Author Topic: % Confidence in Earth's Shape (Read 18660 times)

bodeens · « **on:** August 02, 2022, 05:03:38 PM »

Curious about people's position and their certainty in the position they hold and maybe a quick description of your beliefs. Before the FE discussions I would say I had 95% confidence but have thought of some interesting FE arguments that definitely erode my certainty.

My position: Globetard
Confidence in Earth being a globe?: 85-90%.
Definitely not dogmatic GE but from independent observation (amateur astronomer and radio operator, looking to get into radio astronomy too) I believe the Earth is a globe. Cosmologically beyond that there is a lot of uncertainty for me though. I am a Young Earther.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #1 on:** August 02, 2022, 05:35:04 PM »

It's difficult to quantify, but I guess I'll try.

My position: "true earther"
Confidence in Earth being a globe?: 40-50%

What I mean by "true earther" is that I'm not going to categorize myself as either a "globetard" or "flat earther" because both have their faults. Yet, I lean more FE because of the testimony from Scripture and some of the proofs in favor of FE. I can't discount the globe entirely, but, we also need to get to the core of what constitutes a "globe earth" anyway? To me, a globe can either be the common depiction of the earth with the land wrapping around the spheroid and resting on its surface; or, a flat plane enclosed within a globular Firmament, much like a traditional snow globe. I lean towards the latter idea, which is also contrary to the common misrepresentation of the flat earth being a literal circular pizza-pan "planet" floating in space; or the more zany conceptions of it being a puddle among other puddles upon a gargantuan spheroid snow ball.

I guess mine is a hybrid of either position. The shape is unimportant to me in the end. What is important is the cosmology, which points toward an enclosed system with the earth being synonymous with the universe itself; rather than an endless sea of planets in the void of "space" extending forever. There is a limit, or border, to our universe/world; beyond which is the realm of the spirit, the Heavenly realm, which is encompassed further by God Himself (which is not a "place").

Again, like the attached images (that I've posted ad nauseum)

bodeens · « **Reply #2 on:** August 02, 2022, 06:19:54 PM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on August 02, 2022, 05:35:04 PM

I guess mine is a hybrid of either position. The shape is unimportant to me in the end. What is important is the cosmology, which points toward an enclosed system with the earth being synonymous with the universe itself; rather than an endless sea of planets in the void of "space" extending forever. There is a limit, or border, to our universe/world; beyond which is the realm of the spirit, the Heavenly realm, which is encompassed further by God Himself (which is not a "place").

Thanks for the thoughtful post. There is some interesting stuff to explore here I think and there is a lot to articulate but I don't necessarily think debate threads are a good format because there is close to 0 nuance and it is just looking for owns.

What do you think of the Middle Ages conception of cosmology with the concentric rings and a firmament on the edge of the solar system? I always thought this GE model was interesting but I am generally about independent observation so for me the confirmable universe is only out to Saturn or so in terms of what things look like. Beyond that I really can't independently confirm individual objects. I've attached an image of the model I have been thinking about lately.

How we are to conceptualize heaven I surrender to Faith and no matter what human conception leads me to think there is a heaven and it is compatible with the reality we are in. There are interesting arguments about heaven, Dante seemed to believe the model I posit. The image isn't 100% the model I am talking about but is an interesting and beautiful image :)

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #3 on:** August 02, 2022, 06:36:34 PM »

Quote from: bodeens on August 02, 2022, 06:19:54 PM

Thanks for the thoughtful post. There is some interesting stuff to explore here I think and there is a lot to articulate but I don't necessarily think debate threads are a good format because there is close to 0 nuance and it is just looking for owns.

What do you think of the Middle Ages conception of cosmology with the concentric rings and a firmament on the edge of the solar system? I always thought this GE model was interesting but I am generally about independent observation so for me the confirmable universe is only out to Saturn or so in terms of what things look like. Beyond that I really can't independently confirm individual objects. I've attached an image of the model I have been thinking about lately.

How we are to conceptualize heaven I surrender to Faith and no matter what human conception leads me to think there is a heaven and it is compatible with the reality we are in. There are interesting arguments about heaven, Dante seemed to believe the model I posit. The image isn't 100% the model I am talking about but is an interesting and beautiful image :)

Dante held to the Ptolemaic system, which is basically what you're describing with planets in concentric rings around the earth. I'm in agreement with that system for the most part, as it coincides well with just what we observe in the skies and what is found in Scripture. Edit: Added Dante's cosmos for comparison, and you'll note also that he divides the earth itself into various "hemispheres", which is more or less similar to what I posit above as the "snow globe" earth model, rather than the modern "beachball" model.

There's an interesting collection of visions from Bl. Hildegard von Bingen that describe the universe as well. I posted about it a while back after comparing what I read in Dr. Sugenis' book on Hildegard versus the actual prophecies and visions themselves (let's just say he has to stretch her words A LOT to make it fit his weird, hybrid, modern-geocentric cosmology). She proposes not only the rings of the planets, but also those of fire, ether, and air which contain the stars. Which, interestingly, Sugenis compares to the observations of astronomers in regard to background radiation and the "baby pictures of the Big Bang".

https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/sugenis-hildegard-and-the-cause-of-gravity/msg798720/#msg798720

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** August 02, 2022, 06:49:16 PM »

99% flat surface with domed firmament

I've tried to take the "devil's advocate" side and demonstrate to myself that the earth is a globe. I do this all the time with various issues. I perform a thought experiment where I believe that the earth is a globe and I'm debating a flat earther. What's my proof/evidence? NASA photos. So much fakery with NASA that it can't be used. Eratosthenes' sticks? Depends on how far away the sun is. Radio waves moving around the earth? We have no idea what they could be bouncing off of. Firmament? Something else? After all, they claim that radio waves can bounce off the ionosphere. I urge you to do the same thing, DL. If you believed earth is a globe, what would your evidence be. It would be cool to have a thread where people leaning flat earth would present their best evidence in favor of globe earth.

I can't buy the explanation for the "see too far" phenomenon as "refraction", especially in light of the two-way experiments that have been performed, the clarify of objects seen too far, etc. Results are simply too consistent and too clear for me to be able to convincingly apply the deus ex machina explanation of refraction. Besides, refraction is not a proof of globe earth, just a counter to flat earth that's convenient. But has anyone done the math to positively prove that refraction is taking place? Never. They just pull it out like a rabbit from a hat, and they simply pull out a word or a concept.

Someone ran the numbers on the world's faster jet, that it would have to nose-down an astonishing amount every second of flight, like nearly 1,000 feet (can't recall the exact numbers), but it would have to be at a perfectly constant rate to avoid fluctuations in altitude up or down.

I leave the 1% there because it's theoretically possible that all the experiments performed have ben faked, but I find it highly unlikely, or because another theoretically-possible explanation is that we live on a globe that's MUCH larger in circuмference/diameter than science claims.

And the notion that a pressurized atmosphere can exist without a container and adjacent to a nearly perfect vacuum I find utterly absurd. Gravity cannot explain the phenomenon.

There are simply too many problems with globe earth that I can offer no convincing explanation for.

Stationary earth, 100%.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** August 02, 2022, 07:04:05 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 02, 2022, 06:49:16 PM

It would be cool to have a thread where people leaning flat earth would present their best evidence in favor of globe earth.

This to me is key to actually approach the question with honesty. Problem with the globe earthers is that they start with a pre-conceived opinion and present various things as "proof" when they're really not in any objective sense. They simply confirm in their minds something they already believe.

See, look. Here's a picture of a boat with its bottom cut off. Proof. What happened to refraction and atmospheric distortion, etc. that they always use to explain the FE pictures? What about water/wave levels? I've never seen an experiment done (such as those done by John D), where they take readings, measurements, etc. and try to account for all variables. Anything that may possibly SEEM to confirm their prior concept they throw out there as "proof".

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** August 02, 2022, 07:06:26 PM »

So, DL, if you were a glober, what would your best arguments be in favor of globe? I have tried and simply can't come up with anything that's the least bit convincing.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** August 02, 2022, 07:12:44 PM »

If I had unlimited funds and the clearance/permission, I would simply fund a mission to circuмaviate Antarctica. Figure it out once in a while. But we are lied to about almost everything by the media, the establishment, etc. ... everything ... to the point that if a broadcast came on and just said "good morning," I'd suspect that it was actually night time.

Quote

“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #8 on:** August 02, 2022, 07:14:24 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 02, 2022, 07:06:26 PM

So, DL, if you were a glober, what would your best arguments be in favor of globe? I have tried and simply can't come up with anything that's the least bit convincing.

That's the thing. I can't either. At least, not the modern idea of the "beachball globe" that we've been sold all these years. Hence why I had to make a little effort to define what "globe" means. Because even the arguments depending upon the southern "hemisphere" having a different view of the stars is refuted by the simple angular perspective of their sector of the plane.

If we want to split hairs here, then my confidence in there being a globular earth drops to less than 10% if it means NASA's conception of the "globe". Their model relies on the "turtles all the way down" infinite regress of theory relying upon theory upon theory upon theory, etc.

TKGS · « **Reply #9 on:** August 02, 2022, 07:18:01 PM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on August 02, 2022, 05:35:04 PM

Again, like the attached images (that I've posted ad nauseum)

Confused as to why people who generally say that the Jєωs are deceitful in all things take their word on the shape of the earth.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #10 on:** August 02, 2022, 07:27:21 PM »

Quote from: TKGS on August 02, 2022, 07:18:01 PM

Confused as to why people who generally say that the Jєωs are deceitful in all things take their word on the shape of the earth.

Considering that much of modern cosmology is based upon Jєωιѕн Kabbalah, I question why you would even make such a statement?

If we're going to go that route, we might as well say all of Scripture is a deception because it came from the Jєωs. Or the Catholic Faith even since it came from Jesus of Nazareth, a Jєω.

Dingbat · « **Reply #11 on:** August 02, 2022, 09:57:03 PM »

When I was actively looking into GE vs FE, I was probably nearly 100% certain that the E was G lol.

I haven't been paying attention to the discussion for quite a while (new baby and also lost interest due to seemingly cyclical arguments)

That being said, I stand at probably 90% sure of globetardedness right now. This is mainly due to the idea of how the sun/moon/stars/planets move in the sky. I just can't get behind the proposed FE theories for this. The GE explanation seems almost intuitive (likely due to a childhood full of programming

)

I can't really explain the "see too far" phenomenon, nor can I explain why certain posters (who normally seem perfectly rational and even quite logical) seem to be so convinced of FE. If I were to go back to researching I could see myself changing stance to be more confident again in GE, but for now I stand by 90%.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #12 on:** August 02, 2022, 10:10:59 PM »

Quote from: Dingbat on August 02, 2022, 09:57:03 PM

I can't really explain the "see too far" phenomenon, nor can I explain why certain posters (who normally seem perfectly rational and even quite logical) seem to be so convinced of FE. If I were to go back to researching I could see myself changing stance to be more confident again in GE, but for now I stand by 90%.

It was the realization that this is a philosophical, and therefore, metaphysical, problem which broke the "globe" for me.

Providentially, I came across this quote just now

Quote

‘Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the
heavens revolve once a day from east to west as his predecessors believed, the
observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This shows a defect in Newtonian
dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical
assumption that cannot be proved or disproved by observation.’ - Bertrand Russell, Bertrand Russell: quoted in D. D. Sciama’s The Unity of the Universe, p.18. [quoted from The Earthmovers by James O'Hanlan, p. 22]

Many metaphysical assumptions are made about the cosmos by modern science where empirical data is lacking, or, non-existent. For example, the "see too far phenomena" you mention is a good one; as there is the metaphysical assumption that there is a curve, based upon a mathematical formula of 8 in/mile sq., for a body that is approximately 25,000 miles in circuмference. Yet, empirically, FEarthers have shown that this is not the case because they can see much farther than is allowed by the formula itself. As either the formula is wrong, or, the globe earth is far bigger than we are told. Secondarily, the horizon would not be constantly at eye level no matter what elevation you are on the globe, there would have to be a certain point where you would need to look down to meet the horizon. Etc, etc.

Another such metaphysical assumption is the relativism that comes from Einstein's theory of general relativity. Where the motion of bodies is based entirely upon the perspective of the observer. Something that cannot be proven by objective measurement, as it is a philosophical problem, therefore the assumption is made that it is factual based upon the mathematical proofs of Einstein's theory rather than proven or disproven by observational data.

Dingbat · « **Reply #13 on:** August 02, 2022, 10:40:05 PM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on August 02, 2022, 10:10:59 PM

It was the realization that this is a philosophical, and therefore, metaphysical, problem which broke the "globe" for me.

Providentially, I came across this quote just now

Many metaphysical assumptions are made about the cosmos by modern science where empirical data is lacking, or, non-existent. For example, the "see too far phenomena" you mention is a good one; as there is the metaphysical assumption that there is a curve, based upon a mathematical formula of 8 in/mile sq., for a body that is approximately 25,000 miles in circuмference. Yet, empirically, FEarthers have shown that this is not the case because they can see much farther than is allowed by the formula itself. As either the formula is wrong, or, the globe earth is far bigger than we are told. Secondarily, the horizon would not be constantly at eye level no matter what elevation you are on the globe, there would have to be a certain point where you would need to look down to meet the horizon. Etc, etc.

Another such metaphysical assumption is the relativism that comes from Einstein's theory of general relativity. Where the motion of bodies is based entirely upon the perspective of the observer. Something that cannot be proven by objective measurement, as it is a philosophical problem, therefore the assumption is made that it is factual based upon the mathematical proofs of Einstein's theory rather than proven or disproven by observational data.

After about my second or third time reading this and trying to understand, I was getting ready to photoshop my profile pic onto this image:

But then I read it for about the fifth or sixth time and I think I get it now. Have I mentioned that I'm not into philosophy?

That being said, it's too bad that we can't "trust the science" as the whole moon landing thing woulda cleared up a lot as far as evidence for GE goes

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #14 on:** August 02, 2022, 10:52:58 PM »

Quote from: Dingbat on August 02, 2022, 10:40:05 PM

That being said, it's too bad that we can't "trust the science" as the whole moon landing thing woulda cleared up a lot as far as evidence for GE goes

In a way, it did.

Author Topic: % Confidence in Earth's Shape (Read 18660 times)

bodeens

% Confidence in Earth's Shape

DigitalLogos

Re: % Confidence in Earth's Shape

bodeens

Re: % Confidence in Earth's Shape

DigitalLogos

Re: % Confidence in Earth's Shape

Ladislaus

Re: % Confidence in Earth's Shape

Ladislaus

Re: % Confidence in Earth's Shape

Ladislaus

Re: % Confidence in Earth's Shape

Ladislaus

Re: % Confidence in Earth's Shape

DigitalLogos

Re: % Confidence in Earth's Shape

TKGS

Re: % Confidence in Earth's Shape

DigitalLogos

Re: % Confidence in Earth's Shape

Dingbat

Re: % Confidence in Earth's Shape

DigitalLogos

Re: % Confidence in Earth's Shape

Dingbat

Re: % Confidence in Earth's Shape

gladius_veritatis

Re: % Confidence in Earth's Shape