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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?)

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

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.

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.

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"?

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.

     

       

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.

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!