pm-shadow-game.jpg&sp=d7945a7309361d5f707c5d7d01390707)
You can do this with your fingers against a wall -- just don't look at the sun!!
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.nationalgeographic.com%2Fwpf%2Fmedia-live%2Fphotos%2F000%2F535%2Foverrides%2Fsolar-eclipse-2012-annular-ring-of-fire-hands_53559_600x450.jpg&sp=144066569e7c0af1ae93d9d49a5606de)
This one is using binoculars. Just be sure not to LOOK through them!!
Quote
The width or diameter of the moon casts a shadow toward earth that has a two-aspect conical shape. One cone is the total darkness where the sun is totally covered by the moon, and this shadow gets smaller the further away from the moon you go. The open end of the cone is the perimeter of the moon where the light side of the moon (lit by the sun) transitions to the dark side of the moon (in the shadow side). The point of this cone is the very end of the moon's shadow where a viewer would see the sun emerging all around the moon.
.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough -- the two shadows cast from the moon are CONCENTRIC, meaning one is inside the other. They are not side-by-side. The outside shadow is fuzzy and fades away at the edges, while the inside shadow is more distinct, but it too has a blurry boundary. Some diagrams make them appear sharp and crisp but that's just an easy way of depicting a picture that is very difficult to describe. To show it accurately would make it very hard for the viewer to understand because the image is inherently blurry. So for clarity's sake they make the image sharp, but ironically, that makes it inaccurate.
.
One more thing about the movement of the sun and moon during the eclipse.
.
There are two ways of thinking about what you see. One is, that the moon is "still" and the sun is going behind it. The other is that the sun is "still" and the moon is moving in front of it. But the reality is both are moving. You have to think about this before the eclipse happens, because if you wait until it's happening it's too much to think about all at once, and you'll be confused.
.
When you realize both are moving in the same direction, then you can observe that the sun is moving faster. It's passing up the moon, with the moon in front and the sun behind it. Kind of like you're walking along a highway and look across the road to see a shiny white car passing a slower black car that's in the right lane. For a moment, the shiny car is hidden behind the black car, and then emerges on the other side. They're moving from left to right. But if you think that the sun is "still" and the moon is moving by, then it appears that the moon is moving from right to the left. So it makes a lot of difference how you're thinking while you watch. That's why it's so important to observe objectively, without prejudging what you expect to see.
.
Another very interesting phenomenon is Shadow Bands.
(https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.astro.lu.se%2F%7Edainis%2FImages%2Fflyshad.jpg&sp=09c2734c98bc7b8eaabee1a4b2890399)
They look like this, but more like the surface of water, rippling. Very strange.
Meteorologists do not all agree what causes them or what they are, but they occur only immediately before the total eclipse, they move over the ground at about 5 mph, you have to run to keep up with them, they wave around like they're being projected onto the ground (which they really are!) and then they disappear as mysteriously as they appeared.
.
(https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.strickling.net%2F2k1_fls1.jpg&sp=a302ab48ff10d56097f1d503a39cae2b)
This shows how uninteresting it can turn out when you try to be scientific. The photo doesn't do justice to shadow bands which are really very interesting. I think you need to have a motion picture of them because their movement is very mysterious.
.
Perhaps some mysterious scenery would help! 
Here are shadow bands photographed in Egypt!!
.
(https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.astronomy.com%2F-%2Fmedia%2Fimport%2Fimages%2F3%2F4%2Fc%2Ffebruary-2010-shadow-bands.jpg%3Fmw%3D600&sp=f941a71cb9ff335eb573d3812ee17a05)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 05, 2017, 09:03:13 AM

Neal,

I do appreciate the information you've posted, and I do understand what you're saying about the shadow - in that the outer edge may not be visible due to it not being an obvious shadow. But in the video that I posted last night, there was a NASA photo featured which clearly showed that a clear shadow was only about 50 miles wide during a past eclipse. There was no wider shadow that was dim or clouded or mottled. I hope you won't be offended that I cannot accept your evidence, because it doesn't really prove your point regarding the shadows.

The video I posted last night probably does contain errors. The fellow who made it is not a scientist - he only wants to understand reality. However - he makes a very important observation: SCALE.

You yourself mentioned that the model pictures you provided are not to scale, and here's why I think this is extremely important. Your pictures cannot be accepted, due to their inaccuracy, because of scale. I've tried to find pictures of a true rendering of scale in a picture of your heliocentric system, but couldn't find any on the internet, and here's why I think that they may not exist. If a true-to-scale picture were made of your heliocentric system, then it might render that system absurd, because it would then be apparent that in the heliocentric system, the earth is so far away from the sun, that the earth couldn't possibly "rotate" around the sun every 365 days.

The cozy heliocentric system, as depicted in the models that we all grew up with - you have to agree that the models are wrong.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 05, 2017, 05:33:05 PM

Quote

Neal,

I do appreciate the information you've posted, and I do understand what you're saying about the shadow - in that the outer edge may not be visible due to it not being an obvious shadow. But in the video that I posted last night, there was a NASA photo featured which clearly showed that a clear shadow was only about 50 miles wide during a past eclipse. There was no wider shadow that was dim or clouded or mottled. I hope you won't be offended that I cannot accept your evidence, because it doesn't really prove your point regarding the shadows.

The video I posted last night probably does contain errors. The fellow who made it is not a scientist - he only wants to understand reality. However - he makes a very important observation: SCALE.

You yourself mentioned that the model pictures you provided are not to scale, and here's why I think this is extremely important. Your pictures cannot be accepted, due to their inaccuracy, because of scale. I've tried to find pictures of a true rendering of scale in a picture of your heliocentric system, but couldn't find any on the internet, and here's why I think that they may not exist. If a true-to-scale picture were made of your heliocentric system, then it might render that system absurd, because it would then be apparent that in the heliocentric system, the earth is so far away from the sun, that the earth couldn't possibly "rotate" around the sun every 365 days.

The cozy heliocentric system, as depicted in the models that we all grew up with - you have to agree that the models are wrong.
.
MY "heliocentric system?" When did I say I agree with that? Don't bother looking because I never said I support it. You and others keep accusing me of that but it's a good example of your continual misrepresentation of all kinds of things. As often as I have explained this and that, you keep getting it wrong. Why should I keep trying? It's like beating a dead horse.
.
The simple reason that accurate scale is not shown is that you wouldn't be able to see anything. The sun would be a dot on one side of the page and the earth and moon would not be visible on the other side of the page. So how can a picture that doesn't show anything be of any help? The size of the sun, moon and earth are exaggerated so that you can SEE SOMETHING and the parts of the subject can be identified. Just because the reality is so distant and the parts would appear so small on the page does not prove they're not possible. If you tried to accurately depict the size and parts of an oxygen molecule on the page there would be nothing to see, because the nucleus would be tinier than a speck, and the electrons would be so small for any ink quantity to depict. Does that mean oxygen does not exist? Try showing a SCALE IMAGE of a person standing in New York City, and another person standing in Washington D.C., with the distance between them according to real scale and the size of the two people. NY would be the size of a nickle and DC would be the size of a dime, with 15 inches of nothing between them. The fact that you would not be able to see either person does not mean that nobody exists in either place.
.
Quote
in the video that I posted last night, there was a NASA photo featured which clearly showed that a clear shadow was only about 50 miles wide during a past eclipse. There was no wider shadow that was dim or clouded or mottled. I hope you won't be offended that I cannot accept your evidence, because it doesn't really prove your point regarding the shadows.
.
Any "clear shadow" from NASA is for illustration purposes only and not to accurately depict what is being discussed. Someone standing in the total eclipse shadow will have no question whether it is dark all around them, but just try to find the EDGE of that shadow. You will be able to see photos from airplanes after the 21st, no doubt, and it will be quite challenging to find the edge of the (dark) umbra shadow, labeled "Path of the total solar eclipse" in the image below. One reason for this is the fact of shadow bands. These are wavy cloud-like ripples on the ground that wave like a flag in the wind or the surface of water. From a distance, they have the effect of causing a DIFFUSION OR BLURRINESS to the edge of the shadow. For this reason alone, the edge of the total eclipse shadow will be impossible to identify. 
.
There will be NO CLEAR SHADOW IN FACT. The eclipse shadow edges will be ANYTHING BUT clear.
.
There are many images on the net that chart the varying degrees of penumbra (light or fading) shadow that will be visible all over the USA on the 21st. It is due to the partial coverage of the moon over the surface of the sun from various places......
.
(https://d15z338h2xlr9d.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Path1.jpg)
Take the 0.9 mag line, just below the path. Everyone on that line will see 90% of the sun covered, and will not see any shadow bands, nor will they see darkness as if it were night time with stars visible in the sky. They will be in a partial shadow, which will be less than daylight but still brighter than night time. Some animals might behave strangely like they think the sun is going down but birds probably won't roost and crickets won't start chirping.
.
As you move further south, like the Rio Grande area in Texas or Mexico, the 0.7 magnitude shadow will be less dark with 70% of the sun covered. And so on. The further south you go the less dark the shadow, until eventually it will be no shadow at all. So it should be easy to understand, if you're paying attention, that the edge of the moon's penumbra shadow will not be something discernible by plain sight in real time.
.
This same website has a very good image (NOT TO SCALE!!!) showing how the various parts of the sun, sunshine, moon, shadow and earth are made comprehensible. This is for illustration purposes, and not intended to depict the accurate sizes of these entities. There is no way to depict this stuff accurately by scale. No way whatsoever.
.
(https://d15z338h2xlr9d.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/eclipse-types.jpg)
That's just about as good as it gets illustration-wise. The lines of the edges of the sun's light are properly drawn out to show where they fall on the moon and earth along with the associated shadows. 
.
Don't bother getting upset that the sun is larger than the earth in the bottom version but smaller than the earth in the top version. I won't be impressed. NOT TO SCALE is what it says: not to scale. The top one is a solar eclipse and the bottom one is a lunar eclipse. 
.
Likewise, don't bother getting upset over "EARTH'S ORBIT" with the dotted line. They could just as easily have "Sun's orbit" with a dotted line and nothing else would change!! So that's not important here.
.
Keep in mind that ALL PARTS OF THE SUN shine with comparable intensity, so that all around near the edges of the sun the light is just as bright as it is in the center of the sun, unlike your flashlight where there is a bright spot in the center and a less bright area all around the bright spot. Furthermore, all parts of the sun shine in ALL DIRECTIONS equally. The sun is not a searchlight but an omnidirectional beacon without peer in our experience. No wonder so many pagan cultures practice sun worship!! HAHAHA
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 06, 2017, 12:26:36 AM
You really have a snarky, disrespectful tone, and with that kind of sour attitude you shouldn't be surprised when you don't get replies to your hateful diatribe. Shame on you.
.
Let's see...  I called your theory junk and yet you accuse me of being snarky, disrespectful, sour and delivering a hateful diatribe.  And then have the nerve to shame me?  Uh, think you better check your reality meter because I aimed at the theory and you aimed at me.  Now, who's hateful, snarky, disrespectful, delivering hateful diatribe and should feel shame?  Thassright! The one who attacks the person.  A sure sign one knows he's losing.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 06, 2017, 12:35:19 AM
Neal said: MY "heliocentric system?" When did I say I agree with that? Don't bother looking because I never said I support it. You and others keep accusing me of that but it's a good example of your continual misrepresentation of all kinds of things. As often as I have explained this and that, you keep getting it wrong. Why should I keep trying? It's like beating a dead horse.

There are only two cosmological theories at odds here: geocentrism and heliocentrism.  There is no such thing as a geocentric ball earth theory in science. That is a very recent modern concept by those who figured out that the earth isn't moving.  So they invented a ball hanging in space too fearful to accept the geocentric model long ago shown to be true.  The problem with ball theory is that it is a hybrid of a lie by pagan modern science known as the heliocentric model. For those who think there is even a modicuм of truth to this theory, please explain how NASA is proven to lie about moving, rotating, barrelling earth, but isn't lying about it being a globe?    
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: TomGubbinsKimmage on August 06, 2017, 03:39:03 PM
For the 100th time; Talking about eclipses does not prove the round earth. Simply because we cannot explain something does not make curvature appear on the earth.

The proof of the flat earth is the fact that there is NO curvature.

So all the talk in world about eclipses is not going to affect that.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 06, 2017, 08:41:13 PM
Is there some kind of "Flat Earth Aviators Association", is there an updated membership d-base, and can we access it, kind of like a sex offender registry? I ask because I could probably stand the walk, and don't mind groundtrans if there are such critters, worst case. By what principles do they operate? Can we get line of sight with advanced optics to the other edgeof the world? How come it doesn't shrink, or does it? What is the rate? How come i never got lost, could gague time to dusk, could do stellar nav? How do ballistics, esp. stratscale, REALLY work? How is it that there are depth/altitude differentials affecting time/distance in subs/aircraft if the Earth is flaT?

This is really thrilling news...
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 06, 2017, 11:46:20 PM
For the 100th time; Talking about eclipses does not prove the round earth. Simply because we cannot explain something does not make curvature appear on the earth.

The proof of the flat earth is the fact that there is NO curvature.

So all the talk in world about eclipses is not going to affect that.

Aren't circles 2D Euclidean forms, i.e. "flat"?

Isn't normal sense perception/apparatus/faculty of a limited range?
 If so,  would not visual to horizon, by necessity, from a fixed point,  be RADIAL and so curved, even though it SEEms otherwise?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: kiwiboy on August 07, 2017, 06:03:24 AM
Is there some kind of "Flat Earth Aviators Association", is there an updated membership d-base, and can we access it, kind of like a sex offender registry? I ask because I could probably stand the walk, and don't mind groundtrans if there are such critters, worst case. By what principles do they operate? Can we get line of sight with advanced optics to the other edgeof the world? How come it doesn't shrink, or does it? What is the rate? How come i never got lost, could gague time to dusk, could do stellar nav? How do ballistics, esp. stratscale, REALLY work? How is it that there are depth/altitude differentials affecting time/distance in subs/aircraft if the Earth is flaT?

This is really thrilling news...
Thrilling news indeed. Check out the webforum flatearthtrads.forumga.net if you are interested.
Even with telescopes the same principle of perspective/convergence still applies to what you see.
not getting lost has to do with the magnetism which points towards the centre/north of the earth. GPS is a ground based technology which has been around since the 40s.
Ballistics do not take into accoun the curvature as one person in this area has testified on Marg Segeant's youtube channel.
(he is not a recommended channel. -Just that interview is)

Not sure I understand your question about differentials. Can you explain more clearly what you are talking about? Can you explain your last question also please about 2D?

Check out the following video and if you have more questions feel free to post them over on the flat earth forum, or on here.


https://youtu.be/cGtB-TapXDc


Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 07, 2017, 06:58:55 AM
Thrilling news indeed. Check out the webforum flatearthtrads.forumga.net if you are interested.
Even with telescopes the same principle of perspective/convergence still applies to what you see.
not getting lost has to do with the magnetism which points towards the centre/north of the earth. GPS is a ground based technology which has been around since the 40s.
Ballistics do not take into accoun the curvature as one person in this area has testified on Marg Segeant's youtube channel.
(he is not a recommended channel. -Just that interview is)

Not sure I understand your question about differentials. Can you explain more clearly what you are talking about? Can you explain your last question also please about 2D?

Check out the following video and if you have more questions feel free to post them over on the flat earth forum, or on here.


https://youtu.be/cGtB-TapXDc
Wasnt using a magnet dude. Make up your mind/s. Is there a curve, or isn't there? All rhetorical, and sarcastic. I might hit your links right after the lunar limberger one. That you don't know what I'm talking about only shows those who do more conclusively that you don't. You think you help the faith, but all that you really do is pass ammo to infidels, as if they needed the help in calling us ignorant.


TLDR: Been there. Done that. Doesn't survive basic crit think,  let alone Criteriology. Not interested. Waste of time.

Even IF it were true, we're all headed for the grave. There are much greater concerns.

Evolution? Rubbish. No actual proof. Geocentrism? Even Einstein(?) basically said that it was a matter of coordinates, so sure.

Euclidean "Flat" Earth? Nope. Sry. Right up there with "Evolution"


Bye
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 07, 2017, 10:07:28 AM
Wasnt using a magnet dude. Make up your mind/s. Is there a curve, or isn't there? All rhetorical, and sarcastic. I might hit your links right after the lunar limberger one. That you don't know what I'm talking about only shows those who do more conclusively that you don't. You think you help the faith, but all that you really do is pass ammo to infidels, as if they needed the help in calling us ignorant.


TLDR: Been there. Done that. Doesn't survive basic crit think,  let alone Criteriology. Not interested. Waste of time.

Even IF it were true, we're all headed for the grave. There are much greater concerns.

Evolution? Rubbish. No actual proof. Geocentrism? Even Einstein(?) basically said that it was a matter of coordinates, so sure.

Euclidean "Flat" Earth? Nope. Sry. Right up there with "Evolution"


Bye
That's humorous. The globe, heliocentric theory modern science teaches, is the basis for evolution, The Big Bang and atheism. Flat earth is Catholic teaching that proves heliocentric globe earth false.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 07, 2017, 10:26:38 AM
This same website has a very good image (NOT TO SCALE!!!) showing how the various parts of the sun, sunshine, moon, shadow and earth are made comprehensible. This is for illustration purposes, and not intended to depict the accurate sizes of these entities. There is no way to depict this stuff accurately by scale. No way whatsoever.

Glad that you are mentioning the above. Since there is no way to accurately depict this stuff, then I can't be expected to accept it. However, a flat earth can be depicted, going by the ancient Hebrew concept of the earth. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: kiwiboy on August 07, 2017, 10:51:05 AM
Wasnt using a magnet dude. Make up your mind/s. Is there a curve, or isn't there? All rhetorical, and sarcastic. I might hit your links right after the lunar limberger one. That you don't know what I'm talking about only shows those who do more conclusively that you don't. You think you help the faith, but all that you really do is pass ammo to infidels, as if they needed the help in calling us ignorant.


TLDR: Been there. Done that. Doesn't survive basic crit think,  let alone Criteriology. Not interested. Waste of time.

Even IF it were true, we're all headed for the grave. There are much greater concerns.

Evolution? Rubbish. No actual proof. Geocentrism? Even Einstein(?) basically said that it was a matter of coordinates, so sure.

Euclidean "Flat" Earth? Nope. Sry. Right up there with "Evolution"


Bye
I'm having a hard time figuring out how sincere you are.
No one is forcing the flat earth on you. Go somewhere else if you want to be blind. You'll only be joining everyone else.
You didn't make it clear at all whether you were using a magnet at all. There are various methods of navigation. Obviously you don't know much about navigation or you would not have asked such questions.
Flat earthers don't sit around wasting their time on people who are not interested, there are a lot of sincere people out there who have not been reached. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 07, 2017, 10:55:59 AM
.
MY "heliocentric system?" When did I say I agree with that? Don't bother looking because I never said I support it. You and others keep accusing me of that but it's a good example of your continual misrepresentation of all kinds of things. As often as I have explained this and that, you keep getting it wrong. Why should I keep trying? It's like beating a dead horse.
.
The simple reason that accurate scale is not shown is that you wouldn't be able to see anything. The sun would be a dot on one side of the page and the earth and moon would not be visible on the other side of the page. So how can a picture that doesn't show anything be of any help? The size of the sun, moon and earth are exaggerated so that you can SEE SOMETHING and the parts of the subject can be identified. Just because the reality is so distant and the parts would appear so small on the page does not prove they're not possible. If you tried to accurately depict the size and parts of an oxygen molecule on the page there would be nothing to see, because the nucleus would be tinier than a speck, and the electrons would be so small for any ink quantity to depict. Does that mean oxygen does not exist? Try showing a SCALE IMAGE of a person standing in New York City, and another person standing in Washington D.C., with the distance between them according to real scale.

I hadn't realized that you are not a supporter of Heliocentrism. Sorry about that.

As to the other issue, the inability to show an accurate depiction of the supposed scale of the earth and moon in relation to the sun, well, this issue isn't the same thing at all as not being able to depict an oxygen molecule. We cannot, of course, see molecules at all with the naked eye. We can, however, clearly see the sun and moon.

It isn't reasonable, IMO, to think that the sun is so far away from the earth that it can't possibly be depicted accurately in a drawing of any kind whatsoever.

And we have Sacred Scripture on our side.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 07, 2017, 12:21:27 PM
I hadn't realized that you are not a supporter of Heliocentrism. Sorry about that.

As to the other issue, the inability to show an accurate depiction of the supposed scale of the earth and moon in relation to the sun, well, this issue isn't the same thing at all as not being able to depict an oxygen molecule. We cannot, of course, see molecules at all with the naked eye. We can, however, clearly see the sun and moon.

It isn't reasonable, IMO, to think that the sun is so far away from the earth that it can't possibly be depicted accurately in a drawing of any kind whatsoever.

And we have Sacred Scripture on our side.
Sadly, Neil doesn't think he believes in the heliocentric system, but he in fact, does.  He switched the places of sun and earth, because earth doesn't move, according to Catholic teaching and scripture...or rather, because the Robert Sungenises of the day say it is this way.  Against scripture, he thinks earth is a ball.  Naturally, as you already pointed out, such a silly notion doesn't work because we know that the sun, moon and stars are in the firmament, with the waters above that, and that this dome is a like a tent that covers the earth.  His model cannot reflect scripture in any way, shape or form.  The dome would have to be at least 93,000,000 miles away in order to house the sun!  Not to mention up isn't up anymore, the horizontal horizon isn't level anymore, and water sticks to the outside of the earth ball while people walk upside down relative to each other--a notion condemned by the Church.  Neil seems to think that NASA lied about the orientation of the earth, lied that it moves, but they didn't lie in claiming it is a ball. Very strange.    
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 07, 2017, 04:32:02 PM
Sadly, Neil doesn't think he believes in the heliocentric system, but he in fact, does.  He switched the places of sun and earth, because earth doesn't move, according to Catholic teaching and scripture...or rather, because the Robert Sungenises of the day say it is this way.  Against scripture, he thinks earth is a ball.  Naturally, as you already pointed out, such a silly notion doesn't work because we know that the sun, moon and stars are in the firmament, with the waters above that, and that this dome is a like a tent that covers the earth.  His model cannot reflect scripture in any way, shape or form.  The dome would have to be at least 93,000,000 miles away in order to house the sun!  Not to mention up isn't up anymore, the horizontal horizon isn't level anymore, and water sticks to the outside of the earth ball while people walk upside down relative to each other--a notion condemned by the Church.  Neil seems to think that NASA lied about the orientation of the earth, lied that it moves, but they didn't lie in claiming it is a ball. Very strange.    

I wonder if one of the main reasons that some geocentrists insist that the earth is ball, is that all of the other observable planets are balls, and it would just be weird if the earth were flat, and not like all the others. And it IS a bit weird, to be sure, but then again, why shouldn't the earth be different than those other lifeless planets?

Why shouldn't our planet be different? That's what I would like to ask Neil next. Our planet has to support life, and a lot of it - from humans, to animals, birds, insects, plant life, etc. 

As you said....the dome of the earth would have to be 93,000,000 miles away, in the system that Neil envisions and believes in, and that's not imaginable by any scale; it doesn't work. Though perhaps Neil (and Sungenis?) don't believe that there's such thing as a dome.

Perhaps geocentrist ball-earthers believe that Sacred Scripture is wrong - that Genesis is wrong, or that is has been wrongly interpreted. But of course we are allowed to interpret it literally. To say that it can be mortally sinful to believe in a flat earth defies logic and scripture.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 07, 2017, 04:55:32 PM
I wonder if one of the main reasons that some geocentrists insist that the earth is ball, is that all of the other observable planets are balls, and it would just be weird if the earth were flat, and not like all the others. And it IS a bit weird, to be sure, but then again, why shouldn't the earth be different than those other lifeless planets?

Why shouldn't our planet be different? That's what I would like to ask Neil next. Our planet has to support life, and a lot of it - from humans, to animals, birds, insects, plant life, etc.

As you said....the dome of the earth would have to be 93,000,000 miles away, in the system that Neil envisions and believes in, and that's not imaginable by any scale; it doesn't work. Though perhaps Neil (and Sungenis?) don't believe that there's such thing as a dome.

Perhaps geocentrist ball-earthers believe that Sacred Scripture is wrong - that Genesis is wrong, or that is has been wrongly interpreted. But of course we are allowed to interpret it literally. To say that it can be mortally sinful to believe in a flat earth defies logic and scripture.
So well said, Meg. As for Sungenis, he does not believe in the firmament. Certainly not as described in scripture. If Neil does, he needs to think about it more.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 07, 2017, 11:17:55 PM
I checked in to see if any flat-earthers have observed the full moon today so they can have an intelligent discussion for a change, based on the facts of what they can see in God's sky.
.
But no, not a single post on the full moon today.
.
The moon reached its full phase at 11:12 am today, UTC -7. That means Pacific Daylight time.
.
But at 11:12 am a full moon is not visible in the sky, as one can readily know by the relative position of sun, moon and earth --- unless, that is, you subscribe to the flat-earth model which appears to have both sun and moon equally visible at that time.
.
So, just as with the coming total solar eclipse, which flat-earthers cannot predict, explain or understand, so too the full moon happening in broad daylight is something they can't predict, explain or understand either. 
.
So what CAN flat-earthers predict, explain or understand, if anything?
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 07, 2017, 11:39:56 PM
I checked in to see if any flat-earthers have observed the full moon today so they can have an intelligent discussion for a change, based on the facts of what they can see in God's sky.
.
But no, not a single post on the full moon today.
.
The moon reached its full phase at 11:12 am today, UTC -7. That means Pacific Daylight time.
.
But at 11:12 am a full moon is not visible in the sky, as one can readily know by the relative position of sun, moon and earth --- unless, that is, you subscribe to the flat-earth model which appears to have both sun and moon equally visible at that time.
.
So, just as with the coming total solar eclipse, which flat-earthers cannot predict, explain or understand, so too the full moon happening in broad daylight is something they can't predict, explain or understand either.
.
So what CAN flat-earthers predict, explain or understand, if anythin
Another seeming masochist in the chatter's box... Good "luck". I spent ~decade living or dying by navigation among other things (incl. no map, no compass, no signal- radiance>radio giving Flat-heads fits also[LOS]) and yet I still know nothing of it.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: OHCA on August 08, 2017, 02:09:26 AM
Flat-Earther:  I learnt everything I know about the earth being flat from my next-door neighbor.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: kiwiboy on August 08, 2017, 04:32:14 AM
There is no curvature on the earth.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 08, 2017, 08:34:30 AM
There is no such thing as a geocentric ball earth theory in science. That is a very recent modern concept by those who figured out that the earth isn't moving.  So they invented a ball hanging in space too fearful to accept the geocentric model long ago shown to be true.  The problem with ball theory is that it is a hybrid of a lie by pagan modern science known as the heliocentric model. For those who think there is even a modicuм of truth to this theory, please explain how NASA is proven to lie about moving, rotating, barrelling earth, but isn't lying about it being a globe?    

You mention that there is no such thing as a geocentric ball theory in science, so it's interesting that Neil keeps using mainstream science to back up his views. That's why I thought he was a heliocentrist - I didn't see any obvious evidence that he was using a geo-centric model, though I may have missed it.

As you say, the ball-earthers should explain how it is that NASA has obviously lied about the fact that the earth is not a moving, rotating, barreling earth, but that NASA (they believe) is telling the truth about the earth being a globe. 

What is it about NASA that inspires such confidence that they as an organization are held up as promoters of truth, even when it's shown that NASA has not been honest about other important issues? After all, NASA does not promote or even believe in God. What has NASA done to promote the idea of God, of Our Lord, or the Kingship of Christ? They've done absolutely nothing. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 08, 2017, 08:45:23 AM
Flat-Earther:  I learnt everything I know about the earth being flat from my next-door neighbor.

Them's some fine lookin' trailers, mr. Ohcha. I'm just wishin' that the trailer park that me and them other flat earthers are livin' in looked as fine as that'un. Land sakes, why, they probly even has cable television! Hee Haw!
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on August 08, 2017, 11:17:32 AM
You mention that there is no such thing as a geocentric ball theory in science, so it's interesting that Neil keeps using mainstream science to back up his views. That's why I thought he was a heliocentrist - I didn't see any obvious evidence that he was using a geo-centric model, though I may have missed it.

As you say, the ball-earthers should explain how it is that NASA has obviously lied about the fact that the earth is not a moving, rotating, barreling earth, but that NASA (they believe) is telling the truth about the earth being a globe.

What is it about NASA that inspires such confidence that they as an organization are held up as promoters of truth, even when it's shown that NASA has not been honest about other important issues? After all, NASA does not promote or even believe in God. What has NASA done to promote the idea of God, of Our Lord, or the Kingship of Christ? They've done absolutely nothing.
Maybe they believe the NASA Freemasons because they also believe the heretical doctrines the Freemason infiltrators in the Catholic Church are spoon-feeding them.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 08, 2017, 01:11:37 PM
You mention that there is no such thing as a geocentric ball theory in science, so it's interesting that Neil keeps using mainstream science to back up his views. That's why I thought he was a heliocentrist - I didn't see any obvious evidence that he was using a geo-centric model, though I may have missed it.

As you say, the ball-earthers should explain how it is that NASA has obviously lied about the fact that the earth is not a moving, rotating, barreling earth, but that NASA (they believe) is telling the truth about the earth being a globe.

What is it about NASA that inspires such confidence that they as an organization are held up as promoters of truth, even when it's shown that NASA has not been honest about other important issues? After all, NASA does not promote or even believe in God. What has NASA done to promote the idea of God, of Our Lord, or the Kingship of Christ? They've done absolutely nothing.
Yes, Neil has made a decision to fight this, but his approach as you say, is contradictory...on many levels. (Shameless pun)  The flat earth/sphere dichotomy is a huge clue to getting to the point of flat earth. We have great enemies who hate God and are intent making themselves God and enslaving us.  Yet so many "God fearing men" heartily believe the enemy's false notion of creation.  Belief in the devil's propaganda provides evil men tremendous power.  But evil only has that power if we freely give it away by believing lies rather than God, His Word, the Church, etc.  Flat earth incites the deepest of passions because we're talking about people's own little twisted world, in their own little twisted minds, who prefer a certain little twisted relationship with God based on their demonic world view. And they like it! Hence the vitriol you endure when you share the one thing they fear most: God's world, God's rules.   
The true and Catholic view of our environment frees us, enlightens us, enables us to love God, worship Him with understanding, humility and awe. Not to mention, it helps protects us from becoming enslaved in a myriad of ways.  It seems to me that flat earth gives us the necessary grounding we need to connect to God and to trust Him even more.  It even provides a backdrop for understanding why mundane duty, maintaining simplicity, and being grounded, especially in truth, are so necessary and so good. A right understanding of our earth really does matter.  Ultimately, flat earth reflects God's Word rather than the globe which puts a spin on it (pun again).  God's firm, level playing-field foundation actually provides a physical basis for trusting His Word.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 08, 2017, 01:13:43 PM
Maybe they believe the NASA Freemasons because they also believe the heretical doctrines the Freemason infiltrators in the Catholic Church are spoon-feeding them.
In some capacity at least!
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 08, 2017, 01:27:02 PM
Yes, Neil has made a decision to fight this, but his approach as you say, is contradictory...on many levels. (Shameless pun)  The flat earth/sphere dichotomy is a huge clue to getting to the point of flat earth. We have great enemies who hate God and are intent making themselves God and enslaving us.  Yet so many "God fearing men" heartily believe the enemy's false notion of creation.  Belief in the devil's propaganda provides evil men tremendous power.  But evil only has that power if we freely give it away by believing lies rather than God, His Word, the Church, etc.  Flat earth incites the deepest of passions because we're talking about people's own little twisted world, in their own little twisted minds, who prefer a certain little twisted relationship with God based on their demonic world view. And they like it! Hence the vitriol you endure when you share the one thing they fear most: God's world, God's rules.  
The true and Catholic view of our environment frees us, enlightens us, enables us to love God, worship Him with understanding, humility and awe. Not to mention, it helps protects us from becoming enslaved in a myriad of ways.  It seems to me that flat earth gives us the necessary grounding we need to connect to God and to trust Him even more.  It even provides a backdrop for understanding why mundane duty, maintaining simplicity, and being grounded, especially in truth, are so necessary and so good. A right understanding of our earth really does matter.  Ultimately, flat earth reflects God's Word rather than the globe which puts a spin on it (pun again).  God's firm, level playing-field foundation actually provides a physical basis for trusting His Word.  


I agree, except for the part where you mention about them preferring a certain twisted relationship with God based on a demonic world view. I mean, I think I understand what you're saying, but I would go a little easier on them, given that our schools (even traditional Catholic schools, probably) teach a heliocentric view, and it's what we've always been taught. It takes a certain leap of faith to question the shape of the earth, since our whole world basically doesn't accept a flat earth. I don't really blame them, in a sense. To go up against the status quo regarding a subject like this isn't easy or pleasant. It's frustrating to have to endure their vitrol, granted, but it might help us to learn to be more patient, too (at least for me).

I try to take the example of how St. Bernadette dealt with the angry secular authorities who were against her because of the apparitions of the BVM - she told these authorities the truth, and wasn't above being a bit snarky at times. But she was not uncharitable. I'm not very good at following her example, because I often forget about it. But I try. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 08, 2017, 03:22:28 PM
I hadn't realized that you are not a supporter of Heliocentrism. Sorry about that.

As to the other issue, the inability to show an accurate depiction of the supposed scale of the earth and moon in relation to the sun, well, this issue isn't the same thing at all as not being able to depict an oxygen molecule. We cannot, of course, see molecules at all with the naked eye. We can, however, clearly see the sun and moon.

It isn't reasonable, IMO, to think that the sun is so far away from the earth that it can't possibly be depicted accurately in a drawing of any kind whatsoever.

And we have Sacred Scripture on our side.
.
An accurate picture of the sun, moon and earth depicted on one page or one computer screen would look like a line going across the page or screen, and would not convey any information. The purpose of the out-of-scale images is to bring the details of the very long reality down to size so its parts can be observed. When we watch an eclipse in person we are seeing the whole picture from the end of the line segment, so we do not observe the length of it because of its foreshortening due to our line of sight. It can be compared to a rifleman sighting a target through a riflescope. What he sees in the scope is an enlarged image of his target, but he cannot see the side view of the bullet's impact. That takes another point of view, at the target. But if we take that same point of view and try to draw in the length of the shot and include the image of the rifleman holding his gun, suddenly the parts of the whole picture become so small on the page that the whole thing would look like a line, conveying no information of the details of the rifle or target.

For you to be consistent, you would then say, that since the details of the rifleman and target cannot be given on one page then you do not have to believe that they exist. Does that make any sense?
.
Or take the finding of the Titanic on the ocean floor. Try to draw a picture of the searching ship on the water's surface, with the cables going down into the depths of the sea, at the end of which is the submersible craft with lights and camera, showing as well the wreck of the Titanic on the ocean floor. Try to fit all that on one page showing details such as the shape of the submersible and identifiable parts of the ship, and don't forget, the length of the cable is over one mile, or 5,280 feet. For you to be consistent, you would have to say that since those details cannot be shown on one page then you don't have to believe they were possible, and that the Titanic was never found or observed as they reported it was.
.
For something to have happened at a great distance it is not necessary that the whole event must be viewable on one page or one computer screen with an accurate scale image. 
.
Can you show a detailed picture of the airport where you took off, the flight path of the aircraft over hundreds of miles, the airplane you flew on, and the airport you landed, all on one page? If not, then you must not have taken any such flight because it cannot be shown on one page or one computer screen, no?
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 08, 2017, 03:40:31 PM
.
An accurate picture of the sun, moon and earth depicted on one page or one computer screen would look like a line going across the page or screen, and would not convey any information. The purpose of the out-of-scale images is to bring the details of the very long reality down to size so its parts can be observed. When we watch an eclipse in person we are seeing the whole picture from the end of the line segment, so we do not observe the length of it because of its foreshortening due to our line of sight. It can be compared to a rifleman sighting a target through a riflescope. What he sees in the scope is an enlarged image of his target, but he cannot see the side view of the bullet's impact. That takes another point of view, at the target. But if we take that same point of view and try to draw in the length of the shot and include the image of the rifleman holding his gun, suddenly the parts of the whole picture become so small on the page that the whole thing would look like a line, conveying no information of the details of the rifle or target.
.
For you to be consistent, you would then say, that since the details of the rifleman and target cannot be given on one page then you do not have to believe that they exist. Does that make any sense?
.
Or take the finding of the Titanic on the ocean floor. Try to draw a picture of the searching ship on the water's surface, with the cables going down into the depths of the sea, at the end of which is the submersible craft with lights and camera, showing as well the wreck of the Titanic on the ocean floor. Try to fit all that on one page showing details such as the shape of the submersible and identifiable parts of the ship, and don't forget, the length of the cable is over one mile, or 5,280 feet. For you to be consistent, you would have to say that since those details cannot be shown on one page then you don't have to believe they were possible, and that the Titanic was never found or observed as they reported it was.
.
For something to have happened at a great distance it is not necessary that the whole event must be viewable on one page or one computer screen with an accurate scale image.
.
Can you show a detailed picture of the airport where you took off, the flight path of the aircraft over hundreds of miles, the airplane you flew on, and the airport you landed, all on one page? If not, then you must not have taken any such flight because it cannot be shown on one page or one computer screen, no?
.

None of the new analogies above make your case more plausible. I've already said why your view doesn't make sense. That hasn't changed. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 08, 2017, 04:24:40 PM

I agree, except for the part where you mention about them preferring a certain twisted relationship with God based on a demonic world view. I mean, I think I understand what you're saying, but I would go a little easier on them, given that our schools (even traditional Catholic schools, probably) teach a heliocentric view, and it's what we've always been taught. It takes a certain leap of faith to question the shape of the earth, since our whole world basically doesn't accept a flat earth. I don't really blame them, in a sense. To go up against the status quo regarding a subject like this isn't easy or pleasant. It's frustrating to have to endure their vitrol, granted, but it might help us to learn to be more patient, too (at least for me).

I try to take the example of how St. Bernadette dealt with the angry secular authorities who were against her because of the apparitions of the BVM - she told these authorities the truth, and wasn't above being a bit snarky at times. But she was not uncharitable. I'm not very good at following her example, because I often forget about it. But I try.
I guess I wasn't terribly clear that it is only the people who react with vitriol who are the ones with the demonic world view. Otherwise why do they resist with so much name-calling, anger and denial?  Flat earth is indeed a difficult thing to wrap one's head around, but it never should invoke the kind of demeaning trash-talk and threats flat earthers often endure. Conversely, flat earthers owe everyone charitable responses.  Sometimes, in our haste, after having been haggled and dogged and called morons long enough, we too lash out (like Peter with his sword) but usually only after repeated aggression. Still...not good. As you mentioned, we really must try to maintain good example.  It is also true that sound doctrine and truth are often not endured today and the person delivering it is seen as a bad guy, divisive, rude when he's not, and uncharitable just for speaking the truth. This response to truth is often used as a weapon to shut down the message and is difficult to ignore.  Formulating excellent and charitable responses in every condition is something I've worked on with this subject for the past 10 years.  Someday, I hope to be an expert!      :pray: :)        
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: OHCA on August 08, 2017, 11:23:01 PM
Them's some fine lookin' trailers, mr. Ohcha. I'm just wishin' that the trailer park that me and them other flat earthers are livin' in looked as fine as that'un. Land sakes, why, they probly even has cable television! Hee Haw!
I thought this was a pic of the one the aliens landed on.  But on closer inspection, probably not with dense trees and all.
Cable TV?  What kind of trailer park would that be?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 08, 2017, 11:24:16 PM
Here is a very nice flat-earth legend:

THE EARTH ON TURTLE'S BACK                         

Before Earth was here there was only water as far as one could see in all directions, with birds and animals swimming around in it. Up above in the clouds there was Skyland. In Skyland was a great and beautiful tree with four white roots stretching to the four sacred directions. Every kind of fruit and flower grew from its wide spreading branches. 

The Chief of Skyland's young wife was expecting a child. One night she dreamt she saw the great tree uprooted. The next morning she told her husband her dream. "This is very sad," he said, "for it is a dream of great power and we must do all we can to make it come true." Then the chief called all the men together and told them they must uproot the tree. But the roots were so deep and strong they couldn't budge it. So the ancient chief himself wrapped his arms around the tree and strained and strained, until with one last great effort he uprooted it. Now there was a great hole where the tree's roots had been. The chief's wife came and leaned over to look down, holding the tip of one of the uprooted tree's branches to steady herself, Far below she thought she saw something glittering like water. Leaning out further she lost her balance and fell into the hole. Her hand slipped from the tip of the branch, leaving her only a handful of seeds as she fell. 

Far, far below in the waters some of the animals looked up. "Someone is falling from the sky," said one. 

"We must help her," said another. Then two Swans flew up and caught her between their wings, and brought her gently down to the water where the birds and animals were watching. 

She is not like us," said one of the animals. "She doesn't have webbed feet. I don't think she can live in the water." "What shall we do?" said another of the water animals. 

"I know," said one of the birds. "I have heard there is Earth far below the waters. If we dive down and bring up Earth she will have a place to stand. So the birds and animals tried to bring up Earth. First Duck dove far down beneath the surface, but he couldn't reach the bottom and floated back up. Then Beaver tried. He went even deeper, so deep that it was all dark, but he couldn't reach the bottom either. Then Loon tried and was gone a long, long time, but he too failed to bring up Earth. Soon it seemed that all had tried and failed. Then a small voice spoke. 

"I will bring up Earth or die trying." They all looked to see who it was. It was little Muskrat. She dove down and swam and swam. She was not as strong and swift as the others, but she was determined. She went so deep that it was all dark, and still she swam deeper. Her lungs felt ready to burst, but she swam deeper still. At last, just as she was becoming unconscious, she grasped at the bottom with her little paw and floated upwards, almost dead. When the other animals saw her break the surface, they thought she had failed. Then they saw her right paw was held tightly shut. 

"She has the Earth," they said. "Now where can we put it?" 

"Put it on my back," said a deep voice. It was Great Turtle who had come up from the depths. They brought Muskrat over and placed her paw against his back. To this day there are marks at the back of Turtle's shell that were made by Muskrat's paw. The tiny bit of Earth fell on the back of Turtle. Almost immediately it began to grow and grow until it became the whole world. 

Then the two Swans brought Sky Woman down. She stepped onto the new Earth and opened her hand, letting the seeds fall onto the bare soil. From the seeds the trees and grass and flowers sprang up. Life on Earth had begun. 


Creation Story from the Onondaga Tribe, From Keepers of the Earth by Michael J. Caduto & Joseph Bruchac
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: OHCA on August 08, 2017, 11:27:49 PM
Yes, Neil has made a decision to fight this, but his approach as you say, is contradictory...on many levels. (Shameless pun)  The flat earth/sphere dichotomy is a huge clue to getting to the point of flat earth. We have great enemies who hate God and are intent making themselves God and enslaving us.  Yet so many "God fearing men" heartily believe the enemy's false notion of creation.  Belief in the devil's propaganda provides evil men tremendous power.  But evil only has that power if we freely give it away by believing lies rather than God, His Word, the Church, etc.  Flat earth incites the deepest of passions because we're talking about people's own little twisted world, in their own little twisted minds, who prefer a certain little twisted relationship with God based on their demonic world view. And they like it! Hence the vitriol you endure when you share the one thing they fear most: God's world, God's rules.  
The true and Catholic view of our environment frees us, enlightens us, enables us to love God, worship Him with understanding, humility and awe. Not to mention, it helps protects us from becoming enslaved in a myriad of ways.  It seems to me that flat earth gives us the necessary grounding we need to connect to God and to trust Him even more.  It even provides a backdrop for understanding why mundane duty, maintaining simplicity, and being grounded, especially in truth, are so necessary and so good. A right understanding of our earth really does matter.  Ultimately, flat earth reflects God's Word rather than the globe which puts a spin on it (pun again).  God's firm, level playing-field foundation actually provides a physical basis for trusting His Word.  
Well said--for a protestant preacher.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: OHCA on August 08, 2017, 11:33:14 PM

I agree, except for the part where you mention about them preferring a certain twisted relationship with God based on a demonic world view. I mean, I think I understand what you're saying, but I would go a little easier on them, given that our schools (even traditional Catholic schools, probably) teach a heliocentric view, and it's what we've always been taught. It takes a certain leap of faith to question the shape of the earth, since our whole world basically doesn't accept a flat earth. I don't really blame them, in a sense. To go up against the status quo regarding a subject like this isn't easy or pleasant. It's frustrating to have to endure their vitrol, granted, but it might help us to learn to be more patient, too (at least for me).

I try to take the example of how St. Bernadette dealt with the angry secular authorities who were against her because of the apparitions of the BVM - she told these authorities the truth, and wasn't above being a bit snarky at times. But she was not uncharitable. I'm not very good at following her example, because I often forget about it. But I try.
I'm pretty much convinced that earth is geocentric--just not flat.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: OHCA on August 08, 2017, 11:39:59 PM
None of the new analogies above make your case more plausible. I've already said why your view doesn't make sense. That hasn't changed.
This is too funny!!  Give it up Neil--your idea that the earth is round just isn't plausible.  Meg has already told you why that just doesn't make sense.  Earth is still flat.  Now let's have a moment of silence for all of the poor drunk bastards who have stumbled off of the edge of the earth.  Silence while the numerous names, seemingly endless, are announced.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 09, 2017, 09:20:01 AM
This is too funny!!  Give it up Neil--your idea that the earth is round just isn't plausible.  Meg has already told you why that just doesn't make sense.  Earth is still flat.  Now let's have a moment of silence for all of the poor drunk bastards who have stumbled off of the edge of the earth.  Silence while the numerous names, seemingly endless, are announced.

All of Neil's examples involve situations in which the subject cannot be seen with the naked eye over a great distance. However, these examples don't work, because we can clearly see the sun during daylight hours. I don't believe that the sun can possibly be 93 million miles away; otherwise, we wouldn't be able to see it clearly. And we would not be able to gain heat and light from it either. This sounds simplistic, I know. It doesn't have to be complicated.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 09, 2017, 10:41:05 AM
I guess I wasn't terribly clear that it is only the people who react with vitriol who are the ones with the demonic world view. Otherwise why do they resist with so much name-calling, anger and denial?  Flat earth is indeed a difficult thing to wrap one's head around, but it never should invoke the kind of demeaning trash-talk and threats flat earthers often endure. Conversely, flat earthers owe everyone charitable responses.  Sometimes, in our haste, after having been haggled and dogged and called morons long enough, we too lash out (like Peter with his sword) but usually only after repeated aggression. Still...not good. As you mentioned, we really must try to maintain good example.  It is also true that sound doctrine and truth are often not endured today and the person delivering it is seen as a bad guy, divisive, rude when he's not, and uncharitable just for speaking the truth. This response to truth is often used as a weapon to shut down the message and is difficult to ignore.  Formulating excellent and charitable responses in every condition is something I've worked on with this subject for the past 10 years.  Someday, I hope to be an expert!      :pray: :)        

Thank you for your thoughtful post. God bless you for all of the good work and efforts in defense of the flat earth. You are correct about the system that the ball-earthers uphold is demonic- it's just that they don't know that. They do believe that they are doing the right thing by upholding the status quo, even though it empowers a freemasonic and pagan agenda, IMO. 

You know a lot more about FE than I do, so I will continue to learn about the finer details from you.  :)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 09, 2017, 10:47:11 AM
Here is a very nice flat-earth legend:

THE EARTH ON TURTLE'S BACK                        

Before Earth was here there was only water as far as one could see in all directions, with birds and animals swimming around in it. Up above in the clouds there was Skyland. In Skyland was a great and beautiful tree with four white roots stretching to the four sacred directions. Every kind of fruit and flower grew from its wide spreading branches.

The Chief of Skyland's young wife was expecting a child. One night she dreamt she saw the great tree uprooted. The next morning she told her husband her dream. "This is very sad," he said, "for it is a dream of great power and we must do all we can to make it come true." Then the chief called all the men together and told them they must uproot the tree. But the roots were so deep and strong they couldn't budge it. So the ancient chief himself wrapped his arms around the tree and strained and strained, until with one last great effort he uprooted it. Now there was a great hole where the tree's roots had been. The chief's wife came and leaned over to look down, holding the tip of one of the uprooted tree's branches to steady herself, Far below she thought she saw something glittering like water. Leaning out further she lost her balance and fell into the hole. Her hand slipped from the tip of the branch, leaving her only a handful of seeds as she fell.

Far, far below in the waters some of the animals looked up. "Someone is falling from the sky," said one.

"We must help her," said another. Then two Swans flew up and caught her between their wings, and brought her gently down to the water where the birds and animals were watching.

She is not like us," said one of the animals. "She doesn't have webbed feet. I don't think she can live in the water." "What shall we do?" said another of the water animals.

"I know," said one of the birds. "I have heard there is Earth far below the waters. If we dive down and bring up Earth she will have a place to stand. So the birds and animals tried to bring up Earth. First Duck dove far down beneath the surface, but he couldn't reach the bottom and floated back up. Then Beaver tried. He went even deeper, so deep that it was all dark, but he couldn't reach the bottom either. Then Loon tried and was gone a long, long time, but he too failed to bring up Earth. Soon it seemed that all had tried and failed. Then a small voice spoke.

"I will bring up Earth or die trying." They all looked to see who it was. It was little Muskrat. She dove down and swam and swam. She was not as strong and swift as the others, but she was determined. She went so deep that it was all dark, and still she swam deeper. Her lungs felt ready to burst, but she swam deeper still. At last, just as she was becoming unconscious, she grasped at the bottom with her little paw and floated upwards, almost dead. When the other animals saw her break the surface, they thought she had failed. Then they saw her right paw was held tightly shut.

"She has the Earth," they said. "Now where can we put it?"

"Put it on my back," said a deep voice. It was Great Turtle who had come up from the depths. They brought Muskrat over and placed her paw against his back. To this day there are marks at the back of Turtle's shell that were made by Muskrat's paw. The tiny bit of Earth fell on the back of Turtle. Almost immediately it began to grow and grow until it became the whole world.

Then the two Swans brought Sky Woman down. She stepped onto the new Earth and opened her hand, letting the seeds fall onto the bare soil. From the seeds the trees and grass and flowers sprang up. Life on Earth had begun.


Creation Story from the Onondaga Tribe, From Keepers of the Earth by Michael J. Caduto & Joseph Bruchac

Neil,

I don't know why you are posting a creation story from the Onondaga peoples, unless you are trying to equate a flat earth with Indian stories. The Indian peoples tried to make sense of the world, and developed stories that would make sense to them. They were observers of natural law, especially in that most of them believed in some sort of creator.

However, we Catholics have the benefit of revelation and sacred scripture. Do you believe that the Book of Genesis, in relation to the earth, is a myth, on par with the Indian creation stories?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: moosy on August 10, 2017, 09:56:59 AM
can't believe there is a conversation going on with a guy who believes in Aliens.

AND works for NASA!
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: TomGubbinsKimmage on August 10, 2017, 02:43:24 PM
A user over on the flat earth forum made this post:

http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t154-why-the-solar-eclipse-shadow-moves-from-west-to-east

The sun causes a shadow for every object it passes over as it moves across the sky above the flat plane of the earth from dawn until dusk, east to west.

Therefore, at dawn the shadows of a tree or a lamppost are on the west side of the object.
Then the shadow is directly below the tree or lamppost at noon, as the sun passes directly overhead.
Finally, the shadows are to the east of the tree or lamppost, as the sun sets in the west.

It is this exact same movement of the sun which explains why the shadow of the moon moves from west to east.

The sun is at a higher altitude than the moon.

When the eclipse begins, the sun is "rising" above the moon from the east, making the shadow of the moon hit the ground to the west in, say, Oregon. As the sun passes directly above the moon at its zenith ("noon") point, then the shadow will be directly under the moon, hitting the ground in say, Kansas City. Last, the shadow will be to the east of the moon as the sun "sets" to the west of it, causing the shadow to hit the ground in say, Georgia.

The shadow will also be elongated at "rise" and "set," explaining the overall elliptical shape, and more circular at zenith. You can do this experiment for yourself by observing a timelapse photo of the shadow of a lamppost from rise to set.

Here's a good example video: the shadows of these vertical doorposts move across the floor from west to east (left to right) as you see the sun rise in the east (right) side of the camera frame. This shows the exact effect of what happens during the solar eclipse:

https://youtu.be/loVGi_bftdU

It is a much simpler explanation when you know the earth is a flat plane, than the unintelligible one the media/NASA tries to give:

https://youtu.be/oMwUnqF9yXM

Also, the eclipse shadow is reported to be 70-100 miles wide, so this would be the width of the moon.

The shadow of any given object corresponds to its size. The width of a shadow of an object does not change, only the length, as it elongates due to the lengthening distance of the source light (the sun) and the angle approaching zero.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: TomGubbinsKimmage on August 10, 2017, 03:18:00 PM
(https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2013/08/eclipsespace3.jpg)


Does this shadow look like 70 miles to you?

Well NASA says it is suppose to be!

And at the same time it says this is a real photo.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: TomGubbinsKimmage on August 10, 2017, 03:34:32 PM
Here is the post showing that Neil believes in aliens
https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/nazca-peru-ancient-mummified-body-of-humanoid-not-homo-sapiens/
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 10, 2017, 07:05:21 PM
(https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2013/08/eclipsespace3.jpg)


Does this shadow look like 70 miles to you?

Well NASA says it is suppose to be!

And at the same time it says this is a real photo.
.
The shadow you see there crossing Africa is the darker portion of the penumbra which is much larger, only the resolution here doesn't give the outer fringes of it, which extend to the tip of southern Africa and into Europe. At the center of the penumbra is the umbra or total darkness, if it is a total solar eclipse. An annular eclipse doesn't have the umbra shadow in the center because the tip of it falls short of the earth's surface.
.
All this is explained in previous posts, which you have apparently ignored.
.
The "70 miles" does not refer to the penumbra. It is the total width of the dark, central umbra shadow, which is in the center of the penumbra. If that were visible in the image you posted above, it would appear as a black dot in the middle. The image is too large to show that, since it would be perhaps a dozen or so pixels, easily lost in the shadows of other features in a photo this large.
.
I saw the moon this morning giving a very interesting appearance, as the sun was already shining in the eastern sky while the moon was setting in the west. It is now in the waning gibbous phase, just after the full moon phase of Monday. 
.
The illuminated side of the moon was angled upwards at what appeared to be where the sun ought to be at high noon, at first glance. But it's not always this startling in its appearance at this phase, since the orbit of the moon is usually closer to where the sun crosses the sky. Being on its way to crossing paths with the sun, the moon appears to lean back and look up (so to speak) toward the sun, which is at tremendously greater distance from earth than the moon is.
.
This month, the moon is ascending from a very low path in the sky, which was visible at the previous new moon, when it seemed rather unlikely that the very next new moon would be at the same place as the sun (this is going to happen on August 21st, for all to see). 
.
So the moon now is halfway to its path that it will achieve in just 11 days from now. The moon is rising and setting a good deal south of where the sun is rising and setting. But its path is very quickly advancing northward, while the sun's path is now moving southward (being after the summer solstice). On the 21st, it will rise and set right about the same place where the sun rises and sets, only rising a few minutes prior to the sun, and setting a few minutes after the sun. You can see these times on the almanac website for Aug. 21st.:

               Dawn         Rises         Sets

Sun       4:50 A.M.  6:19 A.M.  7:31 P.M.

Moon                      6:09 A.M.  7:44 P.M.

.
So the sun will rise 10 minutes after the moon rises, and the sun will set 13 minutes after the moon sets on the day of the total solar eclipse.
.
And what should be most elucidating for those who want to know the truth (which apparently excludes dogmatic flat-earthers!) this will be the case for everyone in the continental USA, Canada, and Latin America, within a few seconds. 
.
Because if the junk theory of flat-earthism were correct, this would not be the case. 
.


Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 10, 2017, 07:08:57 PM
Neil,

I don't know why you are posting a creation story from the Onondaga peoples, unless you are trying to equate a flat earth with Indian stories. The Indian peoples tried to make sense of the world, and developed stories that would make sense to them. They were observers of natural law, especially in that most of them believed in some sort of creator.
.
But flat-earthers in trying to make sense of the world, have developed a story that would make sense to them, too. The only difference is, the junk theory they've come up with doesn't make any sense.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 10, 2017, 07:14:54 PM
All of Neil's examples involve situations in which the subject cannot be seen with the naked eye over a great distance. However, these examples don't work, because we can clearly see the sun during daylight hours. I don't believe that the sun can possibly be 93 million miles away; otherwise, we wouldn't be able to see it clearly. And we would not be able to gain heat and light from it either. This sounds simplistic, I know. It doesn't have to be complicated.
My examples work, but you have chosen to think they don't. Just saying so doesn't make it so.
.
We can see the sun just fine during night time hours, we just have to look at it from the other side of earth. There are people over there, you know.
.
Please notice I'm the only one providing examples to substantiate my explanation, while the flat-earthers have no examples, refuse to take any measurements, and have never once attempted to discuss any of the objective data. That's because they don't have any data to discuss. They do not have sun rising times or moon rising times. They don't have specific distances for the sun from the earth or the moon from the earth. They just say "they're about 3,000 miles," but then the sun is higher above the earth than the moon is, never how many miles further. They can't give any specific numbers because they have no way of demonstrating where the numbers come from. It's all speculation and fantasy.
.
Flat-earthism is a junk theory.
.
We can see other stars clearly that are much further away than the sun is. It's just a matter of magnification.
.
If we were as close to the sun as Mercury or Mars is, we would be feeling the sun's heat a lot more than we do.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 10, 2017, 07:49:33 PM
My examples work, but you have chosen to think they don't. Just saying so doesn't make it so.
.
We can see the sun just fine during night time hours, we just have to look at it from the other side of earth. There are people over there, you know.
.
Please notice I'm the only one providing examples to substantiate my explanation, while the flat-earthers have no examples, refuse to take any measurements, and have never once attempted to discuss any of the objective data. That's because they don't have any data to discuss. They do not have sun rising times or moon rising times. They don't have specific distances for the sun from the earth or the moon from the earth. They just say "they're about 3,000 miles," but then the sun is higher above the earth than the moon is, never how many miles further. They can't give any specific numbers because they have no way of demonstrating where the numbers come from. It's all speculation and fantasy.
.
Flat-earthism is a junk theory.
.
We can see other stars clearly that are much further away than the sun is. It's just a matter of magnification.
.
If we were as close to the sun as Mercury or Mars is, we would be feeling the sun's heat a lot more than we do.
.
When you say flat earth is a junk theory you fly in the face of the Catholic Church, Catholic Fathers, Saints, Popes, science and tradition. It is Heliocentrism that has no history in the Church.  Global earth is a faction of heliocentrism as shown prior in this thread and it feeds the beast of the NWO, the new mass, modernism and relativity.  Proof otherwise is requested for I have provided exponential amounts of Catholic teaching with literally zero content to the contrary except Youtubes that contradict themselves and have no Church authority behind them. Big claims demand big proof.  Saying the flat earth is junk is not enough. The Catholic Church has spoken and there are no defendants to the contrary.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 10, 2017, 08:55:29 PM
When you say flat earth is a junk theory you fly in the face of the Catholic Church, Catholic Fathers, Saints, Popes, science and tradition. 
.
Wrong. Flat-earthism is the junk theory of yours.
.
Quote
It is Heliocentrism that has no history in the Church.  
.
There you go, again, accusing me of heliocentrism. So, you're a liar. Simple. I have told you again and again, but you say I'm not telling the truth. You are a liar and a caluminator. 
.
Quote
Global earth is a faction of heliocentrism as shown prior in this thread and it feeds the beast of the NWO, the new mass, modernism and relativity.  Proof otherwise is requested for I have provided exponential amounts of Catholic teaching with literally zero content to the contrary except Youtubes that contradict themselves and have no Church authority behind them. Big claims demand big proof.  Saying the flat earth is junk is not enough. The Catholic Church has spoken and there are no defendants to the contrary.
.
Face it, happenby. You're just full of it. Flat-earthism is a junk theory. Wake up.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 10, 2017, 11:54:36 PM
.
But flat-earthers in trying to make sense of the world, have developed a story that would make sense to them, too. The only difference is, the junk theory they've come up with doesn't make any sense.
.

You conveniently left out the question that I asked you from that post - so I'll ask you again: Do you think that the description of the earth in sacred scripture (Genesis) is on par with Indian creation stories? You tend to ignore any reference to sacred scripture.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 10, 2017, 11:58:16 PM
My examples work, but you have chosen to think they don't. Just saying so doesn't make it so.

I keep telling you why your examples don't work, and you pay no attention. No sense in responding anymore to that particular issue.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 11, 2017, 12:06:42 AM
.
Wrong. Flat-earthism is the junk theory of yours.
..
There you go, again, accusing me of heliocentrism. So, you're a liar. Simple. I have told you again and again, but you say I'm not telling the truth. You are a liar and a caluminator.
..
Face it, happenby. You're just full of it. Flat-earthism is a junk theory. Wake up.
.

Why don't you tell us exactly what your beliefs are regarding geocentrism, since you say you are a proponent. Please be specific.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 11, 2017, 03:52:27 AM
Introduction:
Welcome to our Dr.Sky.com (http://dr.sky.com/) website coverage of what may well be the largest Astronomy
event in the past century!
We hope that this tutorial, will be of help to you and yours, so you may get the most out of
this rare celestial event!
We believe the content below, will help answer many of your questions and concerns.
E-mail the Dr.Sky Team at: drsky@cox.net (drsky@cox.net)……


Some History……..

I have had the honor of being able to witness four of these type eclipses…..March 7th 1970,
in Perry, Florida…..July 10th 1972, in far northern Canada in Quebec…..May 30th 1984 ….
a near total eclipse ( deep annular), along costal Maryland……July 11th 1991…a great total
solar eclipse, from the big island in Hawaii……and now…the August 21st 2017, “Great American Total Solar Eclipse”, from Rexburg, Idaho!

The next major total solar eclipse, visible in the USA, will occur on April 8th 2024!
I was lucky, I saw this rare phenomenon, within two years between the first eclipse in 1970,
twelve years between the 1972 eclipse and the 1984 event. After that, there was seven years
between eclipses ….and finally, 26 years between the 2017 eclipse and the 1991 event!
Way too long to wait!

How many eclipses have you seen? And if you did see one, was it a true total solar eclipse?
These type of eclipses are rare, if you stay in the same location and wait for one to return to
your home….after you see your FIRST one, you will have true “Eclipse Fever” and want to
see your next one!

Some say that it takes around 350 years on average for a total solar eclipse to return to the exact location that you saw the last one!
Either way, we hope that this basic, but informative guide will help you to enjoy this rare
celestial event, in comfort and safety!

 
What Is A Solar Eclipse?
A solar eclipse is a natural event that takes place on Earth when the Moon moves in its orbit between Earth and the Sun (this is also known as an occultation). It happens at New Moon, when the Sun and Moon are in conjunction with each other. If the Moon was only slightly closer to Earth, and orbited in the same plane and its orbit was circular, we would see eclipses each month. The lunar orbit is elliptical and tilted with respect to Earth’s orbit, so we can only see up to 5 eclipses per year. Depending on the geometry of the Sun, Moon and Earth, the Sun can be totally blocked, or it can be partially blocked.
During an eclipse, the Moon’s shadow (which is divided into two parts: the dark umbra and the lighter penumbra) moves across Earth’s surface. Safety note: do NOT ever look at the Sun directly during an eclipse unless it is during a total solar eclipse. The bright light of the Sun can damage your eyes very quickly.
Facts About Solar Eclipses
Depending on the geometry of the Sun, Moon, and Earth, there can be between 2 and 5 solar eclipses each year.
Totality occurs when the Moon completely obscures Sun so only the solar corona is showing.
A total solar eclipse can happen once every 1-2 years. This makes them very rare events.s.

The longest a total solar eclipse can last is 7.5 minutes.
The width of the path of totality is usually about 160 km across and can sweep across an area of Earth’s surface about 10,000 miles long.
Almost identical eclipses occur after 18 years and 11 days. This period of 223 synodic months is called a saros.

During a total solar eclipse, conditions in the path of totality can change quickly. Air temperatures drop and the immediate area becomes dark.
If any planets are in the sky at the time of a total solar eclipse, they can be seen as points of light.

TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE
A total solar eclipse occurs when the Moon completely blocks the solar disk. In a total solar eclipse, the narrowest part of the path (where the Sun is completely blocked and the Moon casts its darkest shadow (called the umbra)) is called the “zone of totality”.
Observers in this path see a darkened Sun (often described as a “hole in the sky”) with the ghostly glow of the solar corona extending out to space. A phenomenon called “Bailey’s Beads” often appears as sunlight shines out through valleys on the lunar surface. If the Sun is active, observers can also see solar prominences, loops, and flares during totality. A total solar eclipse is the ONLY time when it is safe to look directly at the Sun. ALL other solar observations (even in partial phases) require special solar filters so that you do not harm your eyes.
Total solar eclipses have not always been visible from Earth. In the past, the Moon was too close to Earth and during eclipses it completely blotted out the Sun’s disk. Over time, the lunar orbit has changed at the rate of just over 2 cm per year and in the current epoch, the alignment is nearly perfect at times. However, the Moon’s orbit will continue to widen, and in perhaps 600 million years, total solar eclipses will no longer occur. Instead, future observers will see partial and annular eclipses only.
ANNULAR SOLAR ECLIPSE
Not every solar eclipse is a total one. When the Moon is farther away in its orbit than usual, it appears too small to completely cover the Sun’s disk. During such an event, a bright ring of sunlight shines around the Moon. This type of eclipse is a called an “annular” eclipse. It comes from the Latin word “annulus” which means “ring”.
The period of annularity during such an eclipse can last anywhere from 5 or 6 minutes to up to 12 minutes. However, even though the Sun is mostly covered by the Moon, enough bright sunlight escapes during annularity that observers cannot ever look at the Sun directly. These events require eye protection throughout the entire eclipse.
PARTIAL SOLAR ECLIPSE
A partial solar eclipse occurs when Earth moves through the lunar penumbra (the lighter part of the Moon’s shadow) as the Moon moves between Earth and the Sun. The Moon does not block the entire solar disk, as seen from Earth. Depending on your location during a partial eclipse, you might see anything from a small sliver of the Sun being blotted out to a nearly total eclipse.
To view any eclipse safely, use approved filters or use an indirect method of viewing, such as projecting sunlight through a telescope and onto a white piece of paper or cardboard. NEVER look at the Sun through a telescope unless it has the appropriate filter. Blindness and severe eye damage can result due to improper observation technique.
(http://drsky.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Dr-Sky-Eclipse-Survival-Guide_html_7b7b38a3-410x273.png)
Eye Safety and Solar Eclipses-
B. Ralph Chou, MSc, OD
Associate Professor, School of Optometry, University of Waterloo

A total solar eclipse is probably the most spectacular astronomical event that most people will experience in their lives. There is a great deal of interest in watching eclipses, and thousands of astronomers (both amateur and professional) travel around the world to observe and photograph them.
A solar eclipse offers students a unique opportunity to see a natural phenomenon that illustrates the basic principles of mathematics and science that are taught through elementary and secondary school. Indeed, many scientists (including astronomers!) have been inspired to study science as a result of seeing a total solar eclipse. Teachers can use eclipses to show how the laws of motion and the mathematics of orbital motion can predict the occurrence of eclipses. The use of pinhole cameras and telescopes or binoculars to observe an eclipse leads to an understanding of the optics of these devices. The rise and fall of environmental light levels during an eclipse illustrate the principles of radiometry and photometry, while biology classes can observe the associated behavior of plants and animals. It is also an opportunity for children of school age to contribute actively to scientific research – observations of contact timings at different locations along the eclipse path are useful in refining our knowledge of the orbital motions of the Moon and earth, and sketches and photographs of the solar corona can be used to build a three-dimensional picture of the Sun’s extended atmosphere during the eclipse.

However, observing the Sun can be dangerous if you do not take the proper precautions. The solar radiation that reaches the surface of Earth ranges from ultraviolet (UV) radiation at wavelengths longer than 290 nm to radio waves in the meter range. The tissues in the eye transmit a substantial part of the radiation between 380 and 1400 nm to the light-sensitive retina at the back of the eye. While environmental exposure to UV radiation is known to contribute to the accelerated aging of the outer layers of the eye and the development of cataracts, the concern over improper viewing of the Sun during an eclipse is for the development of “eclipse blindness” or retinal burns.
Exposure of the retina to intense visible light causes damage to its light-sensitive rod and cone cells. The light triggers a series of complex chemical reactions within the cells which damages their ability to respond to a visual stimulus, and in extreme cases, can destroy them. The result is a loss of visual function which may be either temporary or permanent, depending on the severity of the damage. When a person looks repeatedly or for a long time at the Sun without proper protection for the eyes, this photochemical retinal damage may be accompanied by a thermal injury – the high level of visible and near-infrared radiation causes heating that literally cooks the exposed tissue. This thermal injury or photocoagulation destroys the rods and cones, creating a small blind area. The danger to vision is significant because photic retinal injuries occur without any feeling of pain (there are no pain receptors in the retina), and the visual effects do not occur for at least several hours after the damage is done [Pitts, 1993].
The only time that the Sun can be viewed safely with the naked eye is during a total eclipse, when the Moon completely covers the disk of the Sun. It is never safe to look at a partial or annular eclipse, or the partial phases of a total solar eclipse, without the proper equipment and techniques. Even when 99% of the Sun’s surface (the photosphere) is obscured during the partial phases of a solar eclipse, the remaining crescent Sun is still intense enough to cause a retinal burn, even though illumination levels are comparable to twilight [Chou, 1981, 1996; Marsh, 1982]. Failure to use proper observing methods may result in permanent eye damage or severe visual loss. This can have important adverse effects on career choices and earning potential, since it has been shown that most individuals who sustain eclipse-related eye injuries are children and young adults [Penner and McNair, 1966; Chou and Krailo, 1981].

The same techniques for observing the Sun outside of eclipses are used to view and photograph annular solar eclipses and the partly eclipsed Sun [Sherrod, 1981; Pasachoff & Menzel 1992; Pasachoff & Covington, 1993; Reynolds & Sweetsir, 1995]. The safest and most inexpensive method is by projection. A pinhole or small opening is used to form an image of the Sun on a screen placed about a meter behind the opening. Multiple openings in perfboard, in a loosely woven straw hat, or even between interlaced fingers can be used to cast a pattern of solar images on a screen. A similar effect is seen on the ground below a broad-leafed tree: the many “pinholes” formed by overlapping leaves creates hundreds of crescent-shaped images.
Binoculars or a small telescope mounted on a tripod can also be used to project a magnified image of the Sun onto a white card. All of these methods can be used to provide a safe view of the partial phases of an eclipse to a group of observers, but care must be taken to ensure that no one looks through the device. The main advantage of the projection methods is that nobody is looking directly at the Sun. The disadvantage of the pinhole method is that the screen must be placed at least a meter behind the opening to get a solar image that is large enough to see easily.
The Sun can only be viewed directly when filters specially designed to protect the eyes are used. Most such filters have a thin layer of chromium alloy or aluminum deposited on their surfaces that attenuates both visible and near-infrared radiation. A safe solar filter should transmit less than 0.003% (density~4.5)[1] of visible light (380 to 780 nm) and no more than 0.5% (density~2.3) of the near-infrared radiation (780 to 1400 nm). Figure 24 shows the spectral response for a selection of safe solar filters.
One of the most widely available filters for safe solar viewing is shade number 14 welder’s glass, which can be obtained from welding supply outlets. A popular inexpensive alternative is aluminized mylar manufactured specifically for solar observation. (“Space blankets” and aluminized mylar used in gardening are not suitable for this purpose!) Unlike the welding glass, mylar can be cut to fit any viewing device, and doesn’t break when dropped. Many experienced solar observers use one or two layers of black-and-white film that has been fully exposed to light and developed to maximum density. The metallic silver contained in the film emulsion is the protective filter. Some of the newer black and white films use dyes instead of silver and these are unsafe. Black-and-white negatives with images on it (e.g., medical x-rays) are also not suitable. More recently, solar observers have used floppy disks and compact disks (both CDs and CD-ROMs) as protective filters by covering the central openings and looking through the disk media. However, the optical quality of the solar image formed by a floppy disk or CD is relatively poor compared to mylar or welder’s glass. Some CDs are made with very thin aluminum coatings which are not safe – if you can see through the CD in normal room lighting, don’t use it!! No filter should be used with an optical device (e.g. binoculars, telescope, camera) unless it has been specifically designed for that purpose and is mounted at the front end (i.e., end towards the Sun). Some sources of solar filters are listed in the following section.
Unsafe filters include all color film, black-and-white film that contains no silver, photographic negatives with images on them (x-rays and snapshots), smoked glass, sunglasses (single or multiple pairs), photographic neutral density filters and polarizing filters. Most of these transmit high levels of invisible infrared radiation which can cause a thermal retinal burn (see Figure 24). The fact that the Sun appears dim, or that you feel no discomfort when looking at the Sun through the filter, is no guarantee that your eyes are safe. Solar filters designed to thread into eyepieces that are often provided with inexpensive telescopes are also unsafe. These glass filters can crack unexpectedly from overheating when the telescope is pointed at the Sun, and retinal damage can occur faster than the observer can move the eye from the eyepiece. Avoid unnecessary risks. Your local planetarium, science center, or amateur astronomy club can provide additional information on how to observe the eclipse safely.
There has been concern expressed about the possibility that UVA radiation (wavelengths between 315 and 380 nm) in sunlight may also adversely affect the retina [Del Priore, 1991]. While there is some experimental evidence for this, it only applies to the special case of aphakia, where the natural lens of the eye has been removed because of cataract or injury, and no UV-blocking spectacle, contact or intraocular lens has been fitted. In an intact normal human eye, UVA radiation does not reach the retina because it is absorbed by the crystalline lens. In aphakia, normal environmental exposure to solar UV radiation may indeed cause chronic retinal damage. However, the solar filter materials discussed in this article attenuate solar UV radiation to a level well below the minimum permissible occupational exposure for UVA (ACGIH, 1994), so an aphakic observer is at no additional risk of retinal damage when looking at the Sun through a proper solar filter.
In the days and weeks preceding a solar eclipse, there are often news stories and announcements in the media, warning about the dangers of looking at the eclipse. Unfortunately, despite the good intentions behind these messages, they frequently contain misinformation, and may be designed to scare people from seeing the eclipse at all. However, this tactic may backfire, particularly when the messages are intended for students. A student who heeds warnings from teachers and other authorities not to view the eclipse because of the danger to vision, and learns later that other students did see it safely, may feel cheated out of the experience. Having now learned that the authority figure was wrong on one occasion, how is this student going to react when other health-related advice about drugs, alcohol, AIDS, or smoking is given [Pasachoff, 1997] Misinformation may be just as bad, if not worse than no information at all.
In spite of these precautions, the total phase (and only the total phase) of an eclipse can and should be viewed without filters. It is crucial that you know when to take off and put back on your glasses; see Eye safety during a total solar eclipse
Eclipses In History- From Time and Date.com (http://date.com/)
Scientific Discoveries
The British astronomer and mathematician, Sir Arthur Eddington, used the total solar eclipse of May 29, 1919 to test Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

By taking pictures of stars near the Sun during totality, Eddington was able to show that gravity can bend light. This phenomenon is called gravitational deflection.
All eclipses worldwide 1900–2099
Helium Named After the Sun
A solar eclipse is also responsible for the discovery of helium. The first piece of evidence for the existence of the second lightest and the second most abundant element known to humans was discovered by the French astronomer Jules Janssen during a total solar eclipse on August 16, 1868. Because of this, it’s named after the Greek word for the Sun: Helios.
Predicting the Emperor’s Future

Surviving records have shown that the Babylonians and the ancient Chinese were able to predict solar eclipses as early as 2500 BCE.
In China, solar eclipses were thought to be associated with the health and success of the emperor, and failing to predict one meant putting him in danger. Legend has it that 2 astrologers, Hsi and Ho, were executed for failing to predict a solar eclipse. Historians and astronomers believe that the eclipse that they failed to forecast occurred on October 22, 2134 BCE, which would make it the oldest solar eclipse ever recorded in human history.

Mythology of eclipses
Substitute Kings
Clay tablets found at ancient archaeological sites show that the Babylonians not only recorded eclipses—the earliest known Babylonian record is of the eclipse that took place on May 3, 1375 BCE—but were also fairly accurate in predicting them. They were the first people to use the saros cycle to predict eclipses. The saros cycle relates to the lunar cycle and is about 6,585.3 days (18 years, 11 days, and 8 hours) long.

How often do solar eclipses occur?
Like the ancient Chinese, the Babylonians believed that solar eclipses were bad omens for kings and rulers. Predicting solar eclipses enabled them to seat substitute kings during solar eclipses with the hope that these temporary kings would face the anger of the Gods, instead of the real king.
Eclipses as Peacemakers
According to the Greek historian Herodotus, a solar eclipse in 585 BCE stopped the war between the Lydians and the Medes, who saw the dark skies as a sign to make peace with each other.
The Greek astronomer Hipparchus used a solar eclipse to determine that the Moon was about 429,000 km (268,000 mi) away from the Earth. This is only about 11% more than what today’s scientists accept as the average distance between the Moon and the Earth.
Kepler Close, Halley Closer
Although early eclipse pioneers, including Chinese astronomer Liu Hsiang, Greek philosopher Plutarch, and Byzantine historian Leo Diaconus tried to describe and explain solar eclipses and their features, it was not until 1605 that astronomer Johannes Kepler gave a scientific description of a total solar eclipse.
More than a century later, Edmund Halley, who the famous Halley’s comet is named after, predicted the timing and path of the total solar eclipse on May 3, 1715. His calculations were only 4 minutes and about 30 km (18 mi) off from the actual timing and path of the eclipse.
Halley’s comet causes 2 annual meteor showers: the Eta Aquarids and the Orionids.

Some Other Notable Solar Eclipses in History
The scientific fascination with solar eclipses has led to some important scientific discoveries about the nature of the Sun, Moon, and our solar system.
Year
Date
Type
Importance
632
January 27
Annular

Visible in Medina, Saudi Arabia, the eclipse coincided with the death of Prophet Mohammad’s son Ibrahim. The Prophet reportedly dismissed rumors that this was a miracle, stating that the Sun and the Moon are signs of God and that they are not eclipsed for the birth or death of any man.

1133
August 2
Total

King Henry’s Eclipse: King Henry I died shortly after the eclipse, prompting the spread of the superstition that eclipses are bad omens for rulers.

1836
May 15
Annular

English astronomer Francis Baily first discovered and described Baily’s beads—a phenomenon that occurs in the seconds before and after totality in a total solar eclipse and annularity in an annular solar eclipse.

1851
July 28
Total

The first photograph of the Sun’s corona was taken by a Prussian photographer called Berkowski.

2009
July 21/22
Total

Longest total solar eclipse of the 21st century. Totality lasted for 6 mins and 39 secs.
Links To Eclipses in History:
cs.astronomy.com/asy/b/astronomy/archive/2014/09/24/the-10-most-important-eclipses-in-history.aspx (http://cs.astronomy.com/asy/b/astronomy/archive/2014/09/24/the-10-most-important-eclipses-in-history.aspx)
www.eclipsewise.com/extra/SEhistory.html (http://www.eclipsewise.com/extra/SEhistory.html)
www.bibalex.org/eclipse2006/HistoricalObservationsofSolarEclipses.htm (http://www.bibalex.org/eclipse2006/HistoricalObservationsofSolarEclipses.htm)
How Eclipses Are Predicted:
www.webassign.net/seedfoundatCH03-4.ions/ebook/html (https://www.webassign.net/seedfoundatCH03-4.ions/ebook/html)
astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/231/what-is-the-formula-to-predict-lunar-and-solar-eclipses-accurately (https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/231/what-is-the-formula-to-predict-lunar-and-solar-eclipses-accurately)
eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEmono/reference/explain.html (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEmono/reference/explain.html)
Your Guide To The 2017 “Great American Solar Eclipse”-
How To Photograph A Solar Eclipse:
www.eclipse2017.org/201grap7/photohing.HTM (http://www.eclipse2017.org/201grap7/photohing.HTM)
www.mreclipse.com/SEphoto/SEphoto.html (http://www.mreclipse.com/SEphoto/SEphoto.html)
The Reaction of Nature /During a Total Solar Eclipse:
Amazing things happen from the natural world, during a total solar eclipse…Here are some
links to what may occur!

americaneclipseusa.com/about-eclipses/total-solar-eclipse-phenomena/ (http://americaneclipseusa.com/about-eclipses/total-solar-eclipse-phenomena/)
The Amazing “Shadow Bands”/ What Are They? / How To Observe Them!:
eclipse2017.nasa.gov/what-are-shadow-bands (https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/what-are-shadow-bands)
www.strickling.net/shadowbands.htm (http://www.strickling.net/shadowbands.htm)
Here is an activity that you can participate in, if you are in the path of totality!
How dark will the sky get during the eclipse?:

www.globeatnight.org/eclipse-2017/GaN2017_ActivityGuide_UrsaMajor.pdf (https://www.globeatnight.org/eclipse-2017/GaN2017_ActivityGuide_UrsaMajor.pdf)
What Will The Sky Look Like At The Moment Of Totality:
Courtesy: Shadow and Sunstance.com (http://sunstance.com/)
(http://drsky.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Dr-Sky-Eclipse-Survival-Guide_html_m5e315878-410x247.jpg)
During the few minutes of totality; Venus and Mercury will be visible in a clear sky, as well as many of the bright stars in the sky.
The Sun will be very close to the bright star, Regulus in Leo the Lion.

How many stars can you see and for how long?
Here is a listing of what we feel are some of the best links for the August 2017 eclipse!
Links:
DR. SKY/ The Dr.Sky Show
www.drsky.com (http://www.drsky.com/)
ECLIPSE LINKS:
www.eclipse2017.org/2017/path_through_the_US.htm (http://www.eclipse2017.org/2017/path_through_the_US.htm)
www.greatamericaneclipse.com/ (https://www.greatamericaneclipse.com/)
eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse.html (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse.html)
www.greatamericaneclipse.com/statistics/ (https://www.greatamericaneclipse.com/statistics/)
HOW TO PHOTOGRAPH THE ECLIPSE
www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and-explore/a/tips-and-techniques/how-to-photograph-a-solar-eclipse.html (http://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and-explore/a/tips-and-techniques/how-to-photograph-a-solar-eclipse.html)
www.mreclipse.com/SEphoto/SEphoto.html (http://www.mreclipse.com/SEphoto/SEphoto.html)
COAST TO COAST AM-
Dr.Sky Appears Each Monday Night 10 PM PDT

www.coasttocoastam.com/ (http://www.coasttocoastam.com/)
The Next Major Eclipse In America- April 8th 2024
xjubier.free.fr/en/site_pages/solar_eclipses/TSE_2024_GoogleMapFull.html (http://xjubier.free.fr/en/site_pages/solar_eclipses/TSE_2024_GoogleMapFull.html)
KTAR/ News  92.3 FM/ Dr.Sky Blog:
ktar.com/category/dr-sky-blog/ (http://ktar.com/category/dr-sky-blog/)
Amazing Links:
Follow the August 21st 2017 Eclipse / Interactive GOOGLE Map:
xjubier.free.fr/en/site_pages/solar_eclipses/TSE_2017_GoogleMapFull.html (http://xjubier.free.fr/en/site_pages/solar_eclipses/TSE_2017_GoogleMapFull.html)
This is the BEST site to look at the details of the eclipse…locations, times, percentage
of eclipse, etc. We suggest you use this and tell others!

Shadow and Substance:
A great site that shows you what you can expect with the eclipse in each state and some great
Eclipse and other sky simulations…..We really like this one and you will too!!!

shadowandsubstance.com/2017/2017e.html (http://shadowandsubstance.com/2017/2017e.html)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 11, 2017, 04:03:39 AM
I keep telling you why your examples don't work, and you pay no attention. No sense in responding anymore to that particular issue.
How about this: Pick one example and tell me why it "doesn't work." I've given you many examples and maybe that's overwhelming to you. I had a teacher once who insisted on only giving ONE EXAMPLE, and then when anyone asked a question he would just repeat the same example in the same way, as if he thought you were stupid if you didn't get it.
.
So I have tried to be more accommodating, giving my students several examples. But here, on this forum, those who adhere dogmatically to their junk theory of flat-earthism refuse to be specific, make disrespectful sweeping statements, and accuse me of all kinds of bad intention. The fact of their posts is proof of their bad will. They keep doing the same thing, restating their erroneous principles without any facts to back them up, and when I explain why they're wrong, they ignore the explanation and go back to repeating their false axioms.
.
Pick one example. Here, I'll pick it for you: take the rifleman with a scope and a target. Why is that so hard to see? Maybe you've never looked through a riflescope? Maybe you've never fired a rifle?
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 11, 2017, 08:15:51 AM

So I have tried to be more accommodating, giving my students several examples. But here, on this forum, those who adhere dogmatically to their junk theory of flat-earthism refuse to be specific, make disrespectful sweeping statements, and accuse me of all kinds of bad intention. The fact of their posts is proof of their bad will. They keep doing the same thing, restating their erroneous principles without any facts to back them up, and when I explain why they're wrong, they ignore the explanation and go back to repeating their false axioms..

We are not your students. And do you address your actual students in the same manner in which you address flat-earthers here? I can't imagine that you'd keep your teaching position for very long, if you did so. But then, I suppose your students are in awe of your (supposed) vast and extensive knowledge. We here, however, are not under any such illusion.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 11, 2017, 11:01:34 AM
What God never said:
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 11, 2017, 01:43:17 PM
We are not your students. And do you address your actual students in the same manner in which you address flat-earthers here? I can't imagine that you'd keep your teaching position for very long, if you did so. But then, I suppose your students are in awe of your (supposed) vast and extensive knowledge. We here, however, are not under any such illusion.
.
What are sun spots?
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 13, 2017, 06:31:05 PM
Let's see now: 11th, 12th, 13th... so far, that's 3 days without any flat-earther capable of answering the question. 
.
How many more days will it take? Three more? How about a week? Will a week be enough?
.
Is the question too hard for you? Hmmm? 
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 13, 2017, 07:32:04 PM
Quote
Heliocentric sun, you say? When did I say anything about heliocentric sun? 
Interesting response...
.
Funny, you recently claimed that you didn't know that I don't believe in heliocentrism, but here you are quoting a post I made where I questioned this very thing. Do you not bother to read the posts that you're quoting? 
.
If you don't read them, there isn't much point in my writing them for you to read.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 13, 2017, 07:51:25 PM
.
This material was posted last year in advance of the rare transit of Mercury across the sun, May 9th, 2016:


RARE TRANSIT OF MERCURY ACROSS THE SUN/ MAY 9TH 2016 (http://drsky.com/rare-transit-of-mercury-across-the-sun-may-9th-2016/)
4 May 2016



(http://drsky.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/mercury-410x410.jpg)

                                   THE PLANET MERCURY

Get set for a rather rare transit of the planet Mercury on Monday, May 9th2016!
We have not had a Mercury transit for a number of years and now is the time to prepare for this exciting event!

CAUTION-

Do NOT stare at the Sun without proper eye protection!

The best method to view this transit will be by using the projection method, with a small telescope and a pair of binoculars.

You must have the telescope or binocular focus on a sheet of cardboard or paper, at least 12 inches from the light source, to get a decent and safe image of the Sun!

Mercury can transit the Sun -- some 13 to 14 times per century!

(http://drsky.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/NASA-1462291974.jpg)

SMALL DOTS ARE PLANET MERCURY LARGE ORANGE SPHERE IS THE SUN              
           
If you miss this transit, the next Mercury transit will take place on November 11th, 2019

Mercury is only 1/158th the size of the disk of the Sun, so it will appear as a small black disk; taking some 7 hours, to cross the Sun!

Here are some links to help you view the transit, as well as viewing the event LIVE on the internet:

Links:

VIEW THE TRANSIT LIVE!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK0bu-Is4vA&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK0bu-Is4vA&feature=youtu.be)

Slooh Telescope Feed:
main.slooh.com/event/transit-of-mercury/ (http://main.slooh.com/event/transit-of-mercury/)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 13, 2017, 08:27:21 PM
Hint: the small black dots or circles are not sunspots.
They are successive images of Mercury, shown as a composite in one picture so we can see where the planet moved across the surface of the sun.

(http://www.avertedimagination.com/img_pages/massive_floater.html)
(http://www.avertedimagination.com/img_pages/massive_floater.html) 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 13, 2017, 08:35:17 PM
.
What are sunspots?
.
.
What are sunspots?           
.
Difficult question?           
.
Hmmm?          
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 13, 2017, 10:30:41 PM
Zoomed in image of Saturn's moon Mimas taken from the Cassini spacecraft taken from 746 million miles away:
Official NASA photo taken from 02/17/17

Looks like popcorn ceiling! 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 13, 2017, 10:35:08 PM
Official NASA spokesman Neil Degrasse Tyson says earth is pear shaped...

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 13, 2017, 10:37:35 PM
I prefer flat earth for breakfast
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 13, 2017, 10:46:02 PM
http://www.dailywire.com/news/18729/study-uranus-opens-and-closes-daily-release-solar-amanda-prestigiacomo

STUDY: Uranus Opens And Closes Daily To Release Solar Wind

(ROTFL)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 13, 2017, 11:58:44 PM
Aquinas must be so thrilled…
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 14, 2017, 02:00:11 AM
.
Just for the record.............
.
Question:

.
What are sunspots?
.
Difficult question?
.
Hmmm?
.
Answers (4):

Zoomed in image of Saturn's moon Mimas taken from the Cassini spacecraft taken from 746 million miles away:
Official NASA photo taken from 02/17/17

Looks like popcorn ceiling!
Official NASA spokesman Neil Degrasse Tyson says earth is pear shaped...
I prefer flat earth for breakfast
Quote
Aquinas must be so thrilled…
.
1) Looks like popcorn ceiling! 
2)Official NASA spokesman Neil Degrasse Tyson says earth is pear shaped...
3)I prefer flat earth for breakfast
4) Aquinas must be thrilled
.
My reply:

On the contrary, Aquinas would indubitably be highly unimpressed.

.

Again:

.
What are sunspots?          
.
Difficult question?          
.
Hmmm?          
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 14, 2017, 02:40:43 AM
If we're going to read posts as long as the Summa, we may as well re/read the summa. Notice, speaking of, that summa,for example;
1. Is in a specific, rational ORDER
2. Dealt with ONE point at a time.
3. Wasn't done on a net forum, which only makes monster postsevsen MORE ridiculous, regardess of the un/sound contents.
Also, this is no way to do dispjutation.

In crayon,  "Keep it short and simple"
What's the point of writing:
1. what few if any will read?
2. What, much like navigation, is more conducive to error the greater the distance between established, verified, known points?
.
Just for the record.............
.
Question:
.
Answers (4):
.
1) Looks like popcorn ceiling!
2)Official NASA spokesman Neil Degrasse Tyson says earth is pear shaped...
3)I prefer flat earth for breakfast
4) Aquinas must be thrilled
.
My reply:

On the contrary, Aquinas would indubitably be highly unimpressed.

.

Again:

.
What are sunspots?           
.
Difficult question?           
.
Hmmm?         
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 14, 2017, 03:04:16 AM
http://www.dailywire.com/news/18729/study-uranus-opens-and-closes-daily-release-solar-amanda-prestigiacomo

STUDY: Uranus Opens And Closes Daily To Release Solar Wind

(ROTFL)
.
This post of yours, while it was in a location that appeared to be in answer to my question about sunspots, was so entirely off-topic that I didn't bother to include it as a possible answer to the question.
.
When I went to the linked page, however, it seemed rather odd, but frankly, I couldn't imagine what you'd be laughing at...........
.
Until I read the comments section. Tell me, happenby, do these comments reveal what you found so "humorous?"
.
(Following are comments copied from the site linked in happenby's post, above) :

Quote
 Release earths solar wind?? lol, I think whoever wrote this article was laughing so hard and wrote "earths solar wind". Last I checked Earth and Uranus are two different planets. Within our solar system... ahahahaha, please go back and make sure if you meant the solar wind, uranus expulsion of gasses, or what.... Gawd.... I'm dying.... it hurt's I'm laughing too hard.

What planet do f@rts come from? Uranus! Oh wow. Don't ya just miss 6th grade sometimes?
 
Space flatulence on a planetary scale.
 
You say "yer anus", I say "urine us"... Let's call the whole thing off.
 
This has to be a joke, right? Right?
 
Myanus opens and closes daily to attract and accept ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ Russian men!
 
So does mine.
 
So do I.
 
Seriously, nobody thought of this one? What do the Starship Enterprise and toilet paper have in common? They circle Uranus and pick up Klingons.
 
I referred to it as the solar winds, but my coworkers are pretty sure the sun wouldn't smell like it had Thai food.
 
Alternative headline:  'Astronomer That Named Uranus Heard Laughing Beyond Grave"
.
IOW are you trying to say you just miss 6th grade sometimes, happenby?
.
Or, are you trying to explain that you're still in 6th grade?  :jester:
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 14, 2017, 10:18:53 AM
Ok, so NASA and modern science come out with garbage regarding the celestial bodies and you accuse me of being in 6th grade. Smh. Rather, draw the proper conclusion: you are being had. And the purveyors of these things are laughing at you.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 14, 2017, 10:28:08 AM
Not just impossible...RIDICULOUS.

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 14, 2017, 10:57:24 AM
.
Is the question too hard for you? Hmmm?  
.

Why do you believe that I am obligated to answer your questions? As I have said, we are not your students. That's what you don't seem to understand. You tend to ask questions that will make others look stupid, and you look superior. That's the height of arrogance.

And....you haven't answered some of my questions.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 14, 2017, 03:29:21 PM
Round earthers have to explain more than lack of curvature, curved water surface and ships that don't disappear behind the non existent curve.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 14, 2017, 03:30:44 PM
Gyroscopes do not work on a ball earth.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 14, 2017, 03:32:39 PM
Baal earthers have no explanation for the eclipse, either.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 15, 2017, 12:31:01 AM
Ok, so NASA and modern science come out with garbage regarding the celestial bodies and you accuse me of being in 6th grade. Smh. Rather, draw the proper conclusion: you are being had. And the purveyors of these things are laughing at you.
.
You are the one laughing with the comments section that says they miss being in 6th grade. 
You are the one who doesn't know what sunspots are.
You are the one who can't answer simple questions... 
.
Having fun, 6th grader?
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 15, 2017, 01:39:16 AM
.
You are the one laughing with the comments section that says they miss being in 6th grade.
You are the one who doesn't know what sunspots are.
You are the one who can't answer simple questions...
.
Having fun, 6th grader?
.
An absolute blast! 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 15, 2017, 02:18:01 AM
Please, refresh(?) subj: "Criteriology", esp. those who not only readily dismiss as a rule or habit secular authorities of field, without demonstrating warrant.

Crayola/fingerpaint version: we aren't entitled to find as incredible that or whomever we like when by Catholic and scholastic principles we must accept, at minimum, reflexively.

i.e., e.g., just because our grammar teacher publicly professes Satanism, does not of itself make them equivalent to a layman in their field.

No? s.a., e.g., Avicenna, Averroes, Maimonides, Al Gebr, Aristotle…

Then again, one supposes that rockets must not fly at all if an ALLEGED (by whom? Subtantiation pls?) Mason used his square for more than grip candy and Ba'al bling.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 15, 2017, 10:50:53 AM


i.e., e.g., just because our grammar teacher publicly professes Satanism, does not of itself make them equivalent to a layman in their field.

No? s.a., e.g., Avicenna, Averroes, Maimonides, Al Gebr, Aristotle…



Okay, but how to sort out what is truthful, and what is not? By what barometer are we to use?

I don't know anything about Maimonides or Al Gebr (were they Muslim Scholars like Avicenna and Averroes?), but as you know, St. Thomas Aquinas used the methodology of Aristotle, even though Aristotle was a pagan. Aristotle was a keen observer of natural law.

Avicenna and Averroes of course were Muslim scholars, and as such they also could have got a few things right, but St. Thomas Aquinas didn't use them at all in his methodology, though he was accused of siding with Averroes, due to Averroes support of Aristotle.

I think that we pretty much need a saint like Aquinas to sort all of this out properly, regarding the shape of the earth, but otherwise we just have to do the best we can in trying to make sense of how the earth is really shaped.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 15, 2017, 11:34:39 AM
The practical side of flat earth
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 15, 2017, 11:37:04 AM
Okay, but how to sort out what is truthful, and what is not? By what barometer are we to use?



I don't know anything about Maimonides or Al Gebr (were they Muslim Scholars like Avicenna and Averroes?), but as you know, St. Thomas Aquinas used the methodology of Aristotle, even though Aristotle was a pagan. Aristotle was a keen observer of natural law.

Avicenna and Averroes of course were Muslim scholars, and as such they also could have got a few things right, but St. Thomas Aquinas didn't use them at all in his methodology, though he was accused of siding with Averroes, due to Averroes support of Aristotle.

I think that we pretty much need a saint like Aquinas to sort all of this out properly, regarding the shape of the earth, but otherwise we just have to do the best we can in trying to make sense of how the earth is really shaped.

1. I BEG God, then you, to read AT LEAST, theapprobation of POPE PIUS of "Christian Philosophy" by de Poissey before we resume. It is the most comprehensive, sound, and APPROVED doc (.^. APPROBATION) on this subject that I know of. It is a FREE download, available via archive.com

You  can also, via same,  look up "Criteriology" in same. Trad PRIESTS and THEOLOGIANS >>>MUST<<<< study the same subjects REQUISITE to most ANYTHING else, i including non-natural Theology, so i n humility what makes us so special that we can skip it?

Don't talk to me or any else about this subject till you do.

That urge to do so anyway is the hackles of YOUR PRIDE.

Later?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 15, 2017, 11:42:39 AM
The practical side of flat earth
I agree happenby, but the globe-earthers here don't appear to care about scripture, and how it relates to shape of the earth.

And yes, a globe earth does indeed lend itself to heresies and malformation of God's laws, but again, the globe-earthers don't want to think about it. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 15, 2017, 11:44:44 AM


Don't talk to me or any else about this subject till you do.




:jester:
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 15, 2017, 11:59:12 AM
:jester:
Yeah. Pride. Predictable. all fun and games until you burn in Hell forever.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: AlligatorDicax on August 15, 2017, 05:01:53 PM
The practical side of flat earth
[Attached presentation-slide:]
NOW DO YOU SEE WHY THEY ARE LYING?

Not at all.  Your claims are discredited by the non sequiturs in your presentation-slide.  And whodat "THEY"?

THE GLOBE
The foundation for Evolution,

Am I to believe that Charles Darwin's historic voyage in the Beagle couldn't have been made over the oceans of a Flat Earth??  Or are you tacitly conceding that a Flat Earth would've forced that ship over the Edge before Darwin could return to England and publish his theories?

the Big Bang,

Mere theory, altho' not completely lacking in evidence.  But an omnipotent God could certainly have the primary role in a Big Bang "created" from what was "waste and void" (Gen. 1:1--2).  Don't expect to find the technical terms of (nuclear) particle-physics in the surviving writings of the ancient Hebrews.

alien seeding,

A theory not elevated much above fantasy.  It would most charitably be called "silly".  Altho' it has had entertainment value, e.g., as the basis for a double episode of Star Trek--Next Generation.

atheism,
paganism,
the occult,

Non sequitur! Paganism was plenty well developed, with many centuries of history, featuring celestial sun-chariots (Chronos & Ra?), world-supporting turtles, a huge Nordic tree & snake/dragon, all or most being layers of flatness, some of which either supported or traversed star-studded hemispheres, centuries before the Christ walked the Earth.

THE FLAT EARTH
Described in the Bible,
validates the Bible,

Only what's confirmed by a scientific consensus in cosmology to be literally--i.e., physically true would count toward "validat[ing] the Bible".

scientifically proven,

Nonsense: The claim of "pro[of]" is wishful thinking by you and your allies.  And to make them, you routinely ignore or reject scientific observations that can be made by ordinary but  observant and intellectually honest men.

points to God alone as Creator,

More nonsense: That's because God is omnipotent; He is certainly not limited to being the Creator of a Flat Earth.  He is certainly capable of being the Creator of a heliocentric system featuring a spherical Earth equipped with gravity, if that's what He wanted.  Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of His omnipotence is that He either did--or could have--created the physical rules by which the universe operates.  Or do you believe, deep down, that the Catholic doctrine of Divine omnipotence is just an exaggeration that's taught in parochial schools, along with omniscience, to inspire or intimidate impressionable children?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 15, 2017, 05:58:28 PM
It has been to a large degree in the past 500 hundred years that enemies of the Church have used modern discoveries contrasted with longstanding customary cosmology to "prove" that the Church had been "wrong" all these millennia and so has been the Bible, and if they can be wrong on one point, then they could be wrong about everything. This is why we have so many atheists in scientific professions today.

Do you want an example? Lawrence Krauss, professor of theoretical physics and cosmologist, Arizona State University, who is openly proud to be atheist, who says it gives him "great joy" to think that when he dies, his life is over and there is no afterlife because that way he has all the more reason to live life to its fullest here and now.

(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/wikioimage/77ef8b1ec9568c0264d3b5204bfa2fe1.JPG)
    Lawrence Krauss (http://krauss.faculty.asu.edu/biography/)

According to Krauss, the Catholic Church has taught that the earth is "flat" in the past, but he's happy to see that's changing. I beg to differ. The Church has never taught the earth is "flat" but by perpetuating this myth, Krauss is a lot like the flat-earthers of these present days, including Eric Dubay, a NewAge chakra-preaching flat-earther, who claims to be "one with God."

https://youtu.be/CTnyc4tb3mg
Title: Practical side/Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: AlligatorDicax on August 15, 2017, 06:01:01 PM
The practical side of flat earth
[Attached presentation-slide:]

THE GLOBE
The foundation for the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr,
and Satanic world control

THE FLAT EARTH
[...] blows Satan's deception wide open

Non sequitur!
You and your allies insist that all readers believe that the Earth is already flat.  Yet on such an Earth, we have no shortage of "Satan's deception": Hollywood, Freemasons, Marxists, Wiccans, Bilderbergers ("nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr"), and perverse "gender-identity" NGOs.

Plus widespread sodomite infiltration of seminaries that created a deterrent to vocations by "Good Men".

And a modernist nominally "Catholic" episcopal hierarchy that not only tolerates--but also accomodates & shields--rampant pedophilia, now encouraging feminist infiltration of the Catholic ministry as a solution to the "crisis in vocations" which the same hierarchy allowed to fester, and demonstrates Satanic zeal in its intolerance toward traditional Catholicism, manifested by vandalizing--or even demolishing--its holy churches.  Meanwhile pandering to infidel-by-definition Jєωs and Muslims.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 15, 2017, 09:48:37 PM
An absolute blast!
The 6th grader admits to having an absolute blast in her 6th grade sand box. Cute.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 15, 2017, 09:50:32 PM
Maybe sunspots are too much for 6th graders.
.
Are there any high school or college students out there, or perhaps some adults, who can explain sunspots?
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 15, 2017, 10:08:56 PM
Maybe sunspots are too much for 6th graders.
.
Are there any high school or college students out there, or perhaps some adults, who can explain sunspots?
.
EMPIRICALLY MEASURABLE EM void typically heralding heralding plasmic ejecta like the negative pressure area of a straw?

2b fair, and not assume airs, I rarely did homework anf barely cleared HS.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 15, 2017, 10:16:39 PM
EMPIRICALLY MEASURABLE EM void typically heralding heralding plasmic ejecta like the negative pressure area of a straw?

2b fair, and not assume airs, I rarely did homework anf barely cleared HS.
PS: pls keyword search in order to establish whether or not Ib c/ped my response from some fruitcake or not.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 15, 2017, 11:57:50 PM

Are there any high school or college students out there, 
or perhaps some adults, who can explain sunspots?

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 16, 2017, 05:24:12 AM
I agree happenby, but the globe-earthers here don't appear to care about scripture, and how it relates to shape of the earth.

And yes, a globe earth does indeed lend itself to heresies and malformation of God's laws, but again, the globe-earthers don't want to think about it.
Or maybe, for just one REAL WORLD IF WE SCREW THIS UP WE DIE example, a submerged object plots a >>3D/720` course "as if" the world is "spherical" and, what a strange mystery, the distance is significantly less between two known surface point than than if shortest surface plot were taken.

man flatland is one big game of ad-hockey.… stupid quadrivium… stupid geometry… stupid metaphysic certitude.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 16, 2017, 05:51:17 AM
Maybe sunspots are too much for 6th graders.
.
Are there any high school or college students out there, or perhaps some adults, who can explain sunspots?
.
Guess not.
Title: Sunspots? Bah!/Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: AlligatorDicax on August 16, 2017, 10:00:57 AM
Are there any high school or college students out there, or perhaps some adults, who can explain sunspots?

Perhaps the adults who had the good sense to acquire better-than-average-U.S. scientific knowledge are exercising the good judgment to respond with a private thought: "Why bother?"  Why waste their own time on something that's off-topic and irrelevant to what its Subject plainly identifies as yet another overly long "Earth Is Not Flat[--Is So!]" topic.  A topic in which their continued expenditure of personal time is becoming increasingly difficult to justify.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 16, 2017, 07:43:19 PM
It has been to a large degree in the past 500 hundred years that enemies of the Church have used modern discoveries contrasted with longstanding customary cosmology to "prove" that the Church had been "wrong" all these millennia and so has been the Bible, and if they can be wrong on one point, then they could be wrong about everything. This is why we have so many atheists in scientific professions today.

Do you want an example? Lawrence Krauss, professor of theoretical physics and cosmologist, Arizona State University, who is openly proud to be atheist, who says it gives him "great joy" to think that when he dies, his life is over and there is no afterlife because that way he has all the more reason to live life to its fullest here and now.

(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/wikioimage/77ef8b1ec9568c0264d3b5204bfa2fe1.JPG)
   Lawrence Krauss (http://krauss.faculty.asu.edu/biography/)

According to Krauss, the Catholic Church has taught that the earth is "flat" in the past, but he's happy to see that's changing. I beg to differ. The Church has never taught the earth is "flat" but by perpetuating this myth, Krauss is a lot like the flat-earthers of these present days, including Eric Dubay, a NewAge chakra-preaching flat-earther, who claims to be "one with God."

https://youtu.be/CTnyc4tb3mg
The Church ONLY taught geocentric flat earth. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 16, 2017, 07:46:58 PM
Not at all.  Your claims are discredited by the non sequiturs in your presentation-slide.  And whodat "THEY"?

Am I to believe that Charles Darwin's historic voyage in the Beagle couldn't have been made over the oceans of a Flat Earth??  Or are you tacitly conceding that a Flat Earth would've forced that ship over the Edge before Darwin could return to England and publish his theories?

Mere theory, altho' not completely lacking in evidence.  But an omnipotent God could certainly have the primary role in a Big Bang "created" from what was "waste and void" (Gen. 1:1--2).  Don't expect to find the technical terms of (nuclear) particle-physics in the surviving writings of the ancient Hebrews.

A theory not elevated much above fantasy.  It would most charitably be called "silly".  Altho' it has had entertainment value, e.g., as the basis for a double episode of Star Trek--Next Generation.

Non sequitur! Paganism was plenty well developed, with many centuries of history, featuring celestial sun-chariots (Chronos & Ra?), world-supporting turtles, a huge Nordic tree & snake/dragon, all or most being layers of flatness, some of which either supported or traversed star-studded hemispheres, centuries before the Christ walked the Earth.

Only what's confirmed by a scientific consensus in cosmology to be literally--i.e., physically true would count toward "validat[ing] the Bible".

Nonsense: The claim of "pro[of]" is wishful thinking by you and your allies.  And to make them, you routinely ignore or reject scientific observations that can be made by ordinary but  observant and intellectually honest men.

More nonsense: That's because God is omnipotent; He is certainly not limited to being the Creator of a Flat Earth.  He is certainly capable of being the Creator of a heliocentric system featuring a spherical Earth equipped with gravity, if that's what He wanted.  Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of His omnipotence is that He either did--or could have--created the physical rules by which the universe operates.  Or do you believe, deep down, that the Catholic doctrine of Divine omnipotence is just an exaggeration that's taught in parochial schools, along with omniscience, to inspire or intimidate impressionable children?
The problem with all of your answers is that they are in contrast with Catholic teaching on the subject and deny scripture. The creator could have designed abother system, but the fact is, He did not. Proven by science, scripture and Catholic teaching. Heliocentric theory was directly condemned in 1633.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: OHCA on August 17, 2017, 12:34:49 AM
[Addressing Neil]

You tend to ask questions that will make others look stupid, and you look superior.
I didn't know Neil was doling that.  It just doesn't seem fair that he can get away with asking questions that make flat-earthers look stupid.  Tell me more--are his questions stumping flat-earthers, or eliciting stupid responses.  We must get to the bottom of how Neil's questions are making flat-earthers look stupid.  Do you have anything to say for yourself, Neil?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: OHCA on August 17, 2017, 12:41:21 AM
Round earthers have to explain more than lack of curvature, curved water surface and ships that don't disappear behind the non existent curve.
And how do round earthers explain how so many people have stumbled off the edge of the earth?
*Disclaimer: I apologize if this question makes anybody look stupid.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 17, 2017, 02:57:17 AM
I didn't know Neil was doling that.  It just doesn't seem fair that he can get away with asking questions that make flat-earthers look stupid.  Tell me more--are his questions stumping flat-earthers, or eliciting stupid responses.  We must get to the bottom of how Neil's questions are making flat-earthers look stupid.  Do you have anything to say for yourself, Neil?
"No honey, really it's the dress!"
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 20, 2017, 05:00:39 PM
The Church ONLY taught geocentric flat earth.
.
False. The Church never taught the shape of the earth.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 20, 2017, 05:28:50 PM
I didn't know Neil was doling that.  It just doesn't seem fair that he can get away with asking questions that make flat-earthers look stupid.  Tell me more--are his questions stumping flat-earthers, or eliciting stupid responses.  We must get to the bottom of how Neil's questions are making flat-earthers look stupid.  Do you have anything to say for yourself, Neil?
.
All I can say is I've tried to ask a wide variety of questions, hoping for an intelligent discussion.
.
The responses I consistently get from the flat-earthers reveal their lack of knowledge and their pride in that ignorance. 
.
They don't know the answers to my simple questions, so they resort to personal, ad-hominem insults, without much basis. 
.
One of their newbie clan has been following my posts all around the site hurling silly accusations off-topic. That's called trolling.
.
So flat-earthers are uninformed malicious trolls.  I wish I could be less blatant, but to do so would be less honest.
.
One day when I'm really bored, perhaps I'll make a list of all the simple questions I've asked and all the fatuous, irrelevant, non-sequitur or patently false responses they have provided.  If they're trying to be funny, it hasn't been working for them, except that they're making themselves out to be the joke.
.
The most recent simple question against which flat-earthers rise up against in horror, is the one that asks, 
.
"What are sunspots?"                               

You see, they have a big problem with this question and others like it, because most of the Internet sites that offer definitions or examples are sites also linking to NASA or other such entities, and flat-earthers bristle with ire against such sources.
.
Perhaps it would be helpful (if flat-earthers were honest it would, that is) to see that sunspots have been observed, noted, recorded, discussed, and tracked for hundreds of years before NASA ever existed.

And there are diligent amateur astronomers who are taking excellent photographs of sunspots for all to see, without the help or influence of NASA or other such entities. 

So you see, sunspots are a big problem for flat-earthers, for these and many more reasons.
.
I can't go into certain reasons because flat-earthers have demonstrated time and again, that as soon as they are informed as to the direction of the discussion at hand (they don't have the comprehension or insight requisite to determine the direction on their own so they need to have someone tell them) then they immediately select one aspect of the material so far presented and repeatedly argue against that, so as to stall the discussion, a lot like Johnny Cochran (O.J.'s defense lawyer) did to disrupt the criminal trial and inject confusion and disorder into the process. Everyone knows he was morally guilty, but the court says he was found innocent, so now if you say he was guilty you can be sued for slander. See how that works?
.
I have taken classes in Logic where the instructor had to ban particular students from the class because they were entirely devoted to upsetting the process of learning that the professor hoped to achieve in his class. In fact, it is because of such malicious students that modern universities have gradually STOPPED traditional Logic classes, and all you'll find today is pedantic reductions into symbolic mathematical formulae instead.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Cera on August 20, 2017, 05:48:25 PM
.
False. The Church never taught the shape of the earth.
.
Lactentius in the Divine institutes, Chapter 24 :

they thought that the world is round like a ball, and
they fancied that the heaven revolves in accordance with the motion of
the heavenly bodies; and thus that the stars and sun, when they have
set, by the very rapidity of the motion of the world are borne back to
the east. Therefore they both constructed brazen orbs, as though after
the figure of the world, and engraved upon them certain monstrous
images, which they said were constellations.
....I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have
once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain
thing by another; but that I sometimes imagine that they either discuss
philosophy for the sake of a jest, or purposely and knowingly undertake
to defend falsehoods, as if to exercise or display their talents on
false subjects.

On June 22, the Holy Office formally condemns Galileo for heresy: 

“We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo...have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine which is false and contrary to the Sacred and Divine Scriptures, that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the earth moves and is not the center of the world...after it has been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture...From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that...you abjure, curse, and detest before us the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church.”  Pope Urban VIII took full responsibility for the condemnation of Galileo by enforcing “in forma communi” the Congregation’s prohibitions against books holding the Copernican system as truth.
Reference: Exorciser le spectre de Galilée - Abbe Philippe Marcille, Editions du Sel, 2014, pp 40 and scripturecatholic.com

St. John Chrysostom Commentary on the Hebrews 8:1

“Where are those who say that the heaven is in motion? Where are those who think it is spherical? For both these opinions are here swept away.”
Quoted by Cosmas.


St. Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah

God "[had] established the great mass of the land and had gathered it together above the seas and rivers, so that the heaviest element [earth] hangs over the lighter weight waters by the will of God, who like a king sits above the circle of the earth. There are some who assert that this mass is like a point and globe...What, then, will the land be over ...?"



From the Pontifical Decrees Against The Doctrine The Earth’s Movement by Rev. William W. Roberts

"Since it has come to the knowledge of the above-named Holy Congregation that the false Pythagorean doctrine, [See: Pythagoras] altogether opposed to the divine Scripture, on the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun...this Congregation has decreed that the said books...be suspended till they are corrected; but that the book of Father Paul Antony Foscarini the Carmelite be altogether prohibited and condemned, and all other books that teach the same thing; as the present decree respectively prohibits, condemns, and suspends all...." (pp.56, 57)

[Why is this significant? The idea that the world was a sphere has been around a long time, but Pythagoras was one of the first to come up with it. This quote shows that the church was not only aware of the round earth error but also that its source was pythagoras]


Methodius:
“Resuming  then,  let  us  first  lay  bare,  in  speaking of  those  things  according  to  our  power,  the imposture  of  those  who  boast  as  though  they  alone  had  comprehended  from  what  forms  the  heaven  is arranged,  in  accordance  with  the  hypothesis  of  the  Chaldeans  and  Egyptians.  For *they*  say  that  the circuмference  of  the  world  is  likened  to  the  turnings  of  a  well-rounded  globe,  the  earth  having  a central  point.  For  its  outline  being  spherical,  it  is  necessary,  they  say,  since  there  are  the  same  distances of  the  parts,  that  the  earth  should  be  the  center  of  the  universe,  around  which  as  being  older,  the  heaven is  whirling.  For  if  a  circuмference  is  described  from  the  central  point,  which  seems  to  be  a  circle,  -  for  it is  impossible  for  a  circle  to  be  described  without  a  point,  and  it  is  impossible  for  a  circle  to  be  without  a point,  -  surely  the  earth  consisted  before  all,  they  say,  in  a  state  of  chaos  and  disorganization.  Now certainly  the  wretched  ones  were  overwhelmed  in  the  chaos  of  error,  “because  that,  when  they  knew  God, they  glorified  Him  not  as  God,

TheophilusTheophilus writing to Autolycus following the LXX says:
The heaven, therefore, being dome-shaped covering, comprehended matter which was like a clod. And so another prophet, Isaiah by name, spoke in these words: It is God who made the heavens as a vault, and stretched them as a tent to dwell in.This heaven which we see has been called firmament, and to which half the water was taken up that it might serve for rains, and showers, and dews to mankind. And half the water was left on earth for rivers, and fountains, and seas (Schaff and Wace 1979, 2:100).
Theophilus interprets the "circle of the earth" as referring to the vault of heaven.
much more at
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t60-pertinent-quotes-from-fathers-and-tradition
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 20, 2017, 05:49:39 PM
.
Tomorrow is the big day, the Great American Eclipse.
.
Speaking of sunspots, they might be in the news, as when people watch the eclipse, they might also be seeing effects of sunspots at the same time. Certainly, just before the eclipse and just after it, there may be photos taken that show up-close details of the sun's surface. 
.
Unfortunately, there will no doubt be some people tomorrow who do not use proper eye protection and consequently will receive permanent eye damage, perhaps including blindness.
.
I asked the son of a friend if he is ready for the eclipse, and he said they've got their special glasses so they're prepared. I told him that a number of cheap eclipse glasses sold on Amazon are being recalled because they're defective. He was surprised to hear that. I said, "You have to be sure the ones you're going to use are going to protect your eyes properly." He replied, "Well, all you have to do is put them on and look at the sun for a while, then if you can still see later on, then they're okay, and you can see the eclipse all right. On the other hand, if you can't see later on, then you won't be seeing any eclipse tomorrow anyway."
.
I hope everyone knows that your eyes can be getting permanently injured and you won't have any pain while the damage is happening. The retina of your eye has no nerve endings. But the retina can become fried and killed by focusing the sun on it.
.
The best way of viewing the eclipse will be to get a big box, like a wardrobe box or a water heater box, and cut a hole in one end of it, about one or two inches square. Then cover the hole with aluminum foil, and puncture a pinhole in the foil. Then put white paper covering the other end of the box on the inside like a projector screen. Position the box so the sun shines through the pinhole and projects onto the white paper inside, and you can view the image through a portal you cut in the side of the box about 1 or 2 feet away from the white paper "screen."
.
Those who are in the path of totality may be able to look at the eclipse for a brief moment to see the sun's corona all around the moon. But this is risky, because if there is a "diamond ring" effect, there is still sunlight coming through that can damage your eyes. Also, if there are coronal mass ejections (CMEs) off to the side, they're just as bright as the sun, and they can cause damage to your retinas as well. So be careful!!
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Cera on August 20, 2017, 05:51:24 PM

St. John Chrysostom

(considered a “doctor of the Church”, bishop of Antioch, archbishop of Constantinople in 398) –opposed the earth’s sphericity based on Scripture. Regularly refers to the Earth having four corners as the Bible does in his sermons. For example, the following quotations come from Homilies Against the Jєωs: “every corner of the earth”, “her action is known in every corner of the earth”, “every corner of the earth seen by the sun” [27] Exerted his influence against a spherical earth. [2] He is quoted by Kosmas (Cosmas) as stating “Where are those who say that the heaven is in motion? Where are those who think it is spherical? For both these opinions are here swept away.”(in commenting on Hebrews 8:1.)Knew that truly ending the ‘heretical’ study of the Greeks meant wiping out Greek writings – happily declared, “Every trace of the old philosophy and literature of the ancient world has vanished from the face of the earth.”
In his“Homily 2, Trinity, Sophists, Philosophers”, Para 5, he takes pleasure in the fact that the Church is successfully silencing the Greeks – “And as for the writings of the Greeks, they are all put out and vanished, but this man’s shine brighter day by day. …since then the (doctrines) of Pythagoras and of Plato, which seemed before to prevail, have ceased to be spoken of, and most men do not know them even by name.” [77], [78] He continues to claim, “Pythagoras… practiced there ten thousand kinds of sorcery…. but by his magic tricks he deceived the foolish. And neglecting to teach men anything useful.” He then calls Pythagoras a “barbarian”!
Chrysostom was “definitely a strong fundamentalist if not an absolute Biblical literalist and he certainly seems to have believed the earth was flat. Like Tertullian, he was skeptical of any ‘pagan’ knowledge which seemed to cast doubt on any aspect of the Bible.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 20, 2017, 05:53:43 PM
Lactentius in the Divine institutes, Chapter 24 :

they thought that the world is round like a ball, and
they fancied that the heaven revolves in accordance with the motion of
the heavenly bodies; and thus that the stars and sun, when they have
set, by the very rapidity of the motion of the world are borne back to
the east. Therefore they both constructed brazen orbs, as though after
the figure of the world, and engraved upon them certain monstrous
images, which they said were constellations...

etc.
.
Like I said, the Church never taught the shape of the earth. Your quotes say nothing about the Church teaching regarding the shape of the earth. There never has been and there never will be any such teaching.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on August 20, 2017, 06:07:54 PM
St. John Chrysostom

(considered a “doctor of the Church”, bishop of Antioch, archbishop of Constantinople in 398) –opposed the earth’s sphericity based on Scripture. Regularly refers to the Earth having four corners as the Bible does in his sermons. For example, the following quotations come from Homilies Against the Jєωs: “every corner of the earth”, “her action is known in every corner of the earth”, “every corner of the earth seen by the sun” [27] Exerted his influence against a spherical earth. [2] He is quoted by Kosmas (Cosmas) as stating “Where are those who say that the heaven is in motion? Where are those who think it is spherical? For both these opinions are here swept away.”(in commenting on Hebrews 8:1.)Knew that truly ending the ‘heretical’ study of the Greeks meant wiping out Greek writings – happily declared, “Every trace of the old philosophy and literature of the ancient world has vanished from the face of the earth.”
In his“Homily 2, Trinity, Sophists, Philosophers”, Para 5, he takes pleasure in the fact that the Church is successfully silencing the Greeks – “And as for the writings of the Greeks, they are all put out and vanished, but this man’s shine brighter day by day. …since then the (doctrines) of Pythagoras and of Plato, which seemed before to prevail, have ceased to be spoken of, and most men do not know them even by name.” [77], [78] He continues to claim, “Pythagoras… practiced there ten thousand kinds of sorcery…. but by his magic tricks he deceived the foolish. And neglecting to teach men anything useful.” He then calls Pythagoras a “barbarian”!
Chrysostom was “definitely a strong fundamentalist if not an absolute Biblical literalist and he certainly seems to have believed the earth was flat. Like Tertullian, he was skeptical of any ‘pagan’ knowledge which seemed to cast doubt on any aspect of the Bible.

Thank you for posting the above, Cera.

I've not heard of Cosmas before. But it seems, by the quotes above, that he was happy that the pagan Greek philosophy regarding the shape and supposed motion of the earth was losing ground. 

And that St. John Chrysostom, as is mentioned above, was also preaching against the doctrines of the pagans Pythagoras and Plato, saying, ...."Pythagoras....practiced there ten thousand kinds of sorcery....but by his majic tricks he deceived the foolish. And neglecting to teach men anything useful," and he also called Pythagoras a "Barbarian."

It's useful also to know, from what is mentioned in the above post, that Chrysostom seemd to believe that the earth was flat, and was skeptical of any "pagan" knowledge.

Well, IMO, that pagan "knowledge" is alive and well nowadays, in the form of some aspects of modern science regarding the earth.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: RoughAshlar on August 20, 2017, 07:50:52 PM
Just a point of curiosity. Earth aside, are the planets or moon a flat shape....or the sun flat for that matter?  Not looking to argue, but was curious.  I've seen a few of the other planets years ago when I was a teen using a relative's very expensive telescopes.  If earth is flat with the sun rotating above, what makes the planets and moon lay in the position they do, observable by earth?  Wouldn't they appear disk shaped as well or at least one of them appear in a flat plate like position  If gravity isn't a real thing, then what keeps the rest of planets moving on a tract that we can monitor and predict?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Cera on August 21, 2017, 01:20:55 PM
.
Like I said, the Church never taught the shape of the earth. Your quotes say nothing about the Church teaching regarding the shape of the earth. There never has been and there never will be any such teaching.
.
Hi Neil,
Like you, I totally rejected flat earth as crazy talk. It was not until I began researching what the Church Fathers and the Bible have to say that I reluctantly changed my mind. This is from Flat Earth Trads. What do you think about geocentricism?
This is one of the most explicit quotation by the Church Fathers on the flat earth.

*Chap. XXIV.---Of the Antipodes, the Heaven, and the Stars.*


How is it with those who imagine that there are antipodes opposite to
our footsteps? Do they say anything to the purpose? Or is there any one
so senseless as to believe that there are men whose footsteps are higher
than their heads? or that the things which with us are in a recuмbent
position, with them hang in an inverted direction? that the crops and
trees grow downwards? that the rains, and snow, and hail fall upwards to
the earth? And does any one wonder that hanging gardens are mentioned
among the seven wonders of the world, when philosophers make hanging
fields, and seas, and cities, and mountains? The origin of this error
must also be set forth by us. For they are always deceived in the same
manner. For when they have assumed anything false in the commencement of
their investigations, led by the resemblance of the truth, they
necessarily fall into those things which are its consequences. Thus they
fall into many ridiculous things; because those things which are in
agreement with false things, must themselves be false. But since they
placed confidence in the first, they do not consider the character of
those things which follow, but defend them in every way; whereas they
ought to judge from those which follow, whether the first are true or false.

What course of argument, therefore, led them to the idea of the
antipodes? They saw the courses of the stars travelling towards the
west; they saw that the sun and the moon always set towards the same
quarter, and rise from the same. But since they did not perceive what
contrivance regulated their courses, nor how they returned from the west
to the east, but supposed that the heaven itself sloped downwards in
every direction, which appearance it must present on account of its
immense breadth, they thought that the world is round like a ball, and
they fancied that the heaven revolves in accordance with the motion of
the heavenly bodies; and thus that the stars and sun, when they have
set, by the very rapidity of the motion of the world are borne back to
the east. Therefore they both constructed brazen orbs, as though after
the figure of the world, and engraved upon them certain monstrous
images, which they said were constellations. It followed, therefore,
from this rotundity of the heaven, that the earth was enclosed in the
midst of its curved surface. But if this were so, the earth also itself
must be like a globe; for that could not possibly be anything but round,
which was held enclosed by that which was round. But if the earth also
were round, it must necessarily happen that it should present the same
appearance to all parts of the heaven; that is, that it should raise
aloft mountains, extend plains, and have level seas. And if this were
so, that last consequence also followed, that there would be no part of
the earth uninhabited by men and the other animals. Thus the rotundity
of the earth leads, in addition, to the invention of those suspended
antipodes.

But if you inquire from those who defend these marvellous fictions, why
all things do not fall into that lower part of the heaven, they reply
that such is the nature of things, that heavy bodies are borne to the
middle, and that they are all joined together towards the middle, as we
see spokes in a wheel; but that the bodies which are light, as mist,
smoke, and fire, are borne away from the middle, so as to seek the
heaven. I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have
once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain
thing by another;
but that I sometimes imagine that they either discuss
philosophy for the sake of a jest, or purposely and knowingly undertake
to defend falsehoods, as if to exercise or display their talents on
false subjects. But I should be able to prove by many arguments that it
is impossible for the heaven to be lower than the earth, were is not
that this book must now be concluded, and that some things still remain,
which are more necessary for the present work. And since it is not the
work of a single book to run over the errors of each individually, let
it be sufficient to have enumerated a few, from which the nature of the
others may be understood.
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t59-lactentius-on-the-flat-earth-explicit
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 21, 2017, 02:51:28 PM
.
Like I said, the Church never taught the shape of the earth. Your quotes say nothing about the Church teaching regarding the shape of the earth. There never has been and there never will be any such teaching.
.
These Catholics teachings and many others show the mind of the Church and prove it was the pagans of the past who promoted round earth and heliocentrism.  Still waiting for Catholic teaching on the globe, but there is none.  Heliocentrism was condemned in 1633 and the globe belongs with the rest of the heliocentric pagan doctrine... in the trash can.

I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have
once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain
thing by another;
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 21, 2017, 02:58:27 PM
Just a point of curiosity. Earth aside, are the planets or moon a flat shape....or the sun flat for that matter?  Not looking to argue, but was curious.  I've seen a few of the other planets years ago when I was a teen using a relative's very expensive telescopes.  If earth is flat with the sun rotating above, what makes the planets and moon lay in the position they do, observable by earth?  Wouldn't they appear disk shaped as well or at least one of them appear in a flat plate like position  If gravity isn't a real thing, then what keeps the rest of planets moving on a tract that we can monitor and predict?
There are no planets per se.  All are stars, except the sun and moon.  A handful are called wandering stars because they do not follow the usual orbit but change course.  Consider Jupiter now retrograding in Virgo for 9 months before exiting on its way.  This short video proves stars are not terra firma 'worlds' people think are globular, but are provably flashing lights.  I personally have verified many stars on my own P900 camera (83x zoom) and while this video is a little more in focus than mine (better tripod), the star shown is exactly as depicted here.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vymd3wgaBL0 (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vymd3wgaBL0)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 21, 2017, 03:03:50 PM
And how do round earthers explain how so many people have stumbled off the edge of the earth?
*Disclaimer: I apologize if this question makes anybody look stupid.
Scripture says the oceans have "bounds".  No one stumbles off the edge of the flat earth.  The dome meets the edge as scripture also describes.  The only leaving of earth people would do is launching off of the spinning ball, along with all the water.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 21, 2017, 03:07:03 PM
.
False. The Church never taught the shape of the earth.
.
The shape of the earth was argued by Catholics who based their information on Moses, Enoch, early tradition and scripture.  Globe earth is an aspect of the heliocentric model and has NEVER been associated with the geocentric model.  There are no Catholic Church Fathers or saints who teach globe earth.  Exactly zero.  Some thought it might be the case (after years of indoctrination) but none of them taught it AT ALL.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 21, 2017, 03:09:44 PM
.
All I can say is I've tried to ask a wide variety of questions, hoping for an intelligent discussion.
.
The responses I consistently get from the flat-earthers reveal their lack of knowledge and their pride in that ignorance.
.
They don't know the answers to my simple questions, so they resort to personal, ad-hominem insults, without much basis.
.
One of their newbie clan has been following my posts all around the site hurling silly accusations off-topic. That's called trolling.
.
So flat-earthers are uninformed malicious trolls.  I wish I could be less blatant, but to do so would be less honest.
.
One day when I'm really bored, perhaps I'll make a list of all the simple questions I've asked and all the fatuous, irrelevant, non-sequitur or patently false responses they have provided.  If they're trying to be funny, it hasn't been working for them, except that they're making themselves out to be the joke.
.
The most recent simple question against which flat-earthers rise up against in horror, is the one that asks,
.
"What are sunspots?"                              
.
You see, they have a big problem with this question and others like it, because most of the Internet sites that offer definitions or examples are sites also linking to NASA or other such entities, and flat-earthers bristle with ire against such sources.
.
Perhaps it would be helpful (if flat-earthers were honest it would, that is) to see that sunspots have been observed, noted, recorded, discussed, and tracked for hundreds of years before NASA ever existed.
.
And there are diligent amateur astronomers who are taking excellent photographs of sunspots for all to see, without the help or influence of NASA or other such entities.
.
So you see, sunspots are a big problem for flat-earthers, for these and many more reasons.
.
I can't go into certain reasons because flat-earthers have demonstrated time and again, that as soon as they are informed as to the direction of the discussion at hand (they don't have the comprehension or insight requisite to determine the direction on their own so they need to have someone tell them) then they immediately select one aspect of the material so far presented and repeatedly argue against that, so as to stall the discussion, a lot like Johnny Cochran (O.J.'s defense lawyer) did to disrupt the criminal trial and inject confusion and disorder into the process. Everyone knows he was morally guilty, but the court says he was found innocent, so now if you say he was guilty you can be sued for slander. See how that works?
.
I have taken classes in Logic where the instructor had to ban particular students from the class because they were entirely devoted to upsetting the process of learning that the professor hoped to achieve in his class. In fact, it is because of such malicious students that modern universities have gradually STOPPED traditional Logic classes, and all you'll find today is pedantic reductions into symbolic mathematical formulae instead.
.
Sun spots are phenomena exclusive to an electric light.  The sun is not a gaseous body, but it, and all the luminaries, are electric.  Dark spots are common for lights.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on August 21, 2017, 03:38:56 PM
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20992872_113367782699953_4631563000314131503_n.jpg?oh=f34390b8129500704606a9e6d195bae4&oe=5A361D2B)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 21, 2017, 05:57:40 PM
Sun spots are phenomena exclusive to an electric light.  The sun is not a gaseous body, but it, and all the luminaries, are electric.  Dark spots are common for lights.  
.
Sunspots (one word) are phenomena exclusive to an electric light? So they do not occur to an electric light, is what that means.
.
Then you say the sun is an electric light, not a gaseous body (where is your evidence?) but it and all the luminaries are electric, you say.
.
Electric lights were invented just a hundred plus years ago. Was the sun not shining before that?
.
By "the luminaries" you mean what? Prophets? Soothsayers? Or for example, the moon?
.
The next non-sequitur, "Dark spots are common for lights," does not seem to follow.
.
Are you copying and pasting from some other source since you don't have your own answer?
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 21, 2017, 06:02:11 PM
.
Are lit candles also electric lights? 
.
I have regular candles and electric imitation candles. Are they the same thing?
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 21, 2017, 06:10:42 PM
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20992872_113367782699953_4631563000314131503_n.jpg?oh=f34390b8129500704606a9e6d195bae4&oe=5A361D2B)

.
Is that guy pretending to be Al Jolson?
.

(https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trbimg.com%2Fimg-55b274e0%2Fturbine%2Fbs-ed-jolson-letter-20150726&sp=2ec3ea364b1008f8e30c54aa18c9e46f)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Cera on August 21, 2017, 06:12:15 PM
.
Like I said, the Church never taught the shape of the earth. Your quotes say nothing about the Church teaching regarding the shape of the earth. There never has been and there never will be any such teaching.
.
Neil, you took the quote of the Church Father out of context by substituting "etc." for his clear rejection of globe theory:
....I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have
once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain
thing by another; but that I sometimes imagine that they either discuss
philosophy for the sake of a jest, or purposely and knowingly undertake
to defend falsehoods, as if to exercise or display their talents on
false subjects.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Cera on August 21, 2017, 06:17:04 PM
Just a point of curiosity. Earth aside, are the planets or moon a flat shape....or the sun flat for that matter?  Not looking to argue, but was curious.  I've seen a few of the other planets years ago when I was a teen using a relative's very expensive telescopes.  If earth is flat with the sun rotating above, what makes the planets and moon lay in the position they do, observable by earth?  Wouldn't they appear disk shaped as well or at least one of them appear in a flat plate like position  If gravity isn't a real thing, then what keeps the rest of planets moving on a tract that we can monitor and predict?
Here's a video explaining that and also the eclipse:
(mute the annoying music)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtHuTVXZGFw
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 21, 2017, 06:21:19 PM
Think it's time for a social retrograde…

Just kiddin', that's cotton-pickin' funny.

Be advised though, crackers aren't permitted flattery via imitation. If anyone asks you're Swahili like me.
.
Is that guy pretending to be Al Jolson?
.

(https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trbimg.com%2Fimg-55b274e0%2Fturbine%2Fbs-ed-jolson-letter-20150726&sp=2ec3ea364b1008f8e30c54aa18c9e46f)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: ultrarigorist on August 21, 2017, 08:32:22 PM
Sun spots are phenomena exclusive to an electric light.  The sun is not a gaseous body, but it, and all the luminaries, are electric.  Dark spots are common for lights.  
Yea, that's why those lucky enough to be in the path of totality today had the rare opportunity to see the big red and blue wires going from the sun to a stack of "dark matter" batteries just left of the occluded sun. You know, the ones that say "Exide GNB" on the side. The 2-D scientists are hard at work theorizing how they get recharged. The prevailing hypothesis is that solar wind is over-unity, providing unlimited free energy. (it's not actually solar wind, but from the cooling fan because the sun-bulb gets so damn hot) So the cooling wind gets blown between 2 huge flat plates which makes a magnetohydrodynamic generator, but we can't see those because they're perpendicular to the flat sun-bulb which always faces us at the same angle. (If it didn't, and still looked round instead of oval, the globe secret might get out)

Dark spots are common for burnt-out lights. Never noticed them on good bulbs. Maybe on dim bulbs for dim wits?

(sorry for stooping so low, but this one made me fall off my chair)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 21, 2017, 08:39:45 PM
You can't fall off your chair because gravity is wrong.
Yea, that's why those lucky enough to be in the path of totality today had the rare opportunity to see the big red and blue wires going from the sun to a stack of "dark matter" batteries just left of the occluded sun. You know, the ones that say "Exide GNB" on the side. The 2-D scientists are hard at work theorizing how they get recharged. The prevailing hypothesis is that solar wind is over-unity, providing unlimited free energy. (it's not actually solar wind, but from the cooling fan because the sun-bulb gets so damn hot) So the cooling wind gets blown between 2 huge flat plates which makes a magnetohydrodynamic generator, but we can't see those because they're perpendicular to the flat sun-bulb which always faces us at the same angle. (If it didn't, and still looked round instead of oval, the globe secret might get out)

Dark spots are common for burnt-out lights. Never noticed them on good bulbs. Maybe on dim bulbs for dim wits?

(sorry for stooping so low, but this one made me fall off my chair)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: RoughAshlar on August 21, 2017, 09:03:57 PM
There are no planets per se.  All are stars, except the sun and moon.  A handful are called wandering stars because they do not follow the usual orbit but change course.  Consider Jupiter now retrograding in Virgo for 9 months before exiting on its way.  This short video proves stars are not terra firma 'worlds' people think are globular, but are provably flashing lights.  I personally have verified many stars on my own P900 camera (83x zoom) and while this video is a little more in focus than mine (better tripod), the star shown is exactly as depicted here.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vymd3wgaBL0 (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vymd3wgaBL0)
Ok, no such thing as planets, check...what about the sun and moon....are they flat shaped as well?  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 21, 2017, 09:41:45 PM
Here's a video explaining that and also the eclipse:
(mute the annoying music)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtHuTVXZGFw
.
Why would you post a video that's obviously complete fantasy?
The sun and moon don't move like that in any way whatsoever.
Even IF the video above explained the eclipse (which it doesn't) from its description, all eclipses would look the same (which they don't).
They might as well throw Mars and Venus in for good measure.
How flat-earthers come up with this stuff is only overshadowed by how some can stoop to believing it.
.
You could refer to the book of Enoch too. BTW where does the Bible say the sun is an electric light bulb?
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 21, 2017, 09:48:55 PM
"Brother, can you paradigm?"
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20992872_113367782699953_4631563000314131503_n.jpg?oh=f34390b8129500704606a9e6d195bae4&oe=5A361D2B)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 21, 2017, 09:51:33 PM
Neil, you took the quote of the Church Father out of context by substituting "etc." for his clear rejection of globe theory:
....I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have
once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain
thing by another; but that I sometimes imagine that they either discuss
philosophy for the sake of a jest, or purposely and knowingly undertake
to defend falsehoods, as if to exercise or display their talents on
false subjects.
.
You're at a loss? Surprise, surprise. No more fantasy and false premises to dole out today?
No more quotes from the apocryphal Book of Enoch?
If the sun's an electric light bulb, where is that in Scripture?
Did Moses understand electric light bulbs too? He wrote the Pentateuch. Enoch didn't.
Like I said, the Church never taught the shape of the earth. 
The writings of the Doctors in regards to things not relating to the Faith has nothing to do with Church teaching.
Your quotes say nothing about the Church teaching regarding the shape of the earth. 
There never has been and there never will be any such teaching.
It's not the business of the Church to teach things we can observe with our own 5 senses.
That is, unless you're a flat-earther who can't believe your eyes.
Read it and weep.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 22, 2017, 02:23:19 AM
.
You're at a loss? Surprise, surprise. No more fantasy and false premises to dole out today?
No more quotes from the apocryphal Book of Enoch?
If the sun's an electric light bulb, where is that in Scripture?
Did Moses understand electric light bulbs too? He wrote the Pentateuch. Enoch didn't.
Like I said, the Church never taught the shape of the earth.
The writings of the Doctors in regards to things not relating to the Faith has nothing to do with Church teaching.
Your quotes say nothing about the Church teaching regarding the shape of the earth.
There never has been and there never will be any such teaching.
It's not the business of the Church to teach things we can observe with our own 5 senses.
That is, unless you're a flat-earther who can't believe your eyes.
Read it and weep.
.
WRONG.  Moses taught earth is flat, early Church Fathers and notable Catholics who battled paganism in their day, saints, and scripture all teach that earth is flat. The Catholic Church infallibly teaches that Jerusalem is in the center of the flat earth and that there are no antipodes.  Get a clue! Exactly ZERO Catholics prior to the 1500's  taught earth is a hovering globe.  That's right! There is ZERO Catholic teaching for the magical sticky globe whose water clings to the outside.  Whether you can handle it or not, simple math and science and the Catholic Church prove the earth is flat.    
Read it and beep.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 22, 2017, 02:27:54 AM
.
Sunspots (one word) are phenomena exclusive to an electric light? So they do not occur to an electric light, is what that means.
.
Then you say the sun is an electric light, not a gaseous body (where is your evidence?) but it and all the luminaries are electric, you say.
.
Electric lights were invented just a hundred plus years ago. Was the sun not shining before that?
.
By "the luminaries" you mean what? Prophets? Soothsayers? Or for example, the moon?
.
The next non-sequitur, "Dark spots are common for lights," does not seem to follow.
.
Are you copying and pasting from some other source since you don't have your own ans
Obviously, you have some study to do.  The solar system and the lights in it are electric, not full of hot gas like NASA.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 24, 2017, 04:28:52 PM
Such foolishness...
Quote from: mw2016
Quote
It is worth noting that besides the fact that there are ZERO references into the Bible of the earth as being a globe, or a ball, that the earth is referred to as a "footstool" of the Lord. Think about that. This is because God the Father is seated on His throne. The earth is His footstool. A footstool is a FLAT surface with four pillars. What a coincidence that Genesis describes the earth as such!     Can you place your feet on a ball-shaped footstool?    No, you cannot.
I cannot??
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.gettyimages.com%2Fvideos%2Flow-angle-medium-shot-senior-man-sitting-under-umbrella-beach-chair-video-id767-29%3Fs%3D640x640&sp=65f707293eee65d5133543e3cd490c98)

How about that?!  Any more absurdities to offer...  Next?
.
Flat-earthers are a very reliable source of absurdities.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 24, 2017, 04:32:39 PM
Obviously, you have some study to do.  The solar system and the lights in it are electric, not full of hot gas like NASA.  
.
Do you enjoy being a laughingstock?           :jester:            :facepalm:
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 24, 2017, 04:43:57 PM
WRONG.  Moses taught earth is flat, early Church Fathers and notable Catholics who battled paganism in their day, saints, and scripture all teach that earth is flat. The Catholic Church infallibly teaches that Jerusalem is in the center of the flat earth and that there are no antipodes.  Get a clue! Exactly ZERO Catholics prior to the 1500's  taught earth is a hovering globe.  That's right! There is ZERO Catholic teaching for the magical sticky globe whose water clings to the outside.  Whether you can handle it or not, simple math and science and the Catholic Church prove the earth is flat.    
Read it and beep.
.
Have you suddenly given up on Enoch? What happened?? 
.
After I informed you the Book of Enoch wasn't Scripture you had to go back and double check because you've never read the Bible? Is that what happened?!?
.
And then you found out that your mentors over at flat-earth-tards who are really pagans pretending to be Christians were misleading you all the time and you believed them without checking sources and were under the illusion that the Book of Enoch was recognized by the Church? Is that what happened?!?!
.
And now that you have egg all over your face you're trying to make the past go away so everyone will forget how often you referred to Enoch and his teaching when it is nowhere at all to be found in the Bible?? Is that what happened?!?!
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 24, 2017, 04:58:10 PM
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.
.
Flat-earthers are still at a loss for how to answer Matto's question.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 24, 2017, 05:03:57 PM
*studying

at least you didn't call him a "moran", or is that busting someone for being Irish?
Obviously, you have some study to do.  The solar system and the lights in it are electric, not full of hot gas like NASA. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 24, 2017, 06:54:16 PM
.
Flat-earthers are still at a loss for how to answer Matto's question.
.
Matto is on point.  The flat earth models of a circular pattern over a circular earth do not work, imho.  The workings are said by God to be above our understanding (in Job), yet there are clues given by Enoch and Cosmas that indicate the earth is a flat rectangle, with heaven connected to the dome of the earth like a block of stone, and the sun and moon moving across from east to west as the stars orbit and retrograde above, depending.  Until the models are fully researched, and the math and movements of the celestials are docuмented, we don't have proof of the circling sun.    
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 24, 2017, 09:17:34 PM
And how do round earthers explain how so many people have stumbled off the edge of the earth?

*Disclaimer: I apologize if this question makes anybody look stupid.
.
Hey, how come the flat-earthers are ignoring you, OCHA? That's not fair. If I were you, I'd get on their case about that!!
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 24, 2017, 09:41:30 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat on August 20, 2017, 03:00:39 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/50-plus-reasons-the-earth-is-not-flat/msg560852/#msg560852)

Quote
.
False. The Church never taught the shape of the earth.
.


Lactentius in the Divine institutes, Chapter 24 :

they thought that the world is round like a ball, and
they fancied that the heaven revolves in accordance with the motion of
the heavenly bodies; and thus that the stars and sun, when they have
set, by the very rapidity of the motion of the world are borne back to
the east. Therefore they both constructed brazen orbs, as though after
the figure of the world, and engraved upon them certain monstrous
images, which they said were constellations.
....I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have
once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain
thing by another; but that I sometimes imagine that they either discuss
philosophy for the sake of a jest, or purposely and knowingly undertake
to defend falsehoods, as if to exercise or display their talents on
false subjects.

On June 22, the Holy Office formally condemns Galileo for heresy:  

“We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo...have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine which is false and contrary to the Sacred and Divine Scriptures, that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the earth moves and is not the center of the world...after it has been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture...From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that...you abjure, curse, and detest before us the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church.”  Pope Urban VIII took full responsibility for the condemnation of Galileo by enforcing “in forma communi” the Congregation’s prohibitions against books holding the Copernican system as truth.
Reference: Exorciser le spectre de Galilée - Abbe Philippe Marcille, Editions du Sel, 2014, pp 40 and scripturecatholic.com

St. John Chrysostom Commentary on the Hebrews 8:1

“Where are those who say that the heaven is in motion? Where are those who think it is spherical? For both these opinions are here swept away.”
Quoted by Cosmas.


St. Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah

God "[had] established the great mass of the land and had gathered it together above the seas and rivers, so that the heaviest element [earth] hangs over the lighter weight waters by the will of God, who like a king sits above the circle of the earth. There are some who assert that this mass is like a point and globe...What, then, will the land be over ...?"



From the Pontifical Decrees Against The Doctrine The Earth’s Movement by Rev. William W. Roberts

"Since it has come to the knowledge of the above-named Holy Congregation that the false Pythagorean doctrine, [See: Pythagoras] altogether opposed to the divine Scripture, on the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun...this Congregation has decreed that the said books...be suspended till they are corrected; but that the book of Father Paul Antony Foscarini the Carmelite be altogether prohibited and condemned, and all other books that teach the same thing; as the present decree respectively prohibits, condemns, and suspends all...." (pp.56, 57)

[Why is this significant? The idea that the world was a sphere has been around a long time, but Pythagoras was one of the first to come up with it. This quote shows that the church was not only aware of the round earth error but also that its source was pythagoras]


Methodius:
“Resuming  then,  let  us  first  lay  bare,  in  speaking of  those  things  according  to  our  power,  the imposture  of  those  who  boast  as  though  they  alone  had  comprehended  from  what  forms  the  heaven  is arranged,  in  accordance  with  the  hypothesis  of  the  Chaldeans  and  Egyptians.  For *they*  say  that  the circuмference  of  the  world  is  likened  to  the  turnings  of  a  well-rounded  globe,  the  earth  having  a central  point.  For  its  outline  being  spherical,  it  is  necessary,  they  say,  since  there  are  the  same  distances of  the  parts,  that  the  earth  should  be  the  center  of  the  universe,  around  which  as  being  older,  the  heaven is  whirling.  For  if  a  circuмference  is  described  from  the  central  point,  which  seems  to  be  a  circle,  -  for  it is  impossible  for  a  circle  to  be  described  without  a  point,  and  it  is  impossible  for  a  circle  to  be  without  a point,  -  surely  the  earth  consisted  before  all,  they  say,  in  a  state  of  chaos  and  disorganization.  Now certainly  the  wretched  ones  were  overwhelmed  in  the  chaos  of  error,  “because  that,  when  they  knew  God, they  glorified  Him  not  as  God,

TheophilusTheophilus writing to Autolycus following the LXX says:
The heaven, therefore, being dome-shaped covering, comprehended matter which was like a clod. And so another prophet, Isaiah by name, spoke in these words: It is God who made the heavens as a vault, and stretched them as a tent to dwell in.This heaven which we see has been called firmament, and to which half the water was taken up that it might serve for rains, and showers, and dews to mankind. And half the water was left on earth for rivers, and fountains, and seas (Schaff and Wace 1979, 2:100).
Theophilus interprets the "circle of the earth" as referring to the vault of heaven.
much more at
http://flatearthtards.forumgagaga.net/t60-pertinent-quotes-from-fathers-and-tradition

.
Perhaps nobody has ever explained to you, Cera, what it means when we say that the Church teaches something.
.
What you have above is nothing regarding the Church teaching about the shape of the earth.
.
The Church has never taught what shape the earth has, and she never will teach that, because it's not the kind of thing she teaches.
.
The Church does not tell us what we can or cannot know when we can observe it with our 5 senses. 
.
The Church does not pronounce on the molecular weight of carbon or oxygen or nickle.
.
The Church does not define what is meant by a size 11 shoe in men's, American or European.
.
The Church does not spell out the chemical structure of carbon monoxide, benzine, hydrogen peroxide or sulfuric acid.
.
The Church has not nor will she ever identify the necessary ambient pressure to resist submersion 30 feet under sea water.
.
The Church never has and never will pronounce on the specific distance to the moon at a given time and date from Rome, for example.
.
These are things outside the authority of the Church, and to be realistic, there are much more important things for the Church to do.
.
So forget about hanging what the shape of the earth is on the Church, because it is not fair, honest or real.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 24, 2017, 09:46:27 PM
Matto is on point.  The flat earth models of a circular pattern over a circular earth do not work, imho.  The workings are said by God to be above our understanding (in Job), yet there are clues given by Enoch and Cosmas that indicate the earth is a flat rectangle, with heaven connected to the dome of the earth like a block of stone, and the sun and moon moving across from east to west as the stars orbit and retrograde above, depending.  Until the models are fully researched, and the math and movements of the celestials are docuмented, we don't have proof of the circling sun.    
.
There you go again quoting from the Book of Enoch. 
.
Why can't you stick to Scripture like you demand of others so often? 
.
"Do as I say, not as I do?" Is that it for you?
.
Are you a hypocrite, or just doing your best to imitate a hypocrite?
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: St Ignatius on August 24, 2017, 09:56:30 PM
Matto is on point.  The flat earth models of a circular pattern over a circular earth do not work, imho.  The workings are said by God to be above our understanding (in Job), yet there are clues given by Enoch and Cosmas that indicate the earth is a flat rectangle, with heaven connected to the dome of the earth like a block of stone, and the sun and moon moving across from east to west as the stars orbit and retrograde above, depending.  Until the models are fully researched, and the math and movements of the celestials are docuмented, we don't have proof of the circling sun.    
Speaking about not having proof, what ever happened to the poster aryzia who started this whole silly comedy show?  I believe the thread that started this whole debacle was titled Scientific Proof Earth is Not a Globe with 1296 posts and never proved a darn thing!

Now we have several related threads going on simultaneously around the clock, what gives!!
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 24, 2017, 10:06:56 PM
I cannot??
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.gettyimages.com%2Fvideos%2Flow-angle-medium-shot-senior-man-sitting-under-umbrella-beach-chair-video-id767-29%3Fs%3D640x640&sp=65f707293eee65d5133543e3cd490c98)

How about that?!  Any more absurdities to offer...  Next?

.
Flat-earthers are a very reliable source of absurdities.
.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Dg4hjK1yHho/Ux-kYL71NdI/AAAAAAAAFJ8/WhZfzCymYvU/s1600/santisima-trinidad-de-dios-1.jpg)

 :heretic: ???
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 24, 2017, 10:15:38 PM
I cannot??
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.gettyimages.com%2Fvideos%2Flow-angle-medium-shot-senior-man-sitting-under-umbrella-beach-chair-video-id767-29%3Fs%3D640x640&sp=65f707293eee65d5133543e3cd490c98)

How about that?!  Any more absurdities to offer...  Next?

.
Flat-earthers are a very reliable source of absurdities.
.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=KXiAVkQE&id=68E117D17E42E8CBD4115874A2817CC839DFE196&thid=OIP.KXiAVkQEhZH_TgaCHC-x-QEsDV&q=jesus+globe&simid=608040046543638113&selectedIndex=7
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 24, 2017, 10:15:51 PM
I cannot??
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.gettyimages.com%2Fvideos%2Flow-angle-medium-shot-senior-man-sitting-under-umbrella-beach-chair-video-id767-29%3Fs%3D640x640&sp=65f707293eee65d5133543e3cd490c98)

How about that?!  Any more absurdities to offer...  Next?

.
Flat-earthers are a very reliable source of absurdities.
.
(https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP._f-RA7P16vwDbhVZJO4ZGADrEs&w=152&h=186&c=7&qlt=90&o=4&dpr=1.25&pid=1.7)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 25, 2017, 03:18:55 AM
.
.
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhddfhm.com%2Fimages%2Fclipart-globe-jesus-world-3.jpg&sp=3af87a777644adbd3602bd24292268ca)


(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.abovetopsecret.com%2Ffiles%2Fimg%2Fgt51b694c9.jpg&sp=17fd4350978f8c2ef87de39c32013e67)
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fuploads7.wikiart.org%2Fimages%2Fgiovanni-battista-piranesi%2Fhalf-figure-of-a-warrior-with-a-chalice-in-his-hands-by-guercino.jpg&sp=ec628b97ae2c59e1323d01e70aaa25c6)
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.supernaturalresearch.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F10%2Fcelestialsphereholysepulchr.jpg&sp=2838bc856b0218bd215ad4859a043164)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on August 25, 2017, 08:56:07 AM
.
.
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhddfhm.com%2Fimages%2Fclipart-globe-jesus-world-3.jpg&sp=3af87a777644adbd3602bd24292268ca)


(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.abovetopsecret.com%2Ffiles%2Fimg%2Fgt51b694c9.jpg&sp=17fd4350978f8c2ef87de39c32013e67)
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fuploads7.wikiart.org%2Fimages%2Fgiovanni-battista-piranesi%2Fhalf-figure-of-a-warrior-with-a-chalice-in-his-hands-by-guercino.jpg&sp=ec628b97ae2c59e1323d01e70aaa25c6)
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.supernaturalresearch.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F10%2Fcelestialsphereholysepulchr.jpg&sp=2838bc856b0218bd215ad4859a043164)
Flat "god" theory inbound...
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 25, 2017, 04:42:33 PM
.
.
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhddfhm.com%2Fimages%2Fclipart-globe-jesus-world-3.jpg&sp=3af87a777644adbd3602bd24292268ca)


(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.abovetopsecret.com%2Ffiles%2Fimg%2Fgt51b694c9.jpg&sp=17fd4350978f8c2ef87de39c32013e67)
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fuploads7.wikiart.org%2Fimages%2Fgiovanni-battista-piranesi%2Fhalf-figure-of-a-warrior-with-a-chalice-in-his-hands-by-guercino.jpg&sp=ec628b97ae2c59e1323d01e70aaa25c6)
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.supernaturalresearch.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F10%2Fcelestialsphereholysepulchr.jpg&sp=2838bc856b0218bd215ad4859a043164)
The modern pics prove nothing, but if you notice there's one with the sun and moon IN the firmament. Creation in its entirety, heaven above, flat earth in the middle and hell below form the sphere, not just the earth. Christ is outside ALL creation and creator of all. Not just the earth. The older ones are flat earth pics. Thanks Neil.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 27, 2017, 04:55:53 PM
The modern pics prove nothing, but if you notice there's one with the sun and moon IN the firmament. Creation in its entirety, heaven above, flat earth in the middle and hell below form the sphere, not just the earth. Christ is outside ALL creation and creator of all. Not just the earth. The older ones are flat earth pics. Thanks Neil.
.
But the "flat earth" is not Scriptural. It's just a myth.  A lot of people believe myths. Are you a myth fanatic?
.
You're welcome.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 28, 2017, 01:03:52 PM
.
But the "flat earth" is not Scriptural. It's just a myth.  A lot of people believe myths. Are you a myth fanatic?
.
You're welcome.
.
 I would looooove to see a scripture passage that says earth is a globe.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 28, 2017, 01:30:42 PM
I would looooove to see a scripture passage that says earth is a globe.  
.
Pope Pius XII referred to the "globe" of earth many times. Are you a pre-Pius XII sedevacantist?
.
But since you'd "loooooove to see a scripture passage," how about finding one that says the earth is "flat?" 
.
Good luck.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 28, 2017, 01:39:06 PM
.
Pope Pius XII referred to the "globe" of earth many times. Are you a pre-Pius XII sedevacantist?
.
But since you'd "loooooove to see a scripture passage," how about finding one that says the earth is "flat?"
.
Good luck.
.
Lets see the goods, Neil.  No doubt when read in context, Pius XII's words will not favor your position--that NASA only lies when it says the earth spins and rotates but doesn't lie when it says its a globe.  No doubt the Pope referred to the entirety of creation (heaven, earth, hell) which is often likened to a globe. No reasonable AND informed person thinks water bends around the outside of a globe and doesn't fall off.  Which is why so many people are beginning to see the truth.  Examined closely, lies never make sense.  And after we see the context of the Pope's words, does that mean you are the sede?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: ultrarigorist on August 28, 2017, 05:09:25 PM
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on August 28, 2017, 07:02:34 PM
.
Pope Pius XII referred to the "globe" of earth many times. Are you a pre-Pius XII sedevacantist?
.
But since you'd "loooooove to see a scripture passage," how about finding one that says the earth is "flat?"
.
Good luck.
.
The "Globe of the Earth" is the firmament.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 28, 2017, 10:00:35 PM
The "Globe of the Earth" is the firmament.
.
Of course, you won't mind if we quote you saying this.   ;)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 28, 2017, 10:02:46 PM
(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=43219.0;attach=10726;image)
.
According to "Truth is Eternal" Our Lady's standing on "the firmament" in this sculpture.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 28, 2017, 10:10:11 PM
The "Globe of the Earth" is the firmament.
(http://1ywpi925eu8i25ne6noy0131.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Immaculate-Conception.jpg)
According to "Truth is Eternal," Our Lady is standing here on "the firmament" globe of the earth. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on August 28, 2017, 11:28:20 PM
.
According to "Truth is Eternal" Our Lady's standing on "the firmament" in this sculpture.
.
You are correct; this picture is depicting our Lady standing on the firmament.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on August 28, 2017, 11:32:21 PM
(http://1ywpi925eu8i25ne6noy0131.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Immaculate-Conception.jpg)
According to "Truth is Eternal," Our Lady is standing here on "the firmament" globe of the earth.
This picture depicts our Lady in Heaven standing on "the firmament", the globe of the earth. Thanks for posting this picture.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 29, 2017, 01:13:17 PM
Which of the three would be a place for Our Lady to stand?

.
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.visionlearning.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F02%2FHabitable-zone.jpeg&sp=92e09daf0ce0f63734d4e5d8a5922557)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 29, 2017, 01:38:25 PM
Which of the three would be a place for Our Lady to stand?

.
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.visionlearning.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F02%2FHabitable-zone.jpeg&sp=92e09daf0ce0f63734d4e5d8a5922557)
A silly depiction of the universe leads to a silly conclusion.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: ultrarigorist on August 29, 2017, 02:06:02 PM
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 29, 2017, 02:19:14 PM
A silly depiction of the universe leads to a silly conclusion.
Look what the cat drug in.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 29, 2017, 02:24:03 PM
Look what the cat drug in.
Kneel?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 30, 2017, 03:28:23 PM
.
Look what the cat drug in, again!
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 30, 2017, 03:30:11 PM
.
Which of the FOUR, that is.....

(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.visionlearning.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F02%2FHabitable-zone.jpeg&sp=92e09daf0ce0f63734d4e5d8a5922557)

.
The one on the left needs a label, "FAR TOO HOT!"
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on August 30, 2017, 04:07:10 PM
The globe is a foundation for lies.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 31, 2017, 02:44:46 PM
The globe is a foundation for lies.  
.
You're sounding more and more like a Mohammedan. 
.
See minute 6, "The sun circles the earth because it is smaller than the earth, as is evident in Koranic verses."
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9JFvnT-QiI
.
Or in minute 8 he says if you try to take a plane from Arabia to China, that China is also revolving with the earth according to your "science" so then you'll never get there, because China is moving away from you. Or the plane will never catch up with China no matter how long it flies.
.
Flat-earther logic translated from Farsi!!
.
Minute 9, the Quran predicts the shape of the earth!
.
11:44 "The Quran says the earth is flat."
.
14:00 "It is physically impossible to face Mecca while praying, UNLESS, the earth was FLAT!"
.
Quote

Diaz Kurniawan (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsqmxIxzu7px13qedadgW9Q)     1 year ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FaNg_nxqns&lc=z12nfribcq3mtj1jc04cgp1auqv3ejrj0as)
im muslim , and i bellieve earth is flat

no offence
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 09, 2017, 06:55:47 PM
.
970 replies and 33,049 views. Good numbers for those who count.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on September 09, 2017, 07:01:30 PM
Globe model fictions.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Tradplorable on September 09, 2017, 08:13:19 PM
Globe model fictions.
:popcorn:
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on September 09, 2017, 08:40:04 PM
.
970 replies and 33,049 views. Good numbers for those who count.
.
It is too bad for you that the numbers and facts are on our Flat Earth side.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 11, 2017, 12:09:06 AM
It is too bad for you that the numbers and facts are on our Flat Earth side.
.
Loser.
.
Maybe you can crawl out of your hole by answering a simple question:
.
.
Can you answer how someone in Australia in this model can see the full moon overhead?
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwp.production.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Ftippling%2Ffiles%2F2017%2F07%2FMap-Sun-Moon-flat-earth.jpeg&sp=6d5a9e66835db3418de4d99a92e739c1)
.
.
But I doubt it. The loser remains in his hole of defeat!
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on September 11, 2017, 12:15:42 AM
.
Loser.
.
Maybe you can crawl out of your hole by answering a simple question:
..
But I doubt it. The loser remains in his hole of defeat!
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaitamN_mwQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaitamN_mwQ)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 11, 2017, 12:23:14 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaitamN_mwQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaitamN_mwQ)
.
Your video doesn't answer my question. It shows the sun about to set and the gibbous moon rising. It's not a full moon. The video shows what we see every day while the moon approaches the full moon phase. But once it's a full moon, the moon is never visible at the same time as the sun. The full moon always rises after the sun has set. Always.
.
I asked how a person in Australia can see a FULL moon in the flat-earth diagram displayed. The video you posted does not show the sun in the position the diagram has, on the OTHER SIDE of the earth which cannot be visible in the sky, and it is due NORTH of Australia whereas the video you post shows the sun in the west, setting as it does, in the west (not the north).
.
So you have not answered the question. And I expect you won't be able to answer it.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on September 11, 2017, 12:27:54 AM
.
Your video doesn't answer my question. It shows the sun about to set and the gibbous moon rising. It's not a full moon. The video shows what we see every day while the moon approaches the full moon phase. But once it's a full moon, the moon is never visible at the same time as the sun. The full moon always rises after the sun has set. Always.
.
I asked how a person in Australia can see a FULL moon in the flat-earth diagram displayed. The video you posted does not show the sun in the position the diagram has, on the OTHER SIDE of the earth which cannot be visible in the sky, and it is due NORTH of Australia whereas the video you post shows the sun in the west, setting as it does, in the west (not the north).
.
So you have not answered the question. And I expect you won't be able to answer it.
.
The video I posted shows the moon visible at the same time as the sun.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on September 11, 2017, 12:32:52 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yHYFLX3pD8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yHYFLX3pD8)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 11, 2017, 12:49:47 AM
The video I posted shows the moon visible at the same time as the sun.
.
Of course the moon can be visible at the same time as the sun -- this happens every month for two weeks as the moon approaches the full phase. But as soon as the moon becomes full, the sun is always set below the horizon before the moon becomes visible. Always. 
.
Your video does not show the FULL moon visible while the sun is still up. It shows a gibbous moon.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 11, 2017, 12:55:51 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yHYFLX3pD8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yHYFLX3pD8)
.
This time you have a video that shows a waning gibbous moon setting as the sun rises. It's not a full moon.
.
Nor does it answer my question, which is how a person in Australia can see a full moon (not a gibbous moon) in the "flat-earth" model shown: 
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwp.production.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Ftippling%2Ffiles%2F2017%2F07%2FMap-Sun-Moon-flat-earth.jpeg&sp=6d5a9e66835db3418de4d99a92e739c1)
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 11, 2017, 10:57:56 PM
Do you want to see some pictures of the Flat Earth Horizon?
.
I'm sorry, I thought we were back on topic. How shortsighted of me!
.
I've already seen your fake CGI pictures and paintings. 
.
Answer my question. Explain how someone in Australia can see a full moon in the flat-earth diagram.
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwp.production.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Ftippling%2Ffiles%2F2017%2F07%2FMap-Sun-Moon-flat-earth.jpeg&sp=6d5a9e66835db3418de4d99a92e739c1)
.
This is your golden calf image of worship which you adore. Explain it.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on September 11, 2017, 11:02:54 PM

The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.

The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.

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.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 13, 2017, 01:02:32 PM
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.

The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.

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.
.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. That's 0 for 6.
.
The horizon does not appear flat regardless of altitude, the horizon does not rise to the eye level of the observer, the observer does have to tilt the camera downward to see the horizon, the natural physics of water is to conform to its container, the earth is not an extended plane, and the fundamental property of fluid is not to remain level but to conform to its container.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 18, 2017, 06:21:46 PM
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/KnqBzncqS2U[/youtube]
.
Updated video URL:
.
https://youtu.be/KnqBzncqS2U
.
The flat-earth propaganda is a Freemasonic deception. Min. 5
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 18, 2017, 06:40:20 PM
.
Amazing Evidence For God - Scientific Evidence For God - h (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiMqzN_YSXU)ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiMqzN... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiMqzN_YSXU)
101 Globe Earth Facts:
http://docs.google.com/docuмent/d/1fy... (https://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=http%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocuмent%2Fd%2F1fyVbFeVWITWq_oWaBZjKieoTHAl972ThgA40qXCn9ns%2Fedit%3Fusp%3Dsharing&redir_token=3doF56YcOh_1aBuKTlIMIiiGZ498MTUwNTg2Mjc1MkAxNTA1Nzc2MzUy&event=desc)
Did The Catholic Church Teach The Earth Is Flat? -  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnLBicPoils)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnLBic... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnLBicPoils)
 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnLBicPoils)
Note:
8:07 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnqBzncqS2U&t=487s) and 9:05 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnqBzncqS2U&t=545s) should say "flat earthers have no realistic explanation for..."
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Tradplorable on September 18, 2017, 06:41:21 PM
.
  But once it's a full moon, the moon is never visible at the same time as the sun. The full moon always rises after the sun has set. Always.
.
Why do you imagine that sunrise and sunset have anything at all to do with the moon's phases?? Sunrise and sunset times have to do with one thing only: perspective at your location.
.

The past full moon on the 7th has the moon's rise happening 30 minutes are the sun sets, and then the full moon was clearly visible in the sky the next morning at its set and the sun had been up for about an hour.
.

That has literally NOTHING to do with the phase.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on September 18, 2017, 06:47:36 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8w5b4LZsTQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8w5b4LZsTQ)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 18, 2017, 06:48:32 PM
.
googledocs transcript of the video:
.
50+ Reasons The Earth Is NOT Flat!

This is a transcript for a video of the same name.  Watch it here (20 minutes): https://youtu.be/KnqBzncqS2U


In this video I will first briefly discuss some problems with, and deceptions of, prominent Flat Earthers and the Flat Earth movement, and then I will cover the 50 reasons why the Earth is not flat.  Samuel Rowbotham was the first person to use the pseudoscientific method called Zeteticism for “Flat Earth research”.  Instead of starting with a question and a hypothesis which are then tested or falsified as in the scientific method, Zeteticism relies solely upon the experience, observations and conclusions of the tester.  Such a method does not prevent self-deception or delusion because it does not seek to test or falsify the conclusions of the tester.  Zeteticism allows errors to go unchecked.  For example, Rowbotham believed that moonlight is dangerous and that it caused a boy to lose his eyesight because he slept in the field in the bright moonlight.  Eric Dubay is an aggressive Flat Earther who also teaches demonic yoga, is anti-Christian pro-Hitler, blasphemes Jesus Christ by saying that he was a magic mushroom, believes in the occult and that reality is an illusion.  He also dressed like a woman in a video and plagiarized at least 28 of his “200 Proofs of the Earth is not a Spinning Ball.”  He might be a paid actor.  Dubay also accuses almost all the main people in the Flat Earth movement of being paid shills, yet we are supposed to believe that he is not.  Matt Boylan claims to be a whistleblower who used to create fake pictures for NASA.  He claims to have inside information that NASA is hiding the secret “truth” that the Earth is flat, and is promoting the idea that the Earth is a globe instead: “and there was a party, at somebody's cottage in the Hamptons, and the power went out and it was about, say about 1 o'clock in the evening, and there was one gentleman who was friends with this guy – he was this consultant for the US Defense department now this guy was basically a friend of my superiors and a colleague – they were listening to him.  He seemed to be like kind of like this guy who was just this weird - i thought he was some sort of nut – he was basically just like picking apart everything that they know that they say everyday in the office.  He was basically explaining the flat Earth and how it works, and he literally drew the UN flag... they think could convince me it is flat, and what was creepy about the whole thing is that they were more laughing at me for not getting it.  It never went back to being a ball with these gentlemen, that night.”  However, Boylan is an actor: “Maggie... I knew it... oh, you wanna go... Where's the girl?... What girl?... Maggie... There's no one Maggie here.”  He was also in a semi-pornographic show called 'Bodypaint Illuminati.'  Patricia Steer interviews various Flat Earthers.  She dresses in various costumes in her videos, such as a pagan.  Some of her guests also where bizarre costumes.  These people obviously don't want to be taken seriously and appear to be actors.  According to the Freemason, Andrew Prescott, Freemasons formed Zetetic societies to engage in anti-Christian and scientific debate.  Eric Dubay said that Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ's biggest secret is that the Earth is flat.  Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is a diabolical sect.  When Dubay was insulting Neil deGrasse Tyson, a Globe Earther, Dubay subtly endorsed this sect when he stated “the best thing about Neil deGrasse Tyson is he's a Freemason if you believe it or not.”  It would be no surprise if Dubay were a member of the Illuminati.  It appears that the Flat Earth movement is essentially a Masonic deception.  Claudius Ptolemy in his book, Almagest, expresses his opinion that the Earth is a sphere.  His views on the order of the universe were widely held for over 1,200 years: “Now, that also the Earth taken as a whole is sensibly spherical we could most likely think out in his way.”  The most popular Flat Earthers' map is an Azimuthal Equidistant Projection Map.  The distances on such maps are only correct in relation to the center point.  All other distances are distorted.  An Azimuthal Equidistant Projection Map can be made for any point on Earth including Antarctica.  The Qantas nonstop flight from Sydney to Santiago would not work on a Flat Earth map.  There are a number of permanent research stations in Antarctica and they can all vouch for the fact that Antarctica is only about 11,000 miles in circuмference, not 78,000 miles as a Flat Earth map shows.  Antarctica is a continent even though it's landmass is covered with ice.  In the North Pole there are only temporary research stations because there's no land mass and the ice is constantly moving or breaking up.  Fedor Konyukhov circuмnavigated Antarctica in 102 days.  If he were doing this on a Flat Earth he would have been traveling at an average of 26.94 knots per hour, which would have smashed the single hulled speed record by seven knots per hour and 101.5 days.  The first overland crossing of Antarctica was completed by Vivian Fuch's team in 1958.  According to Flat Earthers this would be impossible.  There are currently 45 companies that are members of the International Association of Antarctica Tourist Operations, including ships flights and land-based operations.  During the 2007-2008 season there were 46,265 visitors.  None of these companies claim Antarctica is the end of the Earth.  Antarctica has a six month day and a six-month night each year as does the North Pole.  This would be impossible on a flat Earth.  Many webcams are set up in Antarctica where one can see pictures taken every 15 seconds to an hour and which show the 24-hour day or 24-hour night.  There are three poles in Antarctica, a geographic pole, a magnetic pole and a ceremonial pole.  The fact that lines of longitude converge on the geographic pole proves the Earth is a globe.  Similarly to Antarctica, southern cities of the world have longer days during the December or summer solstice.  Ushuaia, Argentina, 17 hours 19 minutes.  Cape Town, South Africa, 14 hours 25 minutes.  Hobart, Australia, 15 hours 21 minutes.  Invercargill, New Zealand, 15 hours and 48 minutes.  This would be impossible on a flat Earth.  The shadow on a sundial will go clockwise in the northern hemisphere but counterclockwise in the southern hemisphere.  The sun rotates clockwise in the northern hemisphere but counterclockwise in the southern hemisphere.  Star trails appear to rotate clockwise in the southern hemisphere but counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere.  The shadow of the moon waxes and wanes from right to left in the northern hemisphere but from left to right in the southern hemisphere.  A solar eclipse occurs only over a certain location on Earth not the whole Earth because the sun is much bigger than the moon.  According to the Flat Earth theory an eclipse should darken the whole Earth.  An annular eclipse makes the moon appear smaller than the sun whereas a total solar eclipse makes the moon appear the same size as the sun.  Flat Earthers have no [realistic] explanation for this since they claim both the sun and the moon are the same size and the same distance from Eath.  A Selenelion is where an eclipse occurs with both the sun and the moon in the sky at the same time.  Some Flat Earthers use this example in an attempted to debunk the globe Earth.  However, a Selenelion simply occurs when the straight line between the sun, Earth and moon called a Syzygy, happens when the sun is rising and the moon is setting.  Due to atmospheric refraction both the sun and moon are visible during such an eclipse.  If a person were at the equator, according to the Flat Earth map the sun will always rise and set northeast and northwest of the observer.  However, in real life the sun will rise and set southeast and southwest during winter.  An Analemma shows the change in the sun's position throughout the year.  An analemma will also appear the other way up depending on which hemisphere one views it from.  Flat Earthers have no [realistic] explanation for analemmas.  Flat Earthers claim the sun acts as a spotlight for which they have no evidence.  She fact that half of the Earth is always lit and the other half is dark proves that the Flat Earth model is impossible.  Many Flat Earthers deny the existence of satellites.  Iridium flares occur when a satellite reflects sunlight very brightly proving the existence of satellites.  The Russian Electro-L satellites have taken many non composite photos of the Earth.  Geostationary satellites appear to stay in the one spot above the surface of the Earth.  This would be impossible on a flat Earth for they would simply fall back to Earth.  Some Flat Earthers reject the existence of planets.  Spectroscopy proves planets are real by showing the kinds of elements that are present on those planets.  Some Flat Earthers believed that female astronauts perm their hair and are underwater in a tank to fake being in space.  However, in this clip the astronaut is washing her hair which would destroy her permed hair and proves she is not underwater: “Sometimes the water gets away from you and you try and catch as much as you can... and I just work the water up through to the ends of my hair... and I take my no-rinse shampoo and squirt it also on the scalp, just a little bit... and rub it in, again kinda working it out to the ends.  A number of amateur astronomers have taken photos of the International Space Station and geostationary satellites, proving the not all photos of such things are a hoax created by NASA.  Lighthouses and radio masts and towers are deliberately built high so that their light and radio waves can reach further over the curvature of the Earth.  Radio waves can also be skipped around the world by bouncing them off the ionosphere.  On a flat Earth this would not be necessary for there would be no curvature of the Earth to prevent line-of-sight transmissions over long distances.  The light from a lighthouse is beamed out horizontally not downwards towards the horizon.  This allows the light from the lighthouse to be seen much further than the distance to the horizon.  This is called the loom of the light: “At 2147 the lookout reports the loom of a flashing light... an estimated position cannot be determined in as much as the distance of a loom of light it more questionable.”  The Coriolis effect accounts for why hurricanes go clockwise in the southern hemisphere but counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere.  Long-range shooters must account for the Coriolis effect, otherwise there would miss their target: “And one of the common issues is, that we see is, a Coriolis effect... and what guys are not doing is taking into account the effect that this can have on your shooting at longer ranges... is if you're shooting west your targets gonna rotate up and towards us which is gonna cause the bullets to hit lower, and if you're facing east the targets going to be dropping and slightly moving away which is gonna cause the hits to be higher... we've made it down to our target that we shot at the west, this is our West target here, and as you can see they've all dropped in quite low... we've made it down to our target on the east target now and as you can see they're not. not quite too high.”  Wind currents are affected by the Coriolis effect.  Ocean currents are affected by the Coriolis effect.  Some Flat Earthers say gravity is merely density, however in a vacuum two objects of vastly different density will fall at exactly the same rate, such as feathers and a bowling ball.  This is because the inertia of an object is directly proportional to its mass.  Henry Cavendish measured with accuracy the strength of gravity.  The Cavendish experiment has been repeated many times in classrooms.  It shows how a smaller mass moves towards a larger mass.  Water naturally forms a sphere this is easily seen in a zero gravity environment.  A Geoid is a reference frame used in surveying which is the shape of the Earth if it had the same gravity potential and every point. It is a globe shape.  For vertical datums a Reference Ellipsoid is also used to base measurements on.  It is also a globe shape.  Surveyors routinely make curvature and refraction corrections which are corrections to account for the Earth's curvature and the atmosphere's refraction of light, otherwise their measurements would be erroneous.  Geodetic Surveying takes the curvature of the Earth into account in its measurements; Plane Surveying on the other hand assumes the Earth is flat.  However, Plane Surveying is only done on small scales whereas Geodetic Surveying is done on areas 260 kilometers squared or 161 mile squared and more: “There are two general classifications of surveys: Geodetic and Plane.  When measuring a small area, such as surveying for a small construction job, the area is assumed to be flat, aka. the survey occurs on a flat plane.  This is a Plane Survey.  Because the world is not flat vertical error results from this assumption.  Over a distance of 300 feet this error would only be 0.002 feet, negligible even for very precise projects.  Along a five-mile survey distance, however this vertical distance error would be over 14 feet.  When surveying a large area such as a long highway or an entire state it becomes imperative to account for the curvature of the Earth.  The Earth is not flat planet.  This is called a Geodetic Survey.”  In Geodesy a level plane is a line that is perpendicular to the direction of gravity at every point.  A level plane is thus a curved surface.  A horizontal plane on the other hand is perfectly straight: “Ok, we have a level surface.  If you look right here, here's a level surface right there.  You'll notice some properties about that.  So the definition of it: it's a curved surface that at every point is perpendicular to the local plumbline.  Another way to define that level surface is also the equipotential surface, the potential of gravity is equal at every point along that line.  So the big thing I want you to understand when we talk about level and and everything is: a level surface is curved, meaning it has the same elevation at every point.  A horizontal plane; if you look right here, that line there, that's our horizontal plane.  A horizontal plane is a plane that's perpendicular to the local gravity vector.”  The water on the Suez Canal naturally follows the curvature of the Earth as seen by the hull of this boat disappearing behind the horizon.  The Golden Gate Bridge the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, the Humber Estuary Bridge and the Normandy Bridge all have towers that are further apart at the top than at the base to account for the curvature of the Earth.  The end of Volkswagon's 8.7 kilometer test track in Ehra-Lessien, Germany cannot be seen due to the curvature of the Earth: "We're doing 258, 26- I'm going faster I can speak 300, 320.  That is amazing.  It's so stable.  I'm already up to 340."  The horizon looks flat from ground view because it is a geometric circle of a sphere, which is a horizontal cut through a sphere.  Some Flat Earthers claim one cannot see further than the horizon due to substances in the atmosphere.  However the International Visibility Code shows that the meteorological optical range for an exceptionally clear day is over 27 nautical miles or 31 statute miles.  This fact combined with the extremely low refractive index of air, and the change in distance to the horizon the higher one goes in altitude, makes it clear that a limited view of the horizon is principally due to the curvature of the Earth rather than to visibility conditions.  Many pilots and others claim that from 60,000 feet in altitude the curvature of the Earth is clearly visible.  The Concorde flew at this altitude.  A plane can automatically adjust its altitude by means of an altimeter.  Pilots also often make small adjustments while flying, so any changes needed due to the curvature of the Earth are minimal and a normal part of flying.  A person in an airplane can view a sunset twice by climbing in altitude just after the sun has set.  Flat Earthers claim the sunset is an optical illusion.  Some posit a theory called Electromagnetic Acceleration, also known as Bendy Light, which states that light mysteriously bends upwards.  They have no evidence for this.  For the sunset to be an optical illusion the horizon would have to be above eye level which is clearly contrary to the fact that at sea level the horizon is slightly below eye level.  The Bendy Light theory also posits that different colors of light do not refract at different frequencies.  This is easily proven false by a white light passing through a prism.  Rainbows are natural example of this effect, as is the blue color of the sky due to an effect called Rayleigh Scattering.  For more information, see the article in the description box, 101 Globe Earth Facts, as well as the videos, Did The Catholic Church Teach The Earth Is Flat?, and Amazing Evidence For God - Scientific Evidence For God.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on September 18, 2017, 06:52:02 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 18, 2017, 07:16:32 PM


Why do you imagine that sunrise and sunset have anything at all to do with the moon's phases?? Sunrise and sunset times have to do with one thing only: perspective at your location.
.

The past full moon on the 7th has the moon's rise happening 30 minutes are [ after? ] the sun sets, and then the full moon was clearly visible in the sky the next morning at its set and the sun had been up for about an hour.
.

That has literally NOTHING to do with the phase.
.
Sunrise and sunset are part of the sun's cycle, which is the cause of the moon's phases. If it were not for the sun's cycle the moon would have no phases.
.
The moon's phases are consequent to the location of the observer and the location of the sun and moon. We can presume for present purposes that the observer is always on the earth. But interestingly, it makes no difference WHERE the observer is on earth, the moon's phase at a given moment is always the same, from ALL OVER THE EARTH, which would not be the case if the earth were "flat" as you claim.
.
The time after or before sunset that the moon rises depends on where you are on the earth, however. It's not the same topic.
.

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on September 18, 2017, 07:58:47 PM
.
Sunrise and sunset are part of the sun's cycle, which is the cause of the moon's phases. If it were not for the sun's cycle the moon would have no phases.
.
The moon's phases are consequent to the location of the observer and the location of the sun and moon. We can presume for present purposes that the observer is always on the earth. But interestingly, it makes no difference WHERE the observer is on earth, the moon's phase at a given moment is always the same, from ALL OVER THE EARTH, which would not be the case if the earth were "flat" as you claim.
.
The time after or before sunset that the moon rises depends on where you are on the earth, however. It's not the same topic.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S1bUcWOVsA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S1bUcWOVsA)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 18, 2017, 11:07:31 PM
Why do you imagine that sunrise and sunset have anything at all to do with the moon's phases?? Sunrise and sunset times have to do with one thing only: perspective at your location.
.

The past full moon on the 7th has the moon's rise happening 30 minutes are the sun sets, and then the full moon was clearly visible in the sky the next morning at its set and the sun had been up for about an hour.
.

That has literally NOTHING to do with the phase.
.
Perhaps you would like to reply without being rudely interrupted.
.
Sunrise and sunset are part of the sun's cycle, which is the cause of the moon's phases. If it were not for the sun's cycle the moon would have no phases.
.
The moon's phases are consequent to the location of the observer and the location of the sun and moon. We can presume for present purposes that the observer is always on the earth. 
.
But interestingly, it makes no difference in fact WHERE the observer is on earth, the moon's phase at a given moment is always the same, from ALL OVER THE EARTH, which would not be the case if the earth were "flat" as you claim.
.
The time after or before sunset that the moon rises depends on where you are on the earth, however. It's not the same topic.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Tradplorable on September 19, 2017, 08:04:23 AM

.
The moon's phases are consequent to the location of the observer and the location of the sun and moon. 
The moon's phases do not change for any observer on earth, except that they are mirror-imaged from the southern hemisphere. This is due to perspective on the flat plane of earth. You still have shown a total lack of ability to grasp the Law of Perspective, even though you have been given many videos explaining it.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 19, 2017, 12:36:13 PM
The moon's phases do not change for any observer on earth, except that they are mirror-imaged from the southern hemisphere. This is due to perspective on the flat plane of earth. You still have shown a total lack of ability to grasp the Law of Perspective, even though you have been given many videos explaining it.
.
The moon's phases change every day for all observers on earth.
.
Are you confused?
.
If the earth were "flat" (as you claim) the moon's phase would be observed differently by someone in Canada compared  to someone's view from Mexico if the moon were overhead the viewer in Mexico, because the Canadian viewer would be looking at the moon from a different angle, changing the appearance of the moon's phase. 
.
If you can't grasp that then you ought to hang it up.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 02, 2017, 11:25:15 PM
.
The moon is currently in its waxing gibbous phase, having passed through its last quarter phase last week. 
.
That last quarter moon last week was a great opportunity to check the angle between the sun and moon because the quarter moon occurred precisely while the moon was high in the sky when viewed from the USA (or Latin America or Canada, for that matter).
.
Now, as the moon approaches the full moon phase, it's a great time to think about where the sun must be in order for the moon to look this way every day. We see a waxing gibbous moon because the sun is descending lower below the western horizon every day as the moon traverses the sky. 
.
At its maximum, the full moon, the moon would be at the HIGH NOON position, astronomical 12:00, when the sun is at the opposite side of the earth, at astronomical 6:00. Of course, the sun might reach the opposite side at an earlier time or a later time, depending on the cycle for the current month.
.
But one thing is obvious, the sun is not shining horizontally across the earth's surface when we see the full moon.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on October 03, 2017, 08:24:32 AM
The moon's phases do not change for any observer on earth, except that they are mirror-imaged from the southern hemisphere. This is due to perspective on the flat plane of earth. You still have shown a total lack of ability to grasp the Law of Perspective, even though you have been given many videos explaining it.
I don't think it's that he can't grasp the Law of Perspective; rather, he refuses to look at it, and assumes that his observations can only be due to the earth being round and will not consider ANY other perspective. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Tradplorable on October 03, 2017, 09:36:50 AM
.
The moon's phases change every day for all observers on earth.
.
Are you confused?
.
If the earth were "flat" (as you claim) the moon's phase would be observed differently by someone in Canada compared  to someone's view from Mexico if the moon were overhead the viewer in Mexico, because the Canadian viewer would be looking at the moon from a different angle, changing the appearance of the moon's phase.
.
If you can't grasp that then you ought to hang it up.
.
Are you retarded? Because you fail reading comprehension.
The moon's phases DO NOT CHANGE for any observer on earth. Every person, everywhere, always views the same phase of the moon. The ONLY difference is that the image they see is reversed from left to right between the north and the south.
Yes, Neil Stupidat, we all know the moon's phases change progressively each day in a 28 day cycle. DUH. That is NOT what I am talking about.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 08, 2017, 01:10:59 AM
Are you retarded? Because you fail reading comprehension.

The moon's phases DO NOT CHANGE for any observer on earth.

Every person, everywhere, always views the same phase of the moon.

The ONLY difference is that the image they see is reversed from left to right between the north and the south.

Yes, Neil Stupidat, we all know the moon's phases change progressively each day in a 28 day cycle. DUH. That is NOT what I am talking about.
.
Oh, retarded one who fails reading comprehension,
.
   The moon's phases DO CHANGE from day to day, all through the month, for all observers on earth.
.
Every person, everywhere, always views the same phase of the moon at any given time - so you got one thing right.
Congratulations, dunder head.
.
Every person, everywhere, always views the same phase of the moon at any given time - which is utterly impossible on the "flat" earth model.
.
On the "flat" earth model, depending where a person is located on the "flat" earth, he would be looking at a different moon phase, compared to what someone else somewhere else on the "flat" earth model would be seeing. Duuuh.
.
On the "flat" earth model, a man in California with the moon over his head and the sun over the Atlantic Ocean would see a quarter moon since the moon would be illuminated from the side facing the sun to the east, and would NOT be illuminated on its west side which faces away from the sun. But this same moon overhead in California, but viewed from Georgia, would appear to be a full moon over California since in Georgia, the sun behind the viewer's back (east) and the moon to the west over California would appear to the viewer in Georgia illuminated completely by the sun (actually, he would see a moon with a shadow on the BOTTOM since the sun does not shine up on the moon when the sun is 5,000 miles away to the east, and we never see the sun with a shadow on the bottom, therefore the earth is not "flat"). 
.
Whereas in reality, a quarter moon in California is seen as a quarter moon in Georgia too. So the earth cannot be flat.
.
Duuuuh.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 10, 2017, 04:20:49 PM
.
Oh, retarded one who fails reading comprehension,
.
   The moon's phases DO CHANGE from day to day, all through the month, for all observers on earth.
.
Every person, everywhere, always views the same phase of the moon at any given time - so you got one thing right.
Congratulations, dunder head.
.
Every person, everywhere, always views the same phase of the moon at any given time - which is utterly impossible on the "flat" earth model.
.
On the "flat" earth model, depending where a person is located on the "flat" earth, he would be looking at a different moon phase, compared to what someone else somewhere else on the "flat" earth model would be seeing. Duuuh.
.
On the "flat" earth model, a man in California with the moon over his head and the sun over the Atlantic Ocean would see a quarter moon since the moon would be illuminated from the side facing the sun to the east, and would NOT be illuminated on its west side which faces away from the sun. But this same moon overhead in California, but viewed from Georgia, would appear to be a full moon over California since in Georgia, the sun behind the viewer's back (east) and the moon to the west over California would appear to the viewer in Georgia illuminated completely by the sun (actually, he would see a moon with a shadow on the BOTTOM since the sun does not shine up on the moon when the sun is 5,000 miles away to the east, and we never see the sun with a shadow on the bottom, therefore the earth is not "flat").
.
Whereas in reality, a quarter moon in California is seen as a quarter moon in Georgia too. So the earth cannot be flat.
.
Duuuuh.
.
.
Flat-earthers have no answer to this huge problem they've made for themselves.
.
They had to go back to the drawing board to make a new plan, because their flat-tardom fails to simple observation.
.
After recognizing the fact that the moon always appears to be in the same phase regardless of the viewer's location on earth, they had to step back and try to come up with some new way of explaining their flat-tardom model which makes moon phases impossible as we see them.
.
So it may have taken a long time for their slow minds to come to grips with the truth, but eventually the truth wins out.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: St Ignatius on October 10, 2017, 04:26:22 PM
So it may have taken a long time for their slow minds to come to grips with the truth, but eventually the truth wins out.
For some...
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 10, 2017, 08:51:23 PM
For some...
"Depart from me ye accursed..."
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: RoughAshlar on October 10, 2017, 11:17:36 PM
.
Flat-earthers have no answer to this huge problem they've made for themselves.
.
They had to go back to the drawing board to make a new plan, because their flat-tardom fails to simple observation.
.
After recognizing the fact that the moon always appears to be in the same phase regardless of the viewer's location on earth, they had to step back and try to come up with some new way of explaining their flat-tardom model which makes moon phases impossible as we see them.
.
So it may have taken a long time for their slow minds to come to grips with the truth, but eventually the truth wins out.
.
Instead of relinking the same youtube videos, and trying to make us as youtube smart as they are, I wish they could put out a working model of their flat earth.  Instead of trying to establish proof of concept with a working model, they just try to poke holes in the accepted scientific models that we use today.  You are right Neil, I would like to hear about their research moon phases, gps, Antarctica, why flight times wouldn't work on flat earth models. While we wait for the flat earth version of Bill Nye to draw up a youtube video, you'll be accused of working for NASA, and we'll all see, Ad Hominem attacks, non-sequitur connections, and the burden of proof be perpetually reversed on the globe earthers.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Tradplorable on October 11, 2017, 08:28:09 AM
 and the burden of proof be perpetually reversed on the globe earthers.
Globetards have no proof. None.
.
.
Bill Nye is an atheist pervert.
.
.
If you're looking for someone intelligent to teach you about flat earth, start with P-brane's channel.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 11, 2017, 11:19:47 PM
Instead of relinking the same youtube videos, and trying to make us as youtube smart as they are, I wish they could put out a working model of their flat earth.  Instead of trying to establish proof of concept with a working model, they just try to poke holes in the accepted scientific models that we use today.  You are right Neil, I would like to hear about their research moon phases, gps, Antarctica, why flight times wouldn't work on flat earth models. While we wait for the flat earth version of Bill Nye to draw up a youtube video, you'll be accused of working for NASA, and we'll all see, Ad Hominem attacks, non-sequitur connections, and the burden of proof be perpetually reversed on the globe earthers.
.
Flat-earthers will never come up with a working model that explains what we see in the sky.
.
The courses the sun and moon make across the sky do not jive with their defective hypothesis.
.
The phases of the moon, observed from various places on the earth, describe a spherical earth, not "flat."
.
The next quarter moon occurs tomorrow morning at 5:27 am in the Pacific time zone (PDT).
.
Therefore both the sun and moon will be visible in the sky at that time in the Eastern USA and in the Central time zone, but not in the Mountain or Pacific time zones.
.
Tomorrow morning at 8:37 am Eastern Daylight Time and at 7:37 Central Daylight Time everyone there can see the Last Quarter moon high in the sky with the sun having risen in the east at 7:05 am.
.
All you need to do is measure the angle between the sun and the moon at that time.
.
You don't need a fancy apparatus to get a very close approximation.
.
If you try to do this in Mountain or Pacific time, it will be later when you can see the sun after sunrise, and the moon's angle to the sun will be a little bit less since the time of the quarter phase will have just passed before the sun rose.
.
It makes no difference whether you are in northern Canada or South America, if you're in those time zones you'll see the same moon phase.
.
In fact, from all over the earth, everyone sees the same moon phase at the same time
.
If the earth were "flat" you would not be seeing the same moon phase from those diverse places.
.
Two weeks ago was an ideal opportunity for everyone in the USA to observe both sun and moon when the moon reached the First Quarter phase.
.
This quarter moon event is a very important time for learning about the relative distances from earth to moon and from earth to sun.
.
Flat-earthers have time and again shown that they have no interest whatsoever in learning this truth.
.
They refuse to pay attention, and they have no idea what they're missing (unless they're deliberately trying to deceive others).
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Tradplorable on October 12, 2017, 07:48:27 AM

.
If the earth were "flat" you would not be seeing the same moon phase from those diverse places.
.

WHy don't you explain the reason you imagine this?
.
It shows how ignorant you are and that you have not done even the most cursory reading about the flat earth model.
.
Please show everyone, and include a diagram, of how it is that not everyone would see the same moon phase on the flat plane of earth.
.
.
I'll wait....
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 12, 2017, 07:53:29 AM
What, singular, FE model would that be then?

I wasn't aware that there was one, that is cohesive, coherent and complete. 

"Bits of string and gum" ain't it, and don't cut it as any kind of scientific model that I"m aware of.

A single link will be fine.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 12, 2017, 03:59:58 PM
.
Like I said, and so it is, the flat-earthers will have nothing to do with objective observation.
.
.
Flat-earthers will never come up with a working model that explains what we see in the sky.
.
They cannot provide a working model that demonstrates the phases of the moon, so they demand that someone else produces one.  :facepalm:
.
.
The courses the sun and moon make across the sky do not jive with their defective hypothesis.
.
The phases of the moon, observed from various places on the earth, describe a spherical earth, not a "flat earth."
.
The Last Quarter moon occurred this morning at 5:27 am in the Pacific time zone (PDT).
.
Therefore both the sun and moon were visible in the sky at that time in the Eastern USA and in the Central time zone, but not in the Mountain or Pacific time zones.
.
IN FACT, both the sun and moon are now visible in the sky as I write this.
.
This morning at 8:37 am Eastern Daylight Time and at 7:37 Central Daylight Time everyone there could see the Last Quarter moon high in the sky with the sun having risen in the east at 7:05 am.
.
All you needed to do is measure the angle between the sun and the moon at that time.
.
You didn't need a fancy apparatus to get a very close approximation.
.
If you had tried to do this in Mountain or Pacific time, it would have been later when you could see the sun after sunrise, and the moon's angle to the sun would be a little bit less since the time of the quarter phase would have just passed before the sun rose.
.
It makes no difference whether you are in northern Canada or South America, if you're in those time zones you'd see the same moon phase.
.
In fact, from all over the earth, everyone sees the same moon phase at the same time.
.
If the earth were "flat" you would not be seeing the same moon phase from those diverse places.
.
Flat-earthers' inability to understand this is due to their inability to understand the very thing they profess, the "flat earth."
.
They cannot produce a "flat" earth model that demonstrates the moon phases, so they demand that someone else should produce one.
.
Two weeks ago was an ideal opportunity for everyone in the USA to observe both sun and moon when the moon reached the First Quarter phase.
.
This quarter moon event (whether First Quarter or Last Quarter) is a very important time for learning about the relative distances from earth to moon and from earth to sun.
.
Flat-earthers have time and again shown that they have no interest whatsoever in learning this truth.
.
They refuse to pay attention, and they have no idea what they're missing (unless they're deliberately trying to deceive others).
.    
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on October 12, 2017, 05:57:19 PM
.
Like I said, and so it is, the flat-earthers will have nothing to do with objective observation.
.
.
Flat-earthers will never come up with a working model that explains what we see in the sky.
.
They cannot provide a working model that demonstrates the phases of the moon, so they demand that someone else produces one.  :facepalm:
.
.
The courses the sun and moon make across the sky do not jive with their defective hypothesis.
.
The phases of the moon, observed from various places on the earth, describe a spherical earth, not a "flat earth."
.
The Last Quarter moon occurred this morning at 5:27 am in the Pacific time zone (PDT).
.
Therefore both the sun and moon were visible in the sky at that time in the Eastern USA and in the Central time zone, but not in the Mountain or Pacific time zones.
.
IN FACT, both the sun and moon are now visible in the sky as I write this.
.
This morning at 8:37 am Eastern Daylight Time and at 7:37 Central Daylight Time everyone there could see the Last Quarter moon high in the sky with the sun having risen in the east at 7:05 am.
.
All you needed to do is measure the angle between the sun and the moon at that time.
.
You didn't need a fancy apparatus to get a very close approximation.
.
If you had tried to do this in Mountain or Pacific time, it would have been later when you could see the sun after sunrise, and the moon's angle to the sun would be a little bit less since the time of the quarter phase would have just passed before the sun rose.
.
It makes no difference whether you are in northern Canada or South America, if you're in those time zones you'd see the same moon phase.
.
In fact, from all over the earth, everyone sees the same moon phase at the same time.
.
If the earth were "flat" you would not be seeing the same moon phase from those diverse places.
.
Flat-earthers' inability to understand this is due to their inability to understand the very thing they profess, the "flat earth."
.
They cannot produce a "flat" earth model that demonstrates the moon phases, so they demand that someone else should produce one.
.
Two weeks ago was an ideal opportunity for everyone in the USA to observe both sun and moon when the moon reached the First Quarter phase.
.
This quarter moon event (whether First Quarter or Last Quarter) is a very important time for learning about the relative distances from earth to moon and from earth to sun.
.
Flat-earthers have time and again shown that they have no interest whatsoever in learning this truth.
.
They refuse to pay attention, and they have no idea what they're missing (unless they're deliberately trying to deceive others).
.    
No one has refused to pay attention except globers who insist the NASA narrative is true.  The Church has condemned heliocentrism and Her saints have favored flat earth and explained flat earth from the beginning. Nothing AT ALL suggests otherwise historically speaking.  If you have something from the Catholic world that shows earth is not flat and geocentric, please provide it or cease and desist your garbage regarding flat earth.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Tradplorable on October 12, 2017, 07:36:32 PM
Neil did not even attempt to answer my question.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 12, 2017, 07:43:05 PM
Neil did not even attempt to answer my question.
.
Oh, retarded one, I most certainly did answer your question but like I said, you're not paying attention, like happenby doesn't pay attention, which see.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on October 12, 2017, 08:03:20 PM
.
Oh, retarded one, I most certainly did answer your question but like I said, you're not paying attention, like happenby doesn't pay attention, which see.
.
Neil Obstat thinking he has answered a question is a N.O.N. answer.

Quote
N.eil O.bstat N.ASA A.nswer.


Have you answered the question Neil Obstat?
Quote
NO and NA.SA.

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Student of Qi on October 12, 2017, 09:07:49 PM
Neil Obstat thinking he has answered a question is a N.O.N. answer.


Have you answered the question Neil Obstat?


Soooooo creative... What does the "SA" stand for?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on October 12, 2017, 09:50:21 PM
Soooooo creative... What does the "SA" stand for?
No and Na.

"NASA".
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Student of Qi on October 12, 2017, 10:21:22 PM
No and Na.

"NASA".
Yea, that's what I'm asking. You utilized his initials, and the first 2 letters of NASA but you forgot to make something out of "SA", you only used "NA". Where I come from you gotta try and use the whole thing!
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on October 12, 2017, 11:43:42 PM
Yea, that's what I'm asking. You utilized his initials, and the first 2 letters of NASA but you forgot to make something out of "SA", you only used "NA". Where I come from you gotta try and use the whole thing!
I'm not that creative. ;)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: RoughAshlar on October 13, 2017, 12:31:01 AM
No one has refused to pay attention except globers who insist the NASA narrative is true.  The Church has condemned heliocentrism and Her saints have favored flat earth and explained flat earth from the beginning. Nothing AT ALL suggests otherwise historically speaking.  If you have something from the Catholic world that shows earth is not flat and geocentric, please provide it or cease and desist your garbage regarding flat earth.  
I frequently see the talk about when the Church condemned heliocentrism, Galileo, and Copernicus....but what about when the Church allowed heliocentrism and unbanned the publications.  On September 11, 1822, the College of Cardinals stated, "The printing and publication of works treating of the motion of the earth and stability of the sun, in accordance with the opinion of modern astronomers, is permitted."  Two weeks later Pope Pius VII ratifies the Cardinals' decree.  In 1835 Galileo's works were removed off the Church's banned book list.

 If you have something from the Catholic world that shows earth is not flat and geocentric, please provide it or cease and desist your garbage regarding flat earth.  
So if the Catholic Church said it was ok to publish, read, and believe in these scientific works, then would it would stand to reason that this is the Church's position on the subject.  If the Catholic Church adopted this nearly 200 years ago, then I submit Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems to satisfy your demand.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: RoughAshlar on October 13, 2017, 12:40:28 AM
I frequently see the talk about when the Church condemned heliocentrism, Galileo, and Copernicus....but what about when the Church allowed heliocentrism and unbanned the publications.  On September 11, 1822, the College of Cardinals stated, "The printing and publication of works treating of the motion of the earth and stability of the sun, in accordance with the opinion of modern astronomers, is permitted."  Two weeks later Pope Pius VII ratifies the Cardinals' decree.  In 1835 Galileo's works were removed off the Church's banned book list.
So if the Catholic Church said it was ok to publish, read, and believe in these scientific works, then would it would stand to reason that this is the Church's position on the subject.  If the Catholic Church adopted this nearly 200 years ago, then I submit Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems to satisfy your demand.



 If you have something from the Catholic world that shows earth is not flat and geocentric, please provide it or cease and desist your garbage regarding flat earth.  

I've been told on this forum that there are no planets or gravity in Flat Earth.  If you require more Catholic scholars, then I have a list below of both priest and lay scientists.  Pretty sure that they all lived before NASA.


If this doesn't then I suggest looking into:
Roger Joseph Boscovich (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Joseph_Boscovich) (1711–1787) – Jesuit polymath known for his contributions to modern atomic theory and astronomy and for devising perhaps the first geometric procedure for determining the equator of a rotating planet from three observations of a surface feature and for computing the orbit of a planet from three observations of its position
Tommaso Ceva (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommaso_Ceva) (1648–1737) – Jesuit mathematician, poet, and professor who wrote treatises on geometry, gravity, and arithmetic
Jean-Baptiste Chappe d'Auteroche (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Baptiste_Chappe_d%27Auteroche) (1722–1769) – priest and astronomer best known for his observations of the transits of Venus
Vincenzo Coronelli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincenzo_Coronelli) (1650–1718) – Franciscan cosmographer, cartographer, encyclopedist, and globe-maker
Jean-Charles de la Faille (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Charles_de_la_Faille) (1597–1652) – Jesuit mathematician who determined the center of gravity of the sector of a circle for the first time
Placidus Fixlmillner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placidus_Fixlmillner) (1721–1791) – Benedictine priest and one of the first astronomers to compute the orbit of Uranus
Pierre Gassendi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Gassendi) (1592–1655) – French priest, astronomer, and mathematician who published the first data on the transit of Mercury; best known intellectual project attempted to reconcile Epicurean atomism with Christianity
Barnaba Oriani (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnaba_Oriani) (1752–1832) – Barnabite geodesist, astronomer and scientist whose greatest achievement was his detailed research of the planet Uranus; also known for Oriani's theorem
Stephen Joseph Perry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Joseph_Perry) (1833–1889) – Jesuit astronomer and Fellow of the Royal Society; made frequent observations of Jupiter's satellites, of stellar occultations, of comets, of meteorites, of sun spots, and faculae
Jean Picard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Picard) (1620–1682) – priest and first person to measure the size of the Earth to a reasonable degree of accuracy; also developed what became the standard method for measuring the right ascension of a celestial object; the PICARD mission, an orbiting solar observatory, is named in his honor
Angelo Secchi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelo_Secchi) (1818–1878) – Jesuit pioneer in astronomical spectroscopy and one of the first scientists to state authoritatively that the sun is a star; discovered the existence of solar spicules (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spicule_(solar_physics)) and drew an early map of Mars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars)
Niccolò Zucchi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Zucchi) (1586–1670) – claimed to have tried to build a reflecting telescope (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflecting_telescope) in 1616 but abandoned the idea (maybe due to the poor quality of the mirror); may have been the first to see the belts on the planet Jupiter (1630)
Giovanni Battista Zupi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Battista_Zupi) (1590–1650) – Jesuit astronomer, mathematician, and first person to discover that the planet Mercury had orbital phases; the crater Zupus on the Moon is named after him
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 13, 2017, 02:42:19 AM
Exercise in futility.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on October 13, 2017, 10:36:13 AM

I've been told on this forum that there are no planets or gravity in Flat Earth.  If you require more Catholic scholars, then I have a list below of both priest and lay scientists.  Pretty sure that they all lived before NASA.


If this doesn't then I suggest looking into:
Roger Joseph Boscovich (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Joseph_Boscovich) (1711–1787) – Jesuit polymath known for his contributions to modern atomic theory and astronomy and for devising perhaps the first geometric procedure for determining the equator of a rotating planet from three observations of a surface feature and for computing the orbit of a planet from three observations of its position
Tommaso Ceva (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommaso_Ceva) (1648–1737) – Jesuit mathematician, poet, and professor who wrote treatises on geometry, gravity, and arithmetic
Jean-Baptiste Chappe d'Auteroche (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Baptiste_Chappe_d%27Auteroche) (1722–1769) – priest and astronomer best known for his observations of the transits of Venus
Vincenzo Coronelli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincenzo_Coronelli) (1650–1718) – Franciscan cosmographer, cartographer, encyclopedist, and globe-maker
Jean-Charles de la Faille (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Charles_de_la_Faille) (1597–1652) – Jesuit mathematician who determined the center of gravity of the sector of a circle for the first time
Placidus Fixlmillner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placidus_Fixlmillner) (1721–1791) – Benedictine priest and one of the first astronomers to compute the orbit of Uranus
Pierre Gassendi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Gassendi) (1592–1655) – French priest, astronomer, and mathematician who published the first data on the transit of Mercury; best known intellectual project attempted to reconcile Epicurean atomism with Christianity
Barnaba Oriani (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnaba_Oriani) (1752–1832) – Barnabite geodesist, astronomer and scientist whose greatest achievement was his detailed research of the planet Uranus; also known for Oriani's theorem
Stephen Joseph Perry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Joseph_Perry) (1833–1889) – Jesuit astronomer and Fellow of the Royal Society; made frequent observations of Jupiter's satellites, of stellar occultations, of comets, of meteorites, of sun spots, and faculae
Jean Picard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Picard) (1620–1682) – priest and first person to measure the size of the Earth to a reasonable degree of accuracy; also developed what became the standard method for measuring the right ascension of a celestial object; the PICARD mission, an orbiting solar observatory, is named in his honor
Angelo Secchi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelo_Secchi) (1818–1878) – Jesuit pioneer in astronomical spectroscopy and one of the first scientists to state authoritatively that the sun is a star; discovered the existence of solar spicules (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spicule_(solar_physics)) and drew an early map of Mars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars)
Niccolò Zucchi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Zucchi) (1586–1670) – claimed to have tried to build a reflecting telescope (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflecting_telescope) in 1616 but abandoned the idea (maybe due to the poor quality of the mirror); may have been the first to see the belts on the planet Jupiter (1630)
Giovanni Battista Zupi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Battista_Zupi) (1590–1650) – Jesuit astronomer, mathematician, and first person to discover that the planet Mercury had orbital phases; the crater Zupus on the Moon is named after him
The Church condemned heliocentrism in 1633.  None of these blurbs directly promote it and are subject to further discussion in and of themselves as long as they do not usurp the authority of the decree that has been handed down.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on October 13, 2017, 10:45:11 AM
In a letter of 31 January 1985 to Cardinal Giuseppe Siri (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Siri), regarding the book Poem of the Man God (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poem_of_the_Man_God), Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (then Prefect of the Congregation, who later became Pope Benedict XVI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI)), referred to the 1966 notification of the Congregation as follows: "After the dissolution of the Index, when some people thought the printing and distribution of the work was permitted, people were reminded again in L'Osservatore Romano (15 June 1966) that, as was published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (1966), the Index retains its moral force despite its dissolution. A decision against distributing and recommending a work, which has not been condemned lightly, may be reversed, but only after profound changes that neutralize the harm which such a publication could bring forth among the ordinary faithful."[52] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum#cite_note-52)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on October 13, 2017, 12:55:15 PM
Exercise in futility.
You are sure good at that; you are like a perpetual motion machine.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 13, 2017, 12:57:48 PM
You are sure good at that; you are like a perpetual motion machine.
... which I suppose you believe in as well.

What's next, "I'm rubber, you're glue"?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: RoughAshlar on October 13, 2017, 01:32:11 PM
I frequently see the talk about when the Church condemned heliocentrism, Galileo, and Copernicus....but what about when the Church allowed heliocentrism and unbanned the publications.  On September 11, 1822, the College of Cardinals stated, "The printing and publication of works treating of the motion of the earth and stability of the sun, in accordance with the opinion of modern astronomers, is permitted."  Two weeks later Pope Pius VII ratifies the Cardinals' decree.  In 1835 Galileo's works were removed off the Church's banned book list.
So if the Catholic Church said it was ok to publish, read, and believe in these scientific works, then would it would stand to reason that this is the Church's position on the subject.  If the Catholic Church adopted this nearly 200 years ago, then I submit Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems to satisfy your demand.


The Church condemned heliocentrism in 1633.  None of these blurbs directly promote it and are subject to further discussion in and of themselves as long as they do not usurp the authority of the decree that has been handed down.  
In a letter of 31 January 1985 to Cardinal Giuseppe Siri (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Siri), regarding the book Poem of the Man God (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poem_of_the_Man_God), Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (then Prefect of the Congregation, who later became Pope Benedict XVI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI)), referred to the 1966 notification of the Congregation as follows: "After the dissolution of the Index, when some people thought the printing and distribution of the work was permitted, people were reminded again in L'Osservatore Romano (15 June 1966) that, as was published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (1966), the Index retains its moral force despite its dissolution. A decision against distributing and recommending a work, which has not been condemned lightly, may be reversed, but only after profound changes that neutralize the harm which such a publication could bring forth among the ordinary faithful."[52] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum#cite_note-52)
To clarify, are you trying to conflate the decisions an edict of College of Cardinals of 140 years pre Vatican II that was ratified by Pius VII and a letter between two Cardinals of Post Vatican II? Its easy to repeat that the Church condemned it, but you seem to disregard everything else after that. The development of the scientific process from Pascal, developments of mathematics, and discoveries of all the Catholic scientists were the building blocks that the current scientists use.


No one has refused to pay attention except globers who insist the NASA narrative is true.  The Church has condemned heliocentrism and Her saints have favored flat earth and explained flat earth from the beginning. Nothing AT ALL suggests otherwise historically speaking.  If you have something from the Catholic world that shows earth is not flat and geocentric, please provide it or cease and desist your garbage regarding flat earth.  

This is what I have a hard time with....

1) Where is one, Catholic Church approved, flat earth model that is scientifically sound and proven? If flat earth was Their official position, then it would have been studied by the Catholic priestly scientists listed.  There would surely be a model that the Church would approve for study after almost 500 years. Right? All the people that I listed that were priests, Franciscans, Benedictine, Jesuits, etc, would not have published their scientific findings on gravity (which I have been told doesn't exist on this forum), planetary studies, descriptions, orbits (I have seen it posted on this forum that planets do not exist), if the Church didn't approve. You can't say they "worshiped NASA or bahl earth".  They would have studied and published flat earth docuмents.  So where are all these flat earth publications that have been studied by Catholic scientists over the last 500 years. 

2) In 2017, an age full of technology, discovery, and communication, would the flat earth group have a set list of things they concretely believe or disbelieve.  Flat earthers repeatedly post about the condemnation of heliocentrism, but don't seem to agree on more than just that.  I know I'm fixated on planets and gravity, but they are two examples of what bother me about this.  I have read on this forum that planets are burnt out stars, that they give off electric discharge and that produces the light that we see from them, or that they don't even exist.  If gravity does not exist, then why are the priestly Catholic scientists through out the ages that have developed equations for gravity.  If these equations were not real, then the science behind them would be easily disproven.  If these equations were not real, they could not be replicated.  So either the Church was correct in its condemnation and the science behind globular, planetary, and gravity are invalid.....or....the Church was wrong its condemnation and the sciences developed by the Church in that period are correct.  So then a morality question for you: If this science from the "Catholic world" as you put it, is the foundation of modern science, and is at conflict with your 1600 condemnation (and you disregard 1822), what science are you using to prove flat earth?

3) Taking away the science, and focusing on the theology, am I understanding it would by so many of the posts, is that its morally wrong to believe something that the Catholic Church condemned in the 1600s?  If this is true, then it would a deviation of Catholic belief to disagree with your biblical quotes that have been posted?  Would you consider this a mortal sin, heresy and/or apostasy?  if so, then which traditional Catholic priest do you receive the sacraments from?  There are none to my knowledge that believe and teach flat earth.  If it is not a mortal sin, heresy, and/or apostasy, then what's the big deal.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on October 13, 2017, 04:41:12 PM


The Church condemned heliocentrism in 1633.  None of these blurbs directly promote it and are subject to further discussion in and of themselves as long as they do not usurp the authority of the decree that has been handed down.  
To clarify, are you trying to conflate the decisions an edict of College of Cardinals of 140 years pre Vatican II that was ratified by Pius VII and a letter between two Cardinals of Post Vatican II? Its easy to repeat that the Church condemned it, but you seem to disregard everything else after that. The development of the scientific process from Pascal, developments of mathematics, and discoveries of all the Catholic scientists were the building blocks that the current scientists use.


This is what I have a hard time with....

1) Where is one, Catholic Church approved, flat earth model that is scientifically sound and proven? If flat earth was Their official position, then it would have been studied by the Catholic priestly scientists listed.  There would surely be a model that the Church would approve for study after almost 500 years. Right? All the people that I listed that were priests, Franciscans, Benedictine, Jesuits, etc, would not have published their scientific findings on gravity (which I have been told doesn't exist on this forum), planetary studies, descriptions, orbits (I have seen it posted on this forum that planets do not exist), if the Church didn't approve. You can't say they "worshiped NASA or bahl earth".  They would have studied and published flat earth docuмents.  So where are all these flat earth publications that have been studied by Catholic scientists over the last 500 years.

2) In 2017, an age full of technology, discovery, and communication, would the flat earth group have a set list of things they concretely believe or disbelieve.  Flat earthers repeatedly post about the condemnation of heliocentrism, but don't seem to agree on more than just that.  I know I'm fixated on planets and gravity, but they are two examples of what bother me about this.  I have read on this forum that planets are burnt out stars, that they give off electric discharge and that produces the light that we see from them, or that they don't even exist.  If gravity does not exist, then why are the priestly Catholic scientists through out the ages that have developed equations for gravity.  If these equations were not real, then the science behind them would be easily disproven.  If these equations were not real, they could not be replicated.  So either the Church was correct in its condemnation and the science behind globular, planetary, and gravity are invalid.....or....the Church was wrong its condemnation and the sciences developed by the Church in that period are correct.  So then a morality question for you: If this science from the "Catholic world" as you put it, is the foundation of modern science, and is at conflict with your 1600 condemnation (and you disregard 1822), what science are you using to prove flat earth?

3) Taking away the science, and focusing on the theology, am I understanding it would by so many of the posts, is that its morally wrong to believe something that the Catholic Church condemned in the 1600s?  If this is true, then it would a deviation of Catholic belief to disagree with your biblical quotes that have been posted?  Would you consider this a mortal sin, heresy and/or apostasy?  if so, then which traditional Catholic priest do you receive the sacraments from?  There are none to my knowledge that believe and teach flat earth.  If it is not a mortal sin, heresy, and/or apostasy, then what's the big deal.
This is one of the most humble and honest posts on the subject I've seen in a long time.  I hope to answer your questions as best as I can, so if I fail to do so, please don't hesitate to say so.  Your first question must be answered this way: the Church has condemned heliocentrism and She condemned it because it was "false" and smacked of heresy.  Why?  Because the notion of a ball earth jetting through space is in contradiction with scripture.  Statement in the decree of 1633 were clear: 
The proposition that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the centre of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

These 2 tenets of heliocentrism condemned by the Church embody the modern view of what most people believe has somehow been proven.  Not only have they not been proven, there is a mountain of scientific and mathematical empirical evidence to the contrary.  What is lesser known, is that there are only two models, heliocentrism, which is condemned, and geocentrism which was always defended by Catholics, saints, and the Church. No other models have ever existed, historically. What people do not realize is that geocentrism necessarily includes flat earth.  And vise versa, heliocentric theory includes a ball earth jetting through space in 4 different directions at breakneck speed, something clearly at odds with scripture.  You ask if something back in 1633 confines us by faith.  Necessarily, whenever the Church decrees, especially with the formula: "say, pronounce, sentence and declare"... As She does in this statement:   “We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo...have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine which is false and contrary to the Sacred and Divine Scriptures, that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the earth moves and is not the center of the world...after it has been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture...From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that...you abjure, curse, and detest before us the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church.” 
You can be sure that these statements are binding.  And if you are not sure, there is a book on the subject that attests to this fact, written by: Fr. William Roberts, "The Pontifical Decrees Against the Doctrine of The Earth’s Movement and the Ultramontane Defence of Them"  (available to read free online)

If you are not clear that these statements affect and destroy all aspects of heliocentrism which includes a ball earth, we can address that separately since we know that the Church teaches infallibly that antipodes (people living on the other side of the earth) are not possible, and that Jerusalem is the center of the earth.  For now, as I explained, there are only two models and the heliocentric ball has been condemned.  
As for the rest of your questions, if any remain after this, please restate each, one or two at a time so I can respond.  Thanks for being civil!  And for your questions!  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 14, 2017, 01:14:46 AM
.
He asked a very simple question, and as usual, the flat-earthers don't have any answer:
.
1) Where is one, Catholic Church approved, flat earth model that is scientifically sound and proven?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 14, 2017, 01:17:24 AM
I'm not that creative. ;)
.
Nor do your posts contribute anything helpful.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on October 14, 2017, 11:01:10 AM
... which I suppose you believe in as well.

What's next, "I'm rubber, you're glue"?
Nobody indulges that to the degree you do.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on October 14, 2017, 11:04:15 AM
.
Nor do your posts contribute anything helpful.
.
Everything he contributes has been helpful and interesting, but only to those who care to learn.  Humility is measured by your willingness to learn.  Since you are so afraid of being wrong, unwilling to see that liars put something over on you with heliocentric NASA pagan nonsense, you refuse to listen.  That simple. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on October 14, 2017, 11:05:21 AM
.
He asked a very simple question, and as usual, the flat-earthers don't have any answer:
.
1) Where is one, Catholic Church approved, flat earth model that is scientifically sound and proven?
There are none.  But neither are there any Catholic Church approved round earth models. :baby:
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 14, 2017, 11:06:32 AM
Nobody indulges that to the degree you do.  
Oh, the irony...
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Student of Qi on October 14, 2017, 01:08:57 PM
Everything he contributes has been helpful and interesting, but only to those who care to learn.  Humility is measured by your willingness to learn.  Since you are so afraid of being wrong, unwilling to see that liars put something over on you with heliocentric NASA pagan nonsense, you refuse to listen.  That simple.
"God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth."



Please don't interrupt my sutra! It's a very edifying contribution to this discussion! Please!!!

You didn't even bother to read the whole above mantra, did you? That hurts my feelings.  :-[
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 14, 2017, 01:13:38 PM
"God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth. God made the Flat Earth."



Please don't interrupt my sutra! It's a very edifying contribution to this discussion! Please!!!

You didn't even bother to read the whole above mantra, did you? That hurts my feelings.  :-[
"Dome, munda pancake dough, Dome, munda pancake dough, Dome, munda pancake dough,..."
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: RoughAshlar on October 15, 2017, 10:27:05 PM
I know that the FE posts are large in number, and discussions seem to ebb and flow in different threads.  I am returning to this one because I brought up, what I thought were good questions, and Happensby responded to one of them.  

In her response she replied that I should read Fr. William Roberts' 1885, The Pontifical Decrees Against the Doctrine of The Earth’s Movement and the Ultramontane Defense of Them.  I read it and it was very informative and I know understand your position better.  While it did fill in more of the picture, I don't believe that Fr. Roberts was correct in all of his assessments.  Fr. Roberts position was clear, but where we are today paints a different picture and I needed to find out why.

I continued to read and found a book that answered my questions.  The book I ended up buying and reading was Retrying Galileo 1633-1992 by Maurice A Finocchaiaro.  The author had access to and translated so many docuмents from the Vatican archives. 

I feel really ignorant now looking back on what I didn't understand.  Its almost quite comical.  The same debates that we have on this forum, they had in the 1600 and 1700s and for similar reasons.  To stand on the principle that the Catholic Church simply condemn heliocentrism end of story is comparable to saying that Fiat makes small cars.  Fiat owns Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, and used to own Ferrari etc.  There is so much more to the story I am not sure where to begin.  There are letters to and from nuncios, Cardinals, and inquisitors.  There are reasons why Galileo's works were permitted by the Vatican to be published.  Arguments by Pascal and other Catholic scientist.  Statements and decrees from the College of Cardinals, Prefects and heads of different departments.  It explained how as time past, the different movements that softened and removed the restrictions on heliocentrism.  How Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus addressed the conflict of literal interpretation of passages (we have seen quoted here) and differences in science.  There were other things from other popes and tie ins from St. Augustine.   There were movements of people supporting the condemnation and others that opposed it. It was not cut and dry, from a scientific, philosophical, or dogmatic stand point.

I could type for an hour and it won't make a lick of difference.  The book is worth the read and will answer most all of your questions about the Church's stances over the few hundred years....not by opinion or bias, but through actual translated docuмents and references showing both sides.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on October 16, 2017, 12:30:40 PM
I know that the FE posts are large in number, and discussions seem to ebb and flow in different threads.  I am returning to this one because I brought up, what I thought were good questions, and Happensby responded to one of them.  

In her response she replied that I should read Fr. William Roberts' 1885, The Pontifical Decrees Against the Doctrine of The Earth’s Movement and the Ultramontane Defense of Them.  I read it and it was very informative and I know understand your position better.  While it did fill in more of the picture, I don't believe that Fr. Roberts was correct in all of his assessments.  Fr. Roberts position was clear, but where we are today paints a different picture and I needed to find out why.

I continued to read and found a book that answered my questions.  The book I ended up buying and reading was Retrying Galileo 1633-1992 by Maurice A Finocchaiaro.  The author had access to and translated so many docuмents from the Vatican archives.

I feel really ignorant now looking back on what I didn't understand.  Its almost quite comical.  The same debates that we have on this forum, they had in the 1600 and 1700s and for similar reasons.  To stand on the principle that the Catholic Church simply condemn heliocentrism end of story is comparable to saying that Fiat makes small cars.  Fiat owns Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, and used to own Ferrari etc.  There is so much more to the story I am not sure where to begin.  There are letters to and from nuncios, Cardinals, and inquisitors.  There are reasons why Galileo's works were permitted by the Vatican to be published.  Arguments by Pascal and other Catholic scientist.  Statements and decrees from the College of Cardinals, Prefects and heads of different departments.  It explained how as time past, the different movements that softened and removed the restrictions on heliocentrism.  How Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus addressed the conflict of literal interpretation of passages (we have seen quoted here) and differences in science.  There were other things from other popes and tie ins from St. Augustine.   There were movements of people supporting the condemnation and others that opposed it. It was not cut and dry, from a scientific, philosophical, or dogmatic stand point.

I could type for an hour and it won't make a lick of difference.  The book is worth the read and will answer most all of your questions about the Church's stances over the few hundred years....not by opinion or bias, but through actual translated docuмents and references showing both sides.
This is another incredibly honest and humble response regarding this subject.  I wonder though, if an assessment by the writer of the book you recommend really represents what the Church teaches, especially regarding what amounts to a very important matter.  There is so much more to know that is available. Is the writer you cite incapable of being taken in by a lie as big as this? Many have. The problem with round earth and heliocentrism is that it defies logic, contradicts scripture and promotes globalism.  Yes, globalism in every sense of the word.  It is a problem because their agenda is hidden in plain sight. Consider this and the work is half done.  But admittedly, one must be open and continue to study the sources not only from Catholic Christendom, but from pagan cosmology as well, in order to get a good view of what is going on.  Heliocentrism is the foundation for evolution, denial of the Incarnation, the Big Bang, globalism, scarce resources, even high prices on things like energy, NASA, moon landings, "space" exploration, etc. due to the prevailing lie. This isn't just about 'flat earth vs. globe earth', it is a fight for the minds and beliefs of men. Does it not weigh heavily in this respect that most believe earth is a globe while simultaneously the great apostasy has taken foothold in them?  Keep searching.  You have a noble approach.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 16, 2017, 02:42:05 PM
.
No matter how you slice it, flat-earthism makes a mockery of the Church because it does not conform to objective reality and there is no model of any kind of "flat" earth that explains what we can observe by looking at the sky.
.
All flat-earthism does is to drive away from the Church anyone who dares to observe the reality before us every day in the sky.
.
Flat-earthism makes a mockery of the Faith, and Catholics should have no part of it.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on October 16, 2017, 02:53:36 PM
.
No matter how you slice it, flat-earthism makes a mockery of the Church because it does not conform to objective reality and there is no model of any kind of "flat" earth that explains what we can observe by looking at the sky.
.
All flat-earthism does is to drive away from the Church anyone who dares to observe the reality before us every day in the sky.
.
Flat-earthism makes a mockery of the Faith, and Catholics should have no part of it.
.

Most Catholics believed in a flat earth for the first 1500 years of the Church. How, then, can believing in a flat earth make a mockery of the Faith?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 16, 2017, 03:02:41 PM
Even granting that is true, consider...

Humour Theory?

Spontaneous generation?

Cells used to be thought of as "blobs", like teeny bits of "Jello".

Credible before, ridiculous now.

TL-DR; Fallacy.

Wait, lemme guess, "There's no such thing as cells! It's all CGI by Big Pharma! Conspiracy!"
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on October 16, 2017, 03:07:00 PM
Even granting that is true, consider...

Humour Theory?

Spontaneous generation?

Cells used to be thought of as "blobs", like teeny bits of "Jello".

Credible before, ridiculous now.

TL-DR; Fallacy.

Wait, lemme guess, "There's no such thing as cells! It's all CGI by Big Pharma! Conspiracy!"

Is there anything in Scripture written about cells?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 16, 2017, 03:27:10 PM
see "Fallacy" prev.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: MyrnaM on October 17, 2017, 10:11:34 AM

Interesting observations

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa5X2rj65Qo&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa5X2rj65Qo&feature=youtu.be)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: hismajesty on October 17, 2017, 02:36:43 PM
Even granting that is true, consider...

Humour Theory?

Spontaneous generation?

Cells used to be thought of as "blobs", like teeny bits of "Jello".

Credible before, ridiculous now.

TL-DR; Fallacy.

Wait, lemme guess, "There's no such thing as cells! It's all CGI by Big Pharma! Conspiracy!"

All undermined by the lack of curvature

https://youtu.be/TTP9i1mUDHM
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 17, 2017, 03:19:58 PM
All undermined by the lack of curvature

https://youtu.be/TTP9i1mUDHM
You are undermined by your persistent engagement in irrelevance; do you not get the concept?

Real question.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on October 17, 2017, 04:17:32 PM
You are undermined by your persistent engagement in irrelevance; do you not get the concept?

Real question.
All undermined by the lack of curvature.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 17, 2017, 04:50:16 PM
All undermined by the lack of curvature.
So, that's a no for you then. As you've no credibility to lose, "No biggie".
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Tradplorable on October 17, 2017, 05:18:53 PM


Wait, lemme guess, "There's no such thing as cells! It's all CGI by Big Pharma! Conspiracy!"
Actually, germ theory is an error.
.
.
But that's for another thread.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 17, 2017, 05:22:41 PM
Actually, germ theory is an error.
.
.
But that's for another thread.
"But people have believed it for a long time!"

Funny, that double standard you're about to invoke like a windup monkey. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: St Ignatius on October 17, 2017, 05:38:55 PM
"But people have believed it for a long time!"

Funny, that double standard you're about to invoke like a windup monkey.
The nice thing about a "windup monkey?" It eventually "winds" down...
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 19, 2017, 12:32:23 PM
Is there anything in Scripture written about cells?
.
You're beginning to understand.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on October 19, 2017, 12:36:50 PM
.
You're beginning to understand.
.

Beginning to understand what exactly, Neil? 

Are you well-informed about what Scripture has to say regarding human cells?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 19, 2017, 02:48:25 PM
The phony NASA cartoon ball (devoid of purgatory, hell and a firmament) actually makes a mockery of the Church. No curve of the earth has ever been shown, save for the fake NASA Hollywood movies being pushed as reality and certain videos taken through a fish eye lens. Nothing seen in the sky can ultimately prove any curvature of the earth.
.
You have it backwards, as usual. The curvature of the earth is plainly visible for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear, but if you continue to keep your head in the sand you won't see and you won't hear. So do as you please, it's your own doing. 
.
You have already decided that "nothing seen in the sky can ultimately prove any curvature of the earth," therefore, you have made yourself immune to the facts of reality. You have already decided in advance and you don't want to be confused with the facts.
.
You prefer to be left in your ignorance and you refuse to learn anything, and you love to complain about it.
.
When you've seen one flat-earther you've seen them all.  A lot like sedevacantists, actually. Stuck on selective, redundant mantras.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 19, 2017, 10:04:20 PM
Ears to hear? You can hear curvature of the earth? What does it sound like? Please tell us.
:popcorn:
Actually, you have it backwards as usual. The facts clearly show no curvature. You have NASA Hollywood movies, fake satellites, phony moon landings, freemasonic astro-nots, fish eye lenses, CGI images and more ridiculousness as your supposed proof.
.
So you believe Frank is a true pope? Maybe so, but not of the Catholic Church.
.
.
You have it backwards, as usual.
.
Your sedevacantism and flat-earthism go hand in hand. 
.
Fortunately for you, the shape of the earth isn't an article of the Faith.
.
I only hope you don't let that get in the way of holiness.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Tradplorable on October 20, 2017, 07:42:22 AM
.
You have it backwards, as usual.
.
Your sedevacantism and flat-earthism go hand in hand.
.
Fortunately for you, the shape of the earth isn't an article of the Faith.
.
I only hope you don't let that get in the way of holiness.
.
I'm not sede.
.
In fact, I don't know any FE'ers that are sede.
.
However, Dizzy IS a sede.
.
.
Myrna is a sede.
.
.
Globetards = sedes.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 20, 2017, 02:39:05 PM
I'm not sede.
.
In fact, I don't know any FE'ers that are sede.
.
However, Dizzy IS a sede.
.
.
Myrna is a sede.
.
.
Globetards = sedes.
.
Sorry!  I forgot that you don't know what you are. I had held out such hope for you, but alas...
.
Better get your nose back to the grindstone, where it belongs. 
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 20, 2017, 02:42:08 PM
The phony NASA cartoon ball (devoid of purgatory, hell and a firmament) actually makes a mockery of the Church. No curve of the earth has ever been shown, save for the fake NASA Hollywood movies being pushed as reality and certain videos taken through a fish eye lens. Nothing seen in the sky can ultimately prove any curvature of the earth.
.
"Whimper, cry, waaaah." Flat-earthers are consummate complainers. Poor baby. Life is so hard!  :baby:
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: RoughAshlar on October 21, 2017, 12:48:07 AM
Here is a question for the flat earthers:

1) What are your interpretation of how we have different wind currents depending on the hemisphere...or quadrant, not sure of your nomenclature.  How does flat earth explain the Coriolis force and Hadley cell. 

The Coriolis effect:
Italian scientist Giovanni Battista Riccioli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Battista_Riccioli) and his assistant Francesco Maria Grimaldi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Maria_Grimaldi) described the effect in connection with artillery in the 1651 Almagestum Novum, writing that rotation of the Earth should cause a cannonball fired to the north to deflect to the east.[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force#cite_note-7) In 1674 Claude François Milliet Dechales (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Fran%C3%A7ois_Milliet_Dechales) described in his Cursus seu Mundus Mathematicus how the rotation of the earth should cause a deflection in the trajectories of both falling bodies and projectiles aimed toward one of the planet's poles. Riccioli, Grimaldi, and Dechales all described the effect as part of an argument against the heliocentric system of Copernicus. In other words, they argued that the Earth's rotation should create the effect, and so failure to detect the effect was evidence for an immobile Earth.[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force#cite_note-8) The Coriolis acceleration equation was derived by Euler in 1749[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force#cite_note-9)[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force#cite_note-10) and the effect was described in the tidal equations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_tides) of Pierre-Simon Laplace (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace) in 1778.[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force#cite_note-Cartwright2000-11)
Gaspard-Gustave Coriolis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaspard-Gustave_Coriolis) published a paper in 1835 on the energy yield of machines with rotating parts, such as waterwheels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterwheel).[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force#cite_note-corps-12) That paper considered the supplementary forces that are detected in a rotating frame of reference. Coriolis divided these supplementary forces into two categories. The second category contained a force that arises from the cross product (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_product) of the angular velocity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_velocity) of a coordinate system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_system) and the projection of a particle's velocity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity) into a plane perpendicular (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpendicular) to the system's axis of rotation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_rotation). Coriolis referred to this force as the "compound centrifugal force" due to its analogies with the centrifugal force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force) already considered in category one.[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force#cite_note-13)[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force#cite_note-14) The effect was known in the early 20th century as the "acceleration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration) of Coriolis",[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force#cite_note-15) and by 1920 as "Coriolis force".[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force#cite_note-16)
In 1856, William Ferrel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ferrel) proposed the existence of a circulation cell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrel_cell) in the mid-latitudes with air being deflected by the Coriolis force to create the prevailing westerly winds (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westerlies).[17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force#cite_note-17)
The understanding of the kinematics of how exactly the rotation of the Earth affects airflow was partial at first.[18] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force#cite_note-18) Late in the 19th century, the full extent of the large scale interaction of pressure gradient force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_gradient_force) and deflecting force that in the end causes air masses to move 'along' isobars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isobar_(meteorology)) was understood.

Giovanni Battista Riccioli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Battista_Riccioli) and his assistant Francesco Maria Grimaldi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Maria_Grimaldi) were both Catholic Jesuit Priests.  Fr. Giovianni is known for his 126 arguments concerns the motion of the earth in Almagestum Novum.

So here is another Catholic priest that was a scientist that provided yet another pillar in the foundation of modern science.  If his equations couldn't be proved and repeated, he would have been laughed off.  There is much more written about him.  His was never condemned by the Church, nor were his works banned by the Church. Does the flat earth have counter equations for the Coriolis forces/acceleration/effects.

For that matter why would the vortex of draining water be different between the northern and southern hemisphere if the earth was flat?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Tradplorable on October 21, 2017, 12:02:21 PM
In FE model, there is no Coriolis Effect. The Michelson-Morley experiment proved this.
.
.
Also, the "water vortex" is a myth. Lots of experiments available to view that the direction of flow is not different across hemispheres, and has to do with the direction water enters from.
.
https://youtu.be/s25RqDqTVRA
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Tradplorable on October 21, 2017, 12:15:41 PM
https://youtu.be/QxR095rt8Tg
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: RoughAshlar on October 21, 2017, 09:26:38 PM
In FE model, there is no Coriolis Effect. The Michelson-Morley experiment proved this.
You were right about the drain myth, mea culpa.

Michelson-Morley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment)

You should read the entire link on them. You sited a single failed experiment conducted by two scientist.  The article elaborates on the things they did not take into account. Their calculations were corrected and was conducted repeatedly by other scientists.  A single failed experiment doesn't disprove the Coriolis Effect.

If the Coriolis Effect can accurately measure and predicts the different directions of winds on various latitudes, long range sniper shots, etc... why are we saying that it doesn't exist.  The people who are educated to use the equations understands how it works.  If the math is provable and solid, and you can truly replicate the results, how can you say it doesn't exist?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 21, 2017, 09:36:49 PM
You were right about the drain myth, mea culpa.

Michelson-Morley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment)

You should read the entire link on them. You sited a single failed experiment conducted by two scientist.  The article elaborates on the things they did not take into account. Their calculations were corrected and was conducted repeatedly by other scientists.  A single failed experiment doesn't disprove the Coriolis Effect.

If the Coriolis Effect can accurately measure and predicts the different directions of winds on various latitudes, long range sniper shots, etc... why are we saying that it doesn't exist.  The people who are educated to use the equations understands how it works.  If the math is provable and solid, and you can truly replicate the results, how can you say it doesn't exist?
By providing something with greater explanatory power, explanatory scope, and less "ad hocness"
Don't hold your breath...
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 24, 2017, 03:28:38 PM
.
For all of these Albertus Magnus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01264a.htm) had opened the door to the rich treasure-house of Greek and Arabian learning. Still more far-reaching in their results were the labours of the scholars who applied themselves principally to mathematical geography. At the head of them all stands Roger Bacon (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13111b.htm), the "Doctor Mirabilis" of the Order of St. Francis (1214-94). Columbus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04140a.htm) was emboldened to carry out his great project on the strength of Bacon's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13111b.htm) assertion that India (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07722a.htm) could be reached by a westerly voyage — a claim based on mathematical computation. Even before Ptolemy's "Geography" had been rediscovered, Bacon (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13111b.htm) attempted to sketch a map, determining mathematically the positions of places, and using Ptolemy's Almagest, the descriptions of Alfraganus, and the Alphonsine Tables. Peschel pronounces this to be "the greatest achievement of the scholastics". Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly (1350-1425), whose "Imago Mundi" was also a favourite book of Columbus's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04140a.htm), founded it on Bacon's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13111b.htm) works. It is to him and Cardinal Filiaster that Western civilization owes the first Latin translation of Ptolemy's "Geography", which Jacopus Angelus finished and dedicated to Pope Alexander V (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01288a.htm) (1409-10). The circulation of this book created a tremendous revolution, which was particularly beneficial to the development of cartography for centuries thereafter. As early as 1427 the Dane Claudius Clavusadded to Filiaster's priceless manuscript (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09614b.htm) of Ptolemy's work his map of Northern Europe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05607b.htm), the oldest map of the North which we possess. Domnus Nicolaus Germanus, a Benedictine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02443a.htm) (of Reichenbach?) (1466), was the first scholar who modernized Ptolemy by means of new maps and made him generally accessible. The Benedictine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02443a.htm) Andreas Walsperger (1448 ) made a map of the world in the medieval (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10285c.htm) style. That of the Camaldolese (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03204d.htm) Fra Mauro (1457) is the most celebrated of all monuments of medieval (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10285c.htm) cartography. It was already enriched by data furnished in Ptolemy's work. The map of Germany (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06484b.htm) designed by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11060b.htm) (1401-64), a pupil of Toscanelli (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14786a.htm) (1387-1492), was printed in 1491. This prelate (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12386b.htm) was the teacher of Peuerbach (1432-61), who in turn was the master of Regiomontanus (1436-67), the most illustrious astronomer (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02025a.htm) since Ptolemy. Cardinal Bessarion (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02527b.htm) enabled Regiomontanus to study Greek, and Pope Sixtus IV (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14032b.htm) (1474) entrusted the reformation of the Calendar to him. We must also mention Æneas Sylvius (afterwards Pope Pius II (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12126c.htm)) and the papal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) secretaries Poggio and Flavio Biondo (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02575a.htm), who made several valuable contributions to the science (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13598b.htm) of geography, also Cardinal Bembo (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02425e.htm) and the Carthusian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03388a.htm) Reisch (1467-1525).


(http://www.newadvent.org/images/06447aax.gif)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 24, 2017, 05:59:31 PM
.
The Fra Mauro map of the world obviously attempts to depict the then-known land masses all on one page.
.
By later conceptions of the same region, the shape of the so-called world of Fra Mauro would appear as follows:
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F6%2F6c%2F1827_Finley_Map_of_the_Eastern_Hemisphere_%2528Asia%252C_Australia%252C_Europe%252C_Africa%2529_-_Geographicus_-_EasternHemisphere-finley-1827.jpg&sp=841358f6f216c83ea0f8e8c4a6abecda)
.
This is the 1827 Finley Map of the Eastern Hemisphere. . What a difference 368 years makes!
.
Comparing these two maps, it becomes clearly seen that numerous inaccuracies in the earlier map (below) have the effect of denying the vastness of the Indian Ocean. Fra Mauro has imagined scores of small islands around the perimeter of his "world" when no such islands exist in fact. He appears to have dreamed up numerous features with the compulsion to extend the kind of topography found in the Mediterranean so as to make the whole world one large Mediterranean-style place.
.
(http://www.newadvent.org/images/06447aax.gif)
.
He's got Africa shrunken down and broken up with rivers, even throwing in a huge bay or quasi-sea on the western coast. There is no Madagascar, unless it's one of those tiny islands on the eastern coast of the broken Africa. Nor is there any Australia, nor prominent Indian peninsula. Sri Lanka could be any one of several such isles in that area, and the Philippines and Indonesia are entirely up for grabs. You can't recognize anything even remotely close to looking like it is Japan, so forget about it. 
.
All these errors and omissions are repaired in the later map by Finley, above, although it still needs a lot of improvement. Probably Finley's most significant contribution is the title, Eastern Hemisphere, instead of the whole world.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 26, 2017, 02:24:55 PM
For the 100th time; Talking about eclipses does not prove the round earth. Simply because we cannot explain something does not make curvature appear on the earth.

The proof of the flat earth is the fact that there is NO curvature.

So all the talk in world about eclipses is not going to affect that.
.
Flat-earthers can't explain eclipses because they've got the wrong model. Period.
.
It's so funny how flat-earthers responded to the August eclipse. When I started asking the pertinent questions in April, none of them had any answers -- it's like they had to go regroup to come up with something to say. But then after May, June and July, they started to come up with some snide replies acting like they had all the answers. Problem is, they had to base their replies on falsehood and inaccuracies. 
.
None of the flat-earthers came here to CI during April, May, June or July to answer the questions. They had to wait for their flat-tard-forum gurus to crank out some drivel they could grab and run away with to other sites.
.
Still, try as they may, their replies go nowhere. "Talking about eclipses does not prove the round earth" they say. "Simply because we cannot explain something does not make curvature appear on the earth" they say.
.
I guess that was their punch line.  :jester: .........  :facepalm: .......... :sleep:
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 26, 2017, 03:23:19 PM
In FE model, there is no Coriolis Effect. The Michelson-Morley experiment proved this.
.
.
Once again, flat-tards demonstrate their ignorance. 
.
Experiments never "prove" anything. Experiments are not done to prove or disprove things.
.
That's not what experimentation is for.
.
Michelson-Morley experiment was very important, but as an experiment, it was not capable of proving anything.
.
Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a "scientific proof."
.
.
.
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.  Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists.  The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.  All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence.  Proofs are not the currency of science.
.
Proofs have two features that do not exist in science:  They are final, and they are binary.  Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof).  Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem. (Examples include theorems in Geometry.)
.
In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final.  There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science.  The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives.  Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory.  No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final.  That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.
.
Further, proofs, like pregnancy, are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven).  There is nothing in between.  A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven.  These are the same as unproven.
.
In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories.  Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true.  They are always somewhere in between.  Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others.  There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others.  It is a matter of more or less, not either/or.  For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives.
.
The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes.  Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists.  Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.
.
The creationists and other critics of evolution are absolutely correct when they point out that evolution is “just a theory” and it is not “proven.”  What they neglect (http://null) to mention is that everything in science is just a theory and is never proven. (From Satoshi Kanazawa, the "scientific fundamentalist")
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 26, 2017, 03:45:17 PM
 :applause:

Caveat re: term "Science/s", spec. the definition and categorization of  in order to mitigate possible confusion and conflation via equivocation.

s.a. "Induction" v "Deduction"
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Tradplorable on October 27, 2017, 09:01:58 AM
.

It's so funny how flat-earthers responded to the August eclipse. When I started asking the pertinent questions in April, none of them had any answers -- it's like they had to go regroup to come up with something to say. But then after May, June and July, they started to come up with some snide replies acting like they had all the answers. Problem is, they had to base their replies on falsehood and inaccuracies.
.

.
Ask me an eclipse question. I'll explain it.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 27, 2017, 01:25:17 PM
Explanation: "The Horizon is Horizontal."

Explanation.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 27, 2017, 04:48:24 PM
.
This afternoon is a great opportunity for anyone in America to see firsthand how the moon phase shows us the earth is spherical.
.
The sun sets at 6:04 pm, and the First Quarter moon occurs at 3:23 pm Pacific Daylight Time.
.
Therefore, you have all afternoon to see how the angle gradually changes between the moon and the sun. 
.
You can see what the angle is before the quarter moon phase, during the optimum at 3:23 pm, and then just after that time before sunset.
.
The quarter moon will be low in the eastern sky at the optimum moment, 3:23 pm Pacific, higher in the sky at 4:23 pm Mountain, close to directly overhead at 5:23 pm Central, and just past directly overhead at 6:23 pm Eastern. In the eastern USA the First Quarter moon will be at optimum about 18 minutes after the sun sets.
.
Notice the fact that the quarter moon phase occurs all over the world at the same time, which would not be the case if the earth were "flat."

The quarter moon will be directly overhead when the sun sets for anyone in the Pacific Time zone.
.
Measure the angle between the sun and the moon today and see for yourself.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 28, 2017, 06:31:15 PM
.
These days, in the evening after sunset when the moon descends to the western horizon, something very interesting happens. The illuminated side of the moon faces almost directly downward. 
.
We already know by observing the movement of the sun and moon these past few days and all year round, that the sun is located at a right angle from from earth with the moon at the apex, which is why we see the moon in the quarter phase. 
.
Consequently, the sun is located far below our feet at this time, nearing midnight. 
.
This fact is completely at odds with the flat-earthism fantasy that teaches falsehood, saying that the sun is still above the plane of the "flat" earth, and shining horizontally toward the moon.
.
The evidence against flat-earthism is everywhere you look. 
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on October 28, 2017, 08:09:30 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdq2q6SZKwU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdq2q6SZKwU)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on October 28, 2017, 08:10:19 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjvtmzbEgm8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjvtmzbEgm8)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on October 28, 2017, 08:12:57 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg4ZeGJiyNA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg4ZeGJiyNA)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 29, 2017, 09:56:06 PM
.
You are so predictable.
.
All you need is four minutes to plop down more drivel, more stupid videos.
.
You have a stockpile of garbage, we all know that. You don't have to prove it, over and over.
.
Here is Truth is Transitory posting the same stupid videos full of lies and fake pictures.
.
Fake nonsense, easily debunked and plainly erroneous, but it's the flat-earth code of faith, their false god.
.
You worship error and reject the manifest truth, day in and day out.
.
How do you sleep at night? Oh, right, you don't, you're zombies.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 29, 2017, 10:05:15 PM
.
Demonstrate you can THINK for a change, by looking at the full moon, and following these simple steps. 
.
It's coming up in a few days.
.
When the moon is full and high in the clear night sky, point at it, if that's not too much to ask.
.
Better yet, get a broomstick or a 2x4 and hold it on your shoulder like it's a bazooka.
.
Point your stick at the moon.
.
Now, without moving the stick, turn your head around and see where the other end of the stick is pointing.
.
One end points at the moon and the other end points where?
.
Your turn.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 30, 2017, 11:21:29 PM
.
Same old thing. No participation when it comes to simple observation.
.
Flat-earthers run away like it's a plague whenever you ask them to look at the moon.
.
They want no part of learning the truth.
.
Flat-earthism is a golden calf false idol which they worship, breaking the First Commandment.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 31, 2017, 04:28:49 PM
.
The earth's magnetic field is constantly changing. In the past, variation from year to year has been not so great so as to make estimates of location unreliable from place to place worldwide, and such practices as land surveying and navigation at sea have been able to use updated maps for currently reliable data. In recent years, however, the magnetic poles (called dip poles) of the earth have been moving more quickly such that services and trades that rely on currently updated locations of the dip poles have had to obtain more frequent assessment and updates.
.
(https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/image/north_dip_poles.png)
Observed north dip poles during 1831 - 2007 are yellow squares. 
Modeled pole locations from 1590 to 2020 are circles progressing from blue to yellow.
.
[Obviously, the locations for 2020, 2019, 2018 and 2017 are estimates. This present data is current as of 2015.]
.
Magnetic poles are defined in different ways. They are commonly understood as positions on the Earth's surface where the geomagnetic field is vertical (i.e., perpendicular) to the ellipsoid. These north and south positions, called dip poles, do not need to be (and are not currently) antipodal. In principle the dip poles can be found by conducting a magnetic survey to determine where the field is vertical. Other definitions of geomagnetic poles depend on the way the poles are computed from a geomagnetic model. In practice the geomagnetic field is vertical on oval-shaped loci traced on a daily basis, with considerable variation from one day to the next.
.

It has been long understood that dip poles migrate over time. In 1831, James Clark Ross located the north dip pole position in northern Canada. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) tracked the North Magnetic Pole, which is slowly drifting across the Canadian Arctic, by periodically carrying out magnetic surveys to reestablish the Pole's location from 1948 to 1994. An international collaboration, led by a French fundraising association, Poly-Arctique, and involving NRCan, Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris and Bureau de Recherche Geologique et Miniere, added two locations of the North Magnetic Pole in 2001 and 2007. The most recent survey determined that the Pole is moving approximately north-northwest at 55 km per year.



Modeled pole locations for magnetic north from 1831 to 2020 [1831.000 - 2020.000 -- these are not observed north pole locations]:
.
261.931 70.411 1831.000 262.011 70.346 1832.000 262.108 70.271 1833.000 262.221 70.189 1834.000 262.350 70.105 1835.000 
262.496 70.021 1836.000 262.657 69.936 1837.000 262.829 69.848 1838.000 262.998 69.761 1839.000 263.140 69.681 1840.000 
263.235 69.615 1841.000 263.289 69.560 1842.000 263.311 69.510 1843.000 263.312 69.463 1844.000 263.301 69.420 1845.000 
263.287 69.379 1846.000 263.270 69.341 1847.000 263.251 69.311 1848.000 263.231 69.288 1849.000 263.215 69.271 1850.000 
263.206 69.259 1851.000 263.203 69.249 1852.000 263.204 69.240 1853.000 263.208 69.230 1854.000 263.214 69.219 1855.000 
263.221 69.205 1856.000 263.229 69.192 1857.000 263.238 69.180 1858.000 263.243 69.174 1859.000 263.237 69.178 1860.000 
263.211 69.196 1861.000 263.174 69.225 1862.000 263.135 69.259 1863.000 263.101 69.296 1864.000 263.076 69.336 1865.000 
263.066 69.375 1866.000 263.063 69.414 1867.000 263.062 69.455 1868.000 263.056 69.496 1869.000 263.044 69.536 1870.000 
263.025 69.575 1871.000 263.004 69.615 1872.000 262.986 69.659 1873.000 262.968 69.708 1874.000 262.942 69.760 1875.000 
262.900 69.812 1876.000 262.847 69.863 1877.000 262.789 69.914 1878.000 262.733 69.964 1879.000 262.686 70.013 1880.000 
262.652 70.061 1881.000 262.628 70.111 1882.000 262.611 70.163 1883.000 262.598 70.218 1884.000 262.591 70.276 1885.000 
262.589 70.335 1886.000 262.590 70.394 1887.000 262.590 70.448 1888.000 262.585 70.497 1889.000 262.574 70.546 1890.000 
262.606 70.584 1891.000 262.718 70.600 1892.000 262.894 70.592 1893.000 263.110 70.564 1894.000 263.338 70.525 1895.000 
263.547 70.483 1896.000 263.712 70.449 1897.000 263.813 70.430 1898.000 263.845 70.433 1899.000 263.814 70.460 1900.000 
263.756 70.499 1901.000 263.697 70.539 1902.000 263.638 70.578 1903.000 263.579 70.618 1904.000 263.520 70.657 1905.000 
263.472 70.683 1906.000 263.424 70.708 1907.000 263.376 70.734 1908.000 263.328 70.760 1909.000 263.280 70.785 1910.000 
263.218 70.834 1911.000 263.156 70.883 1912.000 263.094 70.931 1913.000 263.031 70.981 1914.000 262.968 71.030 1915.000 
262.898 71.091 1916.000 262.827 71.152 1917.000 262.756 71.214 1918.000 262.686 71.275 1919.000 262.615 71.337 1920.000 
262.494 71.426 1921.000 262.374 71.516 1922.000 262.252 71.606 1923.000 262.130 71.696 1924.000 262.007 71.786 1925.000 
261.872 71.881 1926.000 261.735 71.977 1927.000 261.597 72.073 1928.000 261.457 72.170 1929.000 261.317 72.268 1930.000 
261.191 72.371 1931.000 261.064 72.475 1932.000 260.934 72.580 1933.000 260.802 72.687 1934.000 260.667 72.796 1935.000 
260.564 72.894 1936.000 260.458 72.993 1937.000 260.351 73.093 1938.000 260.241 73.195 1939.000 260.129 73.299 1940.000 
260.062 73.421 1941.000 259.992 73.544 1942.000 259.918 73.670 1943.000 259.842 73.797 1944.000 259.762 73.926 1945.000 
259.643 74.066 1946.000 259.521 74.208 1947.000 259.397 74.350 1948.000 259.270 74.494 1949.000 259.141 74.638 1950.000 
259.039 74.741 1951.000 258.932 74.848 1952.000 258.821 74.957 1953.000 258.704 75.069 1954.000 258.582 75.184 1955.000 
258.658 75.208 1956.000 258.734 75.232 1957.000 258.812 75.255 1958.000 258.889 75.278 1959.000 258.967 75.301 1960.000 
258.908 75.364 1961.000 258.848 75.429 1962.000 258.787 75.494 1963.000 258.725 75.560 1964.000 258.663 75.626 1965.000 
258.735 75.677 1966.000 258.807 75.728 1967.000 258.880 75.778 1968.000 258.953 75.829 1969.000 259.026 75.878 1970.000 
259.092 75.934 1971.000 259.158 75.989 1972.000 259.225 76.044 1973.000 259.293 76.098 1974.000 259.362 76.153 1975.000 
259.158 76.303 1976.000 258.952 76.454 1977.000 258.745 76.604 1978.000 258.535 76.755 1979.000 258.323 76.906 1980.000 
258.140 77.005 1981.000 257.956 77.104 1982.000 257.769 77.202 1983.000 257.581 77.300 1984.000 257.391 77.398 1985.000 
257.184 77.537 1986.000 256.973 77.677 1987.000 256.757 77.816 1988.000 256.537 77.956 1989.000 256.311 78.095 1990.000 
256.010 78.286 1991.000 255.699 78.476 1992.000 255.380 78.665 1993.000 255.050 78.854 1994.000 254.710 79.043 1995.000 
253.995 79.417 1996.000 253.211 79.798 1997.000 252.350 80.185 1998.000 251.403 80.576 1999.000 250.360 80.972 2000.000 
248.992 81.427 2001.000 247.468 81.879 2002.000 245.769 82.325 2003.000 243.881 82.762 2004.000 241.782 83.186 2005.000 
239.408 83.602 2006.000 236.784 83.995 2007.000 233.900 84.363 2008.000 230.751 84.702 2009.000 227.166 85.020 2010.000 
222.596 85.370 2011.000 217.521 85.676 2012.000 211.982 85.933 2013.000 206.059 86.138 2014.000 199.975 86.289 2015.000 
193.710 86.395 2016.000 187.413 86.455 2017.000 181.245 86.471 2018.000 175.346 86.448 2019.000 169.818 86.391 2020.000
.
[The years' data for 2015 and 2017 are in bold - degrees longitude west, degrees latitude north, year.]
.
The cause of the earth's magnetic field is not actually known, but there are theories proposed that would explain it. It is thought that some large quantity of ferrous material in the earth's core is moving to produce this field, but how much iron, where exactly it's located and how fast it's moving are all unknowns and up for speculation. One thing scientists can agree on is that wherever this iron is precisely, it exists at a temperature of over 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, or perhaps even 2,000, which would mean it would be molten at atmospheric pressure, however, since it is expected to have an ambient pressure of hundreds of atmospheres, the liquidity/solidity or whatever state it is in cannot be certain. In any event, since the magnetic poles of the earth are observed to in fact be moving, we can reasonably presume that the ferrous or iron mass deep within the earth must not only be moving so as to generate this field but must be moving in a variable manner, that is, moving differently today than it has moved in previous centuries.
.
Since it is essentially unknown what forces are acting on the iron inside the earth, we cannot know for sure what kinds of changes the magnetic field will undergo in the future. We can presume to expect it to move in a somewhat predictable manner, but as you can see from the image above, in the years 1732 (George Washington's birthday and the square root of 3), 1859, 1890 and 1900 the north dip pole changed direction of drift quite abruptly and without apparent or observable cause as far as we know (the birth of Washington or the square root of 3 can't explain a pole shift), therefore a similar change could likewise occur in our present age and we have no way of predicting it or even of anticipating when or whether it will occur.
.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: kiwiboy on October 31, 2017, 05:16:21 PM
Thats some good copying and pasting you got going there.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 31, 2017, 06:31:45 PM
Thats some good copying and pasting you got going there.
.
And it won't do you any good if you can't understand it, because you're not going to read it. Are you.
.
And no, it's not merely "copy and paste."
.
That's the difference between when one knows how to write and when you have to rely on posting videos made by someone else.
.
If I were to tell you what parts I composed myself and which parts I copied from elsewhere, you wouldn't believe it anyway, so why go there?
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 16, 2017, 02:28:54 PM
.
Tardplorable managed to last a whopping 12 weeks! Not a bad run.
.
Tradplorable has been banned.
.
(His banning had nothing to do with his flat-earthism, though.)
.
Unfortunately for him and for all flat-earthism, he was never able to answer the basic questions.
.
He gave responses but they did not answer the questions. His answers were persistently evasive.
.
He was openly disrespectful of opposing views and made no attempt to patiently discuss objective reality, which BTW is not unrelated to why he was eventually banned because he disrespected the Moderator too, apparently.
.
So anyone who is willing to pick up where Tardplorable left off, be my guest. 
.
I suspect Tardplorable is the owner of the unidentified voice in Fr. Pfeieffer's video, the voice that hurls unreasonable objections from the audience which Fr. Pfeiffer embarrassingly tolerates and for whatever reason does not adequately address with his responses. Fr. actually allows this heckler to steer the course of his presentation which is rather painful to watch. 
.
I admire Fr. Pfeiffer's willingness to take on the challenge of discussing the concept of flat-earthism, and I think he does a good job on a basic level -- he appears to have done some important research on the history of the Church in this regard -- but he does not adequately apply nor recognize the very present and real means available to everyone in forming a solid understanding of our physical environment otherwise known as the observable universe.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 16, 2017, 03:16:07 PM
.
.
The earth's magnetic field is constantly changing. In the past, variation from year to year has been not so great so as to make estimates of location unreliable from place to place worldwide, and such practices as land surveying and navigation at sea have been able to use updated maps for currently reliable data. In recent years, however, the magnetic poles (called dip poles) of the earth have been moving more quickly such that services and trades that rely on currently updated locations of the dip poles have had to obtain more frequent assessment and updates.
.
(https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/image/north_dip_poles.png)
Observed north dip poles during 1831 - 2007 are yellow squares. 
Modeled pole locations from 1590 to 2020 are circles progressing from blue to yellow.
.
[Obviously, the locations for 2020, 2019, 2018 and 2017 are estimates. This present data is current as of 2015.]
.
Magnetic poles are defined in different ways. They are commonly understood as positions on the Earth's surface where the geomagnetic field is vertical (i.e., perpendicular) to the ellipsoid. These north and south positions, called dip poles, do not need to be (and are not currently) antipodal. In principle the dip poles can be found by conducting a magnetic survey to determine where the field is vertical. Other definitions of geomagnetic poles depend on the way the poles are computed from a geomagnetic model. In practice the geomagnetic field is vertical on oval-shaped loci traced on a daily basis, with considerable variation from one day to the next.
.

It has been long understood that dip poles migrate over time. In 1831, James Clark Ross located the north dip pole position in northern Canada. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) tracked the North Magnetic Pole, which is slowly drifting across the Canadian Arctic, by periodically carrying out magnetic surveys to reestablish the Pole's location from 1948 to 1994. An international collaboration, led by a French fundraising association, Poly-Arctique, and involving NRCan, Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris and Bureau de Recherche Geologique et Miniere, added two locations of the North Magnetic Pole in 2001 and 2007. The most recent survey determined that the Pole is moving approximately north-northwest at 55 km per year.
.
Notice on the diagram provided, the last estimated location (a yellow dot) is for 2020 (count the yellow dots from where it says "2007" toward the right where they end) -- it is heading in a direction west-southwest. The yellow dot for 2018 is the spot where the projected movement is due west. (You can see that because that is the place where the line of yellow dots is perpendiular to the meridian, a faint grey line). These last 4 yellow dots are estimates. We will have to wait for more recent updated information.
.
The most recent survey (as of 2015 is all this data shown) has the movement "approximately north-northwest" but since it is so close to the axial north pole (true north) its projected movement takes it to a directly due west direction ( 2018 ), and if that trend continues in subsequent years, the direction will then become progressively west-southwest, southwest, south-southwest, and so on. All this changes so quickly because of the proximity to true north of the Magnetic Pole dip.
.
The changing compass direction of a straight line is due to the fact that this projected movement describes a Great Circle on the globe, and any Great Circle which passes close to an axial pole goes through rapid compass bearing changes like shown here. It's just a fact of spherical geometry applied to geodetic coordinates.
.
Extrapolating out further, the rapid changes of late in the north dip poles' locations can be seen to indicate that an enormous pole shift is underway. The dip poles have moved in previous centuries quite a lot, as the map indicates, but the movement has not been so rapid and consistent in previous centuries or recent decades as it has been in the past several decades, since 1973. 
.
Curiously, 1973 was the year of Roe vs. Wade. And 1969 was the year of the Novus Ordo Missae.
.
So the changing direction could make an abrupt turn (right or left so to speak) but previous changes in direction have not occurred while the movement was this rapid (55 km per year), and we could reasonably expect that the rate would have to SLOW DOWN FIRST before the direction could make a change.
.
You may have heard mention in various news spots or articles that "some say we are undergoing a pole shift" or other such words. You usually are not given any supporting data to know what they're talking about. But here is the reference site you can go to and see for yourself. The map and diagram I have copied above is the trace record they're referring to when they say that a pole shift is underway. 
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on November 16, 2017, 03:27:13 PM
.
Tardplorable managed to last a whopping 12 weeks! Not a bad run.
..
(His banning had nothing to do with his flat-earthism, though.)
.
Unfortunately for him and for all flat-earthism, he was never able to answer the basic questions.
.
He gave responses but they did not answer the questions. His answers were persistently evasive.
.
He was openly disrespectful of opposing views and made no attempt to patiently discuss objective reality, which BTW is not unrelated to why he was eventually banned because he disrespected the Moderator too, apparently.
.
So anyone who is willing to pick up where Tardplorable left off, be my guest.
.
I suspect Tardplorable is the owner of the unidentified voice in Fr. Pfeieffer's video, the voice that hurls unreasonable objections from the audience which Fr. Pfeiffer embarrassingly tolerates and for whatever reason does not adequately address with his responses. Fr. actually allows this heckler to steer the course of his presentation which is rather painful to watch.
.
I admire Fr. Pfeiffer's willingness to take on the challenge of discussing the concept of flat-earthism, and I think he does a good job on a basic level -- he appears to have done some important research on the history of the Church in this regard -- but he does not adequately apply nor recognize the very present and real means available to everyone in forming a solid understanding of our physical environment otherwise known as the observable universe.
.
Fr Pfeiffer did so little research on flat earth it led him to a ridiculous conclusion that earth it's a ball hanging in space. His main source Robert Sungenis (et al) was proven to have been using pagan references only and never consulting scripture or the Church. Their erroneous views against known teachings and against infallible teachings based on planck theory and the Big Bang is a joke.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 16, 2017, 03:36:55 PM
Fr Pfeiffer did so little research on flat earth it led him to a ridiculous conclusion that earth it's a ball hanging in space. His main source Robert Sungenis (et al) was proven to have been using pagan references only and never consulting scripture or the Church. Their erroneous views against known teachings and against infallible teachings based on planck theory and the Big Bang is a joke.
.
Looky what happened by. So it's you again. 
.
Are you ready to make an intelligent assessment or are you just here to wrangle on with your typical inanity as usual? 
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: RoughAshlar on November 16, 2017, 04:43:37 PM
Fr Pfeiffer did so little research on flat earth it led him to a ridiculous conclusion that earth it's a ball hanging in space. His main source Robert Sungenis (et al) was proven to have been using pagan references only and never consulting scripture or the Church. Their erroneous views against known teachings and against infallible teachings based on planck theory and the Big Bang is a joke.
1.  So the its ok that sun, moon, planets and starts in the sky area all globular, "hanging in space", but its a ridiculous conclusion to think we are a "ball hanging in space."  The logical answer is that a flat dinner plate supported by pillars that is floating in space.  

2.  Pagan or not, it doesn't invalidate the conclusions.  Pythagoras was a pagan but a 2 + b 2 = c 2...every single time.

3. "against infallible teachings " I assume you are referring to the Holy Bible.  Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus clearly had the flat earthers in mind when he wrote:  Full text here. (http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html)

(52) To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.
19. The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith-what they are unanimous in.

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 16, 2017, 05:19:11 PM

2.  Pagan or not, it doesn't invalidate the conclusions.  Pythagoras was a pagan but a 2 + b 2 = c 2...every single time.

.
Problem is, happenby doesn't like   a 2 + b 2 = c 2   because it challenges her golden-calf false-god flat-earthism.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on January 11, 2018, 03:54:40 PM
.
Problem is, happenby doesn't like   a 2 + b 2 = c 2  because it challenges her golden-calf false-god flat-earthism.
.

It's nice to see the truth go unopposed for two months.
.
In other news, Kansas is flatter than a pancake!
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNqNnUJVcVs
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on January 11, 2018, 08:22:38 PM
.
Unopposed truth, at your service!
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on January 13, 2018, 10:30:25 PM
.
Like I was saying, unopposed truth.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on January 14, 2018, 06:31:09 PM
.
Against a fact there is no argument. 
.
This is proof positive of the curvature of the globe Earth.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: WholeFoodsTrad on January 14, 2018, 08:55:42 PM
1.  So the its ok that sun, moon, planets and starts in the sky area all globular, "hanging in space", but its a ridiculous conclusion to think we are a "ball hanging in space."  The logical answer is that a flat dinner plate supported by pillars that is floating in space.  

2.  Pagan or not, it doesn't invalidate the conclusions.  Pythagoras was a pagan but a 2 + b 2 = c 2...every single time.

3. "against infallible teachings " I assume you are referring to the Holy Bible.  Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus clearly had the flat earthers in mind when he wrote:  Full text here. (http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html)

(52) To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.
19. The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith-what they are unanimous in.
That same docuмent, Providentissimus Deus tells us:  

" "Whatever they (he's referring to "scientists") can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so.""

http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html

We have been telling you ad nauseam, that it is contrary to The Bible and The Catholic Religion and it is Scientifically False, as all Catholics are instructed to in Providentissimus Deus, if they can and we can, thanks in large part, to the growth of The Internet.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on January 14, 2018, 09:09:18 PM
That same docuмent, Providentissimus Deus tells us:  

" "Whatever they (he's referring to "scientists") can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so.""

http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html

We have been telling you ad nauseam, that it is contrary to The Bible and The Catholic Religion and it is Scientifically False, as all Catholics are instructed to in Providentissimus Deus, if they can and we can, thanks in large part, to the growth of The Internet.  
.
And where, oh where, does Providentissimus Deus or any other docuмent of the Church contradict this?
.
a 2 + b 2 = c 2
.
Once again, against a fact there is no argument.
.
It's nice to see the truth go unopposed for two months.
.
The sphericity of Earth is not contradictory to Scripture or anything else the Church has to offer.
.
But the evidence for it is everywhere you look! 
.
Facts are facts. How inconvenient for you!
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: WholeFoodsTrad on January 14, 2018, 11:05:41 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VU9RubOAtf4

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on January 14, 2018, 11:08:09 PM
.
The Bible doesn't need your false-god, golden-calf, flat-earthism for veracity.
.
The Bible has the Church, and flat-earthism has NOTHING.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on February 12, 2018, 12:15:58 AM
.
The circuмference of the earth is about 25,000 miles which means 360 degrees of curvature takes 25K miles to transpire.
.
Divide 25K by 360 and you get 70.    (69.444 rounds off to 70, and 70 x 360 = 25,200 -- close enough)
.
Therefore, each 70 miles a plane "dips down" one degree to follow a Great Circle route.
.
Any plane that flies over the equator, for example, only has to "dip down" one degree in 70 miles to accommodate curvature.
.
But any plane flying has to correct up and down a lot more than one degree every mile or two, so the one degree of correction needed every 70 miles for curvature is insignificant compared to corrections for 
normal, ambient disturbances.
.
You can compare it to driving your car down a very straight highway -- why don't you just tie off the steering wheel with a rope to keep the car going straight, and then you can take a nap?
.
The fact is, even with a very straight road, there are tiny bumps in the pavement or camber to the right or left, and little gusts of wind from the left and right which make the car drift off course. So you have to make small corrections all the time if you want to stay in your lane. Your corrections amount to one to four degrees of adjustment every quarter mile, so after one mile you might have corrected about 8 degrees left or right depending on conditions, maybe more. Over 70 miles that makes 560 degrees of correction.
.
Then imagine this highway has a very slow curve in it so that every 70 miles you have to have turned a total of one degree to the right to remain exactly in the center of your lane. Why would you ever notice that one degree when you normally make about 560 degrees? Are you going to notice it was 561 this time, or 559?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on February 12, 2018, 12:21:11 AM

.
The earth's magnetic field is constantly changing. In the past, variation from year to year has been not so great so as to make estimates of location unreliable from place to place worldwide, and such practices as land surveying and navigation at sea have been able to use updated maps for currently reliable data. In recent years, however, the magnetic poles (called dip poles) of the earth have been moving more quickly such that services and trades that rely on currently updated locations of the dip poles have had to obtain more frequent assessment and updates.
.
(https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/image/north_dip_poles.png)
Observed north dip poles during 1831 - 2007 are yellow squares.
Modeled pole locations from 1590 to 2020 are circles progressing from blue to yellow.
.
[Obviously, the locations for 2020, 2019, 2018 and 2017 are estimates. This present data is current as of 2015.]
.
Magnetic poles are defined in different ways. They are commonly understood as positions on the Earth's surface where the geomagnetic field is vertical (i.e., perpendicular) to the ellipsoid. These north and south positions, called dip poles, do not need to be (and are not currently) antipodal. In principle the dip poles can be found by conducting a magnetic survey to determine where the field is vertical. Other definitions of geomagnetic poles depend on the way the poles are computed from a geomagnetic model. In practice the geomagnetic field is vertical on oval-shaped loci traced on a daily basis, with considerable variation from one day to the next.
.

It has been long understood that dip poles migrate over time. In 1831, James Clark Ross located the north dip pole position in northern Canada. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) tracked the North Magnetic Pole, which is slowly drifting across the Canadian Arctic, by periodically carrying out magnetic surveys to reestablish the Pole's location from 1948 to 1994. An international collaboration, led by a French fundraising association, Poly-Arctique, and involving NRCan, Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris and Bureau de Recherche Geologique et Miniere, added two locations of the North Magnetic Pole in 2001 and 2007. The most recent survey determined that the Pole is moving approximately north-northwest at 55 km per year.



Modeled pole locations for magnetic north from 1831 to 2020 [1831.000 - 2020.000 -- these are not observed north pole locations]:
.
222.596 85.370 2011.000 217.521 85.676 2012.000 211.982 85.933 2013.000 206.059 86.138 2014.000 199.975 86.289 2015.000
193.710 86.395 2016.000 187.413 86.455 2017.000 181.245 86.471 2018.000 175.346 86.448 2019.000 169.818 86.391 2020.000
.
[The years' data for 2015 and 2017 (https://www.cathinfo.com/Quote from: Neil Obstat on Tue Oct 31 2017 14:28:49 GMT-0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)) are in bold - degrees longitude west, degrees latitude north, year.]
.
The cause of the earth's magnetic field is not actually known, but there are theories proposed that would explain it. It is thought that some large quantity of ferrous material in the earth's core is moving to produce this field, but how much iron, where exactly it's located and how fast it's moving are all unknowns and up for speculation. One thing scientists can agree on is that wherever this iron is precisely, it exists at a temperature of over 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, or perhaps even 2,000, which would mean it would be molten at atmospheric pressure, however, since it is expected to have an ambient pressure of hundreds of atmospheres, the liquidity/solidity or whatever state it is in cannot be certain. In any event, since the magnetic poles of the earth are observed to in fact be moving, we can reasonably presume that the ferrous or iron mass deep within the earth must not only be moving so as to generate this field but must be moving in a variable manner, that is, moving differently today than it has moved in previous centuries.
.
Since it is essentially unknown what forces are acting on the iron inside the earth, we cannot know for sure what kinds of changes the magnetic field will undergo in the future. We can presume to expect it to move in a somewhat predictable manner, but as you can see from the image above, in the years 1732 (George Washington's birthday and the square root of 3), 1859, 1890 and 1900 the north dip pole changed direction of drift quite abruptly and without apparent or observable cause as far as we know (the birth of Washington or the square root of 3 can't explain a pole shift), therefore a similar change could likewise occur in our present age and we have no way of predicting it or even of anticipating when or whether it will occur.
.
.

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: WholeFoodsTrad on February 12, 2018, 05:16:13 AM
.
And where, oh where, does Providentissimus Deus or any other docuмent of the Church contradict this?
.
a 2 + b 2 = c 2
.
Once again, against a fact there is no argument.
.
It's nice to see the truth go unopposed for two months.
.
The sphericity of Earth is not contradictory to Scripture or anything else the Church has to offer.
.
But the evidence for it is everywhere you look!
.
Facts are facts. How inconvenient for you!
.
I don't think so.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: WholeFoodsTrad on February 12, 2018, 05:25:49 AM
.
The circuмference of the earth is about 25,000 miles which means 360 degrees of curvature takes 25K miles to transpire.
.
Divide 25K by 360 and you get 70.    (69.444 rounds off to 70, and 70 x 360 = 25,200 -- close enough)
.
Therefore, each 70 miles a plane "dips down" one degree to follow a Great Circle route.
.
Any plane that flies over the equator, for example, only has to "dip down" one degree in 70 miles to accommodate curvature.
.
But any plane flying has to correct up and down a lot more than one degree every mile or two, so the one degree of correction needed every 70 miles for curvature is insignificant compared to corrections for
normal, ambient disturbances.
.
You can compare it to driving your car down a very straight highway -- why don't you just tie off the steering wheel with a rope to keep the car going straight, and then you can take a nap?
.
The fact is, even with a very straight road, there are tiny bumps in the pavement or camber to the right or left, and little gusts of wind from the left and right which make the car drift off course. So you have to make small corrections all the time if you want to stay in your lane. Your corrections amount to one to four degrees of adjustment every quarter mile, so after one mile you might have corrected about 8 degrees left or right depending on conditions, maybe more. Over 70 miles that makes 560 degrees of correction.
.
Then imagine this highway has a very slow curve in it so that every 70 miles you have to have turned a total of one degree to the right to remain exactly in the center of your lane. Why would you ever notice that one degree when you normally make about 560 degrees? Are you going to notice it was 561 this time, or 559?


We are told:  The Earth is approximately 25k miles in circuмference and about 8k miles in diameter.  Thus, traveling from The North Pole to The Equator should be a distance of about 6k  miles, with a drop of about 4k miles.  Therefore, we should experience a drop of about 8 inches  for every 12 inches we travel.  Somehow, I don't think that would be so subtle a drop or rise that I wouldn't notice it from land, let alone from 30k feet, traveling at 550 mph!  

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: WholeFoodsTrad on February 12, 2018, 05:30:57 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvzZjC4WcAIO8zb.jpg)

It's just a fish eye lens.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: WholeFoodsTrad on February 12, 2018, 05:51:39 AM

The cause of the earth's magnetic field is not actually known, but there are theories proposed that would explain it. It is thought that some large quantity of ferrous material in the earth's core is moving to produce this field, but how much iron, where exactly it's located and how fast it's moving are all unknowns and up for speculation. One thing scientists can agree on is that wherever this iron is precisely, it exists at a temperature of over 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, or perhaps even 2,000, which would mean it would be molten at atmospheric pressure, however, since it is expected to have an ambient pressure of hundreds of atmospheres, the liquidity/solidity or whatever state it is in cannot be certain. In any event, since the magnetic poles of the earth are observed to in fact be moving, we can reasonably presume that the ferrous or iron mass deep within the earth must not only be moving so as to generate this field but must be moving in a variable manner, that is, moving differently today than it has moved in previous centuries.
.
Since it is essentially unknown what forces are acting on the iron inside the earth, we cannot know for sure what kinds of changes the magnetic field will undergo in the future. We can presume to expect it to move in a somewhat predictable manner, but as you can see from the image above, in the years 1732 (George Washington's birthday and the square root of 3), 1859, 1890 and 1900 the north dip pole changed direction of drift quite abruptly and without apparent or observable cause as far as we know (the birth of Washington or the square root of 3 can't explain a pole shift), therefore a similar change could likewise occur in our present age and we have no way of predicting it or even of anticipating when or whether it will occur.
.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GBX-pGkXGo
Al Hibbler - Nobody Knows the Trouble I've See
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Croix de Fer on February 12, 2018, 08:50:52 AM

I thoroughly enjoy how Neil Obstat completely destroyed all of the flat earthers on this thread.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Ladislaus on February 12, 2018, 09:31:21 AM
Not sure what the magnetic poles prove vis-a-vis globe earth.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on February 12, 2018, 09:37:34 AM
I thoroughly enjoy how Neil Obstat completely destroyed all of the flat earthers on this thread.
:facepalm:  That'll be the day.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on February 12, 2018, 10:24:25 AM
1.  So the its ok that sun, moon, planets and starts in the sky area all globular, "hanging in space", but its a ridiculous conclusion to think we are a "ball hanging in space."  The logical answer is that a flat dinner plate supported by pillars that is floating in space.  

2.  Pagan or not, it doesn't invalidate the conclusions.  Pythagoras was a pagan but a 2 + b 2 = c 2...every single time.

3. "against infallible teachings " I assume you are referring to the Holy Bible.  Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus clearly had the flat earthers in mind when he wrote:  Full text here. (http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html)

(52) To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.
19. The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith-what they are unanimous in.
1.Why do you say the sun, moon and stars are all globular?  The stars are lights, not worlds.  Physics do not permit something the size of earth to hang in space.  The celestial bodies are totally different than earthly things. Not to mention, smaller.
2.Pythagoras' formula works.  No one disputes that.  Its how it is applied that is in question. And when the convoluted blah blah 5 page explanation exceeds 99% of people's ability to respond, well, that is where the problem lies.  
3. Yes, as to 19.  We are agreed.  I've seen it before.  However, when more than one expound on the relationship of the mass, the altar, the sacrifice (Christ) and the Church, the likelihood they are mistaken takes a back seat to incredulity when all of it is based in Scripture.  In other words, more than one saint, scripture, the mass, and our world come together in a most beautiful and obvious way.  Nothing remotely like this exists in the pagan model.  Yet, no one here will look at it because they've never heard it before.  Well, its been there for hundreds of years.  With several more-reliable sources say something coherent, in conjunction with Scripture, the Mass, and the Church, I'm going to listen to them before the unreliable sources of contradictory blah blah.    

Sorry, only saw this today.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: RoughAshlar on February 12, 2018, 11:20:01 AM
Sorry, only saw this today.
Thank you for the reply Hap, I had forgotten about this.  

1.Why do you say the sun, moon and stars are all globular?  The stars are lights, not worlds.  Physics do not permit something the size of earth to hang in space.  The celestial bodies are totally different than earthly things. Not to mention, smaller.
So a couple of things here. I'm going to throw some stuff out there and ramble.  If the stars are just lights, what produces their lights?  Why wouldn't I say that the sun, moon, and planet are globular.  Years ago, I was able to see the spot on Jupiter, the rings on Saturn, spots on the sun.  It was a unique opportunity to be able to use such expensive equipment shared by a astronomy hobbyist.  If their rotations and revolutions can be observed then why wouldn't I assume the rest were spherical.   

Before I run off with an idea, which I am prone to do...am I understanding that you are saying that you believe the sun and moon to be flat circles as well?

So let me throw something else into the mix.  The firmament that everyone brings up.  I am assuming you don't believe in the probes, hubble, satellites, etc that take pictures.  Then keeping it straightly earthly, if its suppose to divide the waters and Heaven/earth etc, how are we able to see through it with such clarity?  How are we able to observe the planets, comets, etc with such clarity if there is a solid mass blocking us in?

2.Pythagoras' formula works.  No one disputes that.  Its how it is applied that is in question. And when the convoluted blah blah 5 page explanation exceeds 99% of people's ability to respond, well, that is where the problem lies.  
Its been months since we were back this far in the discussion, but I believe what I was referring to was people were just dismissing certain things because the person who did the experiment was not Catholic, or that a certain bit of math was being discussed by a non Catholic.  I believe I was trying to make a point that just because the science was discovered/developed/endorsed by a non Catholic doesn't invalidate the validity of the math.  

3) We can skip No 3.  I originally brought this up in November and it has since been discussed ad nauseam.  Last I saw, docs on the web wouldn't suffice, originals requested...different translations, etc.  I have nothing new or beneficial to contribute, so I'll drop this.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on February 12, 2018, 12:14:20 PM
Thank you for the reply Hap, I had forgotten about this.  
So a couple of things here. I'm going to throw some stuff out there and ramble.  If the stars are just lights, what produces their lights?  Why wouldn't I say that the sun, moon, and planet are globular.  Years ago, I was able to see the spot on Jupiter, the rings on Saturn, spots on the sun.  It was a unique opportunity to be able to use such expensive equipment shared by a astronomy hobbyist.  If their rotations and revolutions can be observed then why wouldn't I assume the rest were spherical.  

Before I run off with an idea, which I am prone to do...am I understanding that you are saying that you believe the sun and moon to be flat circles as well?

Heh...you caught me at a crossroads.  I'm actually beginning to think this may be true.  Not flat, but concave.  The principles of the way light reflects, a convex or even circular moon would scatter light out in a way that it probably wouldn't travel far.  Instead, the light is concentrated (most visibly at full moon) and reflected like a concave surface might do, so that it is crisp and intense. There is more to this but it takes a video to get the full gist) The reason it looks convex or like a ball is a simple illusion, like the optical illusion drawings that could be viewed either direction.  So it looks convex, but may be concave. Truly, I don't know the reality of this, and I am open to information that brings light. (pun, sorry) 

So let me throw something else into the mix.  The firmament that everyone brings up.  I am assuming you don't believe in the probes, hubble, satellites, etc that take pictures.  Then keeping it straightly earthly, if its suppose to divide the waters and Heaven/earth etc, how are we able to see through it with such clarity?  How are we able to observe the planets, comets, etc with such clarity if there is a solid mass blocking us in?

All of the celestial bodies are in/under the firmament.  Scripture and Augustine agree the firmament itself is a (humanly) impassable boundary between heaven and earth, above which, is the water with which God replenishes the earth, found in Genesis 1:5-14.  To say the stars are 'in' the firmament also works because the firmament is a dome within which they circle.  Many Fathers elaborate on this in great detail. 
  
Its been months since we were back this far in the discussion, but I believe what I was referring to was people were just dismissing certain things because the person who did the experiment was not Catholic, or that a certain bit of math was being discussed by a non Catholic.  I believe I was trying to make a point that just because the science was discovered/developed/endorsed by a non Catholic doesn't invalidate the validity of the math.  

You point is taken.  I agree.  But! The contradictions of heliocentrism promoted throughout the centuries also happens to include the fact that its forwarded by anti-Catholic pagans, in a way that constitutes a conspiracy of epic proportions.  Now that the conspiracy has emerged, taking the word of one of the conspirators is hardly wise.  Your next question should be, "can you prove there is a conspiracy?"  I can...but will you listen?  If you don't, I can't prove it to you.  However, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.     

3) We can skip No 3.  I originally brought this up in November and it has since been discussed ad nauseam.  Last I saw, docs on the web wouldn't suffice, originals requested...different translations, etc.  I have nothing new or beneficial to contribute, so I'll drop this.

No worries.  Its kind of a moot point because someone was using PD to prove the Church doesn't want us using Scripture in a scientific way.  The argument has no bearing on what we're discussing here. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: RoughAshlar on February 12, 2018, 12:25:45 PM
Thanks for your reply Hap.  I've have actually seen a concave universe video, so I have a rough idea what you are talking about.
What conspiracy are you referring to?...there are several out there.  Can't promise that I will accept for agree but I promise to hear it out.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on February 12, 2018, 12:51:55 PM
Thanks for your reply Hap.  I've have actually seen a concave universe video, so I have a rough idea what you are talking about.
What conspiracy are you referring to?...there are several out there.  Can't promise that I will accept for agree but I promise to hear it out.
The conspiracy can be seen throughout the centuries, with a concerted effort to deny that Scripture matters, or isn't understandable, while it promotes a contradictory occult model of the earth/cosmos in order to remove God from the hearts of men.  How does this work?  If people refuse God's Word and accept a false construct, that is, a fantasy world, they are governed by the false notion of the world they live in. They wind up worshiping a false god--that is, the god of their fantasy.  In essence, most flat earthers believe that Satan recreated the world in his own image in order to enslave them.  It took centuries to do, but the effort came to full bloom in our time.  It was quite brilliant, really, because when push comes to shove, the re-creators (and believers) maintain a false, (but widely accepted) explanation for reality: the Big Bang.  Evolution.  Million year old earth.  Aliens.  All seem logical, provable, inarguable.  And ultimately, the christ they claim is yet to come. <---this is still yet to materialize, but you know Scripture speaks of the anti-Christ.  Basically, heliocentrism provides a godless origin for man and a backdrop for the anti-Christ.  Evil needed science to trump the Church and has long pretended anything but the truth is just fine.  That is, flopping between an a-centric sun, heliocentric sun, stationary globe, whatever isn't true is a-ok. Its like Protestantism--as long as its not Catholic, that's good.  The string of what-ifs and long held theories and the departure of hearts from the true God, puts science in the driver's seat. If science knows best, you get apostasy, atheism, doubt in Scripture, doubt in God and scorn on the Church.  Oh, and a new god.     
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Jaynek on February 12, 2018, 01:23:04 PM
The conspiracy can be seen throughout the centuries, with a concerted effort to deny that Scripture matters, or isn't understandable, while it promotes a contradictory occult model of the earth/cosmos in order to remove God from the hearts of men.  How does this work?  If people refuse God's Word and accept a false construct, that is, a fantasy world, they are governed by the false notion of the world they live in. They wind up worshiping a false god--that is, the god of their fantasy.  In essence, most flat earthers believe that Satan recreated the world in his own image in order to enslave them.  It took centuries to do, but the effort came to full bloom in our time.  It was quite brilliant, really, because when push comes to shove, the re-creators (and believers) maintain a false, (but widely accepted) explanation for reality: the Big Bang.  Evolution.  Million year old earth.  Aliens.  All seem logical, provable, inarguable.  And ultimately, the christ they claim is yet to come. <---this is still yet to materialize, but you know Scripture speaks of the anti-Christ.  Basically, heliocentrism provides a godless origin for man and a backdrop for the anti-Christ.  Evil needed science to trump the Church and has long pretended anything but the truth is just fine.  That is, flopping between an a-centric sun, heliocentric sun, stationary globe, whatever isn't true is a-ok. Its like Protestantism--as long as its not Catholic, that's good.  The string of what-ifs and long held theories and the departure of hearts from the true God, puts science in the driver's seat. If science knows best, you get apostasy, atheism, doubt in Scripture, doubt in God and scorn on the Church.  Oh, and a new god.    
It is ironic that you mention Protestantism.  You are the one thinking like a protestant, using you own interpretations rather than the principles of the Church.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on February 12, 2018, 01:31:19 PM
It is ironic that you mention Protestantism.  You are the one thinking like a protestant, using you own interpretations rather than the principles of the Church.
Anyone who misses the obvious in what is happening, or what I've said to explain it (although I may not have been clear as I'd like) proves themselves the Protestant.  This reality of a crisis is observable, even within this argument. But, only for those who are able to see.  You've taken the same position as the Protestants, as we just fleshed out, because you favor any modern science heliocentric model, fixed globe included, as long as its not flat stationary earth.   
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Jaynek on February 12, 2018, 01:49:31 PM
Anyone who misses the obvious in what is happening, or what I've said to explain it (although I may not have been clear as I'd like) proves themselves the Protestant.  This reality of a crisis is observable, even within this argument. But, only for those who are able to see.  You've taken the same position as the Protestants, as we just fleshed out, because you favor any modern science heliocentric model, fixed globe included, as long as its not flat stationary earth.  
I look to Church teaching to understand how to interpret Scripture.  You decide for yourself.  It should be obvious which is the Protestant approach.

You are the one who says that anything taught and accepted for over a thousand years is Church teaching.  St. Bede taught the earth is a sphere around 1300 years ago and that has been accepted by virtually all educated Catholic ever since.  You have not provided a single author supporting flat earth in that time period.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on February 12, 2018, 01:51:23 PM
Thanks for your reply Hap.  I've have actually seen a concave universe video, so I have a rough idea what you are talking about.
What conspiracy are you referring to?...there are several out there.  Can't promise that I will accept for agree but I promise to hear it out.
Thanks for being so kind.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on February 12, 2018, 02:04:40 PM
I look to Church teaching to understand how to interpret Scripture.  You decide for yourself.  It should be obvious which is the Protestant approach.

You are the one who says that anything taught and accepted for over a thousand years is Church teaching.  St. Bede taught the earth is a sphere around 1300 years ago and that has been accepted by virtually all educated Catholic ever since.  You have not provided a single author supporting flat earth in that time period.  
If Bede said that, he forgot something.  The Church Fathers all describe a dome over earth with water above that, BECAUSE Scripture says so.  There is no "space".  A dome over a globe is not only a contradiction, but the globe doesn't even claim it, let alone the water above the dome. Augustine says the firmament exists, sun moon and stars within. The globe model says the sun is 93,000,000 miles away in space and ginormous.  So, the firmament is greater than 93,000,000 miles and modern science doesn't even mention it?   Rather, earth is not a globe.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Jaynek on February 12, 2018, 02:35:24 PM
If Bede said that, he forgot something.  The Church Fathers all describe a dome over earth with water above that, BECAUSE Scripture says so.  There is no "space".  A dome over a globe is not only a contradiction, but the globe doesn't even claim it, let alone the water above the dome. Augustine says the firmament exists, sun moon and stars within. The globe model says the sun is 93,000,000 miles away in space and ginormous.  So, the firmament is greater than 93,000,000 miles and modern science doesn't even mention it?   Rather, earth is not a globe.
We are under no obligation to understand those passages literally, whatever the Fathers may have said.  Bede did not.  St. Albert the Great did not. St. Thomas Aquinas did not. St. Robert Bellarmine did not.  Providentissimus Deus explicitly taught that we should not and said that the Fathers were giving their personal opinions and could be wrong.  (And it was only some Fathers, not all saying the earth is flat.)

We have 1300 years of Catholics believing in a spherical earth and there is no justification for claiming that flat earth is the Catholic position.  It is your position.  That's it.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Ladislaus on February 12, 2018, 02:43:30 PM
Here's the thing about "firmament".
Original Hebrew word simply means an "expanse" -- which would be an apt way to describe space:   רָקִיעַ
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Smedley Butler on February 12, 2018, 02:49:47 PM
Incorrect.

It means hard strong pounded out molten brass, etc.

That's why the Latin firmamentum means "strong."
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on February 12, 2018, 03:02:41 PM
Here's the thing about "firmament".
Original Hebrew word simply means an "expanse" -- which would be an apt way to describe space:   רָקִיעַ
The term 'expanse' takes on another meaning when studied in light of Scripture exegeses and the Fathers.  Translations include: canopy, dome, vault, curtain, among others, but the most often used is "firmament". 
Chrysostom, one of the four Great Church Fathers of the Eastern Church (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Church) and Archbishop of Constantinople (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archbishop_of_Constantinople), explicitly espoused the idea, based on scripture, that the Earth floats miraculously on the water beneath the firmament (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament).[86] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#cite_note-86) Athanasius the Great (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_the_Great), Church Father and Patriarch of Alexandria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_of_Alexandria), expressed a similar view in Against the Heathen.[87] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#cite_note-87)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#cite_note-87)
 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#cite_note-87)
Fathers of the Church who taught flat geocentric earth are Theophilus of Antioch in the second century and Clement of Alexandria in the third, based on the seventh verse of the first chapter of Genesis, both taught that spread over the earth was a solid vault, "a firmament," and they added the passage from Isaiah in which it is declared that the heavens are stretched out "like a curtain," and again "like a tent to dwell in." From Moses, Enoch, Clement and Theophilus and many others, Cosmas Indiocopleustes also reiterates that earth is like a house: the earth is its ground floor, the firmament its ceiling, under which the Almighty hangs out the sun to rule the day, and the moon and stars to rule the night. This ceiling is also the floor of the apartment above, and in this is a cistern, shaped, as one of the authorities says, "like a bathing-tank," and containing "the waters which are above the firmament."


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).
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Ladislaus on February 12, 2018, 03:05:14 PM
Incorrect.

It means hard strong pounded out molten brass, etc.

That's why the Latin firmamentum means "strong."

While it CAN mean something solid, it doesn't have to be.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on February 12, 2018, 03:09:02 PM
Incorrect.

It means hard strong pounded out molten brass, etc.

That's why the Latin firmamentum means "strong."

Yes, indeed!

In yesterday's Mass (Quinquagesima Sunday) I noticed that when the Introit was read, it included the word "firmamentum," and the English translation means "strength" according to the missal.  

Here it is, from Ps. 30. 3,4 (Old Testament):

"Esto Mihi in Deum protectorum, et in locuм refugii, ut salvum me facias: quoniam firmamentum meum, et refugium meum es tu: et propter nomen tuum dux mihi eris, et enutries me."

English translation in missal:

"Be thou unto me a God, a protector, and a house of refuge, to save me: for thou art my strength and my refuge: and for Thy Name's sake Thou wilt lead me and nourish me."
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Ladislaus on February 12, 2018, 03:19:07 PM
Indeed, St. Jerome's translation was his interpretation.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on February 12, 2018, 03:21:45 PM
Indeed, St. Jerome's translation was his interpretation.

What other word in Latin should he have then used instead for the word "strength?"
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Ladislaus on February 12, 2018, 03:27:08 PM
What other word in Latin should he have then used instead for the word "strength?"

Haven't given it much thought.  But the important thing to understand is that every translation involves SOME degree of interpeetation.

Certainly I concede that several of the Church Fathers considered it to be solid.

But it goes back to the question of whether they were therein interpreting it as private thinkers or whether they were conveying some traditional truth handed down to them from the Apostles as part of the Deposit.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Jaynek on February 12, 2018, 03:27:30 PM
Cosmas Indiocopleustes also reiterates that earth is like a house: the earth is its ground floor, the firmament its ceiling, under which the Almighty hangs out the sun to rule the day, and the moon and stars to rule the night. This ceiling is also the floor of the apartment above, and in this is a cistern, shaped, as one of the authorities says, "like a bathing-tank," and containing "the waters which are above the firmament."

You keep throwing Cosmas in when discussing the Fathers.  He is not a Father of the Church.  His opinions have no authority of any kind.  He is of historical note only.  There is no reason to accept his teaching.  

Actually, there is reason not to accept his teaching because it is kind of weird.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on February 12, 2018, 03:34:36 PM
Haven't given it much thought.  But the important thing to understand is that every translation involves SOME degree of interpeetation.

Certainly I concede that several of the Church Fathers considered it to be solid.

But it goes back to the question of whether they were therein interpreting it as private thinkers or whether they were conveying some traditional truth handed down to them from the Apostles as part of the Deposit.

Haven't given it much thought? But you said that it's only St. Jerome's interpretation. Meaning, subject to error, right? Maybe we should just throw out our missal, since it only contains St. Jerome's "interpretation."

I think that you should come up with another term for "strength" in Latin if you think that St. Jerome may be wrong.

Why even make statements like that, if you aren't prepared to back them up?

Oh, and how many errors are known to have been found in St. Jerome's translation of Scripture? I do know of one. Maybe you can name some.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Ladislaus on February 12, 2018, 03:36:16 PM
You keep throwing Cosmas in when discussing the Fathers.  He is not a Father of the Church.  His opinions have no authority of any kind.  He is of historical note only.  There is no reason to accept his teaching.  

Actually, there is reason not to accept his teaching because it is kind of weird.

In general, here's the principle of authority that the Church Fathers have.  They are human beings only.  They have no special Magisterial authority that's any different than any bishop alive today (for the ones who were in fact bishops).  They're important because they CAN give insight into the contents of the Deposit.  When they unanimously agree that something has been taught by and handed down from the Apostles, that's where it's an infallible indicator of Tradition.  But, like all human beings, sometimes they teach on their own authority, and sometimes they even SPECULATE.  Several of them even slipped into one heresy or another from time to time.  I have not seen any indication in any of the Fathers who believed in flat earth that this was something received from the Apostles and that they were teaching with authority.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Ladislaus on February 12, 2018, 03:39:10 PM
Haven't given it much thought? But you said that it's only St. Jerome's interpretation. Meaning, subject to error, right? Maybe we should just throw out our missal, since it only contains St. Jerome's "interpretation."

I think that you should come up with another term for "strength" in Latin if you think that St. Jerome may be wrong.

Why even make statements like that, if you aren't prepared to back them up?

Oh, and how many errors are known to have been found in St. Jerome's translation if Scripture? I do know of one. Maybe you can name some.

Yet another set of logical nonsequiturs.  So just because I think a different translation of the Hebrew may have been better, we need to "throw out our missal"?

No, I needn't come up with another word for strength, but a good Latin word that conveys the notion of "expanse".

I wouldn't even call this an error.  It's an interpretation.

ahem, the Latin word for "expanse" is spatium ... from which we get the word "space" ... or else one could use expansum.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on February 12, 2018, 04:32:26 PM
While it CAN mean something solid, it doesn't have to be.
I suppose.  But then that means Origen, Augustine and others were wrong. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on February 12, 2018, 04:34:51 PM
We are under no obligation to understand those passages literally, whatever the Fathers may have said.  Bede did not.  St. Albert the Great did not. St. Thomas Aquinas did not. St. Robert Bellarmine did not.  Providentissimus Deus explicitly taught that we should not and said that the Fathers were giving their personal opinions and could be wrong.  (And it was only some Fathers, not all saying the earth is flat.)

We have 1300 years of Catholics believing in a spherical earth and there is no justification for claiming that flat earth is the Catholic position.  It is your position.  That's it.
No obligation to understand Scripture literally?  When the first understanding of Scripture is always based in the literal?  Do explain.  Do you have another teaching about the firmament?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Jaynek on February 12, 2018, 04:43:08 PM
I suppose.  But then that means Origen, Augustine and others were wrong.
And there is no reason that can't be.  They are not infallible.  Pope Leo explicitly said that they could be wrong on this subject:

"in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. "
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Jaynek on February 12, 2018, 04:45:54 PM
No obligation to understand Scripture literally?  When the first understanding of Scripture is always based in the literal?  Do explain.  Do you have another teaching about the firmament?
There is no obligation to take Scripture literally when it is contrary to reason.  There is magisterial teaching that we do not need to take Scripture literally on matters of natural science.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Jaynek on February 12, 2018, 04:50:30 PM
In general, here's the principle of authority that the Church Fathers have.  They are human beings only.  They have no special Magisterial authority that's any different than any bishop alive today (for the ones who were in fact bishops).  They're important because they CAN give insight into the contents of the Deposit.  When they unanimously agree that something has been taught by and handed down from the Apostles, that's where it's an infallible indicator of Tradition.  But, like all human beings, sometimes they teach on their own authority, and sometimes they even SPECULATE.  Several of them even slipped into one heresy or another from time to time.  I have not seen any indication in any of the Fathers who believed in flat earth that this was something received from the Apostles and that they were teaching with authority.

I have nothing to add to this.  I am just hoping that repeating it will help it to sink in.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on February 12, 2018, 05:03:09 PM
There is no obligation to take Scripture literally when it is contrary to reason.  There is magisterial teaching that we do not need to take Scripture literally on matters of natural science.

Happenby asked you about the firmament, which is described in Scripture. What is your view on the firmament? Do you ignore it because you believe that the firmament is contrary to reason? 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Smedley Butler on February 12, 2018, 05:07:44 PM
Yet another set of logical nonsequiturs.  So just because I think a different translation of the Hebrew may have been better, we need to "throw out our missal"?

No, I needn't come up with another word for strength, but a good Latin word that conveys the notion of "expanse".

I wouldn't even call this an error.  It's an interpretation.

ahem, the Latin word for "expanse" is spatium ... from which we get the word "space" ... or else one could use expansum.
Then WHY is the Latin word "spatium" not used in the Book of Genesis and the Latin word "firmamentum" is?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: RoughAshlar on February 12, 2018, 05:11:08 PM
Yet another set of logical nonsequiturs.  So just because I think a different translation of the Hebrew may have been better, we need to "throw out our missal"?

No, I needn't come up with another word for strength, but a good Latin word that conveys the notion of "expanse".

I wouldn't even call this an error.  It's an interpretation.

ahem, the Latin word for "expanse" is spatium ... from which we get the word "space" ... or else one could use expansum.
I agree, language changes and evolves.  Even Latin changed over time, similar to the way English has changed.  I agree with interpretation over error. 
Going back to the firmament...I still do wonder if the firmament is a dome over the earth, how expansive is it.  Why are we able to view planets, comets, etc with clarity if its a solid object holding back water?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Smedley Butler on February 12, 2018, 05:14:31 PM
In general, here's the principle of authority that the Church Fathers have.  They are human beings only.  They have no special Magisterial authority that's any different than any bishop alive today (for the ones who were in fact bishops).  They're important because they CAN give insight into the contents of the Deposit.  When they unanimously agree that something has been taught by and handed down from the Apostles, that's where it's an infallible indicator of Tradition.  But, like all human beings, sometimes they teach on their own authority, and sometimes they even SPECULATE.  Several of them even slipped into one heresy or another from time to time.  I have not seen any indication in any of the Fathers who believed in flat earth that this was something received from the Apostles and that they were teaching with authority.
The Apostles had Scripture (the OT) which is where Church teaching on God's Creation comes from.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Smedley Butler on February 12, 2018, 05:16:27 PM
I agree, language changes and evolves.  Even Latin changed over time, similar to the way English has changed.  I agree with interpretation over error.
Going back to the firmament...I still do wonder if the firmament is a dome over the earth, how expansive is it.  Why are we able to view planets, comets, etc with clarity if its a solid object holding back water?
See my thread titled Chinese magic mirrors.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on February 12, 2018, 05:24:44 PM
No obligation to understand Scripture literally?  When the first understanding of Scripture is always based in the literal?  Do explain.  Do you have another teaching about the firmament?

I think Jayne does not want to answer any question regarding the firmament. I have to assume that she believes that the firmament is contrary to reason, and therefore it should be ignored. The assumption must then be, then, that she believes Scripture to be wrong regarding the firmament. She can correct me if that's a wrong understanding.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Jaynek on February 12, 2018, 06:01:01 PM
Happenby asked you about the firmament, which is described in Scripture. What is your view on the firmament? Do you ignore it because you believe that the firmament is contrary to reason?
I think that "firmament" is phenomenological language. I think it is contrary to reason to interpret it literally as meaning there is  a solid dome above the earth holding the sun and moon and stars. This does not mean there is an error in Scripture.  This is a legitimate interpretation encouraged by the Church.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Jaynek on February 12, 2018, 06:05:51 PM
I think Jayne does not want to answer any question regarding the firmament. I have to assume that she believes that the firmament is contrary to reason, and therefore it should be ignored. The assumption must then be, then, that she believes Scripture to be wrong regarding the firmament. She can correct me if that's a wrong understanding.
That is not what I think.  While I do think that belief in a literal solid firmament is contrary to reason, I am not ignoring it.  I am understanding it figuratively.  Scripture is not wrong.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on February 12, 2018, 06:09:05 PM
That is not what I think.  While I do think that belief in a literal solid firmament is contrary to reason, I am not ignoring it.  I am understanding it figuratively.  Scripture is not wrong.

What is your understanding of it figuratively?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on February 12, 2018, 06:17:02 PM
That is not what I think.  While I do think that belief in a literal solid firmament is contrary to reason, I am not ignoring it.  I am understanding it figuratively.  Scripture is not wrong.
Oh, so you can determine how to interpret Scripture, contrary to the literal sense, and the Fathers, but the Church Fathers and the rest of us cannot determine the literal is true?  Please. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on February 12, 2018, 06:19:23 PM
There is no obligation to take Scripture literally when it is contrary to reason.  There is magisterial teaching that we do not need to take Scripture literally on matters of natural science.
Prove that flat earth is contrary to reason.  Scripture and natural science must not contradict each other.  Globe earth cannot be reconciled with Scripture.  No one has done it.  Conversely, flat earth is completely compatible with Scripture and reflects what the Fathers taught. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on February 12, 2018, 06:19:59 PM
And there is no reason that can't be.  They are not infallible.  Pope Leo explicitly said that they could be wrong on this subject:

"in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. "
Or, they were right and you are wrong
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on February 12, 2018, 06:20:58 PM
I think that "firmament" is phenomenological language. I think it is contrary to reason to interpret it literally as meaning there is  a solid dome above the earth holding the sun and moon and stars. This does not mean there is an error in Scripture.  This is a legitimate interpretation encouraged by the Church.
Fathers say otherwise.  Are you interpreting to your own destruction?  Who are you to decide what Scripture says?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Jaynek on February 12, 2018, 06:21:14 PM
What is your understanding of it figuratively?
I understand it as phenomenological language.  That means it describes the appearance of a thing without meaning that is the reality of it. For example, many people speak of the sun rising, even though they think the earth moves around the sun, because it looks like the sun is moving.

When Scripture speaks of a firmament it is talking about what the sky looks like rather than its actual nature.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on February 12, 2018, 06:22:57 PM
I understand it as phenomenological language.  That means it describes the appearance of a thing without meaning that is the reality of it. For example, many people speak of the sun rising, even though they think the earth moves around the sun, because it looks like the sun is moving.

When Scripture speaks of a firmament it is talking about what the sky looks like rather than its actual nature.
Too many Catholic scholars and Fathers say otherwise.  But then, you permit yourself the luxury of interpretation of Scripture, but Fathers and the Church not so much.   
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on February 12, 2018, 06:25:54 PM
I understand it as phenomenological language.  That means it describes the appearance of a thing without meaning that is the reality of it. For example, many people speak of the sun rising, even though they think the earth moves around the sun, because it looks like the sun is moving.

When Scripture speaks of a firmament it is talking about what the sky looks like rather than its actual nature.

I think I see what you're saying, but if it were only phenomenological, why were details included in scripture, such as the waters being above the firmament? That's not something that we can see with our eyes.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Jaynek on February 12, 2018, 06:27:54 PM
Fathers say otherwise.  Are you interpreting to your own destruction?  Who are you to decide what Scripture says?
I am someone following Church teaching.  Teaching which says the Fathers are giving their personal fallible opinions.  Teaching which says that this is the way Catholics ought to interpret it.

I am not deciding what Scripture says. You are the one doing that.  Why can't you understand that it does not matter what some Fathers said?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Jaynek on February 12, 2018, 06:29:15 PM
Too many Catholic scholars and Fathers say otherwise.  But then, you permit yourself the luxury of interpretation of Scripture, but Fathers and the Church not so much.  
No Catholic scholars after 700 say it.  Not even all the Fathers say it.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Jaynek on February 12, 2018, 06:31:45 PM
I think I see what you're saying, but if it were only phenomenological, why were details included in scripture, such as the waters being above the firmament? That's not something that we can see with our eyes.
Water above the firmament refers to clouds.  When it rains it looks like water coming from the sky.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Jaynek on February 12, 2018, 06:37:21 PM
Or, they were right and you are wrong
It wouldn't just be me who is wrong.  It would be virtually every educated Catholic since St. Bede.  

You have a handful of Fathers giving their personal, fallible opinions that the earth is flat against 1300 years of Catholics (including Saints and Doctors of the Church) saying it is round.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on February 12, 2018, 06:43:55 PM
Water above the firmament refers to clouds.  When it rains it looks like water coming from the sky.

You believe that the clouds are above the stars? I ask this, because Scripture says that God placed the sun and moon and stars in the firmament of heaven, to shine upon the earth. The firmament cannot therefore be clouds. We can easily see that the stars are above the clouds.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Jaynek on February 12, 2018, 07:37:12 PM
You believe that the clouds are above the stars? I ask this, because Scripture says that God placed the sun and moon and stars in the firmament of heaven, to shine upon the earth. The firmament cannot therefore be clouds. We can easily see that the stars are above the clouds.
Some scholars who interpret "firmament" as phenomenological language say it refers to mist or clouds.  Another phenomenological interpretation is that the sky is a similar colour to water, so "water above the firmament" refers to the appearance of the sky as blue.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Smedley Butler on February 12, 2018, 07:39:14 PM
I understand it as phenomenological language.  That means it describes the appearance of a thing without meaning that is the reality of it. For example, many people speak of the sun rising, even though they think the earth moves around the sun, because it looks like the sun is moving.

When Scripture speaks of a firmament it is talking about what the sky looks like rather than its actual nature.
Does the sky "look" solid and strong to you?
If not, then why did He say that it is?
Do you think He is trying to teach us about something we cannot see?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Smedley Butler on February 12, 2018, 07:46:10 PM
Some scholars who interpret "firmament" as phenomenological language say it refers to mist or clouds.  Another phenomenological interpretation is that the sky is a similar colour to water, so "water above the firmament" refers to the appearance of the sky as blue.
Clearly,  you have not read a single book on the Great Flood all of which hold that the gates & windows of the Firmament opened to release the waters above. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on February 12, 2018, 08:28:04 PM
It wouldn't just be me who is wrong.  It would be virtually every educated Catholic since St. Bede.  

You have a handful of Fathers giving their personal, fallible opinions that the earth is flat against 1300 years of Catholics (including Saints and Doctors of the Church) saying it is round.
Now Jayne, that simply isn't true.  People know when to fall silent, and many did after the violent backlash with which they were met for holding Scriptural literal flat earth.  Flat earthers deal with it daily, so we know how the so-called learned pound us down to make us feel stupid.  So, while you suggest virtually every educated Catholic since St. Bede knew earth was a globe, you're failing to include the few who didn't fall for the spin, but also, the multitude of ignorant joes who knew that the stuffed shirts of academia were patting each other's backs for nothing. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on February 12, 2018, 08:31:12 PM
I am someone following Church teaching.  Teaching which says the Fathers are giving their personal fallible opinions.  Teaching which says that this is the way Catholics ought to interpret it.

I am not deciding what Scripture says. You are the one doing that.  Why can't you understand that it does not matter what some Fathers said?
You do decide that when you say it shouldn't be interpreted literally. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Jaynek on February 12, 2018, 08:39:33 PM
You do decide that when you say it shouldn't be interpreted literally.
I am saying it because the Church has encouraged me to say it. I did not come up with this on my own.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on February 12, 2018, 08:45:15 PM
I am saying it because the Church has encouraged me to say it. I did not come up with this on my own.
You know better by now, but have made your choice, such as it is. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Jaynek on February 12, 2018, 08:47:21 PM
Now Jayne, that simply isn't true.  People know when to fall silent, and many did after the violent backlash with which they were met for holding Scriptural literal flat earth.  Flat earthers deal with it daily, so we know how the so-called learned pound us down to make us feel stupid.  So, while you suggest virtually every educated Catholic since St. Bede knew earth was a globe, you're failing to include the few who didn't fall for the spin, but also, the multitude of ignorant joes who knew that the stuffed shirts of academia were patting each other's backs for nothing.
What evidence is there that there was a violent backlash against believing in flat earth through the Middle Ages?  This is pure fantasy.

Because there is little recorded about the beliefs of the uneducated we cannot say with certainty what they believed.  It is possible that they believed in a spherical earth.  Uneducated sailors did.  I limit my statement to the educated because that is what there is clear evidence for.

It is absurd to claim as the Catholic position a view that there is no evidence of being taught or believed by Catholics for over a thousand years.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on February 12, 2018, 09:09:27 PM
What evidence is there that there was a violent backlash against believing in flat earth through the Middle Ages?  This is pure fantasy.

Because there is little recorded about the beliefs of the uneducated we cannot say with certainty what they believed.  It is possible that they believed in a spherical earth.  Uneducated sailors did.  I limit my statement to the educated because that is what there is clear evidence for.

It is absurd to claim as the Catholic position a view that there is no evidence of being taught or believed by Catholics for over a thousand years.
No, its not fantasy.  The arguments Cosmas expounds on show how much pressure he endured for arguing against the pagans in 550 AD.  Writings during the Galileo Affair give a clue as to the pressure brought to bear on the Church, let alone individuals.  I've read many docuмents showing how scientists, astronomers, sailors, engineers, etc were made to cooperate. Samuel Rowbotham and others go into detail about this specifically. The billions NASA spends indoctrinating the masses show they are not playing games. Friends I know have struggled with incredible pressures from schools. I've experienced most all of this myself.  As far as the world's concerned, you CANNOT believe earth is flat, or you're really really stupid.  And you will be opposed.     
Yes, over a thousand years. The truth is a teaching as old as Scripture.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Smedley Butler on February 12, 2018, 09:59:03 PM
Does the sky "look" solid and strong to you?
If not, then why did He say that it is?
Do you think He is trying to teach us about something we cannot see?
Still waiting for an answer from Mr Garrison. ..
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on February 12, 2018, 10:45:40 PM



.
.
Fascinating how there has been a 4-page barrage (66 posts) of flat-earther posts trying to bury the thread.
.
Flat-earthers must be terrified of the truth.
.
.


.
The earth's magnetic field is constantly changing. In the past, variation from year to year has been not so great so as to make estimates of location unreliable from place to place worldwide, and such practices as land surveying and navigation at sea have been able to use updated maps for currently reliable data. In recent years, however, the magnetic poles (called dip poles) of the earth have been moving more quickly such that services and trades that rely on currently updated locations of the dip poles have had to obtain more frequent assessment and updates.
.
(https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/image/north_dip_poles.png)
Observed north dip poles during 1831 - 2007 are yellow squares.
Modeled pole locations from 1590 to 2020 are circles progressing from blue to yellow.
.
[Obviously, the locations for 2020, 2019, 2018 and 2017 are estimates. This present data is current as of 2015.]
.
Magnetic poles are defined in different ways. They are commonly understood as positions on the Earth's surface where the geomagnetic field is vertical (i.e., perpendicular) to the ellipsoid. These north and south positions, called dip poles, do not need to be (and are not currently) antipodal. In principle the dip poles can be found by conducting a magnetic survey to determine where the field is vertical. Other definitions of geomagnetic poles depend on the way the poles are computed from a geomagnetic model. In practice the geomagnetic field is vertical on oval-shaped loci traced on a daily basis, with considerable variation from one day to the next.
.

It has been long understood that dip poles migrate over time. In 1831, James Clark Ross located the north dip pole position in northern Canada. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) tracked the North Magnetic Pole, which is slowly drifting across the Canadian Arctic, by periodically carrying out magnetic surveys to reestablish the Pole's location from 1948 to 1994. An international collaboration, led by a French fundraising association, Poly-Arctique, and involving NRCan, Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris and Bureau de Recherche Geologique et Miniere, added two locations of the North Magnetic Pole in 2001 and 2007. The most recent survey determined that the Pole is moving approximately north-northwest at 55 km per year.



Modeled pole locations for magnetic north from 1831 to 2020 [1831.000 - 2020.000 -- these are not observed north pole locations]:
.
222.596 85.370 2011.000 217.521 85.676 2012.000 211.982 85.933 2013.000 206.059 86.138 2014.000 199.975 86.289 2015.000
193.710 86.395 2016.000 187.413 86.455 2017.000 181.245 86.471 2018.000 175.346 86.448 2019.000 169.818 86.391 2020.000
.
[The years' data for 2015 and 2017 (https://www.cathinfo.com/Quote%20from:%20Neil%20Obstat%20on%20Tue%20Oct%2031%202017%2014:28:49%20GMT-0700%20(Pacific%20Daylight%20Time)) are in bold - degrees longitude west, degrees latitude north, year.]
.
The cause of the earth's magnetic field is not actually known, but there are theories proposed that would explain it. It is thought that some large quantity of ferrous material in the earth's core is moving to produce this field, but how much iron, where exactly it's located and how fast it's moving are all unknowns and up for speculation. One thing scientists can agree on is that wherever this iron is precisely, it exists at a temperature of over 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, or perhaps even 2,000, which would mean it would be molten at atmospheric pressure, however, since it is expected to have an ambient pressure of hundreds of atmospheres, the liquidity/solidity or whatever state it is in cannot be certain. In any event, since the magnetic poles of the earth are observed to in fact be moving, we can reasonably presume that the ferrous or iron mass deep within the earth must not only be moving so as to generate this field but must be moving in a variable manner, that is, moving differently today than it has moved in previous centuries.
.
Since it is essentially unknown what forces are acting on the iron inside the earth, we cannot know for sure what kinds of changes the magnetic field will undergo in the future. We can presume to expect it to move in a somewhat predictable manner, but as you can see from the image above, in the years 1732 (George Washington's birthday and the square root of 3), 1859, 1890 and 1900 the north dip pole changed direction of drift quite abruptly and without apparent or observable cause as far as we know (the birth of Washington or the square root of 3 can't explain a pole shift), therefore a similar change could likewise occur in our present age and we have no way of predicting it or even of anticipating when or whether it will occur.
.
.
.
The point is, the magnetic north pole has been moving for centuries, and where it was and where it moved to has been docuмented as shown above.
.
Something is going on inside the earth for this to take place. What exactly that is has yet to be determined but it must be some kind of great movement of physical matter below the surface of the earth.
.
We know there is movement of the oceans' waters, but there is no correspondence between the location of the magnetic north pole and the movement of water in the oceans.
.
Something we cannot see, underground, is moving which produces a change in the location of the magnetic north pole.
.
With the globe earth model, considering volcanic action and earthquakes, it is quite simple to expect that something deep inside the planet Earth moving could cause the magnetic north pole to change positions as it has been recorded (which see).
.
But with the "flat" earth model, what could possibly explain the movement of the magnetic north pole?
.
It is clear that flat-earthism is all founded on superstition, feelings and fantasy, which is unscientific and more.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Jaynek on February 13, 2018, 07:52:55 AM
No, its not fantasy.  The arguments Cosmas expounds on show how much pressure he endured for arguing against the pagans in 550 AD.  Writings during the Galileo Affair give a clue as to the pressure brought to bear on the Church, let alone individuals.  I've read many docuмents showing how scientists, astronomers, sailors, engineers, etc were made to cooperate. Samuel Rowbotham and others go into detail about this specifically. The billions NASA spends indoctrinating the masses show they are not playing games. Friends I know have struggled with incredible pressures from schools. I've experienced most all of this myself.  As far as the world's concerned, you CANNOT believe earth is flat, or you're really really stupid.  And you will be opposed.      
Yes, over a thousand years. The truth is a teaching as old as Scripture.
Please show some quotes to illustrate your points.  What violence did Cosmas face for believing in flat earth?  The only pressure I have ever seen evidence for during the "Galileo Affair" was by the Church and  scientists against Copernicanism.  Show some evidence of pressure put on the Church.  Cite some of these many docuмents.  You are always asking me for proof of my claims, yet you offer completely unsubstantiated, highly improbable assertions.

NASA did not put pressure on St. Bede, St. Albert, St. Thomas, and St. Robert to believe the earth is a sphere.  NASA is not the reason spherical earth was universally taught in the Church run medieval universities.  During the period of Christendom when the Church was a major secular power, arguably the most powerful, who was able to pressure her to, not only accept, but promote spherical earth?

Maybe the reason that people say believing in flat earth is really really stupid is because it really is really really stupid.  There doesn't have to be a conspiracy.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Smedley Butler on February 13, 2018, 08:11:02 AM
She studiously ignored the question: she doesn't want to be shown saying God is really really really stupid for saying the sky is strong and hard.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Ladislaus on February 13, 2018, 08:25:02 AM
Something is going on inside the earth for this to take place. 

So what?  As the article you posted indicates, nobody knows what that "something" is, and so it cannot be demonstrated that this "something" requires a globe earth to happen.

FAIL

When I see really bad arguments being made as if they prove something, it's a clear sign that the person making them has already pre-determined the conclusion or the outcome and is backfilling "arguments" to make it seem plausible.  I see this on both sides here in this debate, and I'm not interested in any of it.  I'm looking for real arguments that will lead me to the truth.

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Ladislaus on February 13, 2018, 08:40:29 AM
STATUS OF THE THEOLOGICAL DEBATE --

JayneK -- these passages in Scripture CANNOT be interpreted literally

Flat Earthers -- these passages in Scripture MUST be interpreted literally

Ladislaus -- it's possible that these passages should be understood literally, but it's also possible that they can be read metaphorically.  Neither one is strictly required by Catholic teaching.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Ladislaus on February 13, 2018, 08:44:47 AM
STATUS OF THE THEOLOGICAL DEBATE 2

JayneK -- Church Fathers who interpreted Scripture as referring to flat earth were wrong

Flat Earthers -- there's nearly unanimous consensus of Church Fathers that Scripture referred to flat earth, and so they must (infallibly) be right and their interpretation regarded as being of faith

Ladislaus -- MOST, but not all, Church Fathers did read Scripture as referring to flat earth, but there's no indication that this interpretation reflected a teaching handed down from the Apostles as part of the Deposit rather than their own thinking (as per Leo XIII's PD) ... so there's no clear evidence of DOGMATIC consensus ... and yet it's also quite possible that they were right (and that cannot be ruled out)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Jaynek on February 13, 2018, 09:13:21 AM
Ladislaus, you really like your "I am not on anybody's side" schtick.  You remind me of the dwarves in the C.S. Lewis story, The Last Battle.  There is a scene in which a major battle is taking place between the forces of good and evil and the dwarves stand off to the side randomly shooting arrows at both sides.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Ladislaus on February 13, 2018, 09:33:44 AM
Ladislaus, you really like your "I am not on anybody's side" schtick.  You remind me of the dwarves in the C.S. Lewis story, The Last Battle.  There is a scene in which a major battle is taking place between the forces of good and evil and the dwarves stand off to the side randomly shooting arrows at both sides.

Well, I usually take very strong positions ... it's just that they rarely line up with the usual "camps".  I often find that both sides make some valid points and then adjust my thinking accordingly.

But your analogy with the dwarves shooting arrows at both sides is probably how it's being perceived by those I take "shots" at.  Except that I don't shoot randomly.  So, for instance, if I find that some arguments made by Sedevacantists seem wrong/false to me, I'll shoot at that.  But if they make good arguments, I accept those.  Same with R&R ... I shoot at the bad arguments (as I see them).  So it's not just random shots.

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on February 13, 2018, 12:49:37 PM
STATUS OF THE THEOLOGICAL DEBATE 2

JayneK -- Church Fathers who interpreted Scripture as referring to flat earth were wrong

Flat Earthers -- there's nearly unanimous consensus of Church Fathers that Scripture referred to flat earth, and so they must (infallibly) be right and their interpretation regarded as being of faith

Ladislaus -- MOST, but not all, Church Fathers did read Scripture as referring to flat earth, but there's no indication that this interpretation reflected a teaching handed down from the Apostles as part of the Deposit rather than their own thinking (as per Leo XIII's PD) ... so there's no clear evidence of DOGMATIC consensus ... and yet it's also quite possible that they were right (and that cannot be ruled out)
From PD
We say, are of supreme authority, whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith. The opinion of the Fathers is also of very great weight when they treat of these matters in their capacity of doctors, unofficially; not only because they excel in their knowledge of revealed doctrine and in their acquaintance with many things which are useful in understanding the apostolic Books, but because they are men of eminent sanctity and of ardent zeal for the truth, on whom God has bestowed a more ample measure of His light. Wherefore the expositor should make it his duty to follow their footsteps with all reverence, and to use their labors with intelligent appreciation.

 But he must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine — not to depart from the literal and obvious sense...



Now, it can be said, strictly speaking, the opinions of the Fathers were not unanimous in this flat geocentric matter, but most of them who opined describe a flat motionless earth. The last bold line (above) must also be considered--the literal sense of Scripture. With these two things in mind, we can say the majority of Fathers were of this opinion, and also, that we ought not depart from the literal and obvious sense of Scripture, concluding it is far wiser to accept what has been given us, knowing that we are utterly devoid of phenomenological or metaphorical interpretations describing the globe. As the evidence mounts for flat earth and against the globe, it seems flat earth has gained a hard won dais, deserving our attention, even an ascent of faith. After all, faith is not about seeing or understanding, but believing even though we don't fully understand; not because we are wise about interpreting Scripture, but because God has provided precious pearls in the form of clues so that we will ask, knock and seek. Even if all of this isn't enough for globalists, they can no longer deny a powerful argument exists from Tradition for the flat earth, nor reasonably entertain the perception that flat earth is automatically false, or stupid.      
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Jaynek on February 13, 2018, 01:16:28 PM
Now, it can be said, strictly speaking, the opinions of the Fathers were not unanimous in this flat geocentric matter, but most of them who opined describe a flat motionless earth. The last bold line (above) must also be considered--the literal sense of Scripture. With these two things in mind, we can say the majority of Fathers were of this opinion, and also, that we ought not depart from the literal and obvious sense of Scripture, concluding it is far wiser to accept what has been given us, knowing that we are utterly devoid of phenomenological or metaphorical interpretations describing the globe. As the evidence mounts for flat earth and against the globe, it seems flat earth has gained a hard won dais, deserving our attention, even an ascent of faith. After all, faith is not about seeing or understanding, but believing even though we don't fully understand; not because we are wise about interpreting Scripture, but because God has provided precious pearls in the form of clues so that we will ask, knock and seek. Even if all of this isn't enough for globalists, they can no longer deny a powerful argument exists from Tradition for the flat earth, nor reasonably entertain the perception that flat earth is automatically false, or stupid.      
A majority of the Fathers (if that is in fact the case) is not the same as the Fathers speaking unanimously.  There is no authority given to things for being the majority view.  Your entire argument rests on a false premise.  And there is no "mounting evidence" for flat earth.  

Nor is there a "powerful argument from Tradition".  Tradition involves beliefs and practices handed down from one generation to the next, not ideas that disappear for 1300 years.  When something that has been gone for this long gets artificially pulled out from the past that is the error of archeologism - you know, the one used to justify Communion in the hand.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on February 13, 2018, 01:36:58 PM
So what?  As the article you posted indicates, nobody knows what that "something" is, and so it cannot be demonstrated that this "something" requires a globe earth to happen.

FAIL

When I see really bad arguments being made as if they prove something, it's a clear sign that the person making them has already pre-determined the conclusion or the outcome and is backfilling "arguments" to make it seem plausible.  I see this on both sides here in this debate, and I'm not interested in any of it.  I'm looking for real arguments that will lead me to the truth.
.
There are two models in question
-- the spherical earth with an enormous spherical core of at least partially molten (hot) material, most likely rich in heavy elements such as iron, which when moving (as electric motors demonstrate) involves magnetic fields;
-- and a "flat" earth with nothing at all underground in motion and consequently nothing to explain a moving magnetic north pole.
.
"So what?" you say. All righty then.
.
I could break it down further for you but I doubt you would pay attention. And flat-earthers would resort to Bible quotes, or the "Church Fathers" who obviously knew nothing about magnetic fields because it was not a topic of discussion yet for hundreds of years yet to come.
.
News flash:  The Bible has no mention of electric motors, magnetism or magnetic fields.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Smedley Butler on February 13, 2018, 01:39:22 PM
I"d bet good money Mr Garrison attends the Novud Ordo Mass.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on February 13, 2018, 01:49:49 PM
.
There are two models in question
-- the spherical earth with an enormous spherical core of at least partially molten (hot) material, most likely rich in heavy elements such as iron, which when moving (as electric motors demonstrate) involves magnetic fields;
-- and a "flat" earth with nothing at all underground in motion and consequently nothing to explain a moving magnetic north pole.
.
"So what?" you say. All righty then.
.
I could break it down further for you but I doubt you would pay attention. And flat-earthers would resort to Bible quotes, or the "Church Fathers" who obviously knew nothing about magnetic fields because it was not a topic of discussion yet for hundreds of years yet to come.
.
News flash:  The Bible has no mention of electric motors, magnetism or magnetic fields.
.
.
... with nothing at all underground in motion and consequently nothing to explain a moving magnetic north pole ... 
.
Should I take it that you're okay with that, then?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on February 13, 2018, 02:58:40 PM
A majority of the Fathers (if that is in fact the case) is not the same as the Fathers speaking unanimously.  There is no authority given to things for being the majority view.  Your entire argument rests on a false premise.  And there is no "mounting evidence" for flat earth.  

Nor is there a "powerful argument from Tradition".  Tradition involves beliefs and practices handed down from one generation to the next, not ideas that disappear for 1300 years.  When something that has been gone for this long gets artificially pulled out from the past that is the error of archeologism - you know, the one used to justify Communion in the hand.
More of the same from Jaynek, always dismissing what is, for what isn't.  Evidence for flat earth coming from Saints and Fathers piles up daily, with no end in sight, forcing to me to do two volumes.  Others will enjoy the pearls of wisdom from the Fathers of the Church, while you cling to the unanimity of Fathers who did not teach that earth is a globe based on Scripture.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on February 13, 2018, 03:34:20 PM
Evidence for flat earth coming from Saints and Fathers piles up daily, with no end in sight, forcing to me to do two volumes.  
.
There is no evidence of "flat" earth to be found anywhere, and that includes from the saints.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on February 13, 2018, 03:42:22 PM
.
There is no evidence of "flat" earth to be found anywhere, and that includes from the saints.
.
Lol
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on February 13, 2018, 03:50:00 PM
.
That's right: There is no evidence of a "flat" earth to be found anywhere, and that includes from the saints and the Fathers.
.

What there IS evidence for is the sphericity of the earth, which is found everywhere we look.
.
We can see it high
We can see it low
We can see it there,
Everywhere we go.
.
We can see it in the east
We can see it in the west
We can hardly tell where we
Can see it that it's the best.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on February 13, 2018, 04:47:23 PM
.
We can see it in the south
We can see it in the north
We can take what we can see
And from there we can go forth
.
Eclipses tell us much
And the moon can tell us more
What we see above the beach
We can see above the shore
.
We can see it from up close
We can see it far away
And the more that we do look
Then the more that we can say
.
A globe is round, you see, 
And the earth is rounder still
No more round there would be found
Would we look beyond the hill
.
The moon rises in the east
And it sets out in the west
As the sun across the sky
So the moon completes the quest
.
When the moon is new it hides
And for us it's hard to see
But for special tools at hand
We can use most tranquilly
.
While the moon is not so fast
Tho' by far it's close to us
Then the sun which passes by
Casts moon's shadow onto us
.
Or when the round, round earth 
Passed between the sun and moon
We get to see our shadow there
Looking like a spoon
;D



Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: kiwiboy on February 13, 2018, 08:22:44 PM
Perhaps when Neil is done waxing long on poetry, he'll explain why the FAA uses flat earth modeling.  Oh, yea.  Its simpler.   :facepalm:


From Edward Hendrie's  The Greatest Lie on Earth: Proof That Our World is Not a Moving Globe.


An FAA publication explains that in order for software to accurately replicate the behavior of aircraft during flight over the earth, the software running the TGF simulator assumes that the earth is flat:

"The observant reader will notice that the aircraft equations of motion were calculated assuming a flat earth and that we here assume the development frame was the NorthEast-Down frame.  This implies necessarily that earth rotation and the variation of the gravity vector with position over the earth were ignored in developing the aircraft equations of motion.  This simplification limits our mathematical model to the flight of aircraft only. The model will not properly handle the flight of sub-orbital craft and spacecraft such as intercontinental ballistic missiles, satellites, or the space shuttle.  The model is adequate for all vehicles traveling under Mach 3."


The only way the FAA can or would assume flat earth for training pilots as this software does, it would have to be very accurate.  It is a ridiculous assumption to suggest that their software could simulate using flat earth models when their pilots will be flying over a globe.   Notice they really do not say that the model is actually inaccurate for vehicles traveling more than Mach 3.


Only a frantic globie would even attempt to explain or justify this. Guess the pilots must be told something when they see the flat earth simulator software. This is the FAA's twisted response.  

 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: aryzia on February 13, 2018, 08:35:39 PM
Perhaps when Neil is done waxing long on poetry, he'll explain why the FAA uses flat earth modeling.  Oh, yea.  Its simpler.   :facepalm:


From Edward Hendrie's  The Greatest Lie on Earth: Proof That Our World is Not a Moving Globe.


An FAA publication explains that in order for software to accurately replicate the behavior of aircraft during flight over the earth, the software running the TGF simulator assumes that the earth is flat:

"The observant reader will notice that the aircraft equations of motion were calculated assuming a flat earth and that we here assume the development frame was the NorthEast-Down frame. This implies necessarily that earth rotation and the variation of the gravity vector with position over the earth were ignored in developing the aircraft equations of motion.  This simplification limits our mathematical model to the flight of aircraft only. The model will not properly handle the flight of sub-orbital craft and spacecraft such as intercontinental ballistic missiles, satellites, or the space shuttle.  The model is adequate for all vehicles traveling under Mach 3."


The only way the FAA can or would assume flat earth for training pilots as this software does, it would have to be very accurate.  It is a ridiculous assumption to suggest that their software could simulate using flat earth models when their pilots will be flying over a globe.   Notice they really do not say that the model is actually inaccurate for vehicles traveling more than Mach 3.


Only a frantic globie would even attempt to explain or justify this. Guess the pilots must be told something when they see the flat earth simulator software. This is the FAA's twisted response.  

 
If anyone has read about the difficulties of translating a globe map to a flat one, they'd know instantly that the FAAs explanation for using flat earth software is garbage.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on February 13, 2018, 10:27:38 PM
.
We can see it high
We can see it low
We can see it there,
Everywhere we go.
.
We can see it in the east
We can see it in the west
We can hardly tell where we
Can see it that it's the best.
.
We can see it in the south
We can see it in the north
We can take what we can see
And from there we can go forth
.
Eclipses tell us much
And the moon can tell us more
What we see above the beach
We can see above the shore
.
We can see it from up close
We can see it far away
And the more that we do look
Then the more that we can say
.
A globe is round, you see,
And the earth is rounder still
No more round there would be found
Would we look beyond the hill
.
The moon rises in the east
And it sets out in the west
As the sun across the sky
So the moon completes the quest
.
When the moon is new it hides
And for us it's hard to see
But for special tools at hand
We can use most tranquilly
.
While the moon is not so fast
Tho' by far it's close to us
Then the sun which passes by
Casts moon's shadow onto us
.
Or when the round, round earth
Passed between the sun and moon
We get to see our shadow there
Looking like a spoon
;D

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: aryzia on February 13, 2018, 10:37:07 PM
Keep your day job. Can't respond. Poetry sucks.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on February 13, 2018, 11:26:38 PM
Keep your day job. Can't respond. Poetry sucks.
.
Poetry does what?
.
I have a 1609 Catholic Bible that infallibly defines "A firmament" (Genesis 1:6, "And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters") as follows: 

.
"Chap. 1.   Ver. 6.   A firmament.  By this name is here understood the whole space between the earth, and the highest stars. The lower part of which divideth the waters that are upon the earth, from those that are above in the clouds."
.
Consequently, the firmament is not any solid or hard material but rather it is the zone or space between the earth and the highest stars which modern man would call the atmosphere and outer space. The water that is divided is the separation between liquid water as it occurs on the surface of the earth and vaporous water as it occurs in clouds in the sky. The ancient Bible authors had no way of understanding that the principal limit of water vapor is the earth's atmosphere. But today, we know that even in outer space, water can exist albeit in a very sparse and expanded form, with much distance between each water molecule without confines of ambient air pressure.

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: WholeFoodsTrad on February 14, 2018, 12:20:40 AM
.
The Bible doesn't need your false-god, golden-calf, flat-earthism for veracity.
.
The Bible has the Church, and flat-earthism has NOTHING.
.
Actually Neil there's little debate amongst scholars of ancient literature that The Bible depicts a Flat and Stationary Earth, with a hard or "firm" dome, with relatively small celestial objects like The Stars and The Sun orbiting it in what Ancient Hebrews called, "The Firmament."  

Furthermore, The Catholic Church has TRADITIONALLY held to a Literal Interpretation of The Scripture.
 
So, accepting The Globe Earth and a Heliocentric Universe/Solar System has forced The Church into a very awkward position and extremely weakened its credibility in all areas of Western Thought.  I mean, if God can't tell The Church something so basic as your home is rocketing around a big massive Sun, but instead tells The Church that the Earth is stationary and unmoving, while also telling Us that we'd all better not miss church on Sundays and we'd better give lots of money to Priests, then this God, would rightly so, seem suspicious (like he was more interested in power and wealth, than in truth since he would appear to not have any truth, in other words, he would appear to have been made up by Old Men, trying to control other Men, Women and Children, with a fairy tale that not surprisingly gave those very same Old Men lots of wealth and power.  

So yes Neil, The Church does need Flat Earth in its War on Modernism.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: aryzia on February 14, 2018, 11:04:27 AM
Actually Neil there's little debate amongst scholars of ancient literature that The Bible depicts a Flat and Stationary Earth, with a hard or "firm" dome, with relatively small celestial objects like The Stars and The Sun orbiting it in what Ancient Hebrews called, "The Firmament."  

Furthermore, The Catholic Church has TRADITIONALLY held to a Literal Interpretation of The Scripture.
 
So, accepting The Globe Earth and a Heliocentric Universe/Solar System has forced The Church into a very awkward position and extremely weakened its credibility in all areas of Western Thought.  I mean, if God can't tell The Church something so basic as your home is rocketing around a big massive Sun, but instead tells The Church that the Earth is stationary and unmoving, while also telling Us that we'd all better not miss church on Sundays and we'd better give lots of money to Priests, then this God, would rightly so, seem suspicious (like he was more interested in power and wealth, than in truth since he would appear to not have any truth, in other words, he would appear to have been made up by Old Men, trying to control other Men, Women and Children, with a fairy tale that not surprisingly gave those very same Old Men lots of wealth and power.  

So yes Neil, The Church does need Flat Earth in its War on Modernism.  
Hmmm... debate that rages today. Would our governments really lie to us? :laugh1:
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Ladislaus on February 14, 2018, 11:46:10 AM
We can see it high
We can see it low
We can see it there,
Everywhere we go.

So Neil has finally cracked.  I was wondering how long it would take.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on February 14, 2018, 05:28:58 PM
Hmmm... debate that rages today. Would our governments really lie to us? :laugh1:
.
There is no "debate raging" today. It's all in your imagination.
.
Everyone knows the earth is a globe, and flat-earthers are fruit cakes. Case closed.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on February 14, 2018, 05:31:04 PM
So Neil has finally cracked.  I was wondering how long it would take.
.
Your whole agenda is to drive others crazy? And now you think you've achieved your goal? Interesting. Happy Ash Wednesday.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on February 14, 2018, 05:32:27 PM
Actually Neil there's little debate amongst scholars of ancient literature that The Bible depicts a Flat and Stationary Earth, with a hard or "firm" dome, with relatively small celestial objects like The Stars and The Sun orbiting it in what Ancient Hebrews called, "The Firmament."  

.
Nonsense.
.
The Church teaches that "a firmament" in Gen. 1:6 is the whole space between the earth and the furthest stars.
.
You lose.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on February 14, 2018, 05:36:52 PM
If anyone has read about the difficulties of translating a globe map to a flat one, they'd know instantly that the FAAs explanation for using flat earth software is garbage.
.
We should all be glad someone like you isn't in charge of our military missile system.
.
Maybe that idiot in Hawaii that pushed the wrong button twice was a flat-earther.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Ladislaus on February 15, 2018, 08:14:01 AM
.
Your whole agenda is to drive others crazy? And now you think you've achieved your goal? Interesting. Happy Ash Wednesday.

How has making an observation become an "agenda"?  I'm looking for the truth.  I am as yet undecided about this issue.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: sundance on February 15, 2018, 11:12:56 PM
I am new to the forum, but I truly believe in a geocentric earth that is certainly not a globe. The reason it is so easy for me, as a traditional catholic, to believe that the earth is not a globe is because a globe leads one to evolution, and atheism.  To believe as the Genesis account in Scripture clearly teaches us, leads one to creationism and to God.  Since coming across this truth I feel much closer to God who is looking down on us from Heaven which is above all of us.


When He ascended into heaven, He did not go up sideways.

Hell is below all of us.

The globalists of the world hate God and have infiltrated with false science to lead one away and now the false religion of Scientism has replaced God's word.

The faith is simple so even the most uneducated of us can easily believe and we do not have to rely on the priests, professors or scientists who, with their intellectual pride, have lead us astray on so many topics.  We can just open our eyes and see the wonderment of His creation right before us and as we see it...flat and stationary. God is not contrary and He did not make it look flat and stationary but in reality it is a spinning ball. through infinite space.  if so, where is Heaven....millions of light years away?? Why would He confuse us so that it is easy for us to believe in aliens and other worlds and evolution?  I think an enemy has done this...sown poison seeds for the unwary and proud.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Student of Qi on February 16, 2018, 12:27:27 AM
I am new to the forum, but I truly believe in a geocentric earth that is certainly not a globe. The reason it is so easy for me, as a traditional catholic, to believe that the earth is not a globe is because a globe leads one to evolution, and atheism.  To believe as the Genesis account in Scripture clearly teaches us, leads one to creationism and to God.  Since coming across this truth I feel much closer to God who is looking down on us from Heaven which is above all of us.


When He ascended into heaven, He did not go up sideways.

Hell is below all of us.

The globalists of the world hate God and have infiltrated with false science to lead one away and now the false religion of Scientism has replaced God's word.

The faith is simple so even the most uneducated of us can easily believe and we do not have to rely on the priests, professors or scientists who, with their intellectual pride, have lead us astray on so many topics.  We can just open our eyes and see the wonderment of His creation right before us and as we see it...flat and stationary. God is not contrary and He did not make it look flat and stationary but in reality it is a spinning ball. through infinite space.  if so, where is Heaven....millions of light years away?? Why would He confuse us so that it is easy for us to believe in aliens and other worlds and evolution?  I think an enemy has done this...sown poison seeds for the unwary and proud.
One of the things I find discouraging with the Flat Earthers is the continual "God feels so much closer then before" argument, which I can't help but think is completely heretical. As Catholics we believe in his Omnipresence, meaning He is everywhere, even inside of us. 
You say "Where is Heaven?" but when Daniel asked God how far away it was, God replied "The length of a prayer". So, if you say a prayer silently in your head it technically did not go anywhere. Therefore, Heaven is inside YOU and there is no need to look up to the sky and think that is how far away your Creator is from you. He sees all, hears all, knows all. You are connected to God most assuredly if you are in the state of Sanctifying Grace and and even the Holy Bible says tjat you are the Temple of The lord, and no one but you can drive him from that Temple. Remember that.
Hence, for me this argument is the worst for embracing Flat Earth.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: hismajesty on February 16, 2018, 04:58:04 AM
One of the things I find discouraging with the Flat Earthers is the continual "God feels so much closer then before" argument, which I can't help but think is completely heretical. As Catholics we believe in his Omnipresence, meaning He is everywhere, even inside of us.
You say "Where is Heaven?" but when Daniel asked God how far away it was, God replied "The length of a prayer". So, if you say a prayer silently in your head it technically did not go anywhere. Therefore, Heaven is inside YOU and there is no need to look up to the sky and think that is how far away your Creator is from you. He sees all, hears all, knows all. You are connected to God most assuredly if you are in the state of Sanctifying Grace and and even the Holy Bible says tjat you are the Temple of The lord, and no one but you can drive him from that Temple. Remember that.
Hence, for me this argument is the worst for embracing Flat Earth.

are you aware of how idiotic what you just said is?

It's not an argument for the flat earth at all. I have never heard a flat earther use this. It is a remark made after the fact of having studied the theological and scientific arguments. It's a remark made based on the KNOWLEDGE that God IS much closer to us (in the literal physical sense) and how that consoles us.

You're just using this as a distraction because you haven't studied the science.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Student of Qi on February 16, 2018, 09:58:56 AM
are you aware of how idiotic what you just said is?

It's not an argument for the flat earth at all. I have never heard a flat earther use this. It is a remark made after the fact of having studied the theological and scientific arguments. It's a remark made based on the KNOWLEDGE that God IS much closer to us (in the literal physical sense) and how that consoles us.

You're just using this as a distraction because you haven't studied the science.
#1: Maybe you are right about it sounding stupid, but cut me some slack. It was midnight and i was very tired. What are YOU doing up at 4 in the morning?
#2: I don't know how long you've been around this forum, but the way some have made this same statment in the past was like offering it as an argument, or at least a good reason. Though that may not be the case with this particular post, my past experiences cause an instinctive reaction to it. I apologize if it was too rash.
#3: I'm not trying to distract, I just saw that post and reacted to it in particular. Sure, you can accuse me of being uneducated in these sciences, but you are also talking to one who is uneducated in general. And as one who has had no real previous thoughts on the matyer before it's presentation on this forum, I have to say that I am more convinced by the works put forth by such as Neil Obstat, St. Ignatious, and maybe a couple of comments of a poster who is no longer with us. From the outside looking in, the Flat Earthers have a number of folks who discredit their position like S.B. Meg, and TiE, and even happenby; not just because they have been slinging mud like mad babies in a sand box (folks like Neil included), but because when faced with various questions they just fall silent and can give no explaination, or throw a tantrum and derail the thread so as to avoid the issue. Even worse is when you offer tgem something to consider and they don't even jave the decency to look at it. I've personally experienced this back in a thread about maps and theid inefficiency.
From the outside looking in, Flat Earth is being destroyed on the logical argument scale. The opinion I'm inclined to currently is that the Earth is round, but not perfectly; does not move; the stars, moon, and sun circle around it.
I welcome you to keep trying. Maybe one day I'll be a Flat Earther, but it doesn't seem like that will be any time soon...
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on February 16, 2018, 10:18:20 AM
#1: Maybe you are right about it sounding stupid, but cut me some slack. It was midnight and i was very tired. What are YOU doing up at 4 in the morning?
#2: I don't know how long you've been around this forum, but the way some have made this same statment in the past was like offering it as an argument, or at least a good reason. Though that may not be the case with this particular post, my past experiences cause an instinctive reaction to it. I apologize if it was too rash.
#3: I'm not trying to distract, I just saw that post and reacted to it in particular. Sure, you can accuse me of being uneducated in these sciences, but you are also talking to one who is uneducated in general. And as one who has had no real previous thoughts on the matyer before it's presentation on this forum, I have to say that I am more convinced by the works put forth by such as Neil Obstat, St. Ignatious, and maybe a couple of comments of a poster who is no longer with us. From the outside looking in, the Flat Earthers have a number of folks who discredit their position like S.B. Meg, and TiE, and even happenby; not just because they have been slinging mud like mad babies in a sand box (folks like Neil included), but because when faced with various questions they just fall silent and can give no explaination, or throw a tantrum and derail the thread so as to avoid the issue. Even worse is when you offer tgem something to consider and they don't even jave the decency to look at it. I've personally experienced this back in a thread about maps and theid inefficiency.
From the outside looking in, Flat Earth is being destroyed on the logical argument scale. The opinion I'm inclined to currently is that the Earth is round, but not perfectly; does not move; the stars, moon, and sun circle around it.
I welcome you to keep trying. Maybe one day I'll be a Flat Earther, but it doesn't seem like that will be any time soon...
You say when flat earthers are faced with various questions they just fall silent and can give no explanation.  Now, while its true, flat earthers cannot explain everything about the flat earth model, the one thing they claim beyond doubt is that earth is not a globe.  And for that, we have proof.  Globalists have no proof earth is a globe.  Globalists have no explanation for why there is no curve, how water sticks to a ball, why boats do not disappear behind the curve, even how Scripture describes a flat earth and traditional teaching on the subject.  Yet, you come in here and say we can't explain.  Now, that's weird.  When globalists can address any one of these, we can discuss what flat earthers don't know.  Until then, the ball is in the globalist camp.     
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Ladislaus on February 16, 2018, 10:56:35 AM
are you aware of how idiotic what you just said is?

It's not an argument for the flat earth at all. I have never heard a flat earther use this. It is a remark made after the fact of having studied the theological and scientific arguments. It's a remark made based on the KNOWLEDGE that God IS much closer to us (in the literal physical sense) and how that consoles us.

You're just using this as a distraction because you haven't studied the science.

This was one of the answers give when I initially asked why it's so important that earth be flat vs. a globe.  So, while not an argument for flat earth per se, it's an argument some here have used to explain why this is such a big deal and why you can't be a good Catholic and believe in globe earth.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on February 16, 2018, 11:15:02 AM
You say "Where is Heaven?" but when Daniel asked God how far away it was, God replied "The length of a prayer". So, if you say a prayer silently in your head it technically did not go anywhere. Therefore, Heaven is inside YOU and there is no need to look up to the sky and think that is how far away your Creator is from you.

So you believe that Heaven is inside us, and that Heaven is not an actual place? Is that really what the Catholic Church teaches? Somehow I think not. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on February 16, 2018, 11:32:14 AM
Yeah...  When I read that, my "Christian Charismatic" radar went off.  

Yes, it does sound like charismatic nonsense.

And it also sounds "new age." Those involved in, say, transcendental mediation believe in that part of scripture that says that "the kingdom of God is within you." But this does not suffice, we have Our Lord's Ascension into Heaven, and Our Lady's assumption, so Heaven can't just be in our minds.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Smedley Butler on February 16, 2018, 11:34:13 AM
I am new to the forum, but I truly believe in a geocentric earth that is certainly not a globe. The reason it is so easy for me, as a traditional catholic, to believe that the earth is not a globe is because a globe leads one to evolution, and atheism.  To believe as the Genesis account in Scripture clearly teaches us, leads one to creationism and to God.  Since coming across this truth I feel much closer to God who is looking down on us from Heaven which is above all of us.


When He ascended into heaven, He did not go up sideways.

Hell is below all of us.

The globalists of the world hate God and have infiltrated with false science to lead one away and now the false religion of Scientism has replaced God's word.

The faith is simple so even the most uneducated of us can easily believe and we do not have to rely on the priests, professors or scientists who, with their intellectual pride, have lead us astray on so many topics.  We can just open our eyes and see the wonderment of His creation right before us and as we see it...flat and stationary. God is not contrary and He did not make it look flat and stationary but in reality it is a spinning ball. through infinite space.  if so, where is Heaven....millions of light years away?? Why would He confuse us so that it is easy for us to believe in aliens and other worlds and evolution?  I think an enemy has done this...sown poison seeds for the unwary and proud.
Bravo, well said! 
Welcome to another flat earther!
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Smedley Butler on February 16, 2018, 11:37:32 AM
One of the things I find discouraging with the Flat Earthers is the continual "God feels so much closer then before" argument, which I can't help but think is completely heretical. As Catholics we believe in his Omnipresence, meaning He is everywhere, even inside of us.
You say "Where is Heaven?" but when Daniel asked God how far away it was, God replied "The length of a prayer". So, if you say a prayer silently in your head it technically did not go anywhere. Therefore, Heaven is inside YOU and there is no need to look up to the sky and think that is how far away your Creator is from you. He sees all, hears all, knows all. You are connected to God most assuredly if you are in the state of Sanctifying Grace and and even the Holy Bible says tjat you are the Temple of The lord, and no one but you can drive him from that Temple. Remember that.
Hence, for me this argument is the worst for embracing Flat Earth.
The grace of God is inside us,  NOT heaven.
Heaven is literally closer on the flat earth model than on the heliocentrist's spinning ball with no heaven to be found anywhere. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Student of Qi on February 16, 2018, 12:21:57 PM
Yes, it does sound like charismatic nonsense.

And it also sounds "new age." Those involved in, say, transcendental mediation believe in that part of scripture that says that "the kingdom of God is within you." But this does not suffice, we have Our Lord's Ascension into Heaven, and Our Lady's assumption, so Heaven can't just be in our minds.
If we are a part of the Church and the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and the His Body is part of His kingdome, I think it logical to conclude that we are "incorporated" into God and and likewise His Kingdome inside us. Is it that hard to comprehend? It seems a simple matter to me... I do knot deny that Heaven is also a physical place, but it also has a spiritual nature, and the spiritual envelopes the physical in a way i don't think most will ever even partly understand.
 
And once again, you commit another sin against charity, presuming one to be charismatic and a practitioner of transendental meditation. Just because you think you are a good, knowledgable christian does not mean you understand anything about Eastern terms, their applications, origins, or reality. How many books have you read on biology, reflexology, energy, martial arts, exercises, and actually put it into practice in the physical world?

I would like to write more on the first paragraph, but my phone is acting weird so I'll leave it at this for now.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on February 16, 2018, 12:27:09 PM

Just because you think you are a good, knowledgable christian does not mean you understand anything about Eastern terms, their applications, origins, or reality. How many books have you read on biology, reflexology, energy, martial arts, exercises, and actually put it into practice in the physical world?


Actually, I was a new ager long ago. I do know something about it.

Your user name - "Student of Qi." I assume that you are a practitioner of Qi/Chi? 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on February 16, 2018, 12:30:11 PM
If we are a part of the Church and the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and the His Body is part of His kingdome, I think it logical to conclude that we are "incorporated" into God and and likewise His Kingdome inside us. Is it that hard to comprehend? It seems a simple matter to me... I do knot deny that Heaven is also a physical place, but it also has a spiritual nature, and the spiritual envelopes the physical in a way i don't think most will ever even partly understand.
 

If you don't deny that Heaven is a physical place, then why do you accuse flat-earthers for believing as such?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Student of Qi on February 16, 2018, 12:33:32 PM
Actually, I was a new ager long ago. I do know something about it.

Your user name - "Student of Qi." I assume that you are a practitioner of Qi/Chi?
To certain degree, yes, but what you think of as Qi is most likely not what I and many shaolin monks and average martial artists think of it as. Let's take this to another thread, and tell me what you believe "Qi" is.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on February 16, 2018, 12:37:23 PM
To certain degree, yes, but what you think of as Qi is most likely not what I and many shaolin monks and average martial artists think of it as. Let's take this to another thread, and tell me what you believe "Qi" is.

I could care less about how you have incorporated your new age beliefs into Catholicism. You are hardly the first to do so. But you are wrong to believe that we have to accept you error.

That "God is within you" is a common theme of new agers.

Heaven is place. That's what the Church teaches. 

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: sundance on February 16, 2018, 01:54:26 PM
Student of IQ said:
"One of the things I find discouraging with the Flat Earthers is the continual "God feels so much closer then before" argument, which I can't help but think is completely heretical. As Catholics we believe in his Omnipresence, meaning He is everywhere, even inside of us. 
You say "Where is Heaven?" but when Daniel asked God how far away it was, God replied "The length of a prayer". So, if you say a prayer silently in your head it technically did not go anywhere. Therefore, Heaven is inside YOU and there is no need to look up to the sky and think that is how far away your Creator is from you. He sees all, hears all, knows all. You are connected to God most assuredly if you are in the state of Sanctifying Grace and and even the Holy Bible says tjat you are the Temple of The lord, and no one but you can drive him from that Temple. Remember that.
Hence, for me this argument is the worst for embracing Flat Earth."

Catechism  Question:
 
Where is God?
 
God is everywhere, but He shows forth His glory especially in Heaven.
 
Isaiah    40:22
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on February 16, 2018, 02:06:31 PM
.
I have a 1609 Catholic Bible that infallibly defines "A firmament" (Genesis 1:6, "And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters") as follows: 

.
"Chap. 1.   Ver. 6.   A firmament.  By this name is here understood the whole space between the earth, and the highest stars. The lower part of which divideth the waters that are upon the earth, from those that are above in the clouds."
.
Consequently, the firmament is not any solid or hard material but rather it is the zone or space between the earth and the highest stars which modern man would call the atmosphere and outer space. The water that is divided is the separation between liquid water as it occurs on the surface of the earth and vaporous water as it occurs in clouds in the sky. The ancient Bible authors had no way of understanding that the principal limit of water vapor is the earth's atmosphere. But today, we know that even in outer space, water can exist albeit in a very sparse and expanded form, with much distance between each water molecule without confines of ambient air pressure.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on February 16, 2018, 02:07:47 PM


Heaven is place. That's what the Church teaches.
.
Where do you find the Church teaching that "heaven is place?"
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Student of Qi on February 16, 2018, 02:35:11 PM
I could care less about how you have incorporated your new age beliefs into Catholicism. You are hardly the first to do so. But you are wrong to believe that we have to accept you error.

That "God is within you" is a common theme of new agers.

Heaven is place. That's what the Church teaches.
You are still wrong to maintain I have anything to do with new agers. Maybe it's your own assoiations with them that makes you like a rock to argue with. If you don't want to hear what I have to say, so be it. But you know nothing of my studies, nor anything of how it has helped ailing people around me. You are presumptuous.
  Secondly, I don't care if you think the same thing(s) I do on this matter and you are again presumtuous for thinking I believe you have to hold the same ideals as me.
  Third, you can't claim I'm imppssing my "error" on others when you don't even actually know what I think. - And I mean this in respect to the subject of qi, since this is what it seems to me that you are refering to.

If there is something wrong with my statement of heaven or at least a part of it being interior, I retract it. I've already apologielzed previously. But it's probably heterodox at the very least.

I also contend with you on the "God is within you", as a Catholic you should now that is what the Church teaches. Especially ao in terms of the reception of the Eucharist, because as we change food we eat into our bodily materials, the oppoite happens with the Eucharist. It is in the Catechism that it changes us in to the Body of Christ. So, yes, God is in us both physically and spiritualy.
However, I get this is not what new agers probably mean by that.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Student of Qi on February 16, 2018, 03:07:53 PM
You say when flat earthers are faced with various questions they just fall silent and can give no explanation.  Now, while its true, flat earthers cannot explain everything about the flat earth model, the one thing they claim beyond doubt is that earth is not a globe.  And for that, we have proof.  Globalists have no proof earth is a globe.  Globalists have no explanation for why there is no curve, how water sticks to a ball, why boats do not disappear behind the curve, even how Scripture describes a flat earth and traditional teaching on the subject.  Yet, you come in here and say we can't explain.  Now, that's weird.  When globalists can address any one of these, we can discuss what flat earthers don't know.  Until then, the ball is in the globalist camp.    
Getting back on subject...

The Flat Earthers may unanimously say the Earth is not a globe, but they have not provided mathematics or other such articles that I believe I can agree with without reserve. Neil has provided articles on the function of telecommunications, and St. Ignatious has provided some insight into the use of radio waves and their need for factoring in curves, etc. Flat Earthers have not provided examples other then the lack of horizon and some pieces of scripture that are not explicitly in favor of F.E. even if it COULD be understood that way.
 Also, for me AES' demonstration of the lack of unanimity of the fathers and their understanding/use of scripture (esp. St. Basil) convinces me that scripture is not enough. This especially because the F.Es are saying the Church in antiquity supports F.E. but on the flip side is the bits from Challoner -for example- which make a full contradiction that what the F.E.ers are saying, because the Challoner is approved. That would mean the Church is wrong... and we don't want to go there.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: kiwiboy on February 16, 2018, 03:36:20 PM
Getting back on subject...

The Flat Earthers may unanimously say the Earth is not a globe, but they have not provided mathematics or other such articles that I believe I can agree with without reserve. Neil has provided articles on the function of telecommunications, and St. Ignatious has provided some insight into the use of radio waves and their need for factoring in curves, etc. Flat Earthers have not provided examples other then the lack of horizon and some pieces of scripture that are not explicitly in favor of F.E. even if it COULD be understood that way.
 Also, for me AES' demonstration of the lack of unanimity of the fathers and their understanding/use of scripture (esp. St. Basil) convinces me that scripture is not enough. This especially because the F.Es are saying the Church in antiquity supports F.E. but on the flip side is the bits from Challoner -for example- which make a full contradiction that what the F.E.ers are saying, because the Challoner is approved. That would mean the Church is wrong... and we don't want to go there.
Globers have not provided a single proof of the curve, or a single proof for water that sticks to the outside of a ball.  They have not explained how entire ocean bodies of water curve.  The rest of their explanations are lengthy but unconvincing on any subject, but mostly because they fail to address the big questions.  As for Challoner, if that is all you took away from the recent discussions, you're dismissing the argument for a very minor piece of evidence that may or may not support your position.  The problem with the glober's arguments is the content.  Sometimes, they look impressive, but when examined closely, they do not work.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on February 16, 2018, 03:49:52 PM
.
The following web page gives a general explanation for the phenomenon of refraction over the surface of the earth.
Factors such as air temperature, air density, water vapor and distance to subject viewed must be considered:
.
https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/bending.html
.
Calculating Ray Bending
Introduction
Mirages and other refraction phenomena (https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/phenomena.html) are the result of the bending of rays in the Earth's atmosphere. But how much do rays bend? This page shows how to estimate the bending from simple information on temperature gradients (https://aty.sdsu.edu/glossary.html#gradient) in the lower atmosphere.

I'll try to keep the treatment as simple as possible here, so a lot of refinements needed for an accurate calculation will be ignored. My aim is to show the basic physics, not to produce exact numbers. The accuracy of the results will be roughly 10%. (I'll also give the results of more accurate calculations for comparison.)

This kind of rough approximation is what one of my professors used to call a “bathtub calculation” — the sort of thing you can do in your head in the bathtub, without pencil and paper. (I'll actually not be quite that rough, so that the numerical results will be useful practical guides.)

By the way: if you're not familiar with the concepts of geometrical optics (https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/optics/optintro.html), I suggest you take a look at my introduction to optics (https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/optics/optintro.html) page, before proceeding.

Basic facts
Let's start out with some basic facts about the atmosphere. Air is nearly a perfect gas, so its density (https://aty.sdsu.edu/glossary.html#density) is accurately given by the ideal gas law, and so is proportional to P/T, where P is the pressure, and T is the (absolute) temperature. (We don't need to worry about the “gas constant” or what units we're using, because only relative changes will be needed here.)

The density is important, because rays of light are bent toward the denser gas where the density changes from place to place. Air is densest near or at the surface of the Earth, and its refractivity (https://aty.sdsu.edu/glossary.html#refractivity) is very nearly proportional to the density.

The atmosphere is also curved, as it follows the shape of the Earth. In the calculations below, we'll adopt a rough value of 6400 km as the radius of curvature, to make the calculations simple. We'll also assume the density depends only on distance from the center of curvature — a pretty good assumption.

We'll measure temperatures in Celsius degrees, which are 9/5 the size of Fahrenheit degrees. Just a reminder: temperatures have to be measured from absolute zero, which is −273°C. That means a comfortable outdoor temperature of 25°C (77°F) is nearly 300 K, where the “K” means temperature on the absolute scale, named after Lord Kelvin; the Kelvin scale has degrees the same size as Celsius degrees, but starts at absolute zero instead of at the freezing point of water. I'll use 300 K as a typical temperature, even though it's a little warmer than average.

Straight lines (https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/optics/optintro.html#straight_lines)?
Everybody says “light travels in straight lines,” but if that were true we wouldn't have atmospheric refraction or mirages. The common saying should be amended by adding “in a homogeneous medium,” but everybody forgets to mention that. (Air isn't homogeneous: it has different densities at different heights above the surface. That's the whole point of this exercise.)

Even if the air were isothermal (i.e., if it had the same temperature everywhere), it wouldn't have the same density everywhere, because it's in hydrostatic equilibrium (https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/thermal/hydrostatic.html): the air at each level in compressed by the weight of the air above it. The higher you go, the less compression; the density is lower at greater heights (which is why it's hard to breathe on mountaintops, and why jet airliners have to be pressurized.) So let's first figure out how to make the atmosphere (locally) homogeneous.

Obviously, if the density is decreasing upward because of the decreasing pressure, we can counteract this decrease by changing the temperature. In fact, the pressure falls off by about 1 part in 8000 for every meter of increase in height above sea level. We can compensate for this by decreasing the temperature by the same 1 part in 8000 for every meter of height. If the temperature is 300 K, we'll need a temperature decrease with height of 300°/8000 m, or .0375° per meter, to make up for the effect of decreasing pressure. If the temperature is colder than 300 K, a proportionately smaller lapse rate (https://aty.sdsu.edu/glossary.html#lapse) will suffice.

(For comparison, Wegener (https://aty.sdsu.edu/reading.html#Wegener) (191 (https://aty.sdsu.edu/bibliog/bibliog.html#Wegener1918N)8 ) calculates a value of 0.034°/m for 273 K; so the “bathtub” estimate is off by less than 10%, as promised above.)

Rays will be perfectly straight in a layer with this lapse rate (https://aty.sdsu.edu/glossary.html#lapse) ; but such a temperature gradient hardly ever occurs. It's over three times the adiabatic lapse rate (i.e., the gradient assumed by air in free convection), so this large drop in temperature with height can be maintained only near a warm surface. In models that reproduce inferior mirages over water, this value is reached only in the lowest 10 meters or so of the atmosphere.

An aside
You may have noticed, when I did the division a couple of paragraphs above, that a length of 8000 m somehow appeared in the denominator. This turns out to be the height the whole atmosphere would have if it had the same density throughout that it actually has at sea level. It's sometimes called “the height of the homogeneous atmosphere (https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/thermal/hydrostatic.html#homog),” or the “scale height” of the atmosphere. (Radau (https://aty.sdsu.edu/bibliog/bibliog.html#Radau1882j) calls it the reduced height — a better name.) Although the real atmosphere actually extends much higher than this, it's a useful characteristic length to keep in mind.

Circulating rays
Next, let's ask what temperature gradient will bend the rays so they follow the curve of the Earth. This condition divides temperature profiles that produce ducting from those without a duct (https://aty.sdsu.edu/glossary.html#duct). As ducts produce certain types of mirages (https://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirintro.html#sup-mir), it is helpful to understand the minimum requirements for a duct.

Note that a ray concentric with the surface of the Earth is not straight, but it is always “horizontal” — in contrast to the ray discussed in the previous section, which was really straight, and so could be horizontal at only one point. (See the figure below.)

Some people have worried about how to apply the refraction law to such a horizontal ray of light, because it does not cross any horizontal boundaries between denser and less-dense air in a stratified atmosphere. (In general, the curvature of the ray is different from the curvature of the Earth's surface; but here, we are only concerned with rays that bend just enough to follow the curve of the Earth.) The simplest solution to the “horizontal-ray paradox” is to remind ourselves that “rays” are an unrealistic mental construct: in reality, we always have a beam of light; infinitely narrow “rays” don't really exist. So let's just apply Huygens's principle (https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/optics/Huygens.html#principle) to such a beam:
(https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/figs/circ.gif)In the figure at the left, the heavy arc denotes the surface of the Earth, with center at C, and the lighter arcs AB and A'B' concentric with it represent the sides of a beam of light propagating at constant height above the surface, from AA' to BB'. We can regard AA' and BB' as wavefronts of the (bending) horizontal beam at two different places; the direction of propagation is perpendicular to the wavefront. (Equivalently, we can say that the direction of propagation of a horizontal beam must always be perpendicular to the local vertical; the radial lines CAA' and CBB' radiating from the center of the Earth are the local verticals at A and B respectively.)

Evidently, to make the beam follow the Earth's curvature, its lower edge AB must travel more slowly than its upper edge A'B'. The speed of propagation is in fact just inversely proportional to the refractive index, n. As the distance to be traversed by our circulating beam is proportional to the distance R  from the center of the Earth, we require that 1/n (which is proportional to the speed) be proportional to R ; or, in other words, we need the product nR  to be constant, independent of height above the Earth. (This will make the “optical path length” along AB the same as along A'B'.)

[If you find this argument too superficial to be convincing, you can go read the more rigorous derivations of the nR = constant condition by Biot (1836) (https://aty.sdsu.edu/bibliog/bibliog.html#Biot1836R), by Auer and Standish (2000) (https://aty.sdsu.edu/bibliog/bibliog.html#Auer+Standish2000B), or one of the papers cited in my “horizontal-ray paradox” file, such as Bravais (1856) (https://aty.sdsu.edu/bibliog/bibliog.html#Bravais1856z) or Thomson (1872) (https://aty.sdsu.edu/bibliog/bibliog.html#Thomson1872j). There's also a wonderful mathematical treatment of circulating rays by Kummer (1860) (https://aty.sdsu.edu/bibliog/bibliog.html#Kummer1860=); a French translation of it by Verdet (1861) (https://aty.sdsu.edu/bibliog/bibliog.html#Verdet1861x) is available on Gallica.]

To have nR  remain constant with height, n must decrease by 1 part in 6.4 × 106 for every meter of height, as R = 6400 km = 6.4 × 106 m. But the refractivity ( n − 1 ) is only about 1/3200 of n ; so the density of the air [which is proportional to ( n − 1 ), not to n] must fall by about 3200/6.4 × 106 m, or 1 part in 2000 for every meter.

Now, the decrease in density due to the decrease in pressure with height (1 part in 8000 per meter) is only 1/4 of this, so we need 3 times as much decrease from the temperature gradient, or 3 parts in 8000 per meter. That means the temperature must increase by 3 parts in 8000 of the 300 K, or about 900/8000 of a degree = 0.11° per meter. So a temperature inversion (i.e., increasing upward, instead of the usual decrease) of about 0.11°/m will produce a circulating beam or ray.

As a check, we can do the arithmetic a little differently. Because the refractive index n decreases by 1 part in a million per degree, and we need a decrease in n of 1 part in 6.4 million per meter, we would need about 1/6.4 of a degree per meter if the pressure stayed constant. But, as the pressure alone gives an effect equivalent to 3/80 of a degree per meter, we really need only ( 1/6.4 − 3/80 ); or, expressing the fractions as decimals, about 0.16 − 0.04 = 0.12°/m. (The lapse rate is, of course, the negative of this value.)

[For comparison, Wegener (191 (https://aty.sdsu.edu/reading.html#Wegener)8 ) gives 0.114°/m as the critical temperature gradient; and J. de Graaff Hunter (1913) (https://aty.sdsu.edu/bibliog/bibliog.html#GraaffHunter1913k) gives 0.066°F/foot, which corresponds to 0.116°C/m.]

Note that −0.12°/m is −120°/km, almost −20 times the lapse rate of 6.5K/km in the Standard Atmosphere (https://aty.sdsu.edu/glossary.html#Standard_Atmosphere). So the slight change of temperature with height in the Standard Atmosphere has hardly any effect on the ray curvature. This justifies, a posteriori, the neglect of temperature effects at the start of the arguments presented on this page.

Ray curvature in an arbitrary atmosphere
We can now estimate the ray curvature for any temperature gradient. If a positive lapse rate of 0.034 K/m produces straight rays (zero curvature), and a negative lapse rate of 0.12 K/m makes the rays match the curvature of the Earth, then for every (0.12 + 0.034 = 0.154) K/m change in lapse rate, the ray curvature changes by 1 in units of the Earth's curvature. So the ray curvature for an arbitrary lapse rate  γ K/m will be

k  = ( 0.034 − γ ) / 0.154 ,
where we take γ to be positive if the temperature decreases with height, and a positive curvature means a ray concave toward the Earth.

Example 1: the Standard Atmosphere (https://aty.sdsu.edu/glossary.html#Standard_Atmosphere): In the Standard Atmosphere, the lapse rate is 6.5°/km or  γ = 0.0065 K/m. The numerator of the formula above becomes .034 − .0065 = .0275, so the ratio k is about 1/5.6 or 0.179. In other words, the ray curvature is not quite 18% that of the Earth; the radius of curvature of the ray is about 5.6 times the Earth's radius.

Example 2: free convection:In free convection, the (adiabatic) lapse rate is about 10.6°/km or  γ = 0.0106 K/m. The numerator of the formula above becomes .034 − .0106 = .0234, so the ratio k is about 1/6.6 or 0.152. In other words, the ray curvature is about 15% that of the Earth; the radius of curvature of the ray is about 6.6 times the Earth's radius. This is close to the condition of the atmosphere near the ground in the middle of the day, when most surveying is done; the value calculated is close to the values found in practical survey work.

Bear in mind that these values apply only near sea level. At great elevations, the density of the air is less, so the ray curvature is also less. Likewise, these estimates are for sea-level temperatures near 300 K; in cold places, the density of the air is greater, and so is the ray curvature. And remember that these curvature estimates apply only to rays that are horizontal, or nearly so.

Note: You might have noticed that these values around 1/6 are about the fraction by which the setting Sun is flattened at the horizon. This is not a coincidence; these two quantities are in fact equal, as can easily be shown (https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/flattening.html).

Historical note
The method used here to find the ratio of curvatures of the ray and the Earth is essentially the argument employed by Thomas Young (https://aty.sdsu.edu/bibliog/bibliog.html#Young1821h) in 1821. He also obtained a ratio of 5.6, as in the first example above.

Copyright © 2002 – 2009, 2012, 2016, 2018 Andrew T. Young
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: kiwiboy on February 16, 2018, 04:18:39 PM
.
The following web page gives a general explanation for the phenomenon of refraction over the surface of the earth.
Factors such as air temperature, air density, water vapor and distance to subject viewed must be considered:
.
https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/bending.html
.
Calculating Ray Bending
Introduction
Mirages and other refraction phenomena (https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/phenomena.html) are the result of the bending of rays in the Earth's atmosphere. But how much do rays bend? This page shows how to estimate the bending from simple information on temperature gradients (https://aty.sdsu.edu/glossary.html#gradient) in the lower atmosphere.

I'll try to keep the treatment as simple as possible here, so a lot of refinements needed for an accurate calculation will be ignored. My aim is to show the basic physics, not to produce exact numbers. The accuracy of the results will be roughly 10%. (I'll also give the results of more accurate calculations for comparison.)

This kind of rough approximation is what one of my professors used to call a “bathtub calculation” — the sort of thing you can do in your head in the bathtub, without pencil and paper. (I'll actually not be quite that rough, so that the numerical results will be useful practical guides.)

By the way: if you're not familiar with the concepts of geometrical optics (https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/optics/optintro.html), I suggest you take a look at my introduction to optics (https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/optics/optintro.html) page, before proceeding.

Basic facts
Let's start out with some basic facts about the atmosphere. Air is nearly a perfect gas, so its density (https://aty.sdsu.edu/glossary.html#density) is accurately given by the ideal gas law, and so is proportional to P/T, where P is the pressure, and T is the (absolute) temperature. (We don't need to worry about the “gas constant” or what units we're using, because only relative changes will be needed here.)

The density is important, because rays of light are bent toward the denser gas where the density changes from place to place. Air is densest near or at the surface of the Earth, and its refractivity (https://aty.sdsu.edu/glossary.html#refractivity) is very nearly proportional to the density.

The atmosphere is also curved, as it follows the shape of the Earth. In the calculations below, we'll adopt a rough value of 6400 km as the radius of curvature, to make the calculations simple. We'll also assume the density depends only on distance from the center of curvature — a pretty good assumption.

We'll measure temperatures in Celsius degrees, which are 9/5 the size of Fahrenheit degrees. Just a reminder: temperatures have to be measured from absolute zero, which is −273°C. That means a comfortable outdoor temperature of 25°C (77°F) is nearly 300 K, where the “K” means temperature on the absolute scale, named after Lord Kelvin; the Kelvin scale has degrees the same size as Celsius degrees, but starts at absolute zero instead of at the freezing point of water. I'll use 300 K as a typical temperature, even though it's a little warmer than average.

Straight lines (https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/optics/optintro.html#straight_lines)?
Everybody says “light travels in straight lines,” but if that were true we wouldn't have atmospheric refraction or mirages. The common saying should be amended by adding “in a homogeneous medium,” but everybody forgets to mention that. (Air isn't homogeneous: it has different densities at different heights above the surface. That's the whole point of this exercise.)

Even if the air were isothermal (i.e., if it had the same temperature everywhere), it wouldn't have the same density everywhere, because it's in hydrostatic equilibrium (https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/thermal/hydrostatic.html): the air at each level in compressed by the weight of the air above it. The higher you go, the less compression; the density is lower at greater heights (which is why it's hard to breathe on mountaintops, and why jet airliners have to be pressurized.) So let's first figure out how to make the atmosphere (locally) homogeneous.

Obviously, if the density is decreasing upward because of the decreasing pressure, we can counteract this decrease by changing the temperature. In fact, the pressure falls off by about 1 part in 8000 for every meter of increase in height above sea level. We can compensate for this by decreasing the temperature by the same 1 part in 8000 for every meter of height. If the temperature is 300 K, we'll need a temperature decrease with height of 300°/8000 m, or .0375° per meter, to make up for the effect of decreasing pressure. If the temperature is colder than 300 K, a proportionately smaller lapse rate (https://aty.sdsu.edu/glossary.html#lapse) will suffice.

(For comparison, Wegener (https://aty.sdsu.edu/reading.html#Wegener) (191 (https://aty.sdsu.edu/bibliog/bibliog.html#Wegener1918N)8 ) calculates a value of 0.034°/m for 273 K; so the “bathtub” estimate is off by less than 10%, as promised above.)

Rays will be perfectly straight in a layer with this lapse rate (https://aty.sdsu.edu/glossary.html#lapse) ; but such a temperature gradient hardly ever occurs. It's over three times the adiabatic lapse rate (i.e., the gradient assumed by air in free convection), so this large drop in temperature with height can be maintained only near a warm surface. In models that reproduce inferior mirages over water, this value is reached only in the lowest 10 meters or so of the atmosphere.

An aside
You may have noticed, when I did the division a couple of paragraphs above, that a length of 8000 m somehow appeared in the denominator. This turns out to be the height the whole atmosphere would have if it had the same density throughout that it actually has at sea level. It's sometimes called “the height of the homogeneous atmosphere (https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/thermal/hydrostatic.html#homog),” or the “scale height” of the atmosphere. (Radau (https://aty.sdsu.edu/bibliog/bibliog.html#Radau1882j) calls it the reduced height — a better name.) Although the real atmosphere actually extends much higher than this, it's a useful characteristic length to keep in mind.

Circulating rays
Next, let's ask what temperature gradient will bend the rays so they follow the curve of the Earth. This condition divides temperature profiles that produce ducting from those without a duct (https://aty.sdsu.edu/glossary.html#duct). As ducts produce certain types of mirages (https://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirintro.html#sup-mir), it is helpful to understand the minimum requirements for a duct.

Note that a ray concentric with the surface of the Earth is not straight, but it is always “horizontal” — in contrast to the ray discussed in the previous section, which was really straight, and so could be horizontal at only one point. (See the figure below.)

Some people have worried about how to apply the refraction law to such a horizontal ray of light, because it does not cross any horizontal boundaries between denser and less-dense air in a stratified atmosphere. (In general, the curvature of the ray is different from the curvature of the Earth's surface; but here, we are only concerned with rays that bend just enough to follow the curve of the Earth.) The simplest solution to the “horizontal-ray paradox” is to remind ourselves that “rays” are an unrealistic mental construct: in reality, we always have a beam of light; infinitely narrow “rays” don't really exist. So let's just apply Huygens's principle (https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/optics/Huygens.html#principle) to such a beam:
(https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/figs/circ.gif)In the figure at the left, the heavy arc denotes the surface of the Earth, with center at C, and the lighter arcs AB and A'B' concentric with it represent the sides of a beam of light propagating at constant height above the surface, from AA' to BB'. We can regard AA' and BB' as wavefronts of the (bending) horizontal beam at two different places; the direction of propagation is perpendicular to the wavefront. (Equivalently, we can say that the direction of propagation of a horizontal beam must always be perpendicular to the local vertical; the radial lines CAA' and CBB' radiating from the center of the Earth are the local verticals at A and B respectively.)

Evidently, to make the beam follow the Earth's curvature, its lower edge AB must travel more slowly than its upper edge A'B'. The speed of propagation is in fact just inversely proportional to the refractive index, n. As the distance to be traversed by our circulating beam is proportional to the distance R  from the center of the Earth, we require that 1/n (which is proportional to the speed) be proportional to R ; or, in other words, we need the product nR  to be constant, independent of height above the Earth. (This will make the “optical path length” along AB the same as along A'B'.)

[If you find this argument too superficial to be convincing, you can go read the more rigorous derivations of the nR = constant condition by Biot (1836) (https://aty.sdsu.edu/bibliog/bibliog.html#Biot1836R), by Auer and Standish (2000) (https://aty.sdsu.edu/bibliog/bibliog.html#Auer+Standish2000B), or one of the papers cited in my “horizontal-ray paradox” file, such as Bravais (1856) (https://aty.sdsu.edu/bibliog/bibliog.html#Bravais1856z) or Thomson (1872) (https://aty.sdsu.edu/bibliog/bibliog.html#Thomson1872j). There's also a wonderful mathematical treatment of circulating rays by Kummer (1860) (https://aty.sdsu.edu/bibliog/bibliog.html#Kummer1860=); a French translation of it by Verdet (1861) (https://aty.sdsu.edu/bibliog/bibliog.html#Verdet1861x) is available on Gallica.]

To have nR  remain constant with height, n must decrease by 1 part in 6.4 × 106 for every meter of height, as R = 6400 km = 6.4 × 106 m. But the refractivity ( n − 1 ) is only about 1/3200 of n ; so the density of the air [which is proportional to ( n − 1 ), not to n] must fall by about 3200/6.4 × 106 m, or 1 part in 2000 for every meter.

Now, the decrease in density due to the decrease in pressure with height (1 part in 8000 per meter) is only 1/4 of this, so we need 3 times as much decrease from the temperature gradient, or 3 parts in 8000 per meter. That means the temperature must increase by 3 parts in 8000 of the 300 K, or about 900/8000 of a degree = 0.11° per meter. So a temperature inversion (i.e., increasing upward, instead of the usual decrease) of about 0.11°/m will produce a circulating beam or ray.

As a check, we can do the arithmetic a little differently. Because the refractive index n decreases by 1 part in a million per degree, and we need a decrease in n of 1 part in 6.4 million per meter, we would need about 1/6.4 of a degree per meter if the pressure stayed constant. But, as the pressure alone gives an effect equivalent to 3/80 of a degree per meter, we really need only ( 1/6.4 − 3/80 ); or, expressing the fractions as decimals, about 0.16 − 0.04 = 0.12°/m. (The lapse rate is, of course, the negative of this value.)

[For comparison, Wegener (191 (https://aty.sdsu.edu/reading.html#Wegener)8 ) gives 0.114°/m as the critical temperature gradient; and J. de Graaff Hunter (1913) (https://aty.sdsu.edu/bibliog/bibliog.html#GraaffHunter1913k) gives 0.066°F/foot, which corresponds to 0.116°C/m.]

Note that −0.12°/m is −120°/km, almost −20 times the lapse rate of 6.5K/km in the Standard Atmosphere (https://aty.sdsu.edu/glossary.html#Standard_Atmosphere). So the slight change of temperature with height in the Standard Atmosphere has hardly any effect on the ray curvature. This justifies, a posteriori, the neglect of temperature effects at the start of the arguments presented on this page.

Ray curvature in an arbitrary atmosphere
We can now estimate the ray curvature for any temperature gradient. If a positive lapse rate of 0.034 K/m produces straight rays (zero curvature), and a negative lapse rate of 0.12 K/m makes the rays match the curvature of the Earth, then for every (0.12 + 0.034 = 0.154) K/m change in lapse rate, the ray curvature changes by 1 in units of the Earth's curvature. So the ray curvature for an arbitrary lapse rate  γ K/m will be

k  = ( 0.034 − γ ) / 0.154 ,
where we take γ to be positive if the temperature decreases with height, and a positive curvature means a ray concave toward the Earth.

Example 1: the Standard Atmosphere (https://aty.sdsu.edu/glossary.html#Standard_Atmosphere): In the Standard Atmosphere, the lapse rate is 6.5°/km or  γ = 0.0065 K/m. The numerator of the formula above becomes .034 − .0065 = .0275, so the ratio k is about 1/5.6 or 0.179. In other words, the ray curvature is not quite 18% that of the Earth; the radius of curvature of the ray is about 5.6 times the Earth's radius.

Example 2: free convection:In free convection, the (adiabatic) lapse rate is about 10.6°/km or  γ = 0.0106 K/m. The numerator of the formula above becomes .034 − .0106 = .0234, so the ratio k is about 1/6.6 or 0.152. In other words, the ray curvature is about 15% that of the Earth; the radius of curvature of the ray is about 6.6 times the Earth's radius. This is close to the condition of the atmosphere near the ground in the middle of the day, when most surveying is done; the value calculated is close to the values found in practical survey work.

Bear in mind that these values apply only near sea level. At great elevations, the density of the air is less, so the ray curvature is also less. Likewise, these estimates are for sea-level temperatures near 300 K; in cold places, the density of the air is greater, and so is the ray curvature. And remember that these curvature estimates apply only to rays that are horizontal, or nearly so.

Note: You might have noticed that these values around 1/6 are about the fraction by which the setting Sun is flattened at the horizon. This is not a coincidence; these two quantities are in fact equal, as can easily be shown (https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/flattening.html).

Historical note
The method used here to find the ratio of curvatures of the ray and the Earth is essentially the argument employed by Thomas Young (https://aty.sdsu.edu/bibliog/bibliog.html#Young1821h) in 1821. He also obtained a ratio of 5.6, as in the first example above.

Copyright © 2002 – 2009, 2012, 2016, 2018 Andrew T. Young
Too superficial to be unconvincing?  No.  What's unconvincing is the argument itself.  It is full of "if this, then that" none of which is readily provable.  Again, we have to take some guy's word?  And what is this? 
" So let's first figure out how to make the atmosphere (locally) homogeneous.

Obviously, if the density is decreasing upward because of the decreasing pressure, we can counteract this decrease by changing the temperature. In fact, the pressure falls off by about 1 part in 8000 for every meter of increase in height above sea level. We can compensate for this by decreasing the temperature by the same 1 part in 8000 for every meter of height. If the temperature is 300 K, we'll need a temperature decrease with height of 300°/8000 m, or .0375° per meter, to make up for the effect of decreasing pressure. If the temperature is colder than 300 K, a proportionately smaller lapse rate (https://aty.sdsu.edu/glossary.html#lapse) will suffice."

Making the atmosphere locally homogenous doesn't affect other data?  "Decreasing the temperature by the same 1 part of 8000 for every meter of height" doesn't affect outcome?  How do we know either way?  There are many other problems with this article, but for now, the big question remains, is refraction always a present condition?  If arbitrary, and it is, it cannot be relied on to prove the earth is a globe.  This is one of those wordy proofs that fails to prove what they say it does.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on February 16, 2018, 04:30:59 PM
Too superficial to be unconvincing?  No.  What's unconvincing is the argument itself.  It is full of "if this, then that" none of which is readily provable.  Again, we have to take some guy's word?  And what is this?  
" So let's first figure out how to make the atmosphere (locally) homogeneous.

Obviously, if the density is decreasing upward because of the decreasing pressure, we can counteract this decrease by changing the temperature. In fact, the pressure falls off by about 1 part in 8000 for every meter of increase in height above sea level. We can compensate for this by decreasing the temperature by the same 1 part in 8000 for every meter of height. If the temperature is 300 K, we'll need a temperature decrease with height of 300°/8000 m, or .0375° per meter, to make up for the effect of decreasing pressure. If the temperature is colder than 300 K, a proportionately smaller lapse rate (https://aty.sdsu.edu/glossary.html#lapse) will suffice."

Making the atmosphere locally homogenous doesn't affect other data?  "Decreasing the temperature by the same 1 part of 8000 for every meter of height" doesn't affect outcome?  How do we know either way?  There are many other problems with this article, but for now, the big question remains, is refraction always a present condition?  If arbitrary, and it is, it cannot be relied on to prove the earth is a globe.  This is one of those wordy proofs that fails to prove what they say it does.
.
Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it objectionable.
.
The article never said that refraction is always a present condition. Your comprehension is lacking. That's the problem.
.
The article does not claim that arbitrary refraction proves the earth is a globe. That's a straw man.
.
Evidence for the sphericity of the earth is everywhere we look; we don't have to rely on refraction to "prove" it.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: WholeFoodsTrad on February 21, 2018, 04:27:02 PM
.
Nonsense.
.
The Church teaches that "a firmament" in Gen. 1:6 is the whole space between the earth and the furthest stars.
.
You lose.
First, what is your source Neil?  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on February 21, 2018, 06:01:07 PM
First, what is your source Neil?  
.
I already explained what my source is, a Douay-Rheims bible, 1609 edition (pre-KJV), reprinted by TAN Books. 
.
The Bible's text itself contains no definition of what the sacred author meant by the word(s) the Church translates as "a firmament."
.
The Church has seen fit to attribute to that term the meaning she has, because scientific evidence cannot be in contradiction to the revelation of God. The definition I provide is found in the footnote for Genesis 1:6.
.
Consequently, while a "hard" or "metallic" substance or the like, might be legitimate interpretation in general, it is in obvious contradiction to the known facts of modern science, therefore "a firmament" as used here in particular cannot have been meant to be "hard" or "metallic" by the sacred author.
.
By "a firmament" the author meant a zone obedient to natural law which separates the water above us (which sometimes falls as rain) from the earth below us. Even so, no rain was known to fall from the sky prior to the Great Flood, but the plants received water sustenance from springs that bubbled up from the earth and from a light dew that fell at night. Consequently it's easy for us to understand why the neighbors ridiculed Noah, for they had no idea that water could ever fall as very heavy rain, let alone for 40 days and nights. Furthermore, it underscores the tremendous FAITH of Noah who nonetheless persisted in his great work for 100 years even though there was no natural reason for him to do so from what the cuмulative worldly scientific knowledge could provide at the time.

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on February 21, 2018, 06:17:56 PM
There are many other problems with this article, but for now, the big question remains, is refraction always a present condition?  If arbitrary, and it is, it cannot be relied on to prove the earth is a globe.  This is one of those wordy proofs that fails to prove what they say it does.
.
Nobody is relying on refraction to prove the earth is a globe. Strawman!
.
What the on-again-off-again phenomenon of refraction does is, it deprives of any "proof" that the earth is "flat" since photos used for that purpose are therefore unreliable due to the fact that the conclusions drawn are discredited when PERHAPS refraction was at play
.
It is incuмbent on flat-earthers to demonstrate that there was in FACT NO REFRACTION going on when their pictures were taken, and I have yet to see any flat-earther convincingly prove that to have been true in any specific case.
.
Flat-earthers instead lunge ahead presuming nobody will notice the interference of refraction, and only come back to deny its existence when someone DOES notice. BTW that is not how any credible scientific experiment is ever conducted. 
.
Flat-earthers repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot. Maybe they enjoy the pain.
.
To be scientific, all the known challenges and opposition to the experiment's legitimacy must be anticipated in advance and due tests and measurements must be taken to answer such accusations in the future. Many experiments have had to be repeated, sometimes numerous times, in order to fill in all the gaps left by questionable conditions. 
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Smedley Butler on February 21, 2018, 06:39:16 PM
.
I already explained what my source is, a Douay-Rheims bible, 1609 edition (pre-KJV), by TAN Books.
Actually,  it's not a 1609.
Neil linked to drbo.org.
At the top of their website,  it says: this Bible is the 1899 Challoner version by John Murphy Co.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Smedley Butler on February 21, 2018, 06:42:15 PM
Most Catholics own the Challoner. The 1609 has been out of print for hundreds of years since its suppression. It costs about $400 to get one.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on February 21, 2018, 07:06:27 PM
Actually,  it's not a 1609.
Neil linked to drbo.org.
At the top of their website,  it says: this Bible is the 1899 Challoner version by John Murphy Co.
.
I read it in my physical Bible regardless of where the link takes you. It's the same Bible.
Inside the front cover it says OT, Douay 1609. I'm not making it up.
.
I didn't link to a KJV did I?
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Smedley Butler on February 21, 2018, 07:27:45 PM
ALL Catholics own the Challoner, that's all there is.

Unless you have $400.


Drbo.org is the web version.

It's not a 1609, it's 1899.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Ladislaus on February 22, 2018, 09:12:56 AM
It is incuмbent on flat-earthers to demonstrate that there was in FACT NO REFRACTION going on when their pictures were taken, and I have yet to see any flat-earther convincingly prove that to have been true in any specific case.

And yet, according to you, the burden of proof on your side is extremely low or non-existent.  You post the SpaceX images as "proof" when by your own admission they could have been created in a studio.  You post blurry pictures of boats without any details ... such as distance away, wave conditions, etc. ... as if they were proof.  And then flat-earthers must prove no refraction.  You have a double standard.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Ladislaus on February 22, 2018, 09:14:37 AM
To be scientific, all the known challenges and opposition to the experiment's legitimacy must be anticipated in advance and due tests and measurements must be taken to answer such accusations in the future. Many experiments have had to be repeated, sometimes numerous times, in order to fill in all the gaps left by questionable conditions.

So then none of your posts have been scientific ... like your blurry pictures of boats (with no measurements of any kind), and yet that's OK for you to be unscientific.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Smedley Butler on February 22, 2018, 09:17:58 AM
Thanks for pointing out Neil Globestat's dishonesty.

Glad I'm not the only one who noticed.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on February 22, 2018, 10:41:55 AM
ALL Catholics own the Challoner, that's all there is.

Unless you have $400.


Drbo.org is the web version.

It's not a 1609, it's 1899.
I have the original 1592 version of Douay and many passages are quite different than Challoner.  Ecclesiastical docuмents have acknowledged that the Vulgate is free of doctrinal and moral error. However, not containing doctrinal and moral error is not the same thing as being a perfect translation. In fact, it isn't even the same thing as being a good translation. The differences are not merely spelling or punctuation.  Cardinal Newman said they 'almost amounted to a new translation.' So also, Cardinal "Wiseman wrote, 'To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any sense remains as it was originally published'" (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910 ed.,s.v., "Douay Bible").
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on February 22, 2018, 11:57:34 PM
So then none of your posts have been scientific ... like your blurry pictures of boats (with no measurements of any kind), and yet that's OK for you to be unscientific.
.
How's this for scientific?
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fd1nz104zbf64va.cloudfront.net%2Fdt%2Fv%2Fo%2Funder-the-dome-flat-earth-theory.jpg&sp=9a5c878690f19ccfb3d1a062b02a0286)
Is that more your speed?  Looks like reality, eh?   :jester:
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on February 23, 2018, 12:03:02 AM
And yet, according to you, the burden of proof on your side is extremely low or non-existent.  You post the SpaceX images as "proof" when by your own admission they could have been created in a studio.  You post blurry pictures of boats without any details ... such as distance away, wave conditions, etc. ... as if they were proof.  And then flat-earthers must prove no refraction.  You have a double standard.
.
When did I say I was posting Spacex images as "proof" of anything, except that the launches have taken place?
.
So you think the Spacex launches were faked in a studio? Do you have any evidence of that?
.
The "blurry pictures of boats" are from another website using a 1200 mm telephoto lens from shore looking out to sea, which tends to get blurry. That's normal -- that means they're not fake. If they were clear you would complain they should be blurry. So you'll never be satisfied.
.
Ladislaus the agnostic. We can't know anything and there is no certainty to be found, eh?
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: WholeFoodsTrad on February 26, 2018, 11:30:20 PM
.
I already explained what my source is, a Douay-Rheims bible, 1609 edition (pre-KJV), reprinted by TAN Books.
.
The Bible's text itself contains no definition of what the sacred author meant by the word(s) the Church translates as "a firmament."
.
The Church has seen fit to attribute to that term the meaning she has, because scientific evidence cannot be in contradiction to the revelation of God. The definition I provide is found in the footnote for Genesis 1:6.
.
Consequently, while a "hard" or "metallic" substance or the like, might be legitimate interpretation in general, it is in obvious contradiction to the known facts of modern science, therefore "a firmament" as used here in particular cannot have been meant to be "hard" or "metallic" by the sacred author.
.
By "a firmament" the author meant a zone obedient to natural law which separates the water above us (which sometimes falls as rain) from the earth below us. Even so, no rain was known to fall from the sky prior to the Great Flood, but the plants received water sustenance from springs that bubbled up from the earth and from a light dew that fell at night. Consequently it's easy for us to understand why the neighbors ridiculed Noah, for they had no idea that water could ever fall as very heavy rain, let alone for 40 days and nights. Furthermore, it underscores the tremendous FAITH of Noah who nonetheless persisted in his great work for 100 years even though there was no natural reason for him to do so from what the cuмulative worldly scientific knowledge could provide at the time.
.
Neil it isn't surprising that a fairly Modern note in a Bible would say something like that.  Providentissimus Deus makes clear that Catholics have an obligation to defend Scripture if they can, but if they can't then they should aquiesce to Modern Science, which is what the note's author appears to have done.  I and most everyone else here, I think, are merely saying that Modern Science is wrong and Scripture is right, which is what Providentissimus Deus tells us to do, if we can and we have shown, in our judgment, that we can.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on February 27, 2018, 10:01:28 PM
Neil it isn't surprising that a fairly Modern note in a Bible would say something like that.  Providentissimus Deus makes clear that Catholics have an obligation to defend Scripture if they can, but if they can't then they should aquiesce to Modern Science, which is what the note's author appears to have done.  I and most everyone else here, I think, are merely saying that Modern Science is wrong and Scripture is right, which is what Providentissimus Deus tells us to do, if we can and we have shown, in our judgment, that we can.  
.
When modern science repeatedly demonstrates the facts of reality we are not obliged to condemn it on the basis of our own fallible interpretation of Scripture.
.
The Bible nor the Church are required to make observations and judgments about the nature of material things that we can see and test.
.
Any docuмents of the Church that mention physical things only do so for the SPIRITUAL import they refer to.
.
The list of topics not covered in the Bible is nearly endless.
.
Buoyancy, radioactivity, ellipsoids, radio waves, light diffraction, inertia, velocity of light, chemical reactions, neutrons and protons of an atom, molecular weight, visible light spectrum, variation of speed of sound in water vs. air, refraction of light, the function of hemoglobin in blood, mitochondria in living cells, deoxyribonucleic acid, specific gravity of lead (or anything else), or the wavelength of the color blue.
.
Does that mean these things do not exist?
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: WholeFoodsTrad on March 01, 2018, 03:51:36 PM
.
When modern science repeatedly demonstrates the facts of reality we are not obliged to condemn it on the basis of our own fallible interpretation of Scripture.
.
The Bible nor the Church are required to make observations and judgments about the nature of material things that we can see and test.
.
Any docuмents of the Church that mention physical things only do so for the SPIRITUAL import they refer to.
.
The list of topics not covered in the Bible is nearly endless.
.
Buoyancy, radioactivity, ellipsoids, radio waves, light diffraction, inertia, velocity of light, chemical reactions, neutrons and protons of an atom, molecular weight, visible light spectrum, variation of speed of sound in water vs. air, refraction of light, the function of hemoglobin in blood, mitochondria in living cells, deoxyribonucleic acid, specific gravity of lead (or anything else), or the wavelength of the color blue.
.
Does that mean these things do not exist?
.
Oh my gosh, you are such an idiot!   You have no idea what Catholic Culture is and how it differs from Protestant Culture!  Yet you pontificate on it endlessly!  You are so stupid!   :laugh2:

Catholic Culture has always sought to unite the spiritual with the material, into a coherent whole;  much like Christ is man and God or The Host is Body of Christ and Wheat Flour.  Rebellion against this is the point of Protestant Culture:  a profound disconnect between the spiritual and the material, expressed by the Bare Cross (no visceral connection to the physical world, only spiritual), No Statues, No Literal Presence in The Eucharistic Host or Wine.  This is why Protestants have been able to be so much less Charitable in their treatment of labor, because their obligation is only to the spiritual and not to the material. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 01, 2018, 05:13:07 PM
Oh my gosh, you are such an idiot!   You have no idea what Catholic Culture is and how it differs from Protestant Culture!  Yet you pontificate on it endlessly!  You are so stupid!   :laugh2:
.
Excuse me, but you are the stupid idiot. 
.
You are so stupid!   :laugh2:
.
Quote
Catholic Culture has always sought to unite the spiritual with the material, into a coherent whole;  much like Christ is man and God or The Host is Body of Christ and Wheat Flour.  Rebellion against this is the point of Protestant Culture:  a profound disconnect between the spiritual and the material, expressed by the Bare Cross (no visceral connection to the physical world, only spiritual), No Statues, No Literal Presence in The Eucharistic Host or Wine.  This is why Protestants have been able to be so much less Charitable in their treatment of labor, because their obligation is only to the spiritual and not to the material. 
.
You the Jєω/Protestant try to teach Catholics about the Church?  Don't make me laugh!   :jester: (Never mind you just did.)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 07, 2018, 11:12:33 AM
.
The ISS photographed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha2xsFpZEPc
.
How to get photographs of the ISS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJzIQf3nR9g
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 07, 2018, 11:37:06 AM
.
Andrew Johnson fields flat-earth heckler's lame attempt at insulting him and his video:
.

Andy Kline (https://www.youtube.com/user/andy11ink) 1 week ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJzIQf3nR9g&lc=UgwBLGQGtGsEPep9C0V4AaABAg)
Cool, nice pic of the hologram

 (https://accounts.google.com/ServiceLogin?continue=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fsignin%3Fapp%3Ddesktop%26action_handle_signin%3Dtrue%26hl%3Den%26next%3D%252Fwatch%253Fv%253DHJzIQf3nR9g&passive=true&hl=en&service=youtube&uilel=3)3 (https://accounts.google.com/ServiceLogin?continue=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fsignin%3Fapp%3Ddesktop%26action_handle_signin%3Dtrue%26hl%3Den%26next%3D%252Fwatch%253Fv%253DHJzIQf3nR9g&passive=true&hl=en&service=youtube&uilel=3)


(https://yt3.ggpht.com/-yqBqaapryKs/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/3uYfb8A79Qk/s48-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg) (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoCKgVW8R5dtXRpd_Rsu7UQ)
Andrew Johnson (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoCKgVW8R5dtXRpd_Rsu7UQ) 1 week ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJzIQf3nR9g&lc=UgwBLGQGtGsEPep9C0V4AaABAg.8dBH7s7K2pW8dCboa5Gnp4)
Thanks, you should see the ones I've taken of the Moon and Star holograms :-) Meanwhile I'm eagerly awaiting the discovery of the early hologram projectors that Nikolai Tesla  sent back in time to the ancient Egyptians buried in secret chambers in the pyramids!
Need to stop to answer the door to the men with sunglasses and dark suits that work in the vans for the phone, power and water companies, they seem to want to deliver a pizza to me!

(https://yt3.ggpht.com/-BjQgAB0R8SA/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/NBwd5Plmh10/s48-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg) (https://www.youtube.com/user/MrMartinoef)
Martin Foot (https://www.youtube.com/user/MrMartinoef) 4 days ago (edited) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJzIQf3nR9g&lc=UgwBLGQGtGsEPep9C0V4AaABAg.8dBH7s7K2pW8dJImcrwsYh)
Andy Kline Yes it is, apparently the Greeks studied these Holograms like the Ancient Egyptians did as Andrew Johnson has said. If you notice a lot of ancient civilisations worshipped gods from the skies. Also, their craft has been docuмented in hiroglyphics & the Sumarians also made pictorial note - as well as inexplicable cave paintings that have been found. Obviously these were not gods but Extraterrestrials travelling to Earth as they still do. Their technology was & is so advanced they were able to project these holograms across thousands of light years across the universe onto the Dome just so that primitive earthlings would observe them & worship them. They manage to get through the Dome by either matter transference or by using loopholes in the space time continuem which only they know. First they used loopholes until matter transference became more reliable & practical. They are so much more advanced than us it is unbelievable. I think Andrew was giving you false information saying Tesla sent the technology back in a time machine. Someone would have had to travel back to set it up without the Egyptians knowing anything about it - although there is a shaft in one of the pyramids that points to the North Star or Pole Star. Interestingly the Egyptian pyramids are laid out in size & scale to a constellation. Therefore the holographic projection of the Universe has had to come before the construction of the Pyramids.



(https://yt3.ggpht.com/-yqBqaapryKs/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/3uYfb8A79Qk/s48-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg) (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoCKgVW8R5dtXRpd_Rsu7UQ)
Andrew Johnson (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoCKgVW8R5dtXRpd_Rsu7UQ) 4 days ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJzIQf3nR9g&lc=UgwBLGQGtGsEPep9C0V4AaABAg.8dBH7s7K2pW8dKOOFKpSZR)
Martin I just found out those guys delivering pizza are government agents working with the aliens, they told me I'd been very naughty talking about Tesla, (an Alien in human form!)  and if I ever said anything like this again the next Pizza would have anchovies on it. I like anchovies!



(https://yt3.ggpht.com/-BjQgAB0R8SA/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/NBwd5Plmh10/s48-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg) (https://www.youtube.com/user/MrMartinoef)
Martin Foot (https://www.youtube.com/user/MrMartinoef) 3 days ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJzIQf3nR9g&lc=UgwBLGQGtGsEPep9C0V4AaABAg.8dBH7s7K2pW8dNBKedx23r)
Andrew Johnson We recently had a Dominoes open near me - be careful mate, they're infiltrating everywhere keeping an eye on what we're up to! Something definately fishy going on, especially putting anchovies on Pizzas! You've encouraged me to have another go at photographing moon though just with my 300mm on my Canon when we actually get a clear night.



(https://yt3.ggpht.com/-yqBqaapryKs/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/3uYfb8A79Qk/s48-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg) (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoCKgVW8R5dtXRpd_Rsu7UQ)
Andrew Johnson (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoCKgVW8R5dtXRpd_Rsu7UQ) 2 days ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJzIQf3nR9g&lc=UgwBLGQGtGsEPep9C0V4AaABAg.8dBH7s7K2pW8dPj0fT1wf-)
The Moon can come out well with a 300mm I usually find it best to override auto exposure and go manual exposure, the camera gets very confused photographing the Moon and usually over exposes if left to itself.


Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 07, 2018, 12:12:50 PM
.
More comments from fans!
.

Paul TheSkeptic (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxOByD0V55eMIulMJmlSh-A) 3 weeks ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJzIQf3nR9g&lc=Ugzpl-b19YF_AaTm1nJ4AaABAg)
If you can actually see it, how are there still people who deny the whole space exploration thing?


Andrew Johnson (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoCKgVW8R5dtXRpd_Rsu7UQ) 3 weeks ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJzIQf3nR9g&lc=Ugzpl-b19YF_AaTm1nJ4AaABAg.8cYprItsKnl8cdmouoC2US)
In my experience so far, it's less a case of evidence than of mindset, most seem to have the idea that education, science and research are all forms of brainwashing.


Paul TheSkeptic (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxOByD0V55eMIulMJmlSh-A)2 weeks ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJzIQf3nR9g&lc=Ugzpl-b19YF_AaTm1nJ4AaABAg.8cYprItsKnl8cfBnVZUWa9)
A shame.


Subject 8 (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC70ZVlHCFqmLNCd8pVDLxdQ) 2 weeks ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJzIQf3nR9g&lc=Ugzpl-b19YF_AaTm1nJ4AaABAg.8cYprItsKnl8ci--TI5_DY)
You can show them all the evidence you want. Most of the flattards are religous zealots, so they are obviously in the possession of the ultimate truth. That is the Origo that reality has to bend around. That literally means that you could strap them to a rocket so they can personally pay a visit to the ISS, and when they come back they would still deny it is in orbit. You have just drugged them, or used some kind of sophisticated technology to fool them! Even if that said technology would be harder to achieve than placing a space station in orbit. You see, you CANNOT have a space station in orbit, so reality has to bend. 

It is very entertaining to observe these patterns, until you realize these people can vote.



Andrew Johnson (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoCKgVW8R5dtXRpd_Rsu7UQ) 2 weeks ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJzIQf3nR9g&lc=Ugzpl-b19YF_AaTm1nJ4AaABAg.8cYprItsKnl8ciu_gacwVD)
It's my experience that only a few of them are religious zealots and the few of those that quote scripture to justify their claims go totally postal when you point out how they have taken a particular passage out of context on misquoted it. The majority of the remainder are bored trolls with nothing better to do but go around making offensive remarks under the illusion of their anonymity. But there is a hard core of people exhibiting what I can only describe as an extreme form of paranoia where the use of the term 'critical thinking' has been taken to the nth degree and they question even the most fundamental precepts of reality and claim, against all the evidence against them, that only they are the keepers of truth in the world; some are amusing, most are very sad to read.


R. McHunt (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCB1vJ9SsmKUXxa0ofEabzhw) 2 weeks ago (edited) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJzIQf3nR9g&lc=Ugzpl-b19YF_AaTm1nJ4AaABAg.8cYprItsKnl8cu7jI7PFhm)
Science deniers are just religious fundamentalists who take the Bible literally and put faith before facts. King James took seven years (1604-1611) to extensively overhauled the Bible to fit in with his own personal beliefs and the church had to go along with him, they didn't have a choice and so the Bible was changed. The KJB or KJV is the ONLY bible to mention the word "firmament" it wasn't in any other Bible .......believe it if you want to but the firmament is only the belief of an English King. Christians are therefore believing what they think is the "word of God" when really what they are really believing are the words of King James. THE CLUE IS IN THE NAME ..........."THE KING JAMES BIBLE" / VERSION.


Andrew Johnson (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoCKgVW8R5dtXRpd_Rsu7UQ) 2 weeks ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJzIQf3nR9g&lc=Ugzpl-b19YF_AaTm1nJ4AaABAg.8cYprItsKnl8cuTSf54sDe)
I will repeat what I said earlier, SOME science deniers and flat earthers are keen to quote scripture to justify their beliefs, but the majority come across as just paranoid nuts. It's rather curious that two people that I collaborate with the most are ministers of religion (one Anglican Vicar and a Baptist Minister). They both take the view that the Bible (pick a version) is God's second book and written in the language of men, his first book is the book of nature (creation) and this is written in the language of God (science and mathematics).



Andrew Johnson (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoCKgVW8R5dtXRpd_Rsu7UQ) 2 weeks ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJzIQf3nR9g&lc=Ugzpl-b19YF_AaTm1nJ4AaABAg.8cYprItsKnl8cvS5aJyR-r)
The religious texts use simple language and avoid science deliberately. But the main point my minister friends also make, the one that the fundamentalists ignore at best or refute violently, is that said religious books are not the be all and end all of all knowledge and wisdom as the fundamentalists would like to force us all to believe. The greater work of God, according to my minister friends, is the universe around us, and this can only be understood with the language of science and mathematics, this really pisses the fundamentalists off, but is something I continue to use as it's source is a couple of well-respected theologians. My other argument is to ask the fundamentalists which chapter and verse of the bible tells you how to build a computer or use the internet, I usually get blocked at this point!


CAP10 Zeus (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXVryU77jG3j_wdUo2d01Og) 3 weeks ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJzIQf3nR9g&lc=Ugw3OGYOa7JmHjaMA8B4AaABAg)
As a photographer myself, I really enjoyed your video, time, money and effort to do all of this. All of this made perfect sense to me since I myself am educated in photography. My jaw has dropped and I just can't believe all of the craziest comments you have received for all your hard work and your willingness to share with the rest of us. Without reading the comments at first I saw this as a photography lesson, not a "prove the earth was round theory"! It's amazing what some people will believe without seeing it or trying it for themselves OR they are just being internet TROLLS just for their amusement. Either way, I would just ignore these trolls which have really spat at hundreds of years of human advancement and rather believe in myths that date back hundreds of years. Thanks for the photography lesson! Keep them coming!



Andrew Johnson (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoCKgVW8R5dtXRpd_Rsu7UQ) 3 weeks ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJzIQf3nR9g&lc=Ugw3OGYOa7JmHjaMA8B4AaABAg.8cZb6lhoqXB8cdmBXb81EW)
Many thanks for the comments they are much appreciated. It was a bit of a surprise to me the first time I got one of these trolls commenting about being a proof of something. If I want to debunk this flat earth nonsense I can do it from my local beach with a telephoto lens and a wind farm but that's not what this video or this channel is about.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on March 07, 2018, 12:28:01 PM
Neil,

You have gone on record as saying that you're a geocentrist. Is that still true?

Regarding the "comments" in the above post - do any of those people believe that the earth is at the center, and the sun revolves around the earth, as you supposedly do? What would their comments be if you were to defend geocentrism to them?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 07, 2018, 12:43:37 PM
Neil,

You have gone on record as saying that you're a geocentrist. Is that still true?

Regarding the "comments" in the above post - do any of those people believe that the earth is at the center, and the sun revolves around the earth, as you supposedly do? What would their comments be if you were to defend geocentrism to them?
.
Congratulations for reading the comments. But the topic here is the fact that the earth is not flat.
We are discussing proofs of the earth's SHAPE not whether it moves or not or whatever.
I know, it's frustrating when you know you've lost and there is a great temptation to jump topic.
.
Why do flat-earthers have such a problem recognizing the truth of the earth's curvature?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on March 07, 2018, 12:45:44 PM
.
Congratulations for reading the comments. But the topic here is the fact that the earth is not flat.
We are discussing proofs of the earth's SHAPE not whether it moves or not or whatever.
I know, it's frustrating when you know you've lost and there is a great temptation to jump topic.
.
Why do flat-earthers have such a problem recognizing the truth of the earth's curvature?

Nice dodge there Neil. I was expecting that. You're so predictable.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on March 07, 2018, 12:54:07 PM
.
Congratulations for reading the comments. But the topic here is the fact that the earth is not flat.
We are discussing proofs of the earth's SHAPE not whether it moves or not or whatever.
I know, it's frustrating when you know you've lost and there is a great temptation to jump topic.
.
Why do flat-earthers have such a problem recognizing the truth of the earth's curvature?

How do you reconcile geocentrism with modern science, given that modern science does not believe in geocentrism? I would like to start a thread about this, since you haven't said anything about it.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 07, 2018, 01:07:28 PM
How do you reconcile geocentrism with modern science, given that modern science does not believe in geocentrism? I would like to start a thread about this, since you haven't said anything about it.
.
Well then, go ahead. It's off topic here.
This thread is over 82 pages a good part of which is flat-earthers attempting to jump topic.
It would be great if the thread could remain according to the OP for a change, don't you think?
I mean, if you want a discussion about something else (geocentrism) how could you expect to find it later?
All you will have is a list of thread titles to search through.
Or try to use the search feature which will give you threads with geometry and center and Feeneyism (not geocentrism).
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: WholeFoodsTrad on March 08, 2018, 03:56:32 AM
.
Excuse me, but you are the stupid idiot.
.
You are so stupid!   :laugh2:
..
You the Jєω/Protestant try to teach Catholics about the Church?  Don't make me laugh!   :jester: (Never mind you just did.)
What makes you think I'm not Catholic?  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: WholeFoodsTrad on March 08, 2018, 04:06:01 AM
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/KnqBzncqS2U[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=KnqBzncqS2U
I just didn't find that video to be very convincing.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on March 08, 2018, 11:03:09 AM
.
Insomnia?  Losing the flat-earth debate is keeping you up at night?  Sorry to hear that.
.
My condolences.  Must be tough to be a flat-earth loser.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 04, 2018, 03:06:02 AM
.
Flat-earthers have nothing to fear but sphere itself.      :incense:            
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: WholeFoodsTrad on April 05, 2018, 04:03:14 AM
.
Insomnia?  Losing the flat-earth debate is keeping you up at night?  Sorry to hear that.
.
My condolences.  Must be tough to be a flat-earth loser.
Why do you have to come on here an act like a jerk?  How is that helpful?  How does that contribute to anything?  Why do you want to come on here and act like that?  Do you like it when people are obnoxious to you?  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 05, 2018, 11:56:26 PM
Why do you have to come on here an act like a jerk?  How is that helpful?  How does that contribute to anything?  Why do you want to come on here and act like that?  Do you like it when people are obnoxious to you?  
.
How kind of you to behave in a civil manner. Now, back to the topic!
.

Flat-earthers have nothing to fear but sphere itself.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Jaynek on April 06, 2018, 11:17:14 AM
.
How kind of you to behave in a civil manner. Now, back to the topic!
I agree with WholeFoodsTrad that it is better to be kind and civil in our discussions.  While I understand (and experience) the temptation to be unkind when disagreeing with people, I think our arguments are stronger when we resist that temptation.  We can rely on facts and reason; we don't need any sarcasm or nastiness.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on April 06, 2018, 11:43:59 AM
I agree with WholeFoodsTrad that it is better to be kind and civil in our discussions.  While I understand (and experience) the temptation to be unkind when disagreeing with people, I think our arguments are stronger when we resist that temptation.  We can rely on facts and reason; we don't need any sarcasm or nastiness.

The problem is, you've been short on both civility and facts and reason when debating FE. You can pretend otherwise, of course. You seem to take the approach that Catholicism is only based on facts and rules, and that it's your job to instruct us on the facts and rules, as if we are children. You are not our teacher. Neither is Neil.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Jaynek on April 06, 2018, 01:28:01 PM
The problem is, you've been short on both civility and facts and reason when debating FE. You can pretend otherwise, of course. You seem to take the approach that Catholicism is only based on facts and rules, and that it's your job to instruct us on the facts and rules, as if we are children. You are not our teacher. Neither is Neil.
I apologize for all the occasions on which I have failed in civility.

I am aware that I am not qualified to teach people here (with the possible exception of giving advice to young women in the women-only section).  But every time someone claims that flat earth is a Catholic teaching I am facing an error about the Church.  I cannot see how I would not have an obligation to correct such a serious error.  I would appreciate it if people could explain to me how it would be OK to be silent in the face of this error.  I do not enjoy doing this and would like to stop if I could do so with a clear conscience.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Samuel on April 06, 2018, 01:56:48 PM
I apologize for all the occasions on which I have failed in civility.

I am aware that I am not qualified to teach people here (with the possible exception of giving advice to young women in the women-only section).  But every time someone claims that flat earth is a Catholic teaching I am facing an error about the Church.  I cannot see how I would not have an obligation to correct such a serious error.  I would appreciate it if people could explain to me how it would be OK to be silent in the face of this error.  I do not enjoy doing this and would like to stop if I could do so with a clear conscience.

Jaynek,

Flat earthers are unwilling and/or incapable of discussing their theory scientifically. All they do is point to this video or that one as "proof". And when their pet video is refuted, they ignore it and point to the next one. They wouldn't even pass a science exam in pre-school. And if you persist in refuting them they will attack you with ad hominems.

If then they are unwilling and/or incapable of discussing facts, i.e. things they can see and feel for themselves, how then can you expect them to listen to historical arguments, which always depend on the integrity and qualifications of the historian in the middle? And how much more unlikely will they listen to, let alone understand, a theological argument? Especially considering that the Church does not teach and/or bind anyone on the shape of the earth. After all, here too, it all boils down to history, Church history this time.

There is no obligation on you to try and make the fool wise, or to make the obstinate willing.
Flat earthers have a free will, and at some point you will have to accept that and move on, otherwise you risk losing your own sanity and inner peace (which is what some people are aiming for!). You just have to learn to accept that there are bad and willfully dumb Catholics. And yes, if or when you turn your back on them, they will call you all kinds of names and triumphantly accuse you of all kinds of nasty things, but just consider that Our Lord was treated likewise and He remained silent. Follow His example, and shake the flat earth dust off your feet!

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Jaynek on April 06, 2018, 02:01:17 PM

There is no obligation on you to try and make the fool wise, or to make the obstinate willing.
Flat earthers have a free will, and at some point you will have to accept that and move on, otherwise you risk losing your own sanity and inner peace (which is what some people are aiming for!). You just have to learn to accept that there are bad and willfully dumb Catholics. And yes, if or when you turn your back on them, they will call you all kinds of names and triumphantly accuse you of all kinds of nasty things, but just consider that Our Lord was treated likewise and He remained silent. Follow His example, and shake the flat earth dust off your feet!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Samuel.  You have given me something to think and pray about.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 06, 2018, 04:20:48 PM
You seem to take the approach that Catholicism is only based on facts and rules, and that it's your job to instruct us on the facts and rules, as if we are children. You are not our teacher. Neither is Neil.
.
I've had students with your attitude. They got an F.
.
Flat-earthers have nothing to fear but sphere itself.       :incense:      
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: WholeFoodsTrad on April 10, 2018, 04:12:57 AM
Jaynek,

Flat earthers are unwilling and/or incapable of discussing their theory scientifically. All they do is point to this video or that one as "proof". And when their pet video is refuted, they ignore it and point to the next one. They wouldn't even pass a science exam in pre-school. And if you persist in refuting them they will attack you with ad hominems.

If then they are unwilling and/or incapable of discussing facts, i.e. things they can see and feel for themselves, how then can you expect them to listen to historical arguments, which always depend on the integrity and qualifications of the historian in the middle? And how much more unlikely will they listen to, let alone understand, a theological argument? Especially considering that the Church does not teach and/or bind anyone on the shape of the earth. After all, here too, it all boils down to history, Church history this time.

There is no obligation on you to try and make the fool wise, or to make the obstinate willing.
Flat earthers have a free will, and at some point you will have to accept that and move on, otherwise you risk losing your own sanity and inner peace (which is what some people are aiming for!). You just have to learn to accept that there are bad and willfully dumb Catholics. And yes, if or when you turn your back on them, they will call you all kinds of names and triumphantly accuse you of all kinds of nasty things, but just consider that Our Lord was treated likewise and He remained silent. Follow His example, and shake the flat earth dust off your feet!

Instead of coming on here and trying to insult everyone with your judgemental arrogant attitude, you should try to be a source of harmony.  

You complain bitterly about how people treat you, but you treat them at least as badly as anyone has ever treated you.  However, you don't want to forgive.  You want to come on here and condemn everyone.  

The Lord's Prayer cuts both ways.  If you don't want to forgive others, then you should be content to burn in Hell for all eternity.  Otherwise, you should change your ways.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: WholeFoodsTrad on April 10, 2018, 04:18:09 AM
I agree with WholeFoodsTrad that it is better to be kind and civil in our discussions.  While I understand (and experience) the temptation to be unkind when disagreeing with people, I think our arguments are stronger when we resist that temptation.  We can rely on facts and reason; we don't need any sarcasm or nastiness.
Thanks Jaynek.  I try to respect your opinion, even if I don't agree with it.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on April 10, 2018, 10:11:54 AM
.
I've had students with your attitude. They got an F.
.
Flat-earthers have nothing to fear but sphere itself.       :incense:      

Then it's a good thing I'm not your student. 

And....the earth is not a sphere. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Smedley Butler on April 10, 2018, 10:28:51 AM
I noticed SD has shut down their FE thread, just like they did their GC discussion in 2015.

Disgraceful.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on April 10, 2018, 10:51:23 AM
I apologize for all the occasions on which I have failed in civility.

I am aware that I am not qualified to teach people here (with the possible exception of giving advice to young women in the women-only section).  But every time someone claims that flat earth is a Catholic teaching I am facing an error about the Church.  I cannot see how I would not have an obligation to correct such a serious error.  I would appreciate it if people could explain to me how it would be OK to be silent in the face of this error.  I do not enjoy doing this and would like to stop if I could do so with a clear conscience.

You mention above that every time someone claims that flat earth is a Catholic teaching then you are facing an error about the Church. But the thing is, I, for one, have not claimed that the flat earth is a Catholic teaching, and yet you have confronted me many times. So it can't just be that you are against the idea that the flat earth is a Catholic teaching. What I have maintained is that Scripture describes a flat earth, and that the Church Fathers (the early ones) have also maintained that the earth is flat. But you are even against Scripture describing a flat earth, and you apparently believe that the early Church Fathers were wrong.

So please do not make this about the flat earth not being a Church teaching. You have shown to be very much against ANY views in Scripture and Tradition which show a flat earth. You are not being honest.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Meg on April 10, 2018, 10:53:42 AM
I noticed SD has shut down their FE thread, just like they did their GC discussion in 2015.

Disgraceful.

Well, that's one of the things that makes Cath Info a better forum than SD. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 10, 2018, 07:05:05 PM
I noticed SD has shut down their FE thread, just like they did their GC discussion in 2015.

Disgraceful.
.
Why is it disgraceful? Were you planning to provide something useful for once there?
.
You can provide it here, you know, that is, unless you don't have anything useful. Which is probably the case.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 10, 2018, 07:06:35 PM
Well, that's one of the things that makes Cath Info a better forum than SD.
.
Yeah, it's great. So now's your chance to say something informative, for a change. That is, if you have anything.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on April 10, 2018, 07:08:28 PM
.
Yeah, it's great. So now's your chance to say something informative, for a change. That is, if you have anything.
.
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government "space agencies" show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.

The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.

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.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 10, 2018, 08:37:12 PM
Instead of coming on here and trying to insult everyone with your judgemental arrogant attitude, you should try to be a source of harmony.  

You complain bitterly about how people treat you, but you treat them at least as badly as anyone has ever treated you.  However, you don't want to forgive.  You want to come on here and condemn everyone.  

The Lord's Prayer cuts both ways.  If you don't want to forgive others, then you should be content to burn in Hell for all eternity.  Otherwise, you should change your ways.  
.
Typical of your trashy attitude as shown by so many examples:
.
Quote
Oh my gosh, you are such an idiot (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/50-plus-reasons-the-earth-is-not-flat/msg597298/#msg597298)!   You have no idea what Catholic Culture is and how it differs from Protestant Culture!  Yet you pontificate on it endlessly!  You are so stupid!   
Quote
Dude, you are such a  (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/'truth-is-eternal'-is-unmasked/msg595017/#msg595017)HYPOCRITE! (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/'truth-is-eternal'-is-unmasked/msg595017/#msg595017)  AFTER CHIDING ME FOR DOING THIS TO NEIL, YOU GO AND DO IT TO TRUTHISETERNAL;  EVER HEARD OF THE WORD "SCANDAL??"  IT APPLIES TO PEOPLE LIKE YOU, WHO MAKE CATHOLICS LOOK BAD, FOR PREACHING VIRTUE, WHILE OPENLY LEADING SINFUL LIVES.  ARE YOU KIDDING ME;  THIS MAKES ME SICK!   (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/really-mad2.gif) (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/barf.gif)

I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED IN YOU  (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/sad.gif)  (your "virtue" seems quite self-serving;  as in not CHARITABLE, but rather selfish).      

I have lost a lot of respect for you;  you seem much less mature as a Christian, than I thought you were.  
I suggest you resolve to read a chapter out of "My Daily Bread," 1950-ish, by Fr. Paone, everyday for the rest of your life. 
Quote
I'll stick with Flat Earth (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/the-moon's-phases-on-a-flat-earth-model/msg595005/#msg595005), even if our "researchers" are "under-funded" and "under-trained"   (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)

Still, that's the beauty of Traditional Catholicism:  always having to do it on the cheap, but somehow still managing to survive.  No wonder so many Trads are attracted to Flat Earth 
.
Or, rather, why so many are NOT attracted to "flat" earth, plus the problem that it's a pile of jibberish.
.
Quote
live beheading in china (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/the-moon's-phases-on-a-flat-earth-model/msg594255/#msg594255)  :jester:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-hrmLBDZvE
Quote
From Neil's posts I can see (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/what-do-flat-earthers-believe-is-the-single-most-compelling-piece-of-evidence/msg592731/#msg592731) how the obsession with mathematics made the Ancient Greeks go insane and start thinking the earth was round.  Once you go far enough down that road, common sense goes bye bye.  
Quote
Why are you being such a jerk (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/why-do-submarines-work/msg602819/#msg602819)?  You get you're acting like a jerk don't you?  You know that right?  
Quote
Flat Earth makes lots of sense (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/neil-obstat's-motivation-for-posting-so-much-on-this-sub-forum/msg602817/#msg602817).  Your [sic] just being obnoxious.  

.
Spoken by someone who knows all about "common sense going bye-bye."
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 10, 2018, 09:08:59 PM
.
That video link above got corrupted somehow - it was supposed to show this:
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk1Ui1t4JPE
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Jaynek on April 13, 2018, 07:27:28 PM
You mention above that every time someone claims that flat earth is a Catholic teaching then you are facing an error about the Church. But the thing is, I, for one, have not claimed that the flat earth is a Catholic teaching, and yet you have confronted me many times. So it can't just be that you are against the idea that the flat earth is a Catholic teaching. What I have maintained is that Scripture describes a flat earth, and that the Church Fathers (the early ones) have also maintained that the earth is flat. But you are even against Scripture describing a flat earth, and you apparently believe that the early Church Fathers were wrong.

So please do not make this about the flat earth not being a Church teaching. You have shown to be very much against ANY views in Scripture and Tradition which show a flat earth. You are not being honest.

The Catholic Church teaches that Scripture is inerrant.  Therefore, claiming that Scripture describes a flat earth necessarily implies that, according to the Church, the earth is flat.  Every time somebody says that Scripture teaches flat earth, it is, in effect, claiming this is Catholic teaching.

Just about all the flat earth proponents here, including you, claim that Scripture teaches the earth is flat.  If Scripture did, in fact, say the earth is flat, then all Catholics would be bound to accept that the earth is flat because it is central to our faith that Scripture is divinely revealed and inerrant.

However, the Church has allowed and even encouraged belief in a spherical earth. Virtually every Saint and Doctor of the Church (along with many other Catholics) after 800 AD , believed the earth is a globe.  If the Church actually understood Scripture as saying the earth is flat, why did she allow this error to persist?  She even promoted the Ptolemaic model, which included a spherical earth, defending it against the heliocentric models of Copernicus and Galileo. There is no sign of the Church having any problem with people believing the earth is a globe.

The Church is the interpreter of Scripture.  These people who keep insisting that Scripture says the earth is flat are placing their personal interpretation of Scripture as higher than the Church's interpretation.  This is a very serious error and one I feel some obligation to oppose.

While I do not expect to get through to the flat earthers, occasionally people come to this sub-forum genuinely seeking information.  I intend to post here from time to time so that such people will be able to see opposition to the errors of flat earthers.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Ladislaus on April 13, 2018, 08:31:37 PM
The Catholic Church teaches that Scripture is inerrant.  Therefore, claiming that Scripture describes a flat earth necessarily implies that, according to the Church, the earth is flat.  Every time somebody says that Scripture teaches flat earth, it is, in effect, claiming this is Catholic teaching.

I think that it's perfectly fine to say something like, "It is my opinion that Scripture teaches flat earth."  Once could make that case.  But it's obvious that the Church, at very least, tolerates globe earth ... and leaves it open for Catholics to hold that opinion.

Similarly, I could say that I believe a certain position or proposition to be heresy, but I do not declare to be formally heretical those who hold it if the Church has not defined it.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: aryzia on April 14, 2018, 11:05:12 AM
I think that it's perfectly fine to say something like, "It is my opinion that Scripture teaches flat earth."  Once could make that case.  But it's obvious that the Church, at very least, tolerates globe earth ... and leaves it open for Catholics to hold that opinion.

Similarly, I could say that I believe a certain position or proposition to be heresy, but I do not declare to be formally heretical those who hold it if the Church has not defined it.
The problem here isn't that the Church hasn't made a doctrinal statement that earth is flat, which all agree She hasn't, but, that the Church condemned the Copernican Doctrine that includes spherical earth. Despite that, people somehow want to hold portions of that condemned theory anyway. That kind of thinking probably doesn't lead one to the true God.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Jaynek on April 14, 2018, 01:29:59 PM
I think that it's perfectly fine to say something like, "It is my opinion that Scripture teaches flat earth."  Once could make that case.  But it's obvious that the Church, at very least, tolerates globe earth ... and leaves it open for Catholics to hold that opinion.

As you say, the Church (at the very least) leaves open the option of believing the earth is a sphere.  This means that these people who think that Scripture teaches flat earth, in effect, are saying that the Church has been wrong to do this.  If inerrant, God-inspired Scripture truly said that the earth were flat, it would be wrong for the Church to allow other views.  How would it be OK for the Church to say "Go ahead and disagree with Scripture if you want"?

When people claim that Scripture teaches flat earth, they are necessarily implying that the Church has made a mistake in her interpretation of Scripture.  Not only is the implication there, sometimes people even say it explicitly, as WholeFoodsTrad did in a recent post (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/who-invented-the-flat-earth/msg603486/#msg603486) :


Quote
All scripture is Divinely Inspired or "God breathed."  So, I think we should respect that and if The Church has a problem with it, then I think it ought to get inline with Scripture.  Although, as a Catholic I will ultimately submit to The Church, still I have no problem with correcting The Church, if I think it is wrong about something.  As a Catholic, that is my right.

As you know, it is dogmatic teaching (Council of Trent) that the Church is the sole interpreter of Scripture.  There is no right to correct the Church if one feels she has misinterpreted Scripture.  Concerning those who do this, the Church says "let him be anathema".  It is not an allowable opinion to claim that Scripture teaches that the earth is flat because it is not compatible with accepting the Catholic position on her authority over Scripture.  We have many flat earthers on this forum who, either explicitly or implicitly reject this authority.  This goes beyond merely being incorrect and is a denial of dogma.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Jaynek on April 14, 2018, 01:44:36 PM
The problem here isn't that the Church hasn't made a doctrinal statement that earth is flat, which all agree She hasn't, but, that the Church condemned the Copernican Doctrine that includes spherical earth. Despite that, people somehow want to hold portions of that condemned theory anyway. That kind of thinking probably doesn't lead one to the true God.
This is like saying that the Church is opposed to writing in Latin because she condemned the Copernican Doctrine which was written in Latin.

Obviously there is no problem with writing in Latin.  That is not the aspect of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium that was condemned. Virtually everybody wrote scholarly works in Latin at that time.  It is clearly irrelevant to the condemnation.

Similarly, virtually all the cosmological models at the time of Copernicus, including those promoted by the Church, included a spherical earth. The Church has no more problem with a spherical earth than with using the Latin language.  Both have been part of Church tradition for most of her history.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: aryzia on April 14, 2018, 03:37:07 PM
This is like saying that the Church is opposed to writing in Latin because she condemned the Copernican Doctrine which was written in Latin.

Obviously there is no problem with writing in Latin.  That is not the aspect of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium that was condemned. Virtually everybody wrote scholarly works in Latin at that time.  It is clearly irrelevant to the condemnation.

Similarly, virtually all the cosmological models at the time of Copernicus, including those promoted by the Church, included a spherical earth. The Church has no more problem with a spherical earth than with using the Latin language.  Both have been part of Church tradition for most of her history.
The above is a common reasoning error.  The erroneous conclusion resulted from a non sequitur because average jane is attempting to compare apples and oranges. 

Language cannot (in and of itself) be false, nor a premise be false just for being written in a particular language. 
On the other hand, when a premise is condemned, it is condemned BECAUSE it (in and of itself) is false.

Therefore, by making an untenable comparison she wound up with a false conclusion.  This woman's error is found in her reasoning process.       
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Jaynek on April 14, 2018, 05:46:49 PM
Language cannot (in and of itself) be false, nor a premise be false just for being written in a particular language.  
It certainly is possible for a given language to be inappropriate and worthy of condemnation and/or opposition.  I think most of us here object to Mass in the vernacular for such a reason.
  
But even if my analogy were ineligible, the point would stand: the condemnation of Copernican heliocentrism obviously does not include the proposition that the earth is a sphere; this was part of cosmological models of which the Church approved and promoted.

There is no basis for your claim that the Church condemns spherical earth.  On the contrary, this was the most widely accepted Catholic view for most of our history.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on April 14, 2018, 06:33:35 PM
It certainly is possible for a given language to be inappropriate and worthy of condemnation and/or opposition.  I think most of us here object to Mass in the vernacular for such a reason.
  
But even if my analogy were ineligible, the point would stand: the condemnation of Copernican heliocentrism obviously does not include the proposition that the earth is a sphere; this was part of cosmological models of which the Church approved and promoted.

There is no basis for your claim that the Church condemns spherical earth.  On the contrary, this was the most widely accepted Catholic view for most of our history.
Accepted by Catholics today or not, it is error to believe in a condemned theory so thoroughly rooted in paganism and promoted so vociferously by occult modern globalists.  Wisdom indwelling would immediately shun such things.  Continuing to defend the science of pagans reveals much about those who do it.  And the above argument remains devoid of Catholic character in light of the many truths Scripture and the saints provide in order to make one's mind right.  The conversation should never have been fighting about the particulars, but true wisdom inquires about what the particulars are before making judgement.  That has not been done here, obviously.  And the loss is yours.   
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Jaynek on April 14, 2018, 07:18:49 PM
Accepted by Catholics today or not, it is error to believe in a condemned theory so thoroughly rooted in paganism and promoted so vociferously by occult modern globalists.  Wisdom indwelling would immediately shun such things.  Continuing to defend the science of pagans reveals much about those who do it.  And the above argument remains devoid of Catholic character in light of the many truths Scripture and the saints provide in order to make one's mind right.  The conversation should never have been fighting about the particulars, but true wisdom inquires about what the particulars are before making judgement.  That has not been done here, obviously.  And the loss is yours.  
Spherical earth is not a "condemned theory".  Some Church Fathers disagreed with it while others agreed.  Nobody with authority to condemn it ever did so.

Many Catholic Saints (virtually all of the ones who lived after 800) believed in a spherical earth and this was the position encouraged by the Church and taught in Catholic universities for over a thousand years.  This is a Catholic view, never condemned or even discouraged by the Church.  

You have taken some quotes from the Fathers and your personal interpretation of Scripture to fabricate support for flat earth that never existed historically.  You are in opposition to the actual historical Catholic understanding that the earth is a sphere.  No matter how much you claim this is a pagan belief, it is a longstanding Catholic tradition.  Flat earth, on the other hand, is promoted in modern times by occult pagans like  Eric Dubay. 

I am not defending "the science of pagans".  I am defending Catholic tradition and historical truth.   You may like to pretend that you are fighting pagans, but you are their ally.  You oppose the usual view of Catholics for most of our history. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on April 14, 2018, 07:26:07 PM
Spherical earth is not a "condemned theory".  Some Church Fathers disagreed with it while others agreed.  Nobody with authority to condemn it ever did so.

Many Catholic Saints (virtually all of the ones who lived after 800) believed in a spherical earth and this was the position encouraged by the Church and taught in Catholic universities for over a thousand years.  This is a Catholic view, never condemned or even discouraged by the Church.  

You have taken some quotes from the Fathers and your personal interpretation of Scripture to fabricate support for flat earth that never existed historically.  You are in opposition to the actual historical Catholic understanding that the earth is a sphere.  No matter how much you claim this is a pagan belief, it is a longstanding Catholic tradition.  Flat earth, on the other hand, is promoted in modern times by occult pagans like  Eric Dubay.

I am not defending "the science of pagans".  I am defending Catholic tradition and historical truth.   You may like to pretend that you are fighting pagans, but you are their ally.  You oppose the usual view of Catholics for most of our history.
Always falling on deaf ears.   The Pythagorean Doctrine, aka Copernicanism is the science of pagans, and it was soundly condemned by the Catholic Church no matter what you pretend not to know.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Jaynek on April 14, 2018, 07:57:54 PM
Always falling on deaf ears.   The Pythagorean Doctrine, aka Copernicanism is the science of pagans, and it was soundly condemned by the Catholic Church no matter what you pretend not to know.
Yes, Copernicanism was condemned for being heliocentric.  In its place, the Church promoted the geocentric Ptolemaic model that had long been the dominant belief among Catholics.  But proponents of both models agreed that the earth was a sphere. That was not a point under debate.  The condemnation of Copernicanism is obviously not equivalent to a condemnation of spherical earth.  Spherical earth was an common feature to both models and clearly acceptable to the Church.

This has been explained to you many times by many people.  Your refusal to accept something that is so clearly true seriously impairs your credibility. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Ladislaus on April 14, 2018, 08:15:38 PM
As you say, the Church (at the very least) leaves open the option of believing the earth is a sphere.  This means that these people who think that Scripture teaches flat earth, in effect, are saying that the Church has been wrong to do this.  If inerrant, God-inspired Scripture truly said that the earth were flat, it would be wrong for the Church to allow other views.  How would it be OK for the Church to say "Go ahead and disagree with Scripture if you want"?

I think that there are times when the Church doesn't "make up her mind" about an issue or chooses to allow a difference of opinion among Catholics.  Take for example the famous Molinist debate, after which the Church allowed both opinions.

At one point, the Church declared St. Thomas Aquinas a Doctor of the Church after he objectively denied the Immaculate Conception.  Objectively the Church was wrong or had not made up her mind on the issue.  Same thing could be said here.  One could argue that the Church has not made up her mind without impugning the Church.

Otherwise, you're sliding dangerously close into that concept of "negative infallibility", where some zealous hold that it's not possible for the Church to fail to condemn any erroneous opinion ... so that all opinions tolerated by the Church must be considered true.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on April 14, 2018, 08:47:43 PM
Yes, Copernicanism was condemned for being heliocentric.  In its place, the Church promoted the geocentric Ptolemaic model that had long been the dominant belief among Catholics.  But proponents of both models agreed that the earth was a sphere. That was not a point under debate.  The condemnation of Copernicanism is obviously not equivalent to a condemnation of spherical earth.  Spherical earth was an common feature to both models and clearly acceptable to the Church.

This has been explained to you many times by many people.  Your refusal to accept something that is so clearly true seriously impairs your credibility.
The Church's words prove the contrary to what you claim: In March 1616 the Church described Copernicanism: the "false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture," and took action against it so it would not "creep any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth."
Copernicanism/Pythagorean doctrines are condemned as false
These condemned pagan doctrines are described as ALTOGETHER (this means totally) contrary to Scripture
These condemned pagan doctrines had been creeping in to the prejudice of Catholic truth (something you are pretending was acceptance)
The ridiculous assertion that the Church agreed earth was a sphere, is rendered false.  The Church fully condemned these pagan doctrines, called them FALSE and HERETICAL, and very specifically condemned them because they were ALTOGETHER contrary to Scripture.

   
 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on April 14, 2018, 09:01:30 PM
The Church employed several arguments against Galileo's moving sphere, including the firmament dome that covers earth, with sun and moon inside, among 19 other arguments. There's really no place to hide in hopes of protecting any aspect of spherical moving earth.  While some Catholics will certainly get a pass for not knowing, perhaps not being affected by this globalist agenda against God, the Copernican/Pythagorean doctrines driving modern science of today were long ago condemned because they damage the Faith.     
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Jaynek on April 14, 2018, 09:25:17 PM
The Church's words prove the contrary to what you claim: In March 1616 the Church described Copernicanism: the "false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture," and took action against it so it would not "creep any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth."
Copernicanism/Pythagorean doctrines are condemned as false
These condemned pagan doctrines are described as ALTOGETHER (this means totally) contrary to Scripture
These condemned pagan doctrines had been creeping in to the prejudice of Catholic truth (something you are pretending was acceptance)
The ridiculous assertion that the Church agreed earth was a sphere, is rendered false.  The Church fully condemned these pagan doctrines, called them FALSE and HERETICAL, and very specifically condemned them because they were ALTOGETHER contrary to Scripture.
 

Look at the Church's words in context.  They do not prove what you claim:

Quote
This Holy Congregation has also learned about the spreading and acceptance by many of the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture, that the earth moves and the sun is motionless, which is also taught by Nicolaus Copernicus’ On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres and by Diego de Zúñiga’s On Job. This may be seen from a certain letter published by a certain Carmelite Fa- ther, whose title is Letter of the Reverend Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini, on the Pythagorean and Copernican Opinion of the Earth’s Motion and Sun’s Rest and on the New Pythagorean World System (Naples: Lazzaro Scoriggio, 1615), in which the said Father tries to show that the above- mentioned doctrine of the sun’s rest at the center of the world and of the earth’s motion is consonant with the truth and does not contradict Holy Scripture. Therefore, in order that this opinion may not advance any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Congregation has decided that the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zúñiga (On Job) be suspended until corrected; but that the book of the Carmelite Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini be completely prohibited and condemned; and that all other books which teach the same be likewise prohibited, according to whether with the present decree it prohibits, condemns, and suspends them respectively.
Do you see anything about spherical earth in this docuмent?  It is quite explicit that "the false Pythagorean doctrine" being condemned is that "the earth moves and the sun is motionless." It even repeats that the problem is with the idea "of the sun's rest at the center of the world and the earth's motion."  

There is no justification whatsoever for claiming that somehow this docuмent implies a condemnation of the spherical earth. It clearly defines what it means by "false Pythagorean doctrine" and there is no mention of spherical earth there. That is ALTOGETHER the product of your imagination.  Since we know that the Church approved geocentric Ptolemaic model also posited a spherical earth, it is obvious the Church has no problem with it.  

The Church employed several arguments against Galileo's moving sphere, including the firmament dome that covers earth, with sun and moon inside, among 19 other arguments. There's really no place to hide in hopes of protecting any aspect of spherical moving earth.  While some Catholics will certainly get a pass for not knowing, perhaps not being affected by this globalist agenda against God, the Copernican/Pythagorean doctrines driving modern science of today were long ago condemned because they damage the Faith.      

If you give exact quotes of these arguments, we will see nothing in them opposed to the earth being a sphere.  At the time of Galileo, spherical earth had already been the dominant view among Catholics for centuries.

You are seeing what you want to see but the there is no factual basis for it.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on April 14, 2018, 09:35:48 PM
Look at the Church's words in context.  They do not prove what you claim:
Do you see anything about spherical earth in this docuмent?  It is quite explicit that "the false Pythagorean doctrine" being condemned is that "the earth moves and the sun is motionless." It even repeats that the problem is with the idea "of the sun's rest at the center of the world and the earth's motion."  

There is no justification whatsoever for claiming that somehow this docuмent implies a condemnation of the spherical earth. It clearly defines what it means by "false Pythagorean doctrine" and there is no mention of spherical earth there. That is ALTOGETHER the product of your imagination.  Since we know that the Church approved geocentric Ptolemaic model also posited a spherical earth, it is obvious the Church has no problem with it.  

If you give exact quotes of these arguments, we will see nothing in them opposed to the earth being a sphere.  At the time of Galileo, spherical earth had already been the dominant view among Catholics for centuries.

You are seeing what you want to see but the there is no factual basis for it.
The quotes you provided above are a fraction of the arguments the Church provided.  Your repugnance to getting to the truth of the matter won't get them from me, either. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Jaynek on April 14, 2018, 09:48:11 PM
The quotes you provided above are a fraction of the arguments the Church provided.  Your repugnance to getting to the truth of the matter won't get them from me, either.
You cannot provide quotes that show the Church included spherical earth in her condemnation of heliocentrism because such quotes do not exist.  That is the real reason that we can't get them from you.  You are the one denying the truth and any reasonable person can see it.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on April 14, 2018, 09:55:36 PM
You cannot provide quotes that show the Church included spherical earth in her condemnation of heliocentrism because such quotes do not exist.  That is the real reason that we can't get them from you.  You are the one denying the truth and any reasonable person can see it.
Yea, well, you wish.  Guess you'll have to wait for the book.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 17, 2018, 11:41:04 PM
I think that it's perfectly fine to say something like, "It is my opinion that Scripture teaches flat earth."  Once could make that case.  But it's obvious that the Church, at very least, tolerates globe earth ... and leaves it open for Catholics to hold that opinion.

Similarly, I could say that I believe a certain position or proposition to be heresy, but I do not declare to be formally heretical those who hold it if the Church has not defined it.
.
The Church isn't going to make a formal definition regarding the shape of the earth because it's silliness to expect that, on several levels.
.
First of all, the Church is not in the business of, nor is she expected to weigh in on the physical description of material reality. The Church doesn't pronounce on the thermal conductivity of diamond vs. cubic zirconia. The Church does not proclaim the correct values for specific gravity of various elements or compounds such as gold, mercury, zinc, carbon or montmorillonite clay.
.
Second, the shape of the earth is not a matter for our concern relative to our eternal salvation. Since it is the Church's place to keep things in order for us to know what is important to save our souls, she isn't going to fly off the handle making any such definition just to settle the rabble of the madding crowd. Besides, it wouldn't have that effect, anyway!
.
Third, ever since All Souls' Day, 1950, the Church has been reticent on ANY definition and thanks to Vat.II, Newchurch has turned a blind eye to definition per se. Therefore, don't expect not only no definitive language on the shape of the earth, but neither on the reality of Mary Mediatrix or Co-Redemptrix or Queen of Heaven. Regarding the latter, thanks to one line in Scripture, it would be like shooting herself in the foot to do so. No matter whether it is incuмbent on Catholics to render hyperdulia to the Mother of God and to accept her as our spiritual mother lest we regret not having done so in eternity, the Church is not about to define that, at least at the present time.
.
Fourth, and for our concerns here on CI, this might be the most compelling:  the Church is not going to proclaim definitively that the earth is spheroid (for that is the only thing she could rightly say about it) because then the naysayers and rabble-rousers (not unlike those flat-earthers here on this forum) and instigators of controversy would leap for joy at the chance of accusing the Church of "contradicting" herself (even though it wouldn't be any such contradiction). Furthermore, since such flat-earthers might well be otherwise good Catholics, by rendering her definition to settle the matter she would instead nudge ill-informed but well-meaning Catholics toward a loss of faith since their edifice was built on a foundation of SAND.
.
As such pathetic drive-by flatulents like happenby have shown, they're all too eager to assert the falsehood that the Church has condemned the concept of a spheroid earth, a farce and fallacy if there ever was one. 
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 04, 2018, 04:13:48 AM
.
It's nice to see flat-earthers know when they've lost the argument.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Ladislaus on May 04, 2018, 07:56:57 AM
.
It's nice to see flat-earthers know when they've lost the argument.
.

:sleep:


This is childish, bumping dormant threads to declare victory.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on May 04, 2018, 11:58:26 AM
:sleep:


This is childish, bumping dormant threads to declare victory.
Neil Obstat is still trying to find a way to curve the horizontal horizon. :popcorn:
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 04, 2018, 05:48:59 PM
:sleep:


This is childish, bumping dormant threads to declare victory.
.
Sorry for disturbing your slumber.
.
I gave a reasoned reply to your post, below, and you threw in the towel by not responding.
Now you resort to ad hominem and insult because I dared to notice your lack of response after 2 weeks?
What's "dormant" about a thread that's been waiting for YOU for 2 weeks? You going to sleep?
It's all about you, eh?
Maybe you don't like it recognized when you're unwilling to be reasonable.
.
.
Quote from: Ladislaus on April 13, 2018, 06:31:37 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/50-plus-reasons-the-earth-is-not-flat/msg604048/#msg604048)
Quote
I think that it's perfectly fine to say something like, "It is my opinion that Scripture teaches flat earth."  Once could make that case.  But it's obvious that the Church, at very least, tolerates globe earth ... and leaves it open for Catholics to hold that opinion.

Similarly, I could say that I believe a certain position or proposition to be heresy, but I do not declare to be formally heretical those who hold it if the Church has not defined it.
.
The Church isn't going to make a formal definition regarding the shape of the earth because it's silliness to expect that, on several levels.
.
First of all, the Church is not in the business of, nor is she expected to weigh in on the physical description of material reality. The Church doesn't pronounce on the thermal conductivity of diamond vs. cubic zirconia. The Church does not proclaim the correct values for specific gravity of various elements or compounds such as gold, mercury, zinc, carbon or montmorillonite clay.
.
Second, the shape of the earth is not a matter for our concern relative to our eternal salvation. Since it is the Church's place to keep things in order for us to know what is important to save our souls, she isn't going to fly off the handle making any such definition just to settle the rabble of the madding crowd. Besides, it wouldn't have that effect, anyway!
.
Third, ever since All Souls' Day, 1950, the Church has been reticent on ANY definition and thanks to Vat.II, Newchurch has turned a blind eye to definition per se. Therefore, don't expect not only no definitive language on the shape of the earth, but neither on the reality of Mary Mediatrix or Co-Redemptrix or Queen of Heaven. Regarding the latter, thanks to one line in Scripture, it would be like shooting herself in the foot to do so. No matter whether it is incuмbent on Catholics to render hyperdulia to the Mother of God and to accept her as our spiritual mother lest we regret not having done so in eternity, the Church is not about to define that, at least at the present time.
.
Fourth, and for our concerns here on CI, this might be the most compelling:  the Church is not going to proclaim definitively that the earth is spheroid (for that is the only thing she could rightly say about it) because then the naysayers and rabble-rousers (not unlike those flat-earthers here on this forum) and instigators of controversy would leap for joy at the chance of accusing the Church of "contradicting" herself (even though it wouldn't be any such contradiction). Furthermore, since such flat-earthers might well be otherwise good Catholics, by rendering her definition to settle the matter she would instead nudge ill-informed but well-meaning Catholics toward a loss of faith since their edifice was built on a foundation of SAND.
.
As such pathetic drive-by flatulents like happenby have shown, they're all too eager to assert the falsehood that the Church has condemned the concept of a spheroid earth, a farce and fallacy if there ever was one.
.
.
I know, you'd like to see your weak posts forgotten. Well guess what? They're baaaaaack.
.
Now go back to sleep!  :baby:
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 05, 2018, 08:11:24 PM
.
Why a straight line track on earth for large distances is not possible

What the shortest distance is between any two points on the earth

Shorter arc of circle passing through both points + this circle has largest radius possible

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEpjVsKEU4

This video also covers why navigators do not generally use GC route plan but series of short Rhumb line segments

The reason is GC course execution is not practical since it requires constant course adjustment port and starboard

Short segments of Rhumb line however only need occasional adjustment with steady rudder settings in between
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: aryzia on May 05, 2018, 09:29:46 PM
A line and an arc are as different to each other as a plane and a sphere are to each other. Pretending a line is an arc or a plane is a sphere is the common tom foolery of the globalists.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Theosist on May 06, 2018, 05:54:58 AM
An arc is not a line? And reality changes if one changes the definition of a term? Wow, you learn something new every day from Flatters.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on May 06, 2018, 09:50:55 AM
An arc is not a line? And reality changes if one changes the definition of a term? Wow, you learn something new every day from Flatters. 
An individual's reality changes when people arbitrarily change definitions with an intent to deceive.  This is the game the globalists play every day.  They pretend the line of the horizon, curves.  Lol.  Just saying it is absurd. Globalists say a plane's attitude indicator magically keeps the PLANE curving around the outside of a spherical earth, so it doesn't go off into space, proving they either have no understanding how such mechanical devices work, or they are liars. Globalists say water surface curves.  Uh, like never.  So, when globalists say arc and/or line, either/or could be either/or and they are proven stupid or lying.  
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on May 06, 2018, 11:36:22 PM
An individual's reality changes when people arbitrarily change definitions with an intent to deceive.  This is the game the globalists play every day.  They pretend the line of the horizon, curves.  Lol.  Just saying it is absurd. Globalists say a plane's attitude indicator magically keeps the PLANE curving around the outside of a spherical earth, so it doesn't go off into space, proving they either have no understanding how such mechanical devices work, or they are liars. Globalists say water surface curves.  Uh, like never.  So, when globalists say arc and/or line, either/or could be either/or and they are proven stupid or lying.  
This shows the true lack of correct character of self-professing globe earthers.  :pray:
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 07, 2018, 04:23:44 AM
An arc is not a line? And reality changes if one changes the definition of a term? Wow, you learn something new every day from Flatters.
.
It goes to show how flat-earthers keep trying to dumb-down the discussion.
They're like the progressive education policy makers who are destroying our schools these days: dumbing down the schools.
.
I made just one post that included:

Why a straight line track on earth for large distances is not possible

What the shortest distance is between any two points on the earth

Shorter arc of circle passing through both points + this circle has largest radius possible


This video also covers why navigators do not generally use GC route plan but series of short Rhumb line segments

The reason is GC course execution is not practical since it requires constant course adjustment port and starboard

Short segments of Rhumb line however only need occasional adjustment with steady rudder settings in between


So how do they respond?
Do they have anything to say about the shortest line between two points on earth? No.
Do they have a comment about large distances being impossible to track with a straight line? No.
Anything about arc or circles passing through points and their radius? No.
Navigators? Do we have questions or comments about navigators? No.
Have they learned to type "GC"? No.
Can they type the word "rumb?" No.
.
All they have to say is:

Pretending a line is an arc or a plane is a sphere is the common tom foolery of the globalists.
An individual's reality changes when people arbitrarily change definitions with an intent to deceive.
.
Actually, I could have written these mundane idiocies in advance for you but why bother -- let them dig their own grave.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 07, 2018, 04:41:48 AM
A line and an arc are as different to [from?] each other as a plane and a sphere are to [from] each other.
.
You weren't paying attention, as usual.
The topic of the video is:  FOR SMALL AREAS on the earth an arc can be considered a line.
It's only when the area is LARGE that the curvature becomes relevant.
If we were on a planet the size of the moon the curvature would be much more apparent, but still not very obvious.
.
Your bathroom mirror could have a bulge in it and you'd never know because it's not a large enough area.
Take that same bulge and expand it in a mirror over a few hundred feet in diameter and standing back, you'd see the distortion.
That's because a straight line over the large mirror would reveal an arc difference of an inch or two in the middle.
Whereas on your bathroom mirror, there would be no difference measurable because it's too small.
.
Things are different from each other. Things are not different to each other.
Difference is a measure one thing's quality or magnitude from another thing.
Three from five is two. We don't say three to five when describing difference.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Theosist on May 07, 2018, 06:41:17 AM
.
You weren't paying attention, as usual.
The topic of the video is:  FOR SMALL AREAS on the earth an arc can be considered a line.
It's only when the area is LARGE that the curvature becomes relevant.
If we were on a planet the size of the moon the curvature would be much more apparent, but still not very obvious.
.
Your bathroom mirror could have a bulge in it and you'd never know because it's not a large enough area.
Take that same bulge and expand it in a mirror over a few hundred feet in diameter and standing back, you'd see the distortion.
That's because a straight line over the large mirror would reveal an arc difference of an inch or two in the middle.
Whereas on your bathroom mirror, there would be no difference measurable because it's too small.
.
Things are different from each other. Things are not different to each other.
Difference is a measure one thing's quality or magnitude from another thing.
Three from five is two. We don't say three to five when describing difference.
All arcs are lines by definition. Since when did “line” come to mean “straight line”?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 07, 2018, 06:56:51 AM
All arcs are lines by definition. Since when did “line” come to mean “straight line”?
.
I was referring to a means of measuring the curvature of the mirror, such as stretching a string taught across it. 
This is analogous to a latitude or meridian line on the earth. 
Over short distances on the curved surface of the earth, lines on the ground are presumed straight, not curved, even though they are short segments of an arc.
.
All arcs projected on a paper worksheet or map appear as lines. You can call that "by definition" if you like.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 07, 2018, 07:02:58 AM
-.
Eugene Grossman gives a very pleasant presentation of celestial navigation and why it's important to know.
This was for classical navigation before the advent of GPS or satellite systems.
Note: Sailors who use GPS at open sea are hundreds of miles out of range for cell phone towers.
Only satellites provide ephemeris data for GPS receivers to compute latitude and longitude on the globe earth.
Lots of sailing experience and much insight in his material.
Looks like this was recorded in 1972 or 1984.
The sun moves at 900 miles per hour over the earth's surface. We know this because it makes a full trip around the world every day, 24 hours a day (approximately). That makes 360 degrees divided by 24, which is 15 degrees per hour, and 60 Nm/d x 15 dph = 900 mph. Notice the duration of a day doesn't change from summer solstice to winter solstice.
Lots of facts here remind us none of this marine navigation works unless you recognize the earth is a globe.
Unlike GPS which you can use even if you deny the existence of satellites.
Your zenith distance measures global arc from your celestial position to the GP of the sun, in degrees.
Nautical miles east/west at the equator are one minute of arc, but closer to the south pole they're like they are close to the north pole, which is proportionally less than the number of feet a nautical mile is at the equator. The only way longitude distance can be less closer to the south pole is because the meridian lines get CLOSER TOGETHER near the south pole just like they do near the north pole, in other words, the earth is a globe.
Second half is Paul Miller's turn. He also has an easy-to-watch style of presentation.
A great circle measurement conceptually cuts the earth in half, i.e., the globe earth.
Celestial navigation allows the navigator to find out where you are even when you have no idea where you are.
Declination of the sun above the equator is an angular measurement from the center of the globe earth to the center of the sun.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTP17c-aLRQ
.
YouTube channel page gives outline of topics and times in the video:
Lecture 1 : Introduction to celestial Navigation Start
General Navigation Start at
02:55 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTP17c-aLRQ&t=175s)
Celestial Navigation start at
12:00 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTP17c-aLRQ&t=720s)
The Sextant
25:08 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTP17c-aLRQ&t=1508s)
Sextant index error
28:44 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTP17c-aLRQ&t=1724s)
Dip Correction
31:25 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTP17c-aLRQ&t=1885s)
Sun Correction
33:38
Refraction & Parallax
35:17 -- Refraction correction necessary near the horizon because of false elevation of objects especially over the ocean.
Time  39:32 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTP17c-aLRQ&t=2372s)
LAN = Local Apparent Noon
48:47 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTP17c-aLRQ&t=2927s)
Navigational Triangle
49:39 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTP17c-aLRQ&t=2979s)
Refraction Correction and Parallax Correction provided as charts in the navigation tables.  1:25:30

______________________________________________________________________________________
Lecture 2 :
53:30 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTP17c-aLRQ&t=3210s) Latitude & Longitude at Noon.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 07, 2018, 05:58:16 PM
All arcs are lines by definition. Since when did “line” come to mean “straight line”?
.
Actually, when you say straight line you're truly saying pi (π).
Because pi is the diameter of a circle, and the diameter is always a straight line, therefore, a straight line is pi.
And equivalently, when pi is multiplied by the diameter the product is the circuмference of the circle, which is an arc.
A complete arc, all the way around the circle, which when viewed from the side is identical with the diameter.
Therefore, pi is a line, and pi is an arc, and the arc is a straight line, which becomes obvious when you look at the circle edgewise. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 07, 2018, 06:17:40 PM
-.
Eugene Grossman gives a very pleasant presentation of celestial navigation and why it's important to know.
This was for classical navigation before the advent of GPS or satellite systems.
Note: Sailors who use GPS at open sea are hundreds of miles out of range for cell phone towers.
Only satellites provide ephemeris data for GPS receivers to compute latitude and longitude on the globe earth.
Lots of sailing experience and much insight in his material.
Looks like this was recorded in 1972 or 1984.
The sun moves at 900 miles per hour over the earth's surface. We know this because it makes a full trip around the world every day, 24 hours a day (approximately). That makes 360 degrees divided by 24, which is 15 degrees per hour, and 60 Nm/d x 15 dph = 900 mph. Notice the duration of a day doesn't change from summer solstice to winter solstice.
Lots of facts here remind us none of this marine navigation works unless you recognize the earth is a globe.
Unlike GPS which you can use even if you deny the existence of satellites.
Your zenith distance measures global arc from your celestial position to the GP of the sun, in degrees.
Nautical miles east/west at the equator are one minute of arc, but closer to the south pole they're like they are close to the north pole, which is proportionally less than the number of feet a nautical mile is at the equator. The only way longitude distance can be less closer to the south pole is because the meridian lines get CLOSER TOGETHER near the south pole just like they do near the north pole, in other words, the earth is a globe.
Second half is Paul Miller's turn. He also has an easy-to-watch style of presentation.
A great circle measurement conceptually cuts the earth in half, i.e., the globe earth.
Celestial navigation allows the navigator to find out where you are even when you have no idea where you are.
Declination of the sun above the equator is an angular measurement from the center of the globe earth to the center of the sun.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTP17c-aLRQ
.
YouTube channel page gives outline of topics and times in the video:
Lecture 1 : Introduction to celestial Navigation Start
General Navigation Start at
02:55 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTP17c-aLRQ&t=175s)
Celestial Navigation start at
12:00 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTP17c-aLRQ&t=720s)
The Sextant
25:08 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTP17c-aLRQ&t=1508s)
Sextant index error
28:44 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTP17c-aLRQ&t=1724s)
Dip Correction
31:25 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTP17c-aLRQ&t=1885s)
Sun Correction
33:38
Refraction & Parallax
35:17 -- Refraction correction necessary near the horizon because of false elevation of objects especially over the ocean.
Time  39:32 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTP17c-aLRQ&t=2372s)
LAN = Local Apparent Noon
48:47 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTP17c-aLRQ&t=2927s)
Navigational Triangle
49:39 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTP17c-aLRQ&t=2979s)
Refraction Correction and Parallax Correction provided as charts in the navigation tables.  1:25:30

______________________________________________________________________________________
Lecture 2 :
53:30 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTP17c-aLRQ&t=3210s) Latitude & Longitude at Noon.
The video above has two parts.
The second part (Lecture 2), given by Paul Miller, is a detailed tour through filling out the standard forms for recording in standard notation for the ship's log your verified position at sea at a given point in time.
And it works for any ship at sea even when the navigator filling out the paperwork had no idea where the ship was before he started filling out the paperwork.
Any marine navigator capable of doing the job knows how to fill out that paperwork.
.
https://youtu.be/jTP17c-aLRQ
.
Now, it's possible to have a job filling out paperwork without being aware of the principles behind it.
It's possible to use formulas without knowing how to derive the formulas.
Consequently, it's possible for a navigator using these forms to arrive at the ship's verified position at sea, even though the navigator does not believe that the earth is spheroid, or that it's being treated as a perfect sphere. 
Then he would be going through the motions of performing a job while not believing in the basis his job is built on.
.
Similarly, a person could go to Confession, confess his sins, receive absolution, do his penance, go to Mass, read the Mass prayers along with the priest so as to assist at Mass, listen to what the priest has to say, understand what is being said, pray the Rosary, receive Holy Communion, and after Mass even cordially socialize in the parish hall with other Catholics, all the while not believing in the Trinity, that Our Lord Jesus Christ is God, or in the doctrine of grace. 
.
It's possible to act like a Catholic while not believing what the Church teaches.
.
So don't be too shocked that there can be found one or more marine navigators who think the earth is "flat."
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: aryzia on May 07, 2018, 06:19:23 PM
.
Actually, when you say straight line you're truly saying pi (π).
Because pi is the diameter of a circle, and the diameter is always a straight line, therefore, a straight line is pi.
And equivalently, when pi is multiplied by the diameter the product is the circuмference of the circle, which is an arc.
A complete arc, all the way around the circle, which when viewed from the side is identical with the diameter.
Therefore, pi is a line, and pi is an arc, and the arc is a straight line, which becomes obvious when you look at the circle edgewise.
Here's some tp, you got a little bs on your keyboard.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on May 07, 2018, 06:29:47 PM
The video above has two parts.
The second part (Lecture 2), given by Paul Miller, is a detailed tour through filling out the standard forms for recording in standard notation for the ship's log your verified position at sea at a given point in time.
And it works for any ship at sea even when the navigator filling out the paperwork had no idea where the ship was before he started filling out the paperwork.
Any marine navigator capable of doing the job knows how to fill out that paperwork.
.
https://youtu.be/jTP17c-aLRQ
.
Now, it's possible to have a job filling out paperwork without being aware of the principles behind it.
It's possible to use formulas without knowing how to derive the formulas.
Consequently, it's possible for a navigator using these forms to arrive at the ship's verified position at sea, even though the navigator does not believe that the earth is spheroid, or that it's being treated as a perfect sphere.
Then he would be going through the motions of performing a job while not believing in the basis his job is built on.
.
Similarly, a person could go to Confession, confess his sins, receive absolution, do his penance, go to Mass, read the Mass prayers along with the priest so as to assist at Mass, listen to what the priest has to say, understand what is being said, pray the Rosary, receive Holy Communion, and after Mass even cordially socialize in the parish hall with other Catholics, all the while not believing in the Trinity, that Our Lord Jesus Christ is God, or in the doctrine of grace.
.
It's possible to act like a Catholic while not believing what the Church teaches.
.
So don't be too shocked that there can be found one or more marine navigators who think the earth is "flat."
.
(https://i.imgur.com/QJj3Le9.jpg)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 07, 2018, 07:19:36 PM
.
The worksheet Paul Miller uses (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/50-plus-reasons-the-earth-is-not-flat/msg607810/#msg607810) is called the LAN form, or Local Apparent Noon worksheet.
.
The term "apparent" is deliberately employed because the sun's angle above the horizon at high noon is the objective for the calculation that follows, using charts for establishing your position at sea, however, to get this angle of the sun you do not directly measure the angle AT high noon. You take two sightings, one before noon and one an equal time after noon and then average the two to obtain an APPARENT local noon angle, called the LAN.
.
The project of the video is background and steps for correctly filling out the form.
.
At the end of the form, when you've done the work correctly, you will have your true position at sea.
.
The process involves taking two sextant sightings of the sun, one before noon and one after noon.
.
The two readings are averaged for the mean function at high noon.
.
It is explained that you cannot get a reliable sextant reading at high noon, and the reasons why.
.
That's why they use two readings, one before noon and a second one at the same time after noon.
.
You keep track of how many minutes before noon it was when you took the first reading, and then you carefully time your second reading after noon to take place at the same number of minutes after noon that had elapsed from the first reading until noon.
.
IOW the two readings are made at equal times before and after noon.
.
I had known there is a lot of technicality involved in proper use of the sextant, but this was surprising to see.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 08, 2018, 12:47:36 PM
.
Paul Miller explains why you can't get a reliable sextant reading for the sun's angular distance above the horizon at high noon by taking the measurement at high noon.
.
In other words, COUNTER-INTUITIVE.
.
Here is another counter-intuitive fact of nature, explained by Walter Lewin, MIT Physics professor:
.
https://youtu.be/XPUuF_dECVI?t=2753

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPUuF_dECVI&feature=youtu.be&t=2753
.
He's explaining a fact of nature which anyone can duplicate, anywhere on earth, by holding a similar apparatus in motion.
.
Earlier in the same video he shows how a toy gyroscope works similarly.
.
It makes no difference where one stands while doing this, or how one moves, even in an aircraft 40,000 ft elev., during free-fall, or in a submarine under water, in the Space Station hundreds of miles above the earth or while accelerating at 2 G in a rocket test launch.

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on May 08, 2018, 01:11:56 PM
.
Paul Miller explains why you can't get a reliable sextant reading for the sun's angular distance above the horizon at high noon by taking the measurement at high noon.
.
In other words, COUNTER-INTUITIVE.
.
Here is another counter-intuitive fact of nature, explained by Walter Lewin, MIT Physics professor:
.
https://youtu.be/XPUuF_dECVI?t=2753

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPUuF_dECVI&feature=youtu.be&t=2753
.
He's explaining a fact of nature which anyone can duplicate, anywhere on earth, by holding a similar apparatus in motion.
.
Earlier in the same video he shows how a toy gyroscope works similarly.
.
It makes no difference where one stands while doing this, or how one moves, even in an aircraft 40,000 ft elev., during free-fall, or in a submarine under water, in the Space Station hundreds of miles above the earth or while accelerating at 2 G in a rocket test launch.
(https://i.imgur.com/3kUOkpN.jpg)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on May 08, 2018, 02:31:08 PM
Rail lines throughout the United States and Europe (and all countries) are built on the level, and except to accommodate low grade hills and valleys, trains move along level rails only, without consideration whatsoever for "earth's curve"; this attested to by the engineers who built them.  With literally thousands of miles of train track criss-crossing land, earth is proven not a globe. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 08, 2018, 02:51:55 PM
.
The earth's magnetic field is constantly changing. In the past, variation from year to year has been not so great so as to make estimates of location unreliable from place to place worldwide, and such practices as land surveying and navigation at sea have been able to use updated maps for currently reliable data. In recent years, however, the magnetic poles (called dip poles) of the earth have been moving more quickly such that services and trades that rely on currently updated locations of the dip poles have had to obtain more frequent assessment and updates.
.
(https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/image/north_dip_poles.png)
Observed north dip poles during 1831 - 2007 are yellow squares.
Modeled pole locations from 1590 to 2020 are circles progressing from blue to yellow.
.
[Obviously, the locations for 2020, 2019, 2018 and 2017 are estimates. This present data is current as of 2015.]
.
Magnetic poles are defined in different ways. They are commonly understood as positions on the Earth's surface where the geomagnetic field is vertical (i.e., perpendicular) to the ellipsoid. These north and south positions, called dip poles, do not need to be (and are not currently) antipodal. In principle the dip poles can be found by conducting a magnetic survey to determine where the field is vertical. Other definitions of geomagnetic poles depend on the way the poles are computed from a geomagnetic model. In practice the geomagnetic field is vertical on oval-shaped loci traced on a daily basis, with considerable variation from one day to the next.
.

It has been long understood that dip poles migrate over time. In 1831, James Clark Ross located the north dip pole position in northern Canada. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) tracked the North Magnetic Pole, which is slowly drifting across the Canadian Arctic, by periodically carrying out magnetic surveys to reestablish the Pole's location from 1948 to 1994. An international collaboration, led by a French fundraising association, Poly-Arctique, and involving NRCan, Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris and Bureau de Recherche Geologique et Miniere, added two locations of the North Magnetic Pole in 2001 and 2007. The most recent survey determined that the Pole is moving approximately north-northwest at 55 km per year.



Modeled pole locations for magnetic north from 1831 to 2020 [1831.000 - 2020.000 -- these are not observed north pole locations]:
.
222.596 85.370 2011.000 217.521 85.676 2012.000 211.982 85.933 2013.000 206.059 86.138 2014.000 199.975 86.289 2015.000
193.710 86.395 2016.000 187.413 86.455 2017.000 181.245 86.471 2018.000 175.346 86.448 2019.000 169.818 86.391 2020.000
.
[The years' data for 2015 and 2017 (https://www.cathinfo.com/Quote from: Neil Obstat on Tue Oct 31 2017 14:28:49 GMT-0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)) are in bold - degrees longitude west, degrees latitude north, year.]
.
The cause of the earth's magnetic field is not actually known, but there are theories proposed that would explain it. It is thought that some large quantity of ferrous material in the earth's core is moving to produce this field, but how much iron, where exactly it's located and how fast it's moving are all unknowns and up for speculation. One thing scientists can agree on is that wherever this iron is precisely, it exists at a temperature of over 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, or perhaps even 2,000, which would mean it would be molten at atmospheric pressure, however, since it is expected to have an ambient pressure of hundreds of atmospheres, the liquidity/solidity or whatever state it is in cannot be certain. In any event, since the magnetic poles of the earth are observed to in fact be moving, we can reasonably presume that the ferrous or iron mass deep within the earth must not only be moving so as to generate this field but must be moving in a variable manner, that is, moving differently today than it has moved in previous centuries.
.
Since it is essentially unknown what forces are acting on the iron inside the earth, we cannot know for sure what kinds of changes the magnetic field will undergo in the future. We can presume to expect it to move in a somewhat predictable manner, but as you can see from the image above, in the years 1732 (George Washington's birthday and the square root of 3), 1859, 1890 and 1900 the north dip pole changed direction of drift quite abruptly and without apparent or observable cause as far as we know (the birth of Washington or the square root of 3 can't explain a pole shift), therefore a similar change could likewise occur in our present age and we have no way of predicting it or even of anticipating when or whether it will occur.
.
.
I heard a news report that the shifting magnetic north dip pole continues to move according to latest measurements.
If that persists this way for a few more years (it's been going on since 1998 as the picture above shows) then that would put the magnetic north dip pole in northern Russia, when for the past 500 years it has been in northern Canada, and this may have been the case for all of recorded human history. So this present change is really big news.
.
It's really big news, but it's not getting into news headlines.
.
One commentator on this said that the MSM doesn't want to scare everyone, that is, not until scaring everyone is helpful for some agenda.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: aryzia on May 08, 2018, 05:22:29 PM
.
I heard a news report that the shifting magnetic north dip pole continues to move according to latest measurements.
If that persists this way for a few more years (it's been going on since 1998 as the picture above shows) then that would put the magnetic north dip pole in northern Russia, when for the past 500 years it has been in northern Canada, and this may have been the case for all of recorded human history. So this present change is really big news.
.
It's really big news, but it's not getting into news headlines.
.
One commentator on this said that the MSM doesn't want to scare everyone, that is, not until scaring everyone is helpful for some agenda.
.
Where is this "magnetism" coming from?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 08, 2018, 09:30:43 PM
Where is this "magnetism" coming from?
.
Your lack of understanding indicates a failed attempt to stay relevant in a discussion way above your head.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 08, 2018, 09:33:09 PM
Rail lines throughout the United States and Europe (and all countries) are built on the level.
.
This shows how rail lines are much more credible than flat-earthism since the latter is not on the level.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 09, 2018, 02:07:45 AM
.
The death of flat-earthism has been announced.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwGG3x3v8RA
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 09, 2018, 03:06:56 AM
Globalists say a plane's attitude indicator magically keeps the PLANE curving around the outside of a spherical earth, so it doesn't go off into space, proving they either have no understanding how such mechanical devices work, or they are liars. 
.
Here is a flight instructor explaining the concept, if you'd like to learn something. 
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPDzwOYOZF8
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: aryzia on May 09, 2018, 08:04:07 AM
.
This shows how rail lines are much more credible than flat-earthism since the latter is not on the
Nothing here.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 09, 2018, 01:33:56 PM
.
Here is a flight instructor explaining the concept, if you'd like to learn something.
.
----XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX----
.
That was the wrong video. (After I posted this, the video above was changed in the post so now it's a different one.)
Here is a commercial pilot and flight instructor, explaining how gyros (Artificial Horizon) work in aircraft:
.
                  Artificial Horizon Experiments
1. Prove Artificial Horizon Instruments have self-correcting mechanism.
2. Prove the Instrument will always correct to level.
3. The correction rate is faster than 1 degree in 8 minutes. (This is faster than 450 mph takes to traverse 1 degree of curvature.)
4. Debunks the flat-earth claims that an Artificial Horizon is evidence of a "flat" earth.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0n-UDrB3Ys
.
At the end of this video I address several points that I see often in comments by Flat Earthers.

The experiments prove that the instrument "is capable" of remaining level while flying across curve.

That fully debunks the Flat Earth claims that the Artificial Horizon is evidence of a Flat Earth.

This instrument can easily correct for curvature and therefore will show level as you fly around a curved Earth.

The errors you see in this video will never occur in a normal flight.

.
.
World map WGS84 basis for GPS, international flights, major international airports for use by aircraft.

Incredibly accurate world map, with tolerance within 2 centimeters.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_H2PzgwOaU
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on May 09, 2018, 02:24:21 PM
.
That was the wrong video.
Thass right.  Seems to be your tendency.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 10, 2018, 06:33:35 PM
Thass right.  Seems to be your tendency.
.
You don't even know what I was talking about.
The video I posted is now showing up there but it wasn't for a few hours.
.
This is what I get for trying to be polite. Didn't your mother teach you basic manners?
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: aryzia on May 10, 2018, 06:47:17 PM
.
Your lack of understanding indicates a failed attempt to stay relevant in a discussion way above your head.

Just asking what globalist are saying these days. Obviously you don't know.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 10, 2018, 07:21:53 PM
.
The death of flat-earthism has been announced.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwGG3x3v8RA
.
Anyone can verify this, anywhere on the earth.
But flat-earthers are terrified of the truth.
They won't dare take the first step toward verification.
They know their pet fake fantasy theory is nonsense.
And they don't dare test it, because then they'll have to admit they've been wrong all along.
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 14, 2018, 05:56:37 AM

 Perhaps *you* have a reading comprehension problem. Besides, all evidence, scientific, empirical, by the senses, by the Church Fathers, by scripture, and from the Church Herself teach the earth is flat. You have to quit parroting the false, and study.

LOL. What scientific evidence? Please cite the empirical, peer-reviewed journal and study proving the "earth is flat."

It's funny that you claim "science proves the earth is flat", when it's you "flat earthers" who say "science has conspired to deceive everyone to think the earth is a globe."

Which is it? You people contradict yourselves.
.
After 5 months, still no peer reviewed study proving the earth is "flat?"
.
Maybe we need another 5 months? And another? And another? And another.... (?)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 14, 2018, 07:10:04 PM
Quote
Ahr yoo shore abowt thad?
Then the Flat Earth Model you believe in has the sun actively rising and falling, not revolving above it as I've seen most of you posit. Of course this would not explain how the sun is seen around the world 24/7, unless you believed there was a hemisphere on the opposite side of the earth disk, but since the sun goes from east to west and not north to south or vice-versa, you can't neatly fold it along the equator. Not that that works either because as mentioned before you must contend with not one but two pole stars, one for both northern and southern hemispheres.

I am sure.

Start from the top. Tell me how your model works with a literal rising and setting sun. It's your chance to shine!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_9cFTQg7NE
.
The video above is thoroughly debunked in 4 thousand of the 5,282 comments on its Youtube page.............
.
.
Seriously??! Thousands of years of scientific and academic research by very intelligent astronomers has been completely debunked by a tattooed bloke in his two-bed semi in East Grinstead with a coin and non-matching table set from IKEA!??
.
Dude, bad example, my 7 year-old granddaughter even noticed the camera below the supposed earth! The extreme lack of common sense makes you guys look pathetic.
.
Me: If the world is flat, why do ships disappear over the horizon hull first and sail last?
Flat Earther: Perspective.
Me: Okay. If the moon is small and close, why do people north of it and south of it see the same side and the same moon phase?
Flat Earther: Perspective.
Me: Interesting. If the sun is always circling over the flat Earth, why does it sink below the horizon at night?
Flat Earther: Perspective.
Me: Why do observers standing in different latitudes look in different directions to sight Polaris on your flat Earth?
Flat Earther: Perspective.
Me: Got it. If the stars are all on a disk rotating counterclockwise around Polaris, why do people south of the equator see them rotate in the opposite direction, clockwise, around a southern celestial pole?
Flat Earther: Perspective. By the way, if Earth were really a sphere with no dome over it, what would stop the air from escaping out into space?
Me: Gravity.
Flat Earther: Oh brother. You Globe-heads think gravity is the magic answer to everything!
.
There seems to be a correlation between how gullible people are and how much they believe in a god.
.
If the coin is representing the flat sun why is it vertical to the table.. it would be horizontal (parallel) to the flat earth shining down.... And you would not see the round part when the sun sets, you would see the flat coin edge of the sun.. therefore the sun is a around sphere.
.
[Termin] - Nope, you have the camera at a lower level than the sun. Secondly it was clear by the motion of your arm the "coin" was not moving in a circular path. [108 up-thumbs, 354 replies follow]
.
The camera was below the tabletop. And the coin was right on the table top. Everyone here knows full well that if you had the camera at the same level as the tabletop with the coin held above it, like you would see with the sun on the flat earth, it wouldn't have disappeared. Basic trigonometry shows that even at the farthest possible distance on the flat earth, the sun would still appear several degrees above the horizon. [548 up-thumbs followed by 493 replies]
.
I'm blown away to think that this thing he does with a camera below the table is supposed to convince me of something.
.
But it says "most undeniable proof" in the title.
.
Your experiment is wrong, camera lens needs to be perfectly in level with the table and in this case your camera is slightly beneath the table...you people know nothing about perspective and vanishing points, i study architecture i know what i'm talking about, things that are far away appear as they are closer to the ground/horizon but they will NEVER touch it nor cross it, the only thing that can be at exact same level as the horizon line is the thing that's exactly at your eye level, sun is obviously not at our eye level if it's 3,000 miles above ground...open Sketchup and draw flat earth model with the sun to scale and then lower yourself to human perspective even at 2,000 miles from the sun...the sun will be NOWHERE NEAR horizon line, it will be high in the sky and should be visible from any place on earth! [40 thumbs-up, 117 replies follow]
.
[7 months ago] To prove you're not an idiot please provide a link to an explanation of the physics of this model..  
.
I can wait. [no reply]
.
You have to place the camera at the same level of the table or the  other cameras under the ground to have an equal observation.
.
I was just having this argument with a co-worker. IF and this is a BIG IF, If the sun hovered above us in a circular pattern, over the "flat earth" then the sun would never touch the horizon at all.
.
As everyone here seems to agree - table top example fakes perspective by putting the camera below the level of the table.  And the illusion seen here of the Sun appearing smaller as it sets  is caused by glare, not the Sun's disk actually appearing smaller.  If perspective were really causing the Sun to appear to set (as Flat Earth "theory" states) the Sun's disk would appear to get steadily larger throughout the day as it rises and climbs, appearing largest at mid day and then gradually shrinking again as it descends.  The Moon would also display this appearance.  Neither the Sun nor the Moon shows any apparent difference in the size of its disk no matter where in the arc of the sky you observe them - as anyone who has ever looked knows - so it's very clear to anyone who thinks about this for even a moment that it's completely wrong.  Yet another nail in the coffin of the Flat Earth idea.
.
how do you explain that you can take a flight from Australia to south america in 9 hours? if the earth was flat this would have to travel faster than a concord. [20 up-thumbs, 32 replies follow]
.
Have another beer smoke another joint too much peyote or something
.
Look how beautifully the sun lights up the UNDERSIDE of the clouds!  Only on a globe earth the sun will sink below the horizon and shine UP on the clouds.
.
The usual thing you'd expect from a flat-earthling - a constructed lie to "prove" others are lying ...
.
First off... your camera is slightly below the table plane... second you need to hold the coin higher so it represents your FE 'sun' which is always above the plane of your earth... 3000 miles high as you people say.  That would be 6" above the table if it were 48" across!  Reproduce your 'test' in this manner and you will see the sun can never set nor rise LOL!! FE BUSTED!!
.
[Endzeit2014] oh Dude. I honestly praise and love You for what you are doing. It was man like you that give minds the chance to recover and see the TRUTH and know I understand the meaning of the bible...and thy truth will make you free...fantastic
.
[same postor, Endzeit2014] after I red the comments below I understand you. the (american) NWO is working hard against FE´s. here in europe they just hush up the topic. It would be too dangerous, too many people could wake up. Its so amazing: there really is a creator (not the  god  created/invented by the religions). This creator made everything and thats a overwhelming feeling. LIFE HAS A MEANING NOW !!! and thats not making lots of money or riding 24inch rims you sheeple. "REMEMBER BILL COOPER" killed by...
.
I too also believe in a Flat Earth because of the sun's rays coming down through the clouds in the late afternoon, spreading out into a measurable angle. We are NOT moving at 1000 miles per hour like the Masons claim we are. [66 up-thumbs, 88 replies follow]
.
[Jason Kalidas] your camera looks slightly below the table !!
.
[Video author replies and explains why camera is below the table -- username = Gift From God]
+Jason Kalidas No matter what
lenght it is from the ground to your eyes it will always LOOK as if it
is actually at a higher ground from where you are standing due to the
PERSPECTIVE and that is exactly WHY I have to have the camera slightly
below the table so the edge of the table ends up in the middle of the
camera/screen just as we see out in the real world at the horizon.
Simple as that ;)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 14, 2018, 09:12:47 PM
.
Regarding one reply in particular to the video above:
.
I too also believe in a Flat Earth because of the sun's rays coming down through the clouds in the late afternoon, spreading out into a measurable angle. We are NOT moving at 1000 miles per hour like the Masons claim we are. [66 up-thumbs, 88 replies follow]
.
It seems he's referring to scenes like the following:
.
(https://s15-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wallpaperup.com%2Fuploads%2Fwallpapers%2F2014%2F01%2F07%2F217993%2F03a506cce497e2e54d3e01835767cbfd-700.jpg&sp=78ff648f6adc1af251ae0319f0d9057f)  (https://s15-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F0%2F0b%2FCrepuscular_rays_over_Plymouth_Sound_crop.jpg%2F1200px-Crepuscular_rays_over_Plymouth_Sound_crop.jpg&sp=1ac7b0fba746e0bf0d7ce529287f84a4)
.
This implies that if the sun were proportionally much further away, we wouldn't see the rays diverging this quickly.
.
So if instead of clouds several miles away from the viewer, what if you have a wall only a few feet away?
.
Like this?
.
(https://s15-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-BbPPMncEh0E%2FVN1ym7Afo7I%2FAAAAAAAAjOY%2FK9LbW2Q3I-Y%2Fs1600%2FRonSide.jpg&sp=f0c002a39eeb897bad31a52775a2fe2b)
.
When the sun is far away compared to the breaks in the obstacle, whether it's cloud cover or a wall, the effect is the same.
.
It turns out, it makes no difference how far away the light source is.
All that matters is the angle between the viewer and the light rays at each window
If the photo were taken from below the light rays, such as from those pews, the rays would appear to shine upwards.
Even though these rays come from the sun shining down toward the windows.
.
(https://s16-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F4d%2F37%2F7e%2F4d377ebe6b87d19ea9f2d31c252bb927--religious-architecture-le-corbusier.jpg&sp=f555cf990711284bd0d3d5de44ff8270)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Truth is Eternal on May 14, 2018, 09:31:29 PM
.
Regarding one reply in particular to the video above:
.
I too also believe in a Flat Earth because of the sun's rays coming down through the clouds in the late afternoon, spreading out into a measurable angle. We are NOT moving at 1000 miles per hour like the Masons claim we are. [66 up-thumbs, 88 replies follow]
.
It seems he's referring to scenes like the following:
.
(https://s15-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wallpaperup.com%2Fuploads%2Fwallpapers%2F2014%2F01%2F07%2F217993%2F03a506cce497e2e54d3e01835767cbfd-700.jpg&sp=78ff648f6adc1af251ae0319f0d9057f)  (https://s15-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F0%2F0b%2FCrepuscular_rays_over_Plymouth_Sound_crop.jpg%2F1200px-Crepuscular_rays_over_Plymouth_Sound_crop.jpg&sp=1ac7b0fba746e0bf0d7ce529287f84a4)
.
This implies that if the sun were proportionally much further away, we wouldn't see the rays diverging this quickly.
.
So if instead of clouds several miles away from the viewer, what if you have a wall only a few feet away?
.
Like this?
.
(https://s15-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-BbPPMncEh0E%2FVN1ym7Afo7I%2FAAAAAAAAjOY%2FK9LbW2Q3I-Y%2Fs1600%2FRonSide.jpg&sp=f0c002a39eeb897bad31a52775a2fe2b)
.
When the sun is far away compared to the breaks in the obstacle, whether it's cloud cover or a wall, the effect is the same.
.
It turns out, it makes no difference how far away the light source is.
All that matters is the angle between the viewer and the light rays at each window
If the photo were taken from below the light rays, such as from those pews, the rays would appear to shine upwards.
Even though these rays come from the sun shining down toward the windows.
.
(https://s16-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F4d%2F37%2F7e%2F4d377ebe6b87d19ea9f2d31c252bb927--religious-architecture-le-corbusier.jpg&sp=f555cf990711284bd0d3d5de44ff8270)
(https://i.imgur.com/LDKBGoT.jpg) ;D
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 15, 2018, 03:48:26 PM
.
Finally, we have video of the DOME!!

.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x3APUxiSd4
.
If you didn't enjoy it, maybe you forgot to take your "meds" first. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 15, 2018, 04:03:18 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_9cFTQg7NE

This is such a fantastic, small scale, real world, easy-to-understand illustration of sunrise/sunset on the FE model and how it works.

Croixalist should be strapped to a chair and forced to watch it 100 times until he understands it.

It really is so very simple.

I fear people who cannot understand this concept are suffering some sort of willful blindness.
.
No, this is a thoroughly debunked pile of nonsense, easily understood as just being nonsense. See above a few posts (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/50-plus-reasons-the-earth-is-not-flat/msg609105/#msg609105).
.
It tells a lot about flat-earthers when they get excited over transparently silly nonsense.
.
"The usual thing you'd expect from a flat-earthling - a constructed lie to "prove" others are lying ..."
.
In the author's own words: "No matter what 
lenght [sic] it is from the ground to your eyes it will always LOOK as if it 
is actually at a higher ground from where you are standing due to the 
PERSPECTIVE and that is exactly WHY I have to have the camera slightly 
below the table so the edge of the table ends up in the middle of the 
camera/screen just as we see out in the real world at the horizon." 
.
You see, it's all due to PERSPECTIVE! The magic answer to everything!!
.
Me: If the world is flat, why do ships disappear over the horizon hull first and sail last? 
  Flat Earther: Perspective
Me: Okay. If the moon is small and close, why do people north of it and south of it see the same side and the same moon phase?
  Flat Earther: Perspective.
Me: Interesting. If the sun is always circling over the flat Earth, why does it sink below the horizon at night? 
  Flat Earther: Perspective
Me: Why do observers standing in different latitudes look in different directions to sight Polaris on your flat Earth?
  Flat Earther: Perspective.
Me: Got it. If the stars are all on a disk rotating counterclockwise around Polaris, why do people south of the equator see them rotate in the opposite direction, clockwise, around a southern celestial pole?
  Flat Earther: Perspective
  -- By the way, if Earth were really a sphere with no dome over it, what would stop the air from escaping out into space?
Me: Gravity.
  Flat Earther: Oh brother. You Globe-heads think gravity is the magic answer to everything!
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 24, 2018, 11:13:53 PM
.
At Bonneville salt flats, Utah, they say:

"This place is so flat, it is said you can see the curvature of the planet in its horizons."
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 27, 2018, 01:03:37 AM
.
It goes to show how flat-earthers keep trying to dumb-down the discussion.
They're like the progressive education policy makers who are destroying our schools these days: dumbing down the schools.
.
I made just one post that included:

Why a straight line track on earth for large distances is not possible

What the shortest distance is between any two points on the earth

Shorter arc of circle passing through both points + this circle has largest radius possible


This video also covers why navigators do not generally use GC route plan but series of short Rhumb line segments

The reason is GC course execution is not practical since it requires constant course adjustment port and starboard

Short segments of Rhumb line however only need occasional adjustment with steady rudder settings in between


So how do they respond?
Do they have anything to say about the shortest line between two points on earth? No.
Do they have a comment about large distances being impossible to track with a straight line? No.
Anything about arc or circles passing through points and their radius? No.
Navigators? Do we have questions or comments about navigators? No.
Have they learned to type "GC"? No.
Can they type the word "rumb?" No.
.
All they have to say is:

Pretending a line is an arc or a plane is a sphere is the common tom foolery of the globalists.
An individual's reality changes when people arbitrarily change definitions with an intent to deceive.
.
Actually, I could have written these mundane idiocies in advance for you but why bother -- let them dig their own grave.
.
Hey, Ladislaus, why don't you drop in and shred this bad argument?
That's what you're good at, remember?
.
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.
.
Rip it apart in seconds!  Go! Go! Go!   ................................
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 29, 2018, 08:19:12 PM
.
Still waiting for Ladislaus-the-bad-argument-shredding-genius to step in and show off his stuff.
.
Waiting for what, 4 weeks? Or is it longer? No, about 4 weeks now.
.
Hey, Ladislaus!
Remember your favorite canard that you find it "compelling" that a ship apparently receding beyond the curvature of the sea can be brought back into full view by zooming in with a camera lens? 
.
Remember that?
.
Or have you forgotten all about it?
.
Maybe we need to show you some links to your past posts where you said that............
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 28, 2018, 04:55:01 PM
.
Ladislaus is still hiding, after a month.
Hey, Ladislaus! Do you think by ignoring it this is going to go away quietly?
.
.
(Or as Matthew hates to see, "quitely?"  :cowboy:  )
.

The word on the street at Bonneville salt flats, Utah:

"This place is so flat, you can see the curvature of the planet on the horizon."
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 28, 2018, 05:33:35 PM
.
Why a straight line track on earth for large distances is not possible:
---- Flat-earthers have no answer to this. The best they can muster is "perspective!"

Why two courses initially set parallel one mile apart will converge after 300 miles and cross paths
---- No response from flat-earthers! If they ever do respond it will be to deny this ever happens, or it's trickery: we're being lied to!

What the shortest distance is between any two points on the earth
---- Again, flat-earthers have no answer to this. They want to say, "straight line," but they're afraid of the rejoinder.

Shorter arc of circle passing through both points + this circle has largest radius possible
---- The best flat-earthers can do here is to say that an arc is a straight line because the earth is a flat plane. (They like to say "plain.")

This video also covers why navigators do not generally use GC route plan but series of short Rhumb line segments
---- Flat-earthers cannot muster the gumption to pronounce "rhumb" because they deny its existence, like "ellipsoid."

The reason is GC course execution is not practical, since it requires constant course adjustment to port and/or starboard rudder
---- Flat-earthers don't know what GC means, nor do they care. It's not endemic to their flat-earthdown-syndrome thinking.

Short segments of Rhumb lines, however, only need occasional adjustment with steady rudder settings in between
---- This is ENTIRELY OVER THE HEADS of flat-earthdown-syndromers. Entirely Over Their Heads. EOTH.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 02, 2018, 05:42:04 AM
.
These are examples of objective criteria globe-earthers have presented to flat-earthers to demonstrate how the objective evidence supports the sphericity of earth, and flat-earthers have provided no substantive answers, rather, they attempt to change the subject or criticize the objective criteria on the basis of some re-definition of words or an abstract, contrived fantasy for which they have no credible evidence.

.
Why a straight line track on earth for large distances is not possible:
---- Flat-earthers have no answer to this. The best they can muster is "perspective!" (Redefinition of perspective!)

Why two courses initially set parallel one mile apart will converge after 300 miles and cross paths
---- No response from flat-earthers!
If they ever do respond, it will be to deny this ever happens, or it's trickery: we're being lied to!

What the shortest distance is between any two points on the earth
---- Again, flat-earthers have no answer to this. They want to say, "straight line," but they're afraid of the rejoinder.

Shorter arc of circle passing through both points + this circle has largest radius possible
---- The best flat-earthers can do here is to say that an arc is a straight line because the earth is a flat plane. (They like to say, "plain," like where the rain mainly falls in Spain.)

This video also covers why navigators do not generally use GC route plan but series of short Rhumb line segments
---- Flat-earthers cannot muster the gumption to pronounce "rhumb" because they deny its existence, like "ellipsoid."

The reason is GC course execution is not practical, since it requires constant course adjustment to port and/or starboard rudder
---- Flat-earthers don't know what GC means, nor do they care. It's not endemic to their flat-earth thinking.

Short segments of Rhumb lines, however, only need occasional adjustment with steady rudder settings in between
---- This is ENTIRELY OVER THE HEADS of flat-earthers. Entirely Over Their Heads. EOTH.

TLDR (flat-earthers won't read this - But years from now they'll ask, "Why didn't you say this before?" Well, I did.)

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Smedley Butler on July 02, 2018, 09:55:24 AM
Where's da curvature ar Salt Flats?


https://imgur.com/8nbwDYC
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 03, 2018, 02:43:34 AM
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG0fTKAqZ5g
.
Lightening in the clouds!
Author's analysis and FAQs answered:  https://randomphotons.com/alone (https://randomphotons.com/alone)
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Ladislaus on July 03, 2018, 06:18:21 PM
Neil, even if you you happen to be right, and the earth is a globe, you've still made a fool of yourself and discredited yourself ... being disqualified as someone who can be regarded as sincerely seeking the truth in good will.  So you may have won the battle, but you will have lost the war.  Why do you think that I accept nothing that you say at face value?  Your childish taunting and ridicule of the other position has completely discredited you as a reliable source of objective information.  If you said to me, "Good Morning", I'd have to go outside and investigate whether it may not just be night time.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on July 03, 2018, 07:10:37 PM
Bump
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 04, 2018, 02:17:40 AM
Neil, even if you you [sic] happen to be right, and the earth is a globe, you've still made a fool of yourself and discredited yourself ... being disqualified as someone who can be regarded as sincerely seeking the truth in good will.  So you may have won the battle, but you will have lost the war.  Why do you think that I accept nothing that you say at face value?  Your childish taunting and ridicule of the other position has completely discredited you as a reliable source of objective information.  If you said to me, "Good Morning", I'd have to go outside and investigate whether it may not just be night time.
.
And you, who find it "compelling" when a flat-earther shows the overexposed sun shining 16 times its real size because he deliberately chose NOT to use a solar filter, then zooms in on the SETTING sun (when I said show me AFTER the sunset) to make it appear to shrink, you, who say a boat out at 15 miles from the shore can be made to re-appear when a zoom lens is used, you, who say all the nonsense lies and patent falsehoods of flat-earthism are "compelling" even when I take the time to patiently show you why it's complete balderdash, YOU, I am somehow supposed to be concerned when you don't want to pay attention because your feewings were huwt looking at the mountains of evidence arrayed against flat-earthism?
.
How does that go again? Ladislaus is hoisted on his own petard.
.
And when I say to you "Good Morning" you would NEVER go outside to observe what I said about the moon, would you? No, you would only go outside to be sure you can't prove me WRONG about something, like whether it's morning or not, but never about what moon phase it is or what the Right Ascension of the moon is or anything relevant to showing you evidence of what the shape of the earth is, no, never anything objectively compelling. You're only compelled by P900 fakery and deliberate obfuscation from the flattards!
.
If you're lucky, you might go out to see the fireworks show this evening, and run into a group of fine Americans having a good time with a skit covering the spherical earth basics.  Then you can whine at them and explain how they've "lost the war" because flat-earth down syndrome has swept the nation and you're here to show proof of that!
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 04, 2018, 02:22:51 AM
.
Still waiting for Ladislaus-the-bad-argument-shredding-genius to step in and show off his stuff.
.
Waiting for what, 4 weeks (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/50-plus-reasons-the-earth-is-not-flat/msg607488/#msg607488)? Or is it longer? No, about 4 weeks now.
.
Hey, Ladislaus!
Remember your favorite canard that you find it "compelling" that a ship apparently receding beyond the curvature of the sea can be brought back into full view by zooming in with a camera lens?
.
Remember that (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/50-plus-reasons-the-earth-is-not-flat/msg607803/#msg607803)?
.
Or have you forgotten all about it?
.
Maybe we need to show you some links to your past posts where you said that............
.
.
Still waiting!
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 04, 2018, 02:30:40 AM
Bump
.
:sleep:


This is childish, bumping dormant threads.
.
A little discord in the flat-earth ranks now? 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 04, 2018, 02:44:56 AM
.
Bonneville salt flats, where you can see the curvature of the earth in the horizon!
.
(http://flatearthlunacy.com/images/2017-06-05_14-11-56.png)

(http://flatearthlunacy.com/images/2017-06-05_14-13-41.png)

(http://flatearthlunacy.com/images/2017-06-05_14-15-50.png)

(http://flatearthlunacy.com/images/2017-06-05_14-16-47.png)

(http://flatearthlunacy.com/images/2017-06-05_14-19-21.png)

.

Video at - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o085ljbgDEg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o085ljbgDEg)

- - -

Refer to this article as to why this is not perspective...
http://flatearthlunacy.com/index.php/2-uncategorised/309-why-not-perspective (http://flatearthlunacy.com/index.php/2-uncategorised/309-why-not-perspective)

Here is some other interesting information:
The Bonneville Salt Flats is a densely packed salt pan in Tooele County in northwestern Utah. The area is a remnant of the Pleistocene Lake Bonneville and is the largest of many salt flats located west of the Great Salt Lake. The property is public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management and is known for land speed records at the "Bonneville Speedway". Access is free and visitors can drive on the flats.
Bonneville Land Speed Racing is a unique sport that consists of very determined people who drive hot rods, roadsters, belly tankers, lakesters, motorcycles, streamliners, and even diesel trucks to "shoot the salt" in a simple quest to have their name added to the list of many record holders. Many years ago, the Bonneville Nationals Inc. (BNI) was formed. It's main focus would be to produce the annual "Bonneville Speed Week". 

The BNI hosts a spectacular week of racing each year in August, which is the highlight event of the LSR season. 

Speed Week consists of six days of racing (Sat - Fri), weather and conditions permitting. Entrants come from all over the globe to participate in the week-long event. Spectators are allowed to walk through the pits, view the vehicles, and talk to the drivers and crew members, and ask them if they think Bonneville makes them think the earth is "flat" --------------- or not.................

.
(http://flatearthlunacy.com/images/2017-06-04_15-46-38.png)
.

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Smedley Butler on July 04, 2018, 09:15:26 AM
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG0fTKAqZ5g
.
Lightening in the clouds!
Author's analysis and FAQs answered:  https://randomphotons.com/alone (https://randomphotons.com/alone)
.
How come no footage like this, or ANY nighttime footage of any kind, is ever shown on the ISS livefeed?
I should be able to see footage like this every 90 minutes.
But you can't. 
There is no night footage, ever.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 04, 2018, 10:42:54 AM
How come no footage like this, or ANY nighttime footage of any kind, is ever shown on the ISS livefeed?
I should be able to see footage like this every 90 minutes.
But you can't.
There is no night footage, ever.
.
That's a reasonable question.
I thought the same thing. There is a live chat room you can participate in, on the live feed channel.
Representatives from the ISS program running the feed can answer your questions.
I asked them why there are no stars at night shown and why do they go to stock footage during night views.
They replied with derision at first. 
That gave me the impression that's what they always do to chase out such questions.
But I was persistent and it paid off.
I got under their skin and eventually they coughed up their bottom-line excuses.
The reason is, they say, they have no control of the exposure settings on the ISS camera.
Therefore when the station goes into the night side there is nothing to see because the exposure cannot be adjusted.
The exposure is set to view the very bright images under sunlight on the daytime side, they say.
If you continue to question this explanation they circle the wagons around you and revert to ridicule.
So they've probably been through questioning before.

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 04, 2018, 11:17:58 AM
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG0fTKAqZ5g
.
Lightening in the clouds!
Author's analysis and FAQs answered:  https://randomphotons.com/alone (https://randomphotons.com/alone)
.
.
Go to the FAQs answered page and see the author's description of the source.
He composed the video by a 3-step process, beginning with the time exposures shot on the ISS.
This is not the same camera that the ISS live feed uses, which has set exposure parameters that can't be changed.
.
He has topics beginning with these:
.
.
Is this CGI?
All the sequences in the video are real photographs taken with a decent stills camera (typically a Nikon) with long exposure time. The only thing special about them is they are taken from a space station orbiting the Earth.
.
.

Why don’t the clouds move?
Since this is a time-lapse, one might expect to see the clouds moving throughout the video. After all, we can see clouds moving from Earth in real time.

However, the ISS is a lot further away from the cloud layer than we are, and that distance changes how much movement is visible.


cuмulonimbus, or storm clouds, are at most 13 km above us. The ISS is between 409 km and 416 km above us, so let’s say it is 400 km away from the cloud layer. (31 times further away from ISS)


Let’s imagine we are taking two square photos of the same clouds at the same moment in time with the same type of camera - one from earth looking straight up, the other from the ISS directly above it looking straight down.


This will give us two pyramids, with the point being the camera, and the base being the cloud layer. Something like this:

(https://randomphotons.com/images/alone/iss_vs_earth_side.svg) (The tiny red triangle is your view from Earth.)
Credit: David Peterson

If we calculate the dimensions of the bases, we can determine how much cloud area each photo will cover.
A typical 50 mm lens on a 35 mm sensor will have a field of view of about 46°. If we divide the pyramid in two we get two right-angled triangles, so we can use some Pythagorean geometry to calculate the area of the base. Here is the formula:

(tan(26) x h x 2)2 = area of the base

When we plug in 13 km for the Earth-bound photo, we get an area of 122 km2, or an 11 km x 11 km square.
From the ISS at 400 km, we get an area of 115,315 km2, or 340 km x 340 km of visible clouds.
That gives us a ratio of 967:1 between the areas covered by the two photos. Here is what that would look like:
(https://randomphotons.com/images/alone/iss_vs_earth.svg)
Credit: David Peterson

The blue is the area covered by the photo from the ISS. The red is the area covered by the photo from Earth. You will understandably lose a lot of detail.

Not only that, but given the speed of the ISS, a full orbit takes 90 minutes travelling at 7.66 km/s. As such it would take only 44 seconds for something to appear on one edge of the photo and disappear off the other edge.

All those things combined mean you don’t see much change in clouds from the ISS.


.
.
If all this is not immediately comprehensible, don't feel like you're alone.
You have to remember the scale difference, including how close we are to the clouds above us.

Our instinct is to naturally think how FAR above us the clouds are, and this new recognition of how CLOSE we are compared to how FAR above the clouds the ISS is, requires an outlook that we are not accustomed to having in mind.

It is necessary to use your sense of scale to step outside the close-knit world of earthly bound views, to recognize how different the view of earth's cloud structure from the ISS is.

Clouds viewed at close range have one appearance, but the SAME clouds viewed from a place with 967 times less detail because it's 31 times further away, necessarily appear to be completely different clouds. And in order to notice the same cloud movement at the more distant location that we see from earth, you would need to use a 31-power magnification. Any movement of the camera would destroy the clarity of the time exposure. It would require a LOT more sophistication in the camera mount, since there are small vibrations happening all the time on the ISS due to various activities inside going on.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 04, 2018, 11:35:13 AM
.
Continuing on the FAQs page, he answers about location.
The Bonneville Salt Flats are on the left side of  the first few seconds according to this list:
.
.
What locations are visible in the video?
The sequences are:

(0:00 (https://randomphotons.com/alone#)) North-to-south down the western coast of North and South America.

(0:48 (https://randomphotons.com/alone#)) North-to-south over Florida, the Bahamas and other Caribbean islands.

(0:56 (https://randomphotons.com/alone#)) South-East Asia, approaching the Philippine Sea

(1:04 (https://randomphotons.com/alone#)) Western Europe, from France through Italy, Greece, Turkey and the Middle East.

(1:20 (https://randomphotons.com/alone#)) Aurora Australis, over the Indian Ocean, approaching Australia

(1:36 (https://randomphotons.com/alone#)) Aurora Australis, over the Indian Ocean.

(1:52 (https://randomphotons.com/alone#)) Aurora Australis, unknown location in the Southern Hemisphere.

.
.
Links provided:
.
http://www.smarterthanthat.com/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat/
.
http://www.popsci.com.au/science/10-easy-ways-you-can-tell-for-yourself-that-the-earth-is-round,414182
.
http://nerdist.com/8-reasons-we-know-the-earth-isnt-flat/
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on July 04, 2018, 01:01:22 PM
Canned information from NASA and modern science only begs the question since they are the ones accused of lying in the first place. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Smedley Butler on July 04, 2018, 01:16:36 PM
.
That's a reasonable question.
I thought the same thing. There is a live chat room you can participate in, on the live feed channel.
Representatives from the ISS program running the feed can answer your questions.
I asked them why there are no stars at night shown and why do they go to stock footage during night views.
They replied with derision at first.
That gave me the impression that's what they always do to chase out such questions.
But I was persistent and it paid off.
I got under their skin and eventually they coughed up their bottom-line excuses.
The reason is, they say, they have no control of the exposure settings on the ISS camera.
Therefore when the station goes into the night side there is nothing to see because the exposure cannot be adjusted.
The exposure is set to view the very bright images under sunlight on the daytime side, they say.
If you continue to question this explanation they circle the wagons around you and revert to ridicule.
So they've probably been through questioning before.
Interesting. 
I watch the livefeed a lot.
Sometimes after the sunsets they let the blackness be visible before cutting out. Ypu can sometimes see little rainbow streaks, like particles whizzing by.
But no stars, no city lights, no land - ever.
Weird.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Ladislaus on July 04, 2018, 06:14:50 PM
Well, some of the purported ISS footage was clearly filmed in the "Vomit Comet" ... as evidenced by the turbulence they sometimes encounter.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Smedley Butler on July 04, 2018, 10:57:36 PM
Watch from tonight.

52:00 - 59:00 mark

No lights
No nothing


www.ustream.tv/

recorded/115945347

Take out the space

Not sure why link is messed up, but it should work if you take out the space.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 05, 2018, 02:06:18 AM
Interesting.
I watch the livefeed a lot.
Sometimes after the sunsets they let the blackness be visible before cutting out. Ypu can sometimes see little rainbow streaks, like particles whizzing by.
But no stars, no city lights, no land - ever.
Weird.
.
I recommend you go onto their chat room, in the sidebar on the right, and ask some questions.
As I recall you have to be signed in to your web-based e-mail or use something like Facebook or Google to log in. 
They want to have some kind of ID apparently.
CAUTION -- don't let them know you believe in flat earth because that raises their red flags and they come out like vultures.
Pretend you are a GLOBE EARTHER and you'll get lots of calm attention.
Don't criticize the "big bang" or heliocentrism. Just read and ask about the ISS camera they use.
Ask them what technical specs the camera has.
It must be a video camera, but is it different from a Nikon P900? 
Is it specially designed for use on the ISS?
Does it have automatic shutter speed and aperture adjustment that prohibits manual override?
Is some engineer afraid that opening the exposure for night views (stars!) would endanger the light meter if it sees the sun?
When you finally get all the answers you can expect, THEN you can mention this other video.
The one that shows time exposures from the ISS and has stars in the sky and city lights all over the planet.
But beware, once you ask about the stars in the sky they won't be willing to help anymore.
Something about seeing stars from the ISS makes it a very controversial topic apparently.
Might have to do with the Apollo 11 crew suddenly not remembering having seen stars when walking on the moon?!? 
Good Luck!
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Smedley Butler on July 05, 2018, 09:56:00 AM
Yikes sounds like fun.

What did you think of that clip from last night?

Did you notice you can see the camera lens reflected in the glass?

But no city lights,  no stars.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 09, 2018, 01:53:47 AM
Yikes sounds like fun.

What did you think of that clip from last night?

Did you notice you can see the camera lens reflected in the glass?

But no city lights,  no stars.
.
I think it was the clip you refer to that I watched.
There was a LOT of time showing a black screen, which is really boring viewing!
The  author of the page I linked above, explaining the reasons you see what you do in his video says that his still shots came from the ISS using a different camera than the one the ISS live feed uses. He answers a question from the Comments section with the model number of the camera, a Nikon, but not a P900. I forget what its model is. I can look for that again if it will help.
.
The difference is in the two exposure settings used, the ISS live feed camera's and this other Nikon camera's.
The ISS live feed camera is not adjustable by the crew, and is set for video of daytime space station views, therefore no stars are possible there. It would require changing the exposure for night time which isn't possible, they say.
.
The other camera, the Nikon (not a P900) takes exposures about 30 times longer using a 15mm wide angle lens.
Each still shot is therefore a time exposure so it has time to pick up very dim light like stars, which you can see in the sky there.
Please note that the stars do not show trails.
This is because each frame is fast enough to get the dim light of the stars but without being slow enough to show them moving.
The frames are effectively very close together though, and when combined into a movie format the stars appear to move.
This is the same way that animation works which makes drawings of animals and such to move with very natural movement.
To appreciate the sophistication of his process you have to read about it.
But all the data is extracted from the real photos, and no CGI or fake images are involved, he says.
He only adjusts the color saturation and contrast so as to bring out details that would be lost otherwise.
It's a lot of work for a hobbiest!
And it's something NASA could do but apparently they are not as creative as the author, who has devised this process.
.
It also picks up city lights on earth as well as cloud formations illuminated by the city lights and by  lightening.
The lightening flashes can be seen because they occur quickly but are bright enough to register in the longer exposures.
Each lightening flash is much faster than the time the shutter is open.
But they are recorded anyway, and some of them carry over into subsequent frames so they appear to stay lit up.
The overall effect makes for a very interesting pattern of lightening flashes in the clouds.
Even so, it is not exactly what you would see if you were physically watching it yourself.
The images are combined such that the earth appears to be moving much faster under the ISS than the live feed shows.
.
The process he used involves a 3-step procedure which he describes in some detail, if you're interested.
He posted this video 7 years ago, in 2011, and he has continued to return over these years to answer the endless questions.
He is consistently very patient with disbelieving viewers, and has kept on linking to his analysis page.
It seems that most incredulous viewers can't bother to read his analysis, though.
.
There is a lot of technical information that most viewers have no patience for, but that doesn't make him get rude.
He repeatedly asks deniers to supply their own data to support the numerous claims they make, but for 7 years, none have done so.
.
He ought to compile these responses over the years, but this is just a hobby for him, as he does not work for NASA.
When you go to the Comments section under his video, you can scroll to the bottom of the page and the site reloads older posts.
You can do this repeatedly, bringing up thousands of posts.
I made about 50 refreshing views and there appears to be no end in sight if you keep going.
They don't seem to let you skip to the end of the Comments page, maybe they do, but I haven't figured that out yet.
I went back to a ittle over 1 year's coverage, finding many replies from the author.
Most of his replies are seen when you click on the replies arrow under "view all 3 replies" or however many they are.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG0fTKAqZ5g
.
All Alone in the Night -- by David Peterson
Sample reply:

Sabrina Hernandez (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC73oOwki7M6qF2BStW0DKfw)[color=var(--ytd-comment-metadata-text-color)]3 months ago (edited) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG0fTKAqZ5g&lc=UgwiFVktHnUv9dLfklp4AaABAg)
[color=var(--ytd-comment-text-color)]How come this looks nothing like the Pegasus video footage done by Team Xtreme. Also do you know why there would not be footage of the side that is facing towards the sun? Do you know where I can find it[/color]
[color=var(--yt-button-text-color)]
1

[color=var(--yt-button-text-color)][color=var(--yt-button-color, inherit)]REPLY[/color][/color][/color]



[/font][/size][/color]


(https://yt3.ggpht.com/-dVv6Wk5xQeQ/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/IVGMCq2YBmQ/s48-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg) (https://www.youtube.com/user/Bitmeizer)
David Peterson (https://www.youtube.com/user/Bitmeizer)[color=var(--ytd-comment-metadata-text-color)]3 months ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG0fTKAqZ5g&lc=UgwiFVktHnUv9dLfklp4AaABAg.8doYZrkiH6M8doiwOPxL2B)

[color=var(--ytd-comment-text-color)]Hey there. There are a couple of reasons the Pegasus footage would look different. Firstly, that was filmed in daylight, as you noted. You can see some daylight sequences in my other ISS video: https://youtu.be/GOAEIMx39-w (https://youtu.be/GOAEIMx39-w)[/color]
[color=var(--ytd-comment-text-color)].
There are still some other differences. Primarily, the Pegasus gets to about 32 km in altitude, which is not bad. But the ISS is at about 400 km, which is over 12 times higher. If you consider how it looks to us when looking at the ground from the 1st floor compared to the 12th for of a building, it gives some idea of the difference in perspective.
[/color]
[color=var(--ytd-comment-text-color)].
Lastly, the colours are much more intense here, partly because I boosted the brightness and saturation a little, but also because these are time lapse photographs. Each frame was exposed for a full second instead of a fraction of a second. That let's the camera capture more light.
.
Hope that helped. There is more info at the FAQ too: https://randomphotons.com/alone (https://www.youtube.com/redirect?redir_token=8WtBGNHKnVgIzPj53iU5TuQsjch8MTUzMTAwNTM0MkAxNTMwOTE4OTQy&q=https%3A%2F%2Frandomphotons.com%2Falone&event=comments)
[/color]


[/font][/size][/color]
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 07, 2018, 01:27:14 PM
.
Peterson's FAQ page has loads of information.
https://randomphotons.com/alone
.
Can you really see curvature from the ISS?
.
The ISS’s altitude isn’t high enough to see the full curve of the earth. However, it can see a reasonably large segment of the earth, enough to see a curve on that segment. Here are some scale diagrams to help illustrate it:
Firstly, here is a scale diagram of the earth and the ISS (click to zoom in):
.

(https://randomphotons.com/images/alone/iss_horizon_earth.svg)          
Credit: David Peterson & Andrew Peterson                                                        
.
The red line is the visible horizon from the ISS at an altitude of 400 km. [The red line segment represents a circle as it appears when viewed from the side.]

Next, here is an overhead view, looking down towards the ISS, with the red circle being the visible horizon from the ISS:

[Note: the black feature "Flat Horizon" is not what a viewer sees from the ISS but what a viewer WOULD see if the horizon were flat. It is included here for a frame of reference to distinguish it from the reality that is observed in fact. IF this "Flat Horizon" were to be shown in the diagram ABOVE, it would have appeared as a single dot at the point at the top of the red line segment, where it intersects the earth's radius line dimensioned, "6367 km." ]
.
.
(https://randomphotons.com/images/alone/iss_horizon_overhead.svg)                              
Credit: David Peterson & Andrew Peterson                                                              
.
The red circle is the horizon, the same as the red line in the first diagram, looking down from 90º. The black “Flat Horizon” is a tangent to the Earth’s horizon, and is what would be visible as a straight line when looking at the horizon from the ISS [what would be visible but it is in fact not visible from the ISS since it does not exist in reality -- it only exists in the imagination of those who desire it to exist]. The orange lines indicate a field of view of 100º when using a 15 mm lens on a 35mm sensor, as was the case for most of these sequences.

Here are the same details, from an off-centre perspective:

[The "Flat Horizon" only appears here as it would appear when the viewer is looking in that direction. If the viewer were looking in some other direction, the "Flat Horizon" would have to be re-drawn to be tangent to earth and in front of that other line of sight, wherever it is. What a viewer actually sees from the ISS is the red "Earth Horizon" which is rendered in red so as to stand out and be noticed here.]
.
(https://randomphotons.com/images/alone/iss_horizon_perspective.png)                                    
Credit: David Peterson & Andrew Peterson                                                        
.
And here is the view you get from the ISS, looking directly at the horizon, with a field of view of 100º, which is what is present on a 15 mm lens [What you do in fact see is the red curving horizon.  What you do not see is the flat, black horizon, which is drawn in here for the sake of comparison only, because it is not actually visible in reality.]:
.
(https://randomphotons.com/images/alone/iss_horizon_pov.png)
.
And an actual photo from the ISS, taken with a 15 mm lens on a Nikon D3S, for comparison:
[Note: the "Flat Horizon" is not shown because it is not visible, because it does not exist. It was drawn in above as a reference for what it WOULD look like if it WERE visible, but since it is not there, it is not visible in fact. The thin green haze is the earth's atmosphere above the horizon -- the atmosphere has its own horizon at its outer limits, and what is on the other side of that also shows up appearing to thicken the foreground atmosphere even though it is in the background behind the horizon.]
.
(https://randomphotons.com/images/alone/ISS028-E-33400.JPG)
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 15, 2018, 09:28:53 PM
.
This thread is a treasure trove of good stuff -- 90 pages of it! 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 31, 2018, 12:27:14 PM
.
Bump for newcomers
.
Especially for the "All Alone in the Night" video -- amazing product of many hours of real photograph compilations. 
.
https://youtu.be/FG0fTKAqZ5g
.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Struthio on August 31, 2018, 12:42:09 PM
.
Bump for newcomers
.
Especially for the "All Alone in the Night" video -- amazing product of many hours of real photograph compilations.
.
https://youtu.be/FG0fTKAqZ5g
.

Why look clouds white as snow seen from above during the night?
If they were illuminated by the moon, the illumination would have to change while the camara is orbiting the globe.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 31, 2018, 12:47:56 PM
Why look clouds white as snow seen from above during the night?
If they were illuminated by the moon, the illumination would have to change while the camara is orbiting the globe.
.
See in the previous posts and the link to Peterson's FAQ page that answers most questions and a few you hadn't thought of.
.
Some aspects (like clouds) get overexposed when the rest of the frame is enhanced to bring out the otherwise too-dark images.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Struthio on August 31, 2018, 12:59:27 PM
.
See in the previous posts and the link to Peterson's FAQ page that answers most questions and a few you hadn't thought of.
.
Some aspects (like clouds) get overexposed when the rest of the frame is enhanced to bring out the otherwise too-dark images.

Peterson has one of the original photographs on his FAQ (https://randomphotons.com/alone) page:

(https://randomphotons.com/images/alone/ISS028-E-33400.JPG)

"an actual photo from the ISS, taken with a 15 mm lens on a Nikon D3S, for comparison"
"The photos were taken with a long exposure (about 1-3 seconds per photo, depending on the sequence)"

So here we have a non-enhanced original photo.

Clouds are snow as white although there is no light from above other than from the stars.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Struthio on August 31, 2018, 03:21:46 PM
@Neil Obstat


Here is a six and a half hours video of a transatlantic flight from Philadelphia to Dublin:


https://youtu.be/MK2cxvVu2mE


Start is at 0:34:30. As you can see, the ocean and/or clouds from above are pitch dark in the night from around 0:39:00 to 4:45:00.
Around 4:55:00 the sun starts rising. At 5:10:00 you can see the clouds.

I have been flying above the clouds for roughly 12 hours a few times. I believe that the ISS-photos are fake.

Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 31, 2018, 09:04:42 PM
.
What a loser! I've seen some boring videos but to FAKE a boring video has to be the worst. Why bother?
.
BTW the ISS "All Alone in the Night" is covering land, not just ocean, and it's from 40 times the altitude of American Airlines flights.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 31, 2018, 09:17:29 PM
Peterson has one of the original photographs on his FAQ (https://randomphotons.com/alone) page:

(https://randomphotons.com/images/alone/ISS028-E-33400.JPG)

"an actual photo from the ISS, taken with a 15 mm lens on a Nikon D3S, for comparison"
"The photos were taken with a long exposure (about 1-3 seconds per photo, depending on the sequence)"

So here we have a non-enhanced original photo.

Clouds are snow as white although there is no light from above other than from the stars.
.
Where does Peterson say there was no moonlight?
Where do you get, "there is no light from above other than from the stars?" Just making stuff up, eh?
You had better get some experience before you start passing judgment.
The clouds there are not "snow as white" (white as snow?). They are gray.
You should be able to see what white is by comparing it to your own computer screen, or hold a white sheet of paper next to it.
.
Can you read?
The photos were taken with 1-3 seconds [from one to three seconds exposure time] per photo.
Do you have any idea what that means?
.
Your American Airlines video did not use any 3-second exposures.
It didn't use any 1-second exposures.
It didn't even use any 1/50th second exposures.
Your fake AA video doesn't even bother to mention what the exposure setting was. Probably automatic.
Which means the exposure time was around 1/60th up to 1/250th second. Chances are, I've already lost you.
So how could it capture the gray clouds without having used extended time exposures?
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on September 03, 2018, 10:37:03 AM
Nothing NASA says is true.  And even if 1/2 of what they say is true, they are liars just the same.  Fake photos, doctored up to suit NASA's latest pagan version of a false model is fodder for the trash bin.   
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 03, 2018, 12:03:22 PM
.
Peterson's "All Alone in the Night" is a compilation to be proud of, even if flat-earthdom syndromers are oblivious to the fact.
.
https://youtu.be/FG0fTKAqZ5g                       
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: happenby on September 03, 2018, 12:54:13 PM
Some guy's doctored picture =facts? A grand oxymoron indeed.
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 04, 2018, 04:35:46 AM
Some guy's doctored picture =facts? A grand oxymoron indeed.
.
He used stock photographs and enhanced them the same way any photographer does when rendering a product.
They are still original photographs, not CGI. 
Something flat-earthdom syndromers can't grasp, obviously. 
Title: Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 04, 2018, 02:21:06 PM
.
Similar video with more variety:
.
https://youtu.be/n4IhCSMkADc