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.
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.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.
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 :)
It would be cool to have a thread where people leaning flat earth would present their best evidence in favor of globe earth.
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987
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.
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.
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?
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.
‘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]
It was the realization that this is a philosophical, and therefore, metaphysical, problem which broke the "globe" for me.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:
Providentially, I came across this quote just now :laugh1:
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.
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 ;)
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
I'm probably about 95% convinced of the flat earth under a firmament dome and perhaps it's inside a globe like DL's pictures.What was your "redpill" moment per se on the matter? You and I align on some theories that no one else seems to either have done the resesrch on or buy here.
(Thanks for posting those again, DL. They are very helpful!)
As a kid I could never understand how water could curve and stick on a ball and how we didn't feel the spin at a 1000 miles an hour and how centrifugal force wouldn't make water and other things fly off.
But who am I to judge? :laugh1: I've always just been one of those annoying people who ask annoying questions about things other people don't really want to bother with. :cowboy:
Then in the 90's I worked as a flight attendant and I started asking the pilots questions like:
Why are we flying over the northern arctic when it's way out of the way and we have to watch every penny of fuel costs which are so high? Fuel costs were a constant concern in the volitile Airline industry because if they went up just a few cents it had a major impact on the bottom line and caused several airlines to go under. Also, I wondered why other people didn't ask about us flying off course and maybe get concerned that we were being hijacked or something else was wrong, but people just go along...
Since I was a kid I always wanted to see water curve because I couldn't imagine how it works. I was so excited to finally get to see the view in a large window of the cockpit of a 747 at 30,000 feet above the Pacific. Finally I'll get to see water curve! Nope....The horizon for 100's of miles was perfectly level. Flat! I asked where the curve was and the pilots told me it was there, can't you see it? Ugh...I hate gaslighting.
I asked some pilots while we were waiting for our plane one day why the spin of the earth didn't drastically change our flying time from east to west and why we don't circuмnavigate the globe north to south. They said the atmosphere keeps us from the effects of the spin (which didn't make sense to me) and somebody I never heard of in school or on TV had circuмnavigated the globe north to south. Strange we never hear about it since it's such a big deal and strange we don't have any flight routes that make use of this short cut under the globe.
When I asked if the plane had to make adjustments nose downward as we go over the curve so we don't fly out into space they admitted that no it doesn't make any adjustments nose downward. I knew we would feel the nose downward movement since even a slight adjustment to the level of the plane port, starboard or aft is very noticeable in the cabin and you never feel the plane go nose down even a slight amount. So since we don't make adjustments how do we keep from flying straight into space??
The First Officer smirked and blurted out, "I guess you'll have to be a Freemason to know about that."
"What?? What's a Freemason? Those guys in lodges?" I asked.
The Captain gave the FO a dirty look and got all mad and started demanding of me, "Are you some kind of Flat Earther?"
Me (perplexed at what made him so mad): No.
Captain: Well you sure sound like a Flat Earther!
Me: No...I'm just a person asking questions.
Captain: Well are you sure?
Me: Why? Can't I ask questions?
Captain: Well, I just want to know if you're one of them because you sure sound like one!
Me (getting even more curious now because of his bizarre emotional reaction but not wanting to rock the boat further): Nope.
Captain: Well okay then.
And they walked off...
There was no internet to go and research Flat Earth so I let it be for a number of years but I felt so alone...like why wasn't anybody else asking what seemed to me like very obvious questions???
Then years later I had a friend with a backyard telescope and got to see a good view of Venus and it didn't look anything like what NASA told us. It was moving about like a plasma ball with it's own light. It didn't look like anything with solid land. Nobody else seemed to notice the discrepancy or question it and when I asked friends and family about it they shrugged it off which again seemed so bizarre to me because it really bothered me.
Then I once saw a sunset over the Pacific and mentioned to my husband how strange it was that it never actually set. The sun got smaller and smaller in the distance until it disappeared but never appeared to go down "behind" the earth. ??
Now with the Nikon P900 cameras people are seeing boats that should be hidden down under the curve and it's getting pretty obvious to me.
Then you find all the Biblical references for the firmament. How do globe earthers reconcile that? Can the globe with expanding space have a firmament? Is the firmament just an old fashioned notion?
I think one of the reasons it's so hard to break through the brain fog programming was demonstrated by the Asche conformity experiment:
1min 57sec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRh5qy09nNw
It's very hard to go against the crowd and globe earth peer pressure is enormous! Making fun of flat earthers asking very reasonable questions seems to be a universal modus operandi and it's very powerful. It's like the Emperor's New Clothes. Of course you can see his clothes can't you??? ;) It's lonely to dissent. :trollface:
Isn't that strange? If you "question the science" you get made fun of?? What else is like that? Question evolution, covid shots, moon landing and you'll get made fun of. Very powerful!
Anyway, I would be happy to believe in globe earth if somebody could provide me with one picture of buildings leaning as they go over the curve.
I can't find one. A ship will allegedly "disappear down under the curve" 6miles out to sea but I have never seen a skyline that shows buildings starting to lean over even just a little. A three foot drop causes the Leaning Tower of Pisa so it's very visible to the naked eye. No equipment necessary. According to globe math a 3 mile skyline should have a 6 foot drop!
Challenge to Globe Earth believers: Please provide me with a photo of this phenomenon and I will happily convert. :)
I'll start another thread with my challenge and see what we can find...
I haven't listened to Sungenis much on his cosmology, have a vid that summarizes what he thinks? Something comprehensive, like a "deep dive".As far as I know, there isn't a summarized version of his thoughts outside of the movie he produced called "The Principle", which I have yet to watch myself.
3. No Father of the Church ever cites scripture to prove earth is a globe.
True, although some Fathers did think it was a globe, and that their conception was not irreconcilable with Sacred Scripture. Nevertheless, I do believe that further study is warranted in terms of what they meant. It's easy to take a sentence out of context.Exactly. Which is why I question just what these Fathers and Medieval Theologians meant by "globe" because you get varying ideas of it which does not at all coincide with what we see as the "globe" today.
I think it was St. Hildegard who described the earth as a globe. Someone cited a passage. OK, fine. But then if you look later, she elaborates and what she actually meant was more along the lines of those pictures that DL has posted (along with others). She said nobody can live on the antipodes (underside of said globe) because that's where "the deep" is and also the entrance to Sheol.
Otherwise, the best way I can describe it is that he believes most of what NASA puts out except with a geocentric and young earth flavor.
Considering that much of modern cosmology is based upon Jєωιѕн Kabbalah, I question why you would even make such a statement?My apologies for interrupting the fascinating topic with this rhetorical question which demands a new topic (but I am sure it has been done to death over the years here on CI: Why on earth would you accept the falsehood that all of Scripture ... came from the Jєωs and that Jesus of Nazareth was a Jєω?
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.
My apologies for interrupting the fascinating topic with this rhetorical question which demands a new topic (but I am sure it has been done to death over the years here on CI: Why on earth would you accept the falsehood that all of Scripture ... came from the Jєωs and that Jesus of Nazareth was a Jєω?Jєω, as in Judean or of the tribe of Judah; not Jєω, as in тαℓмυdic or Khazar, as we see today. A blanket term.
I have Sugenis's book on FE, but have yet to read it since it is around 800 pages in length. I'm happy that someone has taken FE seriously in that regard and attempted to respond to the claims. I know after reading Protestant Edward Hendrie's book that he notes Sugenis' tends to be dismissive of arguments against refraction and the evidence offered by long-distance photography. So I'll have to dig into Sugenis' book to see why he was so dismissive.
Let's put it this way. You know the old adage, "The Left can't Meme!" It's true. It's because they are objectively insane, and don't have truth on their side. Their "memes" are notorious for being long-winded, a real word salad, as they spin their contradictions, nuances and psychobabble. The conservatives/believers in objective reality, on the other hand, can make a meme quite succinct sometimes with only pictures. Because truth is on their side, and it's quite self-evident.Too bad most right wing memes are made by Facebook boomers, they generally aren't funny unless parsed with irony ;)
True, although some Fathers did think it was a globe, and that their conception was not irreconcilable with Sacred Scripture. Nevertheless, I do believe that further study is warranted in terms of what they meant. It's easy to take a sentence out of context.Yea, it's kind of hard to decipher what some of the saints thought because of the way they write. St. Hildegard remains a little iffy on the subject but, we just don't have enough of her writings translated into English to know what she really thought except for the antipodes opinion. She definitely could have been describing the universe as a snow globe. Thomas Aquinas took a lot of time to consider the globe model. Probably because higher education institutes put a lot of pressure on the learned. Still, his treatise on the shape of earth was based on Aristotle and pagan Greeks and not on scripture. He went back and forth for pages and pages trying to reason it all out but never actually concluded either way. Maybe that's why the brilliant Thomas considered his writings as straw. :laugh1:
I think it was St. Hildegard who described the earth as a globe. Someone cited a passage. OK, fine. But then if you look later, she elaborates and what she actually meant was more along the lines of those pictures that DL has posted (along with others). She said nobody can live on the antipodes (underside of said globe) because that's where "the deep" is and also the entrance to Sheol.
I have to interject --
I haven't read this Sungenis "contra Flat Earth" book either, but I'll say this -- it doesn't look good if it needs to be 800 pages long.
He said it took him that much to "refute" FE because he admitted that FE had a lot of good arguments. So I hold this to be a testimony to the fact that FE cannot be dismissed lightly and has some real substance behind it. If it were merely a laughable kook theory, it certainly wouldn't require 800 pages to deal with.Yes... Probably the most frustrating thing about wanting to research FE is the deluge of false content put out there and boosted by YouTube, Google, TPTB etc. The real meat of the arguments are purely scientific, being magnetism, nature of plasma, gravity etc. This is one reason I just can't accept at face value any cosmology, the reality of the issue is complex and requires independent observation and thought to come to any conclusions. "Debunking FE Without Science" type content is very unconvincing because the video makers generally aren't scientifically versed enough to make technical arguments. Making prescriptions about reality without technical observation is :sleep:. I am surprised more people don't sign up here to discuss FE.
Too bad most right wing memes are made by Facebook boomers, they generally aren't funny unless parsed with irony ;)Are you on Facebook?
I have Sugenis's book on FE, but have yet to read it since it is around 800 pages in length. I'm happy that someone has taken FE seriously in that regard and attempted to respond to the claims. I know after reading Protestant Edward Hendrie's book that he notes Sugenis' tends to be dismissive of arguments against refraction and the evidence offered by long-distance photography. So I'll have to dig into Sugenis' book to see why he was so dismissive.
Are you on Facebook?I have 0 "social media".
Thanks for mentioning Sungenis' 736 page book. It can be accessed at http://flatearthflatwrong.com/product/flat-earth-flat-wrong/ (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/product/flat-earth-flat-wrong/) and for as little as $10 can be obtained in PDF with color pictures. Without the pictures which are actually very helpful to understanding much of what is being discussed, I imagine it would be around a 600 page book. Sungenis, to his surprise, soon realized that the subject is not so simple as some would make it out to be and he wanted to be as thorough as reasonably possible in examining all the major contentions in favor of FE. He freely admits that many of the FE arguments are highly sophisticated and therefore should not be taken lightly, but rather examined with all due respect and seriousness.10 bucks! Thanks for the link!
p.s. After reading Eric Dubay's book, I attempted to book a flight from the tip of South Africa to the tip of South America, I learned that all such flights stop to refuel in Europe or UAE. This makes no sense at all on a globe map, but makes perfect sense on a flat earth map.Amazing!
p.s. After reading Eric Dubay's book, I attempted to book a flight from the tip of South Africa to the tip of South America, I learned that all such flights stop to refuel in Europe or UAE. This makes no sense at all on a globe map, but makes perfect sense on a flat earth map.A question that occurs to me: are you looking only at commercial flights?
Amazing!
https://www.flightconnections.com/flights-from-cpt-to-eze (https://www.flightconnections.com/flights-from-cpt-to-eze)
A question that occurs to me: are you looking only at commercial flights?
If so, a commercial airline has to have enough passengers to make the flight profitable. Are there enough people that travel from Johannesburg to Sao Paolo, for example, to make a direct flight viable, or do they need to fly to a major hub such as London in order to have enough passengers to make it pay?
For example, all the commercial flights from my local airport fly to a metro hub. There's a larger town that I drive to semi-regularly about 150 miles away. If I wanted to fly there via commercial airline , I would have to fly to the metro hub (~250 miles), then change planes to fly 160 miles to get to that town. It's simply the economic factors that determine that.
Now if a person hired a charter to fly from Johannesburg to Sao Paulo, and was taken via London, that would be very compelling.
If you could fill a plane with people from one place to anotherThat "if" is the entirety of the question when looking at the economics.
A question that occurs to me: are you looking only at commercial flights?Yes, airlines use the hub and spoke model to keep flights full and profitable and some connections will seem out of the way for this reason.
If so, a commercial airline has to have enough passengers to make the flight profitable. Are there enough people that travel from Johannesburg to Sao Paolo, for example, to make a direct flight viable? Or do they need to fly to a major hub, such as London, in order to have enough passengers to make it pay?
For example: all the commercial flights from my local airport fly to a metro hub. There's a larger town that I drive to semi-regularly about 150 miles away. If I wanted to fly there via commercial airline , I would have to fly to the metro hub (~250 miles), then change planes to fly 160 miles to get to that town. It's simply the economic factors that determine that.
Now if a person hired a charter to fly from Johannesburg to Sao Paulo, and was taken via London, that would be very compelling.
So, I recall when I was a child and took a few flights over a couple years between Cleveland and Hungary (direct flight always with a full plane). We always flew over Gander Air Force Base in Newfoundland. After checking out a globe map, I asked my dad why that was, since that did seem to be really out of the way vs. a direct line. He told me that regulations required that passenger planes always remain within a certain distance of land. Not sure if he heard that somewhere, but I have since learned that this was entirely untrue. While this route is not as bad as the Southern Hemisphere routes, if you plot a direct line between Cleveland and Hungary on a flat earth map, it's dead on a straight line between the two.That is interesting. The possibility that comes to mind is that they take advantage of the jet-stream. A stout tailwind could save a lot of fuel, even if the distance is longer.
EDIT: So I looked it up and it still show on a map as taking that route. Again, not extremely pronounced, since there's much less of a difference in the Northern Hemisphere. But still ... why? Why would you take this curved route when you could just make a straight line ... and save some time and some fuel?
https://tinyurl.com/mr3vpcas
Put this on an FE map and it's a straight line.
Record-breaking jet stream accelerates air travel; flight clocks in at 801 mph
On Monday night, the river of air 35,000 feet above the New York City area, known as the jet stream, clocked in at a blazing 231 mph.
https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/record-breaking-jet-stream-accelerates-air-travel-flight-clocks-in-at-801-mph/509-a2c66763-4514-49b8-93e0-88892afd58fc
That is interesting. The possibility that comes to mind is that they take advantage of the jet-stream. A stout tailwind could save a lot of fuel, even if the distance is longer.
45) On a ball-Earth, Johannesburg, South Africa to Perth, Australia should be a straight shot over the Indian Ocean with convenient re-fueling possibilities on Mauritus or Madagascar. In actual practice, however, most Johannesburg to Perth flights curiously stop over either in Dubai, Hong Kong or Malaysia all of which make no sense on the ball, but are completely understandable when mapped on a flat Earth.
(https://ericdubay.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/c9bd6-sa-perth.jpg?w=517&h=440) (https://ericdubay.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/c9bd6-sa-perth.jpg)
Re accessing Madagascar from Australia, there are direct flights from Perth to Jo'burg, with no stopovers to refuel, then a lighter plane from Jo'burg to Antanarivo. Then Perth's latitude is -31 while Joburg is -26.Not debating you specifically but just adding comments to yours:
Interestingly, the east-west flight takes 10hr 45min while west-east flight takes 9hr 20min over the same distance. An hr 25min difference, which is greatly appreciated if your travelling with a full load of passengers.
I do believe that there are practical concerns such a demand and marketing that play a large parts in necessary diversions, e.g. you cannot fly direct Sydney-Antanarivo simply because the demand is not there.
What was your "redpill" moment per se on the matter? You and I align on some theories that no one else seems to either have done the resesrch on or buy here.
Just from independent observations I can't accept FE. If anyone can explain how Starlink works on FE (with a working latency model that reflects user's pings IRL), how NVIS works with FE, some specifics about weather modeling (not going to self dox so we can discard this particular one ) I would be happy with the FE position. I'd gladly defend FE vs GEers because the smugness and condecension of GEers I don't like. Since nobody is able to explain these things to me in multiple threads on here (DL even asked on some other sites for me and wasn't able to get answers) I can't consider the position beyond being possible but not definitively true. Note I am only interested in testable hypotheses... No NASA, no space pics, no trickery, no weird sunsets or objects disappearing in certain parts of the globe or horizon analysis. I can only defend what I can observe.
My ultimate "redpill" moment has been considering the globe earth math when looking at the horizon and the fact that buildings never lean away from each other as they "go over the curve".
The GE math is crazy ridiculous! It's hard to believe that anyone actually believes it. ??? :confused:
I don't think many people have actually taken the time to contemplate it very deeply.
Anyway, I feel like there is a kind of spellcasting to GE and that completely broke the spell.
I'm starting another thread on that one aspect of the discussion alone.
GE discussions are often like explaining apologetics to a Protestant. Instead of staying focused on one topic, it goes to another and to another.... :)
Just from independent observations I can't accept FE. If anyone can explain how Starlink works on FE (with a working latency model that reflects user's pings IRL), how NVIS works with FE, some specifics about weather modeling (not going to self dox so we can discard this particular one ) I would be happy with the FE position. I'd gladly defend FE vs GEers because the smugness and condecension of GEers I don't like. Since nobody is able to explain these things to me in multiple threads on here (DL even asked on some other sites for me and wasn't able to get answers) I can't consider the position beyond being possible but not definitively true. Note I am only interested in testable hypotheses... No NASA, no space pics, no trickery, no weird sunsets or objects disappearing in certain parts of the globe or horizon analysis. I can only defend what I can observe.This guy isn't a FEarther, but he excoriates StarLink as a fraud
Here is an interesting site that gives a basic explanation of Aristotle's ideas on FE vs. GE:Here is another interesting article explaining more of the mathematical calculations of Aristotle and such people (the math of which is beyond me). 😅
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~blackman/ast104/aristotle8.html (http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~blackman/ast104/aristotle8.html)
Just from independent observations I can't accept FE. If anyone can explain how Starlink works on FE (with a working latency model that reflects user's pings IRL), how NVIS works with FE, some specifics about weather modeling (not going to self dox so we can discard this particular one ) I would be happy with the FE position. I'd gladly defend FE vs GEers because the smugness and condecension of GEers I don't like. Since nobody is able to explain these things to me in multiple threads on here (DL even asked on some other sites for me and wasn't able to get answers) I can't consider the position beyond being possible but not definitively true. Note I am only interested in testable hypotheses... No NASA, no space pics, no trickery, no weird sunsets or objects disappearing in certain parts of the globe or horizon analysis. I can only defend what I can observe.Mystery vs. contradiction. Same thing as the sede question.
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.
Flat Earthers don't even have to provide a conclusive model, they just have to demonstrate it is not contradictory and it wins by default because it is according to the literal interpretation of Scripture.Right. I can't explain FE anymore than show people the picture of the "snow globes". But I can poke holes in globe earth.
I still have some questions about FE but I've found the globe debunked many times over in these couple of weeks of research.
Right. I can't explain FE anymore than show people the picture of the "snow globes". But I can poke holes in globe earth.I just can't wrap my head around how the earth being spherical is "self-evident" to people? Take a look outside and you see a flat plane in all directions with a dome overhead, and the horizon at eye-level. Not one immediate, unbiased observation of one's environment tells me the world is a spherical globe.
As Sherlock Holmes said, in a brilliant explanation of logic: “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
Interesting thread!Most people mean by geocentrism that the Earth is in the center of the universe AND immobile.
My positions:
1) Globe vs flat: Globe
2) Geo vs helio: Geo
3) Young vs Old Earth: Young
4) Earth rotate vs Stationary: Rotate
5) Moon Landing: No
6) Aliens: No
7) Satellites exist: Yes (I can see them at night)
8) Evolution of species: No
9) Literal Genesis Creation: Yes
10) Worldwide flood: Yes
11) Scriptural historical accounts accurate: Yes
12) Scriptural inerrency limited to moral teachings: No
24th February 1616: The eleven theologian-qualifiers of the Holy Office meet to consider the
theological qualifications proper to be attached to the following propositions:
( i ) The sun is the centre of the universe (“mundi”) and absolutely
immobile in local motion.
( ii ) The earth is not the centre of the universe (“mundi”); it is not
immobile but turns on itself with a diurnal movement.
All unanimously censure the first proposition as “foolish, absurd in philosophy {i.e.
scientifically untenable] and formally heretical on the grounds of expressly contradicting the
statements of Holy Scripture in many places according to the proper meaning of the words,
the common exposition and the understanding of the Holy Fathers and learned theologians”;
the second proposition they unanimously censured as likewise “absurd in philosophy” and
theologically “at least erroneous in faith”.
25th February 1616: Pope Paul V is officially apprised of this theological qualification and
confirms it, ordering Cardinal Bellarmine to summon Galileo and ( i ) warn him to
abandon the said opinions; should he refuse to obey, ( ii ) order him to abstain from
teaching, defending or treating of this doctrine and opinion in any way; and, should he
not acquiesce even in this, ( iii ) to imprison him.
26th February 1616: Cardinal Bellarmine summons Galileo to his home and before witnesses
transmits the Pope’s orders, commanding him in the name of the Pope and of the
whole Congregation of the Holy Office to abandon5 the position in question and no
more to hold, teach or defend it on pain of being proceeded against by the Holy
Office. Galileo promises to obey.
This guy isn't a FEarther, but he excoriates StarLink as a fraudYeah, OFC it is a venture capital grab. I agree 100%. Although if I am getting scammed... Starlink is literally my only internet option that supports the job for this household needs (I need good ping and decent bandwidth... Real world applications I get around 100mbps daytime and 400mbps nighttime never a ping over 50ms worldwide) and I cannot use Dish, HughesNet or whatever other options instead due to latency and issues with weather. I live roughly 10 miles from the nearest 3G signal (1 bar, assuming I am on top of this certain hill 10miles away) and my nearest 4G signal is 25+ miles away in a small town. There is no way for me to get scammed here because my income would be 0 without Starlink. I am not moving my family into a city just to work and have decent internet. This video doesn't cover the science, just points we all agree on.
https://youtu.be/2vuMzGhc1cg
Consider also, how easy it is to disprove a flat earth. NASA needs to provide just one genuine picture of the Earth, or film a flight over Antarctica, or photograph curvature, etc.
Flat Earthers don't even have to provide a conclusive model, they just have to demonstrate it is not contradictory and it wins by default because it is according to the literal interpretation of Scripture.
I still have some questions about FE but I've found the globe debunked many times over in these couple of weeks of research.
Consider also, how easy it is to disprove a flat earth. NASA needs to provide just one genuine picture of the Earth, or film a flight over Antarctica, or photograph curvature, etc.
But every time they provide supposed evidence it ends up being falsified.
Long story short, the burden of proof is on the globetards and they haven't delivered.
This guy isn't a FEarther, but he excoriates StarLink as a fraud
That's the thing: they haven't JUST "not delivered". They were caught faking. Repeatedly. WHY?!Agreed.
WHY!?!?!?!?!?!
If the globe earth is the truth, then why all the bullshit? Why all the scams? Why all the trickery and fakery?
If you hired a man to build you a house in another state, and every time you asked for progress reports you caught him faking it -- sending fake photos off the Internet, lying in various ways -- would you conclude your house is actually being built? Or would you rightly conclude that you can kiss (whatever money you gave the scammer) goodbye?
When you catch the powers that be (NASA, etc.) going to elaborate pains to produce lying propaganda, you know they're hiding the truth. It's that simple.
You can be *morally* certain of it: people don't lie for no reason. They don't spend tons of time, money, and effort creating elaborate hoaxes just for fun.
They did this with the search for the Missing Link (between apes and men) in the 20th century. Many hoaxes. Because evolution is false, but they desperately wanted to prop it up as true.
Problem with a NASA photo is that we'd never be able to independently verify that it's real.
That nikon p1000 is junk compared to a real telescope and large sensor camera with manual focus.I was thinking the same thing. I'm not particularly 100% convinced by p900 and p1000 videos of stars. I'll have to see about getting a decent telescope once we sell our house.
That nikon p1000 is junk compared to a real telescope and large sensor camera with manual focus.
Thanks
I just found this video. He comments on using a filter, which he doesn't have, to get better details. I think this is a good representation of what one can expect from a big-ish telescope using a camera. If I'm correct, he's just viewing IR with that filter, so no color image and I don't think IR focuses very sharp.
https://youtu.be/d49TPvlwAtU?t=154
Funny song: there ain't no photographs of earth
5min 19 sec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcs9V798BMA
99% flat surface with domed firmament.
Stationary earth, 100%.
.Why would anyone here care what "Professor" Dave has to say? The man has been shown to be a total fool by actual scientists, let alone other Flat Earthers
Here is a debate about this topic (about 1 hour, though).
There is actual proof that the Earth is a globe, shown in the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he-7vs0BkLE
Why would anyone here care what "Professor" Dave has to say? The man has been shown to be a total fool by actual scientists, let alone other Flat Earthers.
Yeah, if I were rich I'd like to get a nice telescope and test out some of this stuff personally.Kids do take quite a bit of money... You and your older son (I remember you posted about him liking ham radio and passing his tests so this seems like another good one for you both) could try assembling www.thingiverse.con/thing:408184... Should only be a few hundred and it has an 8" primary. If you don't have a large printer then there are other designs out there to buy/print... 12" scopes are around a thousand bucks preassembled, 8" you can shop around for maybe 4-500 assembled and shipped in case printing is not your thing.
You'd be surprised how gullible people are, when they WANT to be/stay deceived.
I know a man who's a near-genius at electronics -- Dave Jones, of EEVblog fame -- he really knows his stuff -- but he unironically likes (and believes in) that recent NASA photo of the moon crossing the earth. He had it as his PC background wallpaper.
Having cast off the Faith of his Fathers, he is now wandering in the wilderness, the closest thing to religion in his life is "science". He does debunk some modern climate-saving "snake oil" schemes like Solar Roadways, but that's only because they give other science-worshipers like himself a bad name. Kind of like many Trads get hot and angry over other Trads that give them a bad name. That seems to be a very human condition.
I was thinking the same thing. I'm not particularly 100% convinced by p900 and p1000 videos of stars. I'll have to see about getting a decent telescope once we sell our house.Not long ago I was hoping to get a budget go-to 12" which can be had for ~$1000 or so, and try to mount a good non-telescope specific camera to it if possible, to hopefully get some decent deep space images of a neighboring galaxy or something. If I had the money I'd try to build an array, like with 4 of those 12" scopes to equal a 24", but at a fraction of the cost.
.
Well, then don't watch the video. I did not post this reply for people
who prefer to stick their head in the sand.
You're the one sticking your head in the sand. Mr. Dave's videos are sheer nonsense. But it figures coming from someone who chose a pagan sun god as his forum name. You've already decided that the earth can't be flat, refuse to objectively consider the evidence, and apply confirmation bias to that which you believe supports your position. I've objectively looked at both sides, but I find absolutely none of Mr. Dave's "proofs" to be the least bit convincing..
.
Is that your proof? Very logical.
Ad hominem attacks. "sheer nonsense". More ad hominem attacks.
And the most important proof: "I find none of Mr Dave's proofs to be convincing".
Wow. It's hard to argue against that. I didn't think you would. You have proved
that numerous times in the past with your ad hominem attacks.
Apollo was a hermit in the BC era. Look it up. But then your ad hominem attack
will be nullified.
I wonder if you can figure out why I only visit CathInfo about once or twice a year.
Looks like no progress has been made since one year ago.
I repeat my proposal, that you look at this video (this is the first one of ten).
I wonder if you can even understand the first one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyRJZbNmC7U
Not to intrude between you and Lad, but the video that you posted has been rebutted before:.
.This is sort of a brief abstract discovered at Texas A & M. "Gravity" is not a lateral force. "Gravity" does not move anything sideways. However, the Moon goes laterally around the Earth. Therefore, it cannot be "gravity" that moves the Moon around the Earth.
Is that your proof? Very logical.
Ad hominem attacks. "sheer nonsense". More ad hominem attacks.
And the most important proof: "I find none of Mr Dave's proofs to be convincing".
Wow. It's hard to argue against that. I didn't think you would. You have proved
that numerous times in the past with your ad hominem attacks.
Apollo was a hermit in the BC era. Look it up. But then your ad hominem attack
will be nullified.
I wonder if you can figure out why I only visit CathInfo about once or twice a year.
Looks like no progress has been made since one year ago.
I repeat my proposal, that you look at this video (this is the first one of ten).
I wonder if you can even understand the first one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyRJZbNmC7U
This is sort of a brief abstract discovered at Texas A & M. "Gravity" is not a lateral force. "Gravity" does not move anything sideways. However, the Moon goes laterally around the Earth. Therefore, it cannot be "gravity" that moves the Moon around the Earth.Electromagnetic or electrostatic forces are a much more likely explanation for the behavior of the sun and moon's circling the earth. It even works in favor of a spherical earth as it gives a more practical means of how objects remain affixed to the spheroid globe.
The end of "gravity" is also the end of heliocentrism. Without Newtonian "gravity" as a force, heliocentrism will fail in further demonstrative proofs, etc.
Is that your proof? Very logical.
Electromagnetic or electrostatic forces are a much more likely explanation for the behavior of the sun and moon's circling the earth. It even works in favor of a spherical earth as it gives a more practical means of how objects remain affixed to the spheroid globe.
I'm going to take a few months or years away from CathInfo.
That one professor Robitaille who ripped Mr. Dave to shreds, while not a geocentrist or flat earther, has some very solid evidence for the sun being electrical in nature and not the huge fusion engine claimed by modern science. Mr. Dave ripped him for his theories, and he proceeded to take him apart and expose the fact that Dave has no idea what's he's blustering about.This video from the "What on Earth Happened?" Series really got me interested in the electric universe as the more plausible explanation rather than the Pythagoraean one we've been sold for 600 years.
As for Mr. Dave humiliating David Weiss, he deliberately created that perception because, rather than actually arguing point by point, he would spout off a concatenation of 50 ideas which remained unproven and which he took for granted, and repeatedly engaged in mockery and derision while doing it, and then if Weiss couldn't respond to every one of them, he was seen to have "lost" the point. It was smoke and mirrors. I wrote about this same tactic before when the representatives from the Kolbe institute debated those atheists. They employed the same tactic, just rattled off at high speed a concatenation of unproven and contested points and then claimed victory. Each of the points would have required 30 minutes to do justice to and to make an adequate refutations, but by simply piling them all on, they gave the impression of winning the point simply by stating them. It's a very dishonest sophistic debating tactic.
If I had the time, I'd do the analysis by pointing it out piece by piece and exposing the tactic, but it's very obvious what he's doing. I likened it on that other thread to the modern forum of "debate" in schools that caused me to walk away from college debate in disgust.
.Thank you for deigning to converse with us mere mortals, o exalted one. I will meditate upon thy profound wisdom till thou seest fit to grace us, who are but rabble and truly unworthy of thy presence.
That was not a refutation at that time and is not a refutation now.
I'm going to take a few months or years away from CathInfo.
Good luck finding the "gravity of the universe" and measuring it.
A question that occurs to me: are you looking only at commercial flights?If what you hypothesize about unfilled flights were true, wouldn't the airlines be more likely to stop off at another major city in either South America or South Africe?
If so, a commercial airline has to have enough passengers to make the flight profitable. Are there enough people that travel from Johannesburg to Sao Paolo, for example, to make a direct flight viable? Or do they need to fly to a major hub, such as London, in order to have enough passengers to make it pay?
For example: all the commercial flights from my local airport fly to a metro hub. There's a larger town that I drive to semi-regularly about 150 miles away. If I wanted to fly there via commercial airline , I would have to fly to the metro hub (~250 miles), then change planes to fly 160 miles to get to that town. It's simply the economic factors that determine that.
Now if a person hired a charter to fly from Johannesburg to Sao Paulo, and was taken via London, that would be very compelling.
If what you hypothesize about unfilled flights were true, wouldn't the airlines be more likely to stop off at another major city in either South America or South Africa?No. The majority, by a large margin, of air travelers are US and northern European citizens, so I doubt that it would make sense to place a major air hub in South Africa or South America.
BTW, it takes a big hit to one's ego to break away from the MC programming and be considered an "oddball" for seeing the falsity of globe earth and going back to the simple Biblical explanationI've noticed that you make a habit of snide accusations when responding to others. Thank you for reminding me to pray for the grace to avoid falling into such a dishonourable and execrable practice.
If what you hypothesize about unfilled flights were true, wouldn't the airlines be more likely to stop off at another major city in either South America or South Africe?
It seems odd that they would waste fuel (as Lad points out) by going so very far North to either London or Dubai (at least on a globe map.)
On a flat earth map, it makes perfect sense.
BTW, it takes a big hit to one's ego to break away from the MC progarmming and be considered an "oddball" for seeing the falsity of globe earth and going back to the simple Biblical explanation
If what you hypothesize about unfilled flights were true, wouldn't the airlines be more likely to stop off at another major city in either South America or South Africe?
It seems odd that they would waste fuel (as Lad points out) by going so very far North to either London or Dubai (at least on a globe map.)
On a flat earth map, it makes perfect sense.
BTW, it takes a big hit to one's ego to break away from the MC progarmming and be considered an "oddball" for seeing the falsity of globe earth and going back to the simple Biblical explanation
If you try Cape Town to Brazil on that flight link ... you can find dozens of regular flights, nearly all through Europe and some even through the Middle East.
Here is the only one I could find that allegedly flies directly across the Ocean.
from LAD to GRU
So I go to click on that to book a flight for one adults, and it shows a ticket price of $4,000.
Who the heck is going to spend $4,000 on that ticket?
FEs have found an occasional flight that claims to violate FE model, and have booked them, and every single time they've gotten cancelled.
If I saw a fare for $4,000 when I could book one through Europe for $1,000, guess which one I'm going to book.
If you try Cape Town to Brazil on that flight link ... you can find dozens of regular flights, nearly all through Europe and some even through the Middle East.
Here is the only one I could find that allegedly flies directly across the Ocean.
from LAD to GRU
So I go to click on that to book a flight for one adults, and it shows a ticket price of $4,000.
Who the heck is going to spend $4,000 on that ticket?
FEs have found an occasional flight that claims to violate FE model, and have booked them, and every single time they've gotten cancelled.
If I saw a fare for $4,000 when I could book one through Europe for $1,000, guess which one I'm going to book.
Although that one MIGHT be doable? ... if you look more at a "polar projection" type of map:
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/HvAAAOSwwxlgxVrd/s-l1600.jpg)
I think a reasonable explanation would be that it is certainly more profitable for the airline to fill seats. By flying through Europe or the Middle East the airline would be able to pick up more passengers. I doubt there is a huge interest in direct flights between Brazil and South Africa. It also stands to reason that $4000 would be an understandable price for some wealthy costumers who wanted a nonstop flight between the two places. Incidentally, some friends of ours recently paid approximately $4000 for round trip tickets for travel from Australia to the USA via Europe!
(https://i.imgur.com/DJnWu3S.jpg)
Again, there may be something to that with regards to FE but there is also another explanation.
Flights from anywhere to Vegas are extremely cheap. Why? Volume. Supply and demand.
Flights which are difficult to fill are very expensive and if they don't sell enough seats they may be cancelled or the airline will simply lose money on it.
But perhaps if the flights would be priced reasonably, then they could fill the plane. Heck, if I lived in South Africa and wanted to go to South America, I'd definitely try to fly up to Angola and then connect over there, thereby cutting 15-20 hours of my travel time ... if it were reasonably priced. I would think there would be high demand if it were reasonably priced. Let's say a normal ticket would be $1,000 (for a flight they expect to be nearly full), then they could make the same margin if the Angola flight were just a quarter full at $4,000. So the price is a vicious circle that way. Question is why there isn't enough demand for such a flight to be able to bring the price down to reasonable levels when the only other alternative I have found is to double your flight time by going through Europe. Although maybe there's something we don't know about Angola or the airline, where perhaps there's a 10% chance of getting murdered in Angola ... or the pilots are incompetent. Who knows?Why are fast food restaurants and other chain stores so cheap? Volume. They offer cutthroat prices and have very minimal profit but make up for it in volume. Unique, hand made items that are not mass produced always cost more because they are not in demand but the business has to charge more simply to eek out a profit. Supply and demand is how pricing works.
But I found it shocking that it's the ONLY flight I could find that allegedly crosses the Atlantic from South Africa to South America. There are tons of flights to South America that fly through Europe. That suggests that there's definitely a market for a decent number of direct flights across the Atlantic. Heck if I were a billionaire, I would see that as a huge business opportunity to fill the gap.
Good. Your Modernist garbage is not wanted here among actual Catholics. And, no, I'm not referring to the fact that you believe the earth is a globe, but your overall attitude of derision against geocentrists or against anyone, really, who doesn't bow down before the idols of modern science, and your overall disdain for Sacred Scripture. Begone..
.I like your site and use it often.
Wrong. The real reason this CathInfo is a waste of my time is this:
when I provide a proof for a concept, you always say "I don't accept that"
and offer a proof for the opposite view.
It's not that I really dislike yous guys. It's just that you can disagree with
whatever I say. It's your ego against my proofs. It's not ego for me. It's
logical reasoning based on Astronomical facts.
And then, you say "It's not facts". Who is the arbitrator in these arguments?
I have about as much success with Protestants, because they say, "That's not
the way we see it".
The idea of flat earth is so insane, that it's hard for me to stay calm when
arguing that. The same for Geocentrism.
So, Lad, you are a pretty smart guy, in all other areas. I just don't have that
much time to waste on proofs, for which people say, "I don't believe it".
Do you have a cell phone? Isn't that provided by evil modern science?
Do you drive a car? Same thing. Use a computer? Same thing.
How many hours of the day do spend on CathInfo?
How many people have you saved with your flat earth and Geocentrism?
I'm wasting my time again.
My disdain for Sacred Scripture? This is my website:
http://drbo.org (http://drbo.org)
I created it. HTML, CSS, C++, search algorithms.
Pax tecuм.
I like your site and use it often..
Can you please explain what the firmament is?
It's referred to 23 times in the Douay.
What is your explanation for what they are describing?
Anyone ever notice that M79 never says anything about FE/GE? Kinda strange, no?
.
I'm not going to argue with you about that.
Believe whatever you want, but remember, the Bible is not
a science textbook.
I don't have time to stay on CathInfo for hours every day.
Thanks for the compliment.
Okay, but I'm not much of a debater really. I'm more of a researcher..
I like to research all sides of a topic and sift through new evidence as it becomes available.
If the evidence challenges my beliefs or makes my "heroes" look bad, so be it.
My ego doesn't depend on the results and there are no "winners" or "losers" really.
Only truth and the pursuit thereof.
I'll be okay either way. :)
So I am just really curious what people think the Bible was referring to when it discussed the firmament again and again.
.So you prefer the Kabbalah Ein Sof, Big Bang, ever expanding universe?
I agree with Pope Leo XIII, who said that the Bible was written in the words of the time when it was written.
Firmament meant something to those people at that time. It has no scientific or factual meaning to me.
I have not seen anything in my life, reading or looking, which the word "firmament" mean anything.
So you prefer the Kabbalah Ein Sof, Big Bang, ever expanding universe?.
It seemed "firmament" meant something to NASA founder Wernher Von Braun. He referenced a Bible passage about the firmament on his tombstone.
Also, have you researched Operation Fishbowl?
.Well you and Father Scott agree with Kabbalah rather than Sacred Scripture. Research the Ein Sof (Big Bang ever expanding universe).
Kabbalah? No.
Operation Fishbowl? No.
I agree with Fr Scott's explanation of Genesis, Creation, Geocentrism.
Wrong. The real reason this CathInfo is a waste of my time is this:
when I provide a proof for a concept, you always say "I don't accept that"
and offer a proof for the opposite view.
.
I agree with Pope Leo XIII, who said that the Bible was written in the words of the time when it was written.
Firmament meant something to those people at that time. It has no scientific or factual meaning to me.
I have not seen anything in my life, reading or looking, which the word "firmament" means anything.
Well you and Father Scott agree with Kabbalah rather than Sacred Scripture..
You agree with (your distortion of) Leo XIII because you want to. You have no use for the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. Take your Modernism with you and get out of here. How is it exactly that you're a Traditional Catholic? Just like smells and bells?.
So the word "firmament" means nothing to you ... despite the fact that it was repeatedly mentioned by the Holy Spirit in Sacred Scripture, and it meant a great deal to the Church Fathers. Your hubris is breathtaking. That paragraph above is one of the most blatantly Modernist things I've ever seen posted here.
cassini cited Pope Benedict XV rejecting your false interpretation of Leo XIII, but you must not "agree with" that. You agree with what you want to agree with.
I've noticed that you make a habit of snide accusations when responding to others. Thank you for reminding me to pray for the grace to avoid falling into such a dishonourable and execrable practice.
BTW, it takes a big hit to one's ego to break away from the MC programming and be considered an "oddball" for seeing the falsity of globe earth and going back to the simple Biblical explanation..
.Rebuttal (from a year ago):
"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."
[Isaias (Isaiah) 40:22]
http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=40&l=22#x (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=40&l=22#x)
Rebuttal (from a year ago):
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/isaias-4022/
Can you recommend a PROFESSIONALLY run Catholic discussion forum
in which the members are not mean condemning rude name-calling people?
This is not name-calling, but a statement of fact. You are an absolutely shameless unabashed MODERNIST. What you posted there was the most disgustingly-Modernistic post I've ever seen here on CI..
It's one thing for someone to assert that "well, I think that what firmament means is ..." and quite another to say, "it means nothing to me".
No, the Sacred Scriptures are not a science text book, but that does not mean it does not touch upon or treat of matters of science, and it is every bit as inerrant on those matters as it is on doctrine of the faith (cf. Pope Benedict XV's authoritative interpretation of Leo XIII rejecting precisely your very abuse of that text).
You also sprinkle in language about how you "agree with Leo XIII".
You are in fact a Modernist, and you have no business whatsoever being a Traditional Catholic. Your posts disgust me; they're Modernist heresy. Get off this forum.
This is not name-calling, but a statement of fact. You are an absolutely shameless unabashed MODERNIST. What you posted there was the most disgustingly-Modernistic post I've ever seen here on CI..
It's one thing for someone to assert that "well, I think that what firmament means is ..." and quite another to say, "it means nothing to me".
No, the Sacred Scriptures are not a science text book, but that does not mean it does not touch upon or treat of matters of science, and it is every bit as inerrant on those matters as it is on doctrine of the faith (cf. Pope Benedict XV's authoritative interpretation of Leo XIII rejecting precisely your very abuse of that text).
You also sprinkle in language about how you "agree with Leo XIII".
You are in fact a Modernist, and you have no business whatsoever being a Traditional Catholic. Your posts disgust me; they're Modernist heresy. Get off this forum.
Welp, Youtube declares the earth is not flat. So that settles it!
Apparently even researching the topic is daaaaaaannnnngerous.
"Our goal is to promote authoritative content"
Umm....by whose authority might that be?
YouTube's Official Flat Earth Suppression Policy
Exchange between Juniper Downs (YouTube Public Policy & Government Relations Global Head) and Rep. Ted Deutch on July 17, 2018 at a House Judiciary Committee hearing.
49 sec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uJX6Gv8XrM
Thanks Youtube, for telling me what to think! Where would I be without you?
Where is the flat edge? At sunrise or sunset? At the full Moon or the new Moon or the quarter Moon? Where and when do the hours go around the flat edge?Where the ice wall (Antarctic ring) meets the Firmament.
Where the ice wall (Antarctic ring) meets the Firmament.I have doubts if this is an attempt at an honest answer, unless you don't understand the subject, which is okay if you don't understand anything that I've been saying.
Sunrise and sunset depends upon where the sun is in its circuit and your location.
https://youtu.be/SoBtC9Sumgs
Welp, Youtube declares the earth is not flat. So that settles it!
Apparently even researching the topic is daaaaaaannnnngerous.
"Our goal is to promote authoritative content"
Umm....by whose authority might that be?
YouTube's Official Flat Earth Suppression Policy
Exchange between Juniper Downs (YouTube Public Policy & Government Relations Global Head) and Rep. Ted Deutch on July 17, 2018 at a House Judiciary Committee hearing.
49 sec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uJX6Gv8XrM
Thanks Youtube, for telling me what to think! Where would I be without you?
Where is the flat edge? At sunrise or sunset? At the full Moon or the new Moon or the quarter Moon? Where and when do the hours go around the flat edge?
Wow, this video above was a masterpiece. What a setup. Getting public sympathy for manipulation. She's talking about how virtuous Youtube is, seeking 'authoritative' content only.
Yeah, Jєωgle and Jєωtube are all about serving and enlightening humanity, and preserving them from error. :laugh1:Yea, the saying is: "Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by ignorance”. These days, it's more like, "Never ascribe to ignorance that which can be explained by malice."
.Revelation 7:1
"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."
[Isaias (Isaiah) 40:22]
http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=40&l=22#x (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=40&l=22#x)
Another thing I have to question about the globe model is why Antarctica does not experience a mild summertime like the Arctic? Since the Sun is proven to shift 23.5 degrees north and south throughout the year, equally casting its warmth and light to each "hemisphere", then the antipodes of the "globe" should have equivalent seasons.
But they don't. The Arctic experiences mild summers and harsh winters, but the Antarctic only experiences harsh winters year-round
Another thing I have to question about the globe model is why Antarctica does not experience a mild summertime like the Arctic? Since the Sun is proven to shift 23.5 degrees north and south throughout the year, equally casting its warmth and light to each "hemisphere", then the antipodes of the "globe" should have equivalent seasons.You should be able to find someone unbiased in southern Australia or New Zealand to time their daylight hours, but a quick search shows pretty much the same daylight above and below the equator. Measuring at about 41 degrees either way showed 15:10 being the longest day. In the emperor penguin movie I saw a long time ago, antarctica definitely had a summer where much ice melted, and a winter with harsh blizzards below -100F. If there is any difference, maybe the specific path of earth's orbit is the cause. Also, Antarctica is supposed to be land, so having a higher elevation could both block some light from reaching as much surface, and it would be colder at higher elevations anyway.
But they don't. The Arctic experiences mild summers and harsh winters, but the Antarctic only experiences harsh winters year-round. The "wobble" of the earth in the heliocentric model doesn't sufficiently explain this, as it would mean that the "tilt" on the earth's "axis" is more than 23.5 degrees to the north during summertime. And geocentric GE's also have to account for this as well. As, if the earth is globular, then the northern circuit and the southern circuits of the sun are equidistant and there should be an equal dispensation of light/heat on both paths of the sun's circuit.
Yet, in the FE model, this is due to the fact that the sun moves faster in the southern regions (i.e. those on the outer circuмference) because it is the longer circuit and its light and heat does not have as much time to effect the environment as it does in the shorter circuit of the arctic, northern region closer to the center.
You should be able to find someone unbiased in southern Australia or New Zealand to time their daylight hours, but a quick search shows pretty much the same daylight above and below the equator. Measuring at about 41 degrees either way showed 15:10 being the longest day. In the emperor penguin movie I saw a long time ago, antarctica definitely had a summer where much ice melted, and a winter with harsh blizzards below -100F. If there is any difference, maybe the specific path of earth's orbit is the cause. Also, Antarctica is supposed to be land, so having a higher elevation could both block some light from reaching as much surface, and it would be colder at higher elevations anyway.Although I didn't do these particular experiments with people in Australia, I did conduct several where they, and others, located all around the world, got together at the same time to watch the moon. Funny that we all saw it at the same time, describing it's position, where the craters were for each person who were literally on opposite sides of the "globe" from each other. It was a fascinating experience and it's easy to find people online who will do such experiments and even go into greater depth to find a lot more answers.
having a higher elevation could both block some light from reaching as much surface, and it would be colder at higher elevations anyway.You raise an interesting question. Why is it colder at higher elevations? Why is it so hot at low elevations like Death Valley? Higher elevations are closer to the sun.
You raise an interesting question. Why is it colder at higher elevations? Why is it so hot at low elevations like Death Valley? Higher elevations are closer to the sun.I was pondering the same thing myself. I wonder if the Firmament itself is extremely cold? Perhaps it's like a form of super-hard permafrost derived from the waters above? That might explain why, outside of the sun's circuit, the Antarctic ice ring is as cold as it is since it is the territory where the Firmament is theorized to meet the earth. Obviously, we also know that the air is thinner at higher elevations, which leads to lower temperatures since there's less particles to react thermally as well.
Where is the flat edge? At sunrise or sunset? At the full Moon or the new Moon or the quarter Moon? Where and when do the hours go around the flat edge?https://youtu.be/dxJnRNn5Qwg
https://youtu.be/dxJnRNn5QwgGreat video! Thanks.
You should be able to find someone unbiased in southern Australia or New Zealand to time their daylight hours, but a quick search shows pretty much the same daylight above and below the equator. Measuring at about 41 degrees either way showed 15:10 being the longest day. In the emperor penguin movie I saw a long time ago, antarctica definitely had a summer where much ice melted, and a winter with harsh blizzards below -100F. If there is any difference, maybe the specific path of earth's orbit is the cause. Also, Antarctica is supposed to be land, so having a higher elevation could both block some light from reaching as much surface, and it would be colder at higher elevations anyway.
For example, if the sun moved in a perfect circle around the Earth, and at a constant speed, then it should retain the same apparent size and apparent speed at all times. But the fact is, as careful and accurate measuring shows, the sun does not retain the same apparent size; as it measures bigger and smaller during its annual orbit around the Earth. The ancients, however, were committed to all celestial orbits following a divine law of perfect circles and constant speed. - p. 86
O'Hanlon thinks the Earth is flat?No.
I think a lot of people forget just how huge the continents in the southern "hemisphere" are. Honestly, I still think VoC is onto something with his Moon-continent projection theory. As the size of the continents in his model show the same accurate disparity of southern continents being far larger than northern continents.
There's also this old map from the link Cera posted above that expresses the reality of the world
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7sbkoT8-4tI/VXvvxh_6szI/AAAAAAAAP0Y/Iv--rlSWJI0/s1600/flatearth3.jpg)
https://youtu.be/dxJnRNn5Qwg
Secondarily, it shows that the sun is not some massive body millions of miles away, but local and smaller than the earth; as a small shift of a few degrees of the earth on its "axis" would not change the perceptible size of the sun. This works for both FE and geocentrists.
And, yes, I agree that there's definitely something to the earth-moon projection theory. I've seen where someone went to the trouble of finding earth locations on the moon image, and darn if they don't line up very closely with places and features on the earth.Yes, that's Vibes of Cosmos, who I've been revisiting a lot lately. His model also provides "other lands" identified within the moon projection which honestly gives more credence to the "other lands" theory of FE because he actually has some concrete proof thanks to his theory about the moon map.
I agree, that was a GREAT video.
I don't remember seeing it, even though I downloaded (and skimmed/watched) the entire "Taboo Conspiracy" Youtube channel of Dubay's.
What am I missing? Does Dubay have another channel or something?
But there are videos over dry regions (deserts) which show the sun getting noticeably SMALLER as it moves toward the horizon. Really the only thing that would cause it to get smaller is that if the air above you had more moisture, so that as you looked up, the sun would be magnified due to atmospheric moisture, but then the air would get dryer as the sun approached the horizon, but I see that as being extremely unlikely. And some of the videos that show the sun getting larger as it seems to approach are taken from the amateur balloons that are well above the clouds, where you wouldn't expect such differences in humidity.Couple that with the fact that air is thinner at higher altitudes, and the "atmospheric moisture" explanation honestly goes out the window.
Now, my theory regarding why some of these other lands aren't around any longer (Lemurya, Atlantis, etc.) is that the projection of the moon is the foundations of these continents and islands. Therefore, if they were buried and submerged by the Deluge; that would not remove the imprint they leave on the "moon map" plasma projection. Secondarily, since they reside beyond the apparent Antarctic ice wall, it could be suggested that they constitute the frozen lands some speculate to reside beyond Antarctica and the circuit of the sun; specifically what he calls "Terra Vista". But, this gets into the more speculative end of FE, which, apart from what VoC presents and the proofs that the Convex earth crew presents, has very little basis.
He got the term "Terra Vista" from the famous Urbano Monte map.Yes, I just came across that video now. Certainly interesting, although one commentor suggests that the features are not unlike those found on the coast of Argentina.
Not gonna lie, I completely thought FE was some outdated joke of ignorance, but now I have 0 confidence in GE because their biggest proof was the pictures and now none of the pictures are real. So basically there's no proof at all for GE! Yet there's more evidence for FE!I thought it was partially there to undermine cօռspιʀαcιҽs and partially a good exercise in distrust for modern scientific "authorities". Until I honestly looked at it and found that its actually more plausible, and Biblical, than the modern cosmology. And it has helped spark a new wonder at creation and awareness of God's works.
I thought it was partially there to undermine cօռspιʀαcιҽs and partially a good exercise in distrust for modern scientific "authorities". Until I honestly looked at it and found that its actually more plausible, and Biblical, than the modern cosmology. And it has helped spark a new wonder at creation and awareness of God's works.
I agree, that was a GREAT video.
I don't remember seeing it, even though I downloaded (and skimmed/watched) the entire "Taboo Conspiracy" Youtube channel of Dubay's.
What am I missing? Does Dubay have another channel or something?
Not gonna lie, I completely thought FE was some outdated joke of ignorance, but now I have 0 confidence in GE because their biggest proof was the pictures and now none of the pictures are real. So basically there's no proof at all for GE! Yet there's more evidence for FE!
I experienced a major paradigm shift when it became obvious to me that 9/11 was an inside job. I must say I owe some debt of gratitude to Alex Jones -- even if he is controlled opposition. I got to the point where if someone from the government said to me, "Good Morning," I'd suspect that it was night time.Thank you for giving credit where credit is due. My wake-up call was when I was in high school and JFK was assasinated, then the assasin Jack Ruby was assasinated, the RFK was assasinated, then MLK was assasinated. For both Jack Ruby and RFK I was watching TV live time for both. A lot of violence.
They've already made up their minds that the earth is a Globe and so are in the defensive posture of explaining away all the very real and very serious problems with the globe earth model.And that's the problem I've run into when I've spoken with GE proponents outside of CI, such as Gab: they just presume that the earth is how they've been told it is and then try to spin it to make it out like I've made up my own mind about the shape of the earth being flat. When, in reality, I'm still weighing the evidence, and it comes out much more in favor of a flat plane than it does a globe. Not to mention that Revelation itself favors a geocentric, FE model, which should end the debate for us right there.
And the appeals on the globe side of things lean on those of scientific authority, rather than verifiable experiments. It reminds me of the attitude of the Pythagorean cults and Gnostics at the time of the early Church. Where you have to be versed in specific natural sciences before you are privy to their secrets. That's kind of the same logic behind modern science in general these days, where we have to put faith in the wisdom of philosophers rather than our own senses. And then we are required to imbibe the principles that they themselves have constructed in order to come to "gnosis" of the "truth". You have to be initiated (e.g. indoctrinated) into their worldview before you can fully understand why they deny their own senses. Yet, we are the irrational ones because we put our faith in the wisdom of God and our own God-given senses.
So, which illustrated system of the sixteenth century is really the ‘simplest,’ and ‘simplest’ in what way? There are many answers to this question for we have now entered the mind-games again, the hermetic gnosis we referred to earlier. Is the Copernican system simpler than the geocentric one as depicted on paper like above? Of course, it isn’t, they both look simple. But now let us consider which is the simplest in reality? By this we mean which represents the simplest reality to a human being living on Earth? From Earth Ptolemy’s geocentricism is the reality of what we see, observe and can measure; simplicity personified. Heliocentrism is of the mind, and one has to be indoctrinated in it to understand how it works. Simplicity surely rests with what we see, not what we are told what we see.
-ch. 9, p. 133
I first started to think about the subject based on some posts by the "Flat Earth Trads" folks here on CI. I initially didn't think much of it, but figured that I'd give it a shot. I've never been one to dismiss anything out of hand for purely emotional reasons. After all, we've been lied about nearly EVERYTHING ... history, science, politics. I experienced a major paradigm shift when it became obvious to me that 9/11 was an inside job. I must say I owe some debt of gratitude to Alex Jones -- even if he is controlled opposition. I got to the point where if someone from the government said to me, "Good Morning," I'd suspect that it was night time.I agree with those, but I think my main problem with the FE model is what happens when you get to the edge? I can't quite understand it.
In any case, I watched a few videos and I was somewhat shocked. I wasn't shocked that the government / media / establishment would lie about it, just shocked by the thought that the world might be completely different than I had thought (and been programmed with) my entire life and also was shocked that there was some pretty darn good evidence for it. I had initially expected that it would just be so much nonsense and pure speculation.
By way of analogy, some time ago, after FE, I looked into the question of whether nuclear bombs really even exist. Again, by this time, it wouldn't have surprised me that it was all lie. So I looked at some of the evidence and concluded that there was no hard evidence whatsoever, just a narrative woven around a bunch of circuмstantial stuff. Indeed, some of the alleged footage of nuke tests did look fake, and could have been faked. But that just wasn't evidence. Consequently, I have no strong opinion on the matter. I wouldn't rule it out, but I also don't have any reason to believe it either. So I don't simply accept conspiracy theories either without evidence. Another one was the notion that jet planes don't require any fuel. I don't believe that to be true, but I also agreed with some of the video evidence presented that the amount of fuel they required is MUCH LESS than we've been told. So on that one, I'm in between.
So, getting back to FE, as I watched more and more evidence build up, I became more and more convinced. When asked at that time, I would respond that I "lean" FE. Then I got to a point where I was 90% convinced, and now I'm 99% convinced.
I watched dozens and dozens (probably over 100) experiments where people showed how they could "see too far" vs. the commonly accepted globe math. I haven't done the math myself, but it's not disputed even by globe proponents and I've seen it worked out. 8" per mile squared is actually a slight shorthand for a more complex formula, but someone worked it out that it's incredibly close, to the point of being a couple feet off over 100 miles.
So what's the explanation for "see too far"? Globers have only one argument. And it's not really an argument. It's a concept, a word, that they use as a deus ex machina to explain away these findings. They've never demonstrated it to be true. And refraction is a very hit-or-miss thing, and nearly always results in distortion of the image. But the consistency with which the FEs found the same results with experiment after experiment made me conclude that it was incredibly implausible, and the images were crystal clear. And then, if there were refraction, what happened to the earth bulge that should have been in between the object viewed and the observer? Did it get refracted out of existence? And why was the horizon line BEHIND the objects that were too far away? So the horizon line, which should have been refracted away from in front of the object was magically reconstituted behind the object? And the images were very clear. But then Dr. John D performed some TWO-WAY see-too-far laser experiments which put the final nail into the coffin of "refraction". To have light refract exactly around the curvature of the earth, based on how refraction works, you'd need a progressively-increasing density gradient. But, then, the laser coming back from the other direction (just a few feet away and at the same elevation) would have to, at the same time, encounter a progressively DEcreasing density gradient, and would have been refracted upward. Finally, Dr. John D also took some great video of wind turbines, about 6 of them between 8 and 11 miles away. They line up PERFECTLY as they would if they were shrinking in size due to straight perspective. For that to happen, refraction would have to be exactly the same between each one, from 11 to 10, from 10-9 ... without variation, exactly the same degree of refraction for 11 miles, while removing the water bulge that should have been in between and then again reconstituting the horizon behind it. Suuuuuuure. Only people who cling to refraction are those who for emotional reasons refuse to rationally consider the issue, apply it as "proof" (dishonestly -- without doing any numbers and measurements) out of confirmation bias, and the cling to it with white knuckles as a matter of psychological life or death.
Other key evidence:
--from amateur balloons going to about 120,000 feet up, without wide-angle or fish-eye lenses, the horizon appears to be at eye level and does not drop one tiny bit, when it should have on a ball.
--impossibility of having a pressurized atmosphere without a cotainer and for it to remain intact adjacent to a nearly-infinite vacuum
--serious issues for aviation, especially landing planes in a north-south angle of approach
I could go on for pages. That's how MUCH serious evidence there is behind FE.
On the other side, their "strongest" proof consists almost entirely of alleged pictures and videos from NASA. But NASA has been exposed for one lie and fraud after another, including faking pictures, and simply cannot be trusted and must be discounted as a source of real evidence.
As I try to do with every issue, I perform a "thought experiment". I pretend that I'm an ardent believer that the earth is a globe and that I'm debating a Flat Earther. What are my arguments? NASA? Proven fraudsters. Rebuttal? Well, they have lied, but this time they're telling the truth. "Refraction"? That's not an argument, just a concept which I can't convincingly apply to "see too far". I honestly can't think of ANYTHING that's compelling.
But this is what Globers do in general. They rarely present actual evidence. They come up with narratives, entirely unproven, without any empirical support whatsoever, to merely explain away the evidence presented by FEs. That is not honest and shows confirmation bias. They've already made up their minds that the earth is a Globe and so are in the defensive posture of explaining away all the very real and very serious problems with the globe earth model.
I agree with those, but I think my main problem with the FE model is what happens when you get to the edge? I can't quite understand it.There is no "edge" in the sense that people misrepresent it as being a flying space pizza. The world is enclosed in a solid, impenetrable Firmament, so you would reach where the ground meets the Firmament, presumably.
I agree with those, but I think my main problem with the FE model is what happens when you get to the edge? I can't quite understand it.
There is no "edge" in the sense that people misrepresent it as being a flying space pizza. The world is enclosed in a solid, impenetrable Firmament, so you would reach where the ground meets the Firmament, presumably.
The thing that needs to be broken here is the notion of there being "outer space" beyond the Firmament, when Scripture says that there are waters above (Gen. 1:7) which is then encompassed by the heavenly realm which may even be fiery (if Greeks are to be believed), as even purported images of the cosmic background show that the world is encompassed by fire. Even Bl. Hildegard von Bingen received a vision of the cosmos wherein the world is encompassed by two types of fire.
https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/boe/boe29.htm
Thanks for the link to St. Hildegard. Let's take a look at these paragraphs.Yep. Basically what I and others have been asserting. Flat plane within a globular Firmament still constitutes a "globe". The modern notion of a globe is based on Pythagorean, Copernican and Kelperian notions of the earth in their Heliocentric universe.
In Hildegard's universe, the Earth was the centre, and spherical, around which were arranged concentric shells or zones. The inner zones are spherical, the outer oval or egg-shaped, and the outermost (Fig. 92 (https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/boe/boe29.htm#img_fig092)) so formed as to suggest the acuмinated sphere that symbolises the fifth element, quintessence of the other four. This point that tapers into outer space is in the East, which is the top of the diagram. One of her drawings shows, says Singer, that she believed the antipodean surface of the Earth to be uninhabitable, "since it is either beneath the ocean, or in the mouth of the Dragon."
In the interior of the Earth, she believed, are two vast spaces shaped like truncated cones, where punishment was endured, and from whence great evil came forth.
These two paragraphs above are commentary, so they are not from Hildegard herself. Her stuff is in quotes so it's hard to say whether the author properly assessed her true view, especially when there was pressure to believe the earth is a globe at the time, as shown by St. Thomas' essay on the subject.
Antipodean is an interesting word for Hildegard to use, and if she actually used it, it appears that she may have done so in order to make clearer to globers that the earth had no antipodean people because it rested on the waters. Nothing wrong with earth resting on the waters, it's something the Fathers taught. So far, Hildegard's view of creation shows it is a snow globe with flat earth in the middle and cone shaped hell cavities are under it. According to St. Augustine, the earth is supported by 7 pillars (representing the sacraments) which make up it's foundation, with habitable land masses resting in the water. At best, those who think earth is a globe would get a weird dome shaped surface above the water to live on, which is ridiculous. So according to Hildegard, the surface of earth is a plane, in the center of the concentric circles (the heavens) which is what the Fathers of the Church have said all along as cited in flat earth discussions prior. This view of flat earth was consistently held for centuries. Another interesting point is the cone shaped spaces under the earth. Why would hell be cone shaped unless the surface of the earth is flat? Cones have a top side (the open end) and a bottom side (the tip of the cone). If earth were a globe, which way is up? We also know the cone shaped abyss is often described as "bottomless" making the meeting of the points in the center of the globe impossible given Hildegard's (and other's) descriptions.
Seems Hildegard was a flat earther. Unless the GE and HE proponents think that half the earth and Australia are under water.
We don't know that there is an edge. There's only speculation about what if anything would be beyond Antarctica. If there were an edge, it could simply be the edge of creation. What happens when you get to the edge of the universe?On the FE map there's usually our world surrounded by ice wall. But given the technology we have today wouldn't it be easy to get all the way there to see if there's that ice wall all the way around the world? Or even fly over the ice wall with planes or balloons? Or drill through the walls? And what happens to the north pole on FE? Doesn't it exist even?
It's important to separate the theoretical model (most of which is speculative, since FE don't have the resources or access to properly investigate) from the known facts. Regardless of the answer to what's beyond Antarctica, the evidence makes it very clear that the surface of the earth that we live on is flat. Otherwise, we should not be able to see the things that we have seen. There's a record long-distance photograph that I believe was taken from about 300 miles away or something (I'll try to dig up the details), where the target object should have been hidden by MILES of curvature. It was of a lighthouse on a small rocky island that was no more than 200 feet above sea level at its peak. That the light could "refract" perfectly over 100s of miles at a consistent rate as to follow the curvature of the globe, while mysteriously erasing the earth "bulge" that would be between the photographer and the object ... I find that utterly absurd.
On the FE map there's usually our world surrounded by ice wall. But given the technology we have today wouldn't it be easy to get all the way there to see if there's that ice wall all the way around the world? Or even fly over the ice wall with planes or balloons? Or drill through the walls? And what happens to the north pole on FE? Doesn't it exist even?The north pole doesn't change.
99% flat surface with domed firmamentI also thought about this, maybe it's just that their measurement of the curvature is wrong or they're hiding the fact that we have a much bigger globe. But then it wouldn't make sense because if it's actually much bigger then the global flights will be all messed up based on the current calculation.
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%.
I also thought about this, maybe it's just that their measurement of the curvature is wrong or they're hiding the fact that we have a much bigger globe. But then it wouldn't make sense because if it's actually much bigger then the global flights will be all messed up based on the current calculation.No, the calculations are correct and they're based upon a circuмference of 25,000 miles, presumed to be that of the globe. And even if the earth were 100,000 miles in circuмference, the horizon would still drop below eye level at a certain point. But it never does, even at the smaller, 25,000 mile estimate.
The north pole doesn't change.I think I misunderstood because I was looking at maps without labels. This one I found makes more sense. So north pole is like the center of the earth? And Antarctica, instead of being a little point like the north pole, is the whole brim of the earth and miles of ice outside?
As for the ice wall, people have attempted to navigate to it either by plane or boat, but are turned back by military ships and aircraft and threatened by force.
https://youtu.be/SmYRFtY_jfQ
I think I misunderstood because I was looking at maps without labels. This one I found makes more sense. So north pole is like the center of the earth? And Antarctica, instead of being a little point like the north pole, is the whole brim of the earth and miles of ice outside?
Yep. Basically what I and others have been asserting. Flat plane within a globular Firmament still constitutes a "globe". The modern notion of a globe is based on Pythagorean, Copernican and Kelperian notions of the earth in their Heliocentric universe.
This also makes it evident that further research is needed on the Fathers and others saints who are adduced as proponents of globe. Simply because they used the term "globe" does not mean they were Globe Earthers in the modern sense of the word.I'm suspicious that it has more to do with translation choices than what is actually meant. Such as gyrum/gyrus meaning circle but being translated as globe in post-Galilean English translations.
I'm suspicious that it has more to do with translation choices than what is actually meant. Such as gyrum/gyrus meaning circle but being translated as globe in post-Galilean English translations.
But there's also some Fathers who were influenced by the Aristotelian model of a spherical earth.
Now, any fair minded person reading this quote, who wasn't suffering confirmation bias, would see that Methodius is saying "they", (his opponents) say "the circuмference of the world is likened to the turnings of a well-rounded globe". Methodius actually calls them wretched for it, in the quote! But because the word globe is used in the passage, some guys think they have proof the Fathers taught that earth is a globe. :facepalm:
The Earth also God commanded to stand in the midst of the world, rooted in its own foundations [Psa. 103:5: You fixed the Earth upon its foundations, not to be moved forever], and made the mountains ascend, and the plains descend into the place that He had founded for them.
-Catechism of the Council of Trent
... a perfect sphere. That's a message in and of itself. When Pope Benedict asked Giotto for a drawing to prove his worth as an artist, Giotto drew a perfect circle ... freehand.
I don't quite get your point here. Were Our Lord and Our Lady shaped like spheres? Besides that, modern science claims that the earth is an oblate spheroid, i.e. imperfect.The sphere being a perfect shape must mean that God made the earth spherical. All in all, just because something is aesthetically beautiful doesn't mean it applies to reality... Reality shows that there is no curve.
I don't quite get your point here. Were Our Lord and Our Lady shaped like spheres? Besides that, modern science claims that the earth is an oblate spheroid, i.e. imperfect.According to St. Bonaventure the eyes and most perfects of the body are spherical, or tending to some sphericity of balance and well being, since the sphere is the perfect shape, especially in representing the spatial relation to the infinite. Everything else gets stuck in the problem of infinite regress, yet even with its perfect curve, the circle is deficient in relation to the sphere since it's only two dimensional like "Flatland".
The sphere being a perfect shape must mean that God made the earth spherical. All in all, just because something is aesthetically beautiful doesn't mean it applies to reality... Reality shows that there is no curve.
Right, not everything God created is a sphere, including the height of his creation, man.So...Fibonacci-shaped earth then?
At one point I saw a fascinating video showing how the Fibonacci pattern is present in much of nature.
And, finally, as you've pointed out, we DO see the world as a sphere, with the dome above and the hemisphere below. We just don't think that we live on the surface of said sphere.
So...Fibonacci-shaped earth then?
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/840/283/350.png)
Right, not everything God created is a sphere, including the height of his creation, man.If people want to believe in the flat Earth, I don't want to make fun of them or be rude. Salvador Dali could maybe believe in it and fit it in an art gallery.
At one point I saw a fascinating video showing how the Fibonacci pattern is present in much of nature.
And, finally, as you've pointed out, we DO see the world as a sphere, with the dome above and the hemisphere below. We just don't think that we live on the surface of said sphere.
If people want to believe in the flat Earth, I don't want to make fun of them or be rude.
Do you admit that the Sun and Moon are spheres and cut the plane of the ecliptic at inclined angles in 3-D space?
I don't know whether the sun and moon are spheres ... and with FE the notion of an "ecliptic" is unclear to me.From some videos I've watched, looks like FE believe eclipses are caused by a black sun...
I don't know whether the sun and moon are spheres ... and with FE the notion of an "ecliptic" is unclear to me.If I remember correctly, the sun has a fast speed of rotation. Assuming sun spots don't float over a molten surface, it should be possible to track the rotation and prove it is a sphere by tracking sun spots.
Everybody thinks that they are spheres, of course, They're both round and not flat disks. The way the Earth works in lunar eclipses shows that it's round too, and I doubt that it's a flat disk in exception to them.Spheres in the heavens is a perception, not reality.
The Sun ranges from the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn and then the equator between and the Moon ranges from the north and south nodes where eclipses occur at the nodes of a new moon. It's like two circle hoops with a nail, or two opposite nails, fastened in to them, and they rotate up or down a little into a vertical or third plane. They don't stay on the same flat plane. Their motions imply and show sphericity in space.
The heliocentric freaks from ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic controlled NASA, who have never landed on the Moon or Mars and lie about Pluto and just about everything else, while they scam the country out of money and laugh about it, those people think the Earth's an "oblate spheroid" due to lateral forces from "gravity". Another falsehood. The Earth is a perfect sphere not an "oblate spheroid" and "gravity" doesn't represent lateral forces anyway. There aren't any lateral forces from so-called "gravity", there aren't any "gravity kicks" for their rockets, and the Earth is not moving to orbit the Sun anyway in the first place.
From some videos I've watched, looks like FE believe eclipses are caused by a black sun...
Spheres in the heavens is a perception, not reality.Brahe was a geocentrist so he had that part correct, imho, but he's got this wrong. What does one think is predicated of space as pure space?
“There really are not any spheres in the heavens… Those of which have been devised by the experts to save the appearances exist only in the imagination, for the purpose of enabling the mind to conceive the motion which the heavenly bodies trace in their course and, by the aid of geometry, to determine the motion numerically through the use of arithmetic.”
-Tycho Brahe, On the Most Recent Phenomena of the Aetherial World, 1588
What do people say the radius of the Earth is? about 3963 miles and flat Earthers can't find an edge?
When the Earth is accepted as a sphere, a precipitately condensed object, anybody can find another edge right where he is. All these edges are final too but the flat Earthers never tell where the edge is or the edges are, or where anybody might possible fall off.
Brahe was a geocentrist so he had that part correct, imho, but he's got this wrong. What does one think is predicated of space as pure space?I was providing information provided by a professional in the know who's expertise presented prior to the layers of various contradictory arguments built up over time. As far as the ground being flat, earth is thoroughly and demonstrably 3-D with mountains and valleys over a surface. Seems globers lose their depth perception in this discussion and think we're saying earth is flat as a piece of paper.
Well, besides some nature of inherent connection and universal sameness, there is direction, for one, which seems predicated of space. Direction and some extent or extensiveness, also the properties of balance and more or less, which are like quality and quantity. In fact, it seems evident that there are in total six cosmic directions in space. Descartes as well as Euclid could have it described by the origin at X, Y, and Z. Space itself is not flat except in a restricted limit of two dimensions only in a plane, but pure space is always the same and more, so the whole picture of it is as a sphere, especially when it comes to pure space.
When people make it to the mountain top and really breathe in the air, it's not a flat experience. It's 3-D and spherical. Inspiration and respiration are not flat and neither are the Heavens which can even be said to represent divine inspiration.
I was providing information provided by a professional in the know who's expertise presented prior to the layers of various contradictory arguments built up over time. As far as the ground being flat, earth is thoroughly and demonstrably 3-D with mountains and valleys over a surface. Seems globers lose their depth perception in this discussion and think we're saying earth is flat as a piece of paper.Okay, so how many sides are there to the flat Earth?
Okay, so how many sides are there to the flat Earth?The only side that matters is the side that humans live on, but that doesn't mean earth hasn't got depth, at the very least 8 miles deep and probably a lot deeper. 8 miles is the deepest human beings have ever explored but the oceans are incredibly deep. And scripture talks about the 'great deep' and also says that earth has foundational pillars upon which God founded the whole thing, so there's no doubt earth has a lot of depth. There's also no doubt earth has mountains and valleys and hills. It just isn't a globe.
The humans all live on one side?Yes, top side.
If the Sun lights up the face of the Earth, and all people live on one side, where does the Sun go at night?It is over another part of the earth as it is above the earth circling around it.
The only side that matters is the side that humans live on, but that doesn't mean earth hasn't got depth, at the very least 8 miles deep and probably a lot deeper. 8 miles is the deepest human beings have ever explored but the oceans are incredibly deep. And scripture talks about the 'great deep' and also says that earth has foundational pillars upon which God founded the whole thing, so there's no doubt earth has a lot of depth. There's also no doubt earth has mountains and valleys and hills. It just isn't a globe.It seems to me the Earth has uniform depth to everything on the surface. About 3963 mile radius to the center.
It seems to me the Earth has uniform depth to everything on the surface. About 3963 mile radius to the center.It seems? How do they know it is 3963 miles to the center if they've only been able to dig 8 miles down?
Besides depth, consider the convergence of it, since depth is a kind of convergence. In "Meteorology" Aristotle mentions three principal kinds of motion: from the center, to the center, around the center, that exist in the elements and their patterns. The weather is full of patterns of convergence and the Earth is like an element that formed through convergence and condensation out of these three basic elemental motions, and that's why it most naturally was created as a sphere.
It seems to me the Earth has uniform depth to everything on the surface. About 3963 mile radius to the center.
The Earth is almost, but not quite, a perfect sphere. Its equatorial radius is 6378 km, but its polar radius is 6357 km
It seems? How do they know it is 3963 miles to the center if they've only been able to dig 8 miles down?Math n stuff.
But modern science claim that the earth does NOT have a uniform depth, but rather has a lager radius at the equator than it does at the poles.They say that it's an "oblate spheroid" due to lateral forces from the so-called force(s) of gravity around the Earth and its surface, etc. This how they try to say that it has squeezed-in polar caps and an equatorial bulge, but it is false. There aren't lateral forces from "gravity" around the surface of the Earth and the Earth is not moving to orbit the Sun. It is a perfect sphere.
(It seems? How do they know it is 3963 miles to the center if they've only been able to dig 8 miles down?)
From nasa.gov:
There goes "perfection".
They say that it's an "oblate spheroid" due to lateral forces from the so-called force(s) of gravity around the Earth and its surface, etc. This how they try to say that it has squeezed-in polar caps and an equatorial bulge, but it is false. There aren't lateral forces from "gravity" around the surface of the Earth and the Earth is not moving to orbit the Sun. It is a perfect sphere.Math for that hypothesis may be correct if earth is a globe. What if it isn't? In other words, the math isn't proof, it's a formula that attempts to explain a theory.
Elcano completed Magellan's circuмnavigation of the globe back in 1522, 22 years before Copernicus published his erroneous book. Drake circuмnavigated it later. Others have circuмnavigated it too, so gradually they were able to figure its dimensions with greater accuracy, also as a sphere, having circuмference and radius. to be very general, as there are six cosmic directions in space, if you say six times radius you get circuмference. If you divide circuмference by six you get radius.
Before that they were able to figure the Moon is something about 60 Earth radii away, so there goes the number 6 once more which is essential in the universal relation of space.
Math for that hypothesis may be correct if earth is a globe. What if it isn't? In other words, the math isn't proof, it's a formula that attempts to explain a theory.They do have math fummdiddles, and Einstein had his share; but it seems the flat Earth isn't as simple as it could be or not simpler than Salvador Dali and turtles all the way down. I mean it seems to get funny pictures and infinite regress stints.
In this short video:Not only is it special, it's also a perfect set up for a fake, staged "alien" (demonic) invastion.
Freemason Albert Pike writes about the flat earth and firmament symbols in the "Dimensions of the Lodge".
Also, without a firmament the door is opened to distant galaxies in the universe which inhabit "intelligent life" and the Protestant presenter takes shots at the Catholic Church which is ready to baptize those aliens as the pope has declared:
11min 48sec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7z3s6E73B_M
Interestingly enough, the new and improved St Joseph's Baltimore Catechism says that there may be intelligent beings on other planets and here is an article from the popular Novus Ordo vlogcast site Ascension Presents explaining how aliens could be redeemed:
"Aliens, then, would stand in the same relation to Jesus Christ as human beings on Earth who have never heard of Jesus (those who have not been baptized). As the Church has always taught, such persons can be saved, but they would be saved in and through the person and work of Jesus Christ, whether or not they’re aware of this."
https://media.ascensionpress.com/2017/06/14/catholic-response-extraterrestrial-question/
Isn't that special. :/
Not only is it special, it's also a perfect set up for a fake, staged "alien" (demonic) invastion.Yes, that's it in a nutshell. They have been setting up for this for a lonnnnng time now with comments from Reagan and Clinton and I believe Obama stating that an alien invasion would unite the world and so many children's books and movies etc. etc.
The brainwashed people say "Of course there is life on other planets and other solar systems; how can we be so proud to think we are the only ones.
Oops. Sorry. I posted prior to watching the fantastic video. Thank you Miser.
The funny thing is that this idea of "many worlds" has been condemned by Fathers, Doctors, Theologians, and even Popes as heretical (Ss. Augustine, Isidore and Jerome, for example). And some these days would like to stretch "many worlds" to be something like multiverse theory or whatever, but in their context, these individuals were condemning the proposition of other places like earth and that earth is just another "star" (e.g. planet) among many, that contain life.
"Nothing under the sun is new," Eccl. 1:10
During the rule of Pope Gregory XIII, from 1572 to 1585, the Pope reformed the Church by centralizing its authority and enacting the recommendations of the Council of Trent. Among his major projects, the Pope sponsored an expansive and updated edition of the Corpus of Canon Law, a compilation of laws of the Roman Catholic Church that would serve as its chief source of legislation. In 1582, when Pope Gregory XIII introduced the Gregorian calendar, he also issued the completed system of laws and ordered that it be used in schools of Canon law and in Church courts. It became the preponderant code of law in the Roman Catholic Church (for centuries, until it was replaced in 1917 by the Code of Canon Law). Fundamentally, Inquisition law had to comply with Canon law. And the Corpus was reprinted soon, in 1591, and regularly thereafter. In it, the Second Part includes long discussions of what exactly constitutes heresy and who shall be considered a heretic. Echoing Isidore, a long list of heretical sects ends with a paragraph that begins: "There are also other heresies without author and without names," among which is included "having the opinion of innumerable worlds."
Pythagoras or Christ? by A.A. Martinez, p.196-197:Thanks for sharing that!
Yes, that's it in a nutshell. They have been setting up for this for a lonnnnng time now with comments from Reagan and Clinton and I believe Obama stating that an alien invasion would unite the world and so many children's books and movies etc. etc.And of course Donald Trump has Space Force all set up for a big show.
From the Ascension Presents article:
"What this means is regardless of appearance—whether they have one eye or three, whether they are green or purple—if they have bodies and are rational, “aliens” would likewise be rational animals and would have the same essential nature as us."
Awww....it would be racist to judge them otherwise now wouldn't it? :facepalm:
Thank you, Cera, for introducing me to Rob Skiba by posting one of his videos a while back. :)
And of course Donald Trump has Space Force all set up for a big show.I mean, many of us back in 2016, myself included, memed him as the "God-Emperor". And some of those connections are certainly interesting, for sure. He's also being propped up as a "savior" among conservatives, which was one thing I noted last election cycle. And he's poised to play that role again after the destruction of Biden's administration.
There are a lot of creepy occult symbols associated with Space Force.
This thread shows pictures:
https://twitter.com/DonnieDarkened/status/1555596908407685126
The guy may stretch things too far and I'm not saying DT is the AC but the photos/info are interesting to note nonetheless.
Mystery vs. contradiction. Same thing as the sede question.Im still reading this long thread and other posts, but where in bible did it mention a flat earth?
Flat Earthers don't even have to provide a conclusive model, they just have to demonstrate it is not contradictory and it wins by default because it is according to the literal interpretation of Scripture.
I still have some questions about FE but I've found the globe debunked many times over in these couple of weeks of research.
Consider also, how easy it is to disprove a flat earth. NASA needs to provide just one genuine picture of the Earth, or film a flight over Antarctica, or photograph curvature, etc.
But every time they provide supposed evidence it ends up being falsified.
Long story short, the burden of proof is on the globetards and they haven't delivered.
I mean, many of us back in 2016, myself included, memed him as the "God-Emperor". And some of those connections are certainly interesting, for sure. He's also being propped up as a "savior" among conservatives, which was one thing I noted last election cycle. And he's poised to play that role again after the destruction of Biden's administration.
I'll keep him tabbed as a "potential candidate" for AC. :laugh1:
Im still reading this long thread and other posts, but where in bible did it mention a flat earth?
I found this: It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are as grasshoppers; that stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in
(https://i.imgur.com/rgW207F.png)
This information will become especially relevant after we also
learn that Hebrew, being only an 8000-word language, did not, strange as
it may seem, have a specific word for a “sphere” or a “disc.” That doesn’t
mean, of course, that the Hebrews had no concept of these shapes or that
God did not make celestial objects or earthly things in spheres. It only
means that the description of a sphere or disc will be a little more involved
and a little more obscure in the Hebrew language.
Also, there are those books about "Baron Trump" (Trump has a son named Barron") that say "Trump" would be the last US President.I completely forgot about those
This citation is not correct. This is probably being said by someone specifically trying to explain again a possible reference to Flat Earth.
Even Dr. Sungenis agrees (speaking here about the "grasshoppers" passage)
Root of the word is just something that can roll. Could be a wheel or COULD be a sphere. By itself inconclusive either way.
chug ► (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/2330.htm) |
Strong's Concordance chug: vault, horizon Original Word: חוּג Part of Speech: Noun Masculine Transliteration: chug Phonetic Spelling: (khoog) Definition: vault, horizon NAS Exhaustive Concordance Word Origin from chug (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/2328.htm) Definition vault, horizon NASB Translation circle (2), vault (1). Brown-Driver-Briggs חוּג [size=+1]noun [masculine] [size=+1]vault[/size]; — only of vault of the heavens חוּג שׁמים התהלך Job 22:14 (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/job/22-14.htm); בְּחֻקֿוֺ חוּג עלֿ תהום ׳פנ Proverbs 8:27 (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/proverbs/8-27.htm); הישֵׁב עַלחֿוּג הארץ Isaiah 40:22 (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/isaiah/40-22.htm). Strong's Exhaustive Concordance circle, circuit, compass From chuwg (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/2328.htm); a circle -- circle, circuit, compass. see HEBREW chuwg (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/2328.htm) Forms and Transliterations וְח֥וּג וחוג ח֝֗וּג ח֣וּג חוג Chug ḥūḡ veChug wə·ḥūḡ wəḥūḡ Links Interlinear Greek (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/1-1.htm) • Interlinear Hebrew (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1-1.htm) • Strong's Numbers (https://biblehub.com/strongs.htm) • Englishman's Greek Concordance (https://biblehub.com/englishmans_greek.htm) • Englishman's Hebrew Concordance (https://biblehub.com/englishmans_hebrew.htm) • Parallel Texts (https://biblehub.com/texts/matthew/1-1.htm)[/font][/size][/color] Englishman's Concordance Job 22:14 (https://biblehub.com/text/job/22-14.htm) HEB: (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/job/22.htm) וְלֹ֣א יִרְאֶ֑ה וְח֥וּג שָׁ֝מַ֗יִם יִתְהַלָּֽךְ׃ NAS: (http://biblehub.com/nas/job/22.htm) And He walks on the vault of heaven.' KJV: (https://biblehub.com/kjvs/job/22.htm) not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven. INT: (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/job/22-14.htm) cannot see the vault of heaven walks Proverbs 8:27 (https://biblehub.com/text/proverbs/8-27.htm) HEB: (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/proverbs/8.htm) אָ֑נִי בְּח֥וּקוֹ ח֝֗וּג עַל־ פְּנֵ֥י NAS: (http://biblehub.com/nas/proverbs/8.htm) When He inscribed a circle on the face KJV: (https://biblehub.com/kjvs/proverbs/8.htm) I [was] there: when he set a compass upon the face INT: (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/proverbs/8-27.htm) he inscribed A circle on the face Isaiah 40:22 (https://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/40-22.htm) HEB: (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/isaiah/40.htm) הַיֹּשֵׁב֙ עַל־ ח֣וּג הָאָ֔רֶץ וְיֹשְׁבֶ֖יהָ NAS: (http://biblehub.com/nas/isaiah/40.htm) above the circle of the earth, KJV: (https://biblehub.com/kjvs/isaiah/40.htm) [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, INT: (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/isaiah/40-22.htm) sits above the circle of the earth inhabitants |
Not sure how it's possible that a circle is ever spherical.
... because the world mostly means "round". You can say that a wheel is round, or you can say that a ball is round.Ok, but with regard to earth, the Hebrew provides a word to describe a ball or spherical object: dur. I think the objection to the notion of spherical heavens has to do with heaven being all around the earth, as in over the top and under the bottom of the globe.
As your citation indicates, it can be use of the vault of heaven, which is shaped more like a dome.
Not sure how it's possible that a circle is ever spherical.
Ok, but with regard to earth, the Hebrew provides a word to describe a ball or spherical object: dur. I think the objection to the notion of spherical heavens has to do with heaven being all around the earth, as in over the top and under the bottom of the globe.
If everybody is said to be on one side of the Earth, then it is meant that they are all on the surface. If the surface is flat or only two-dimensional in space, how is the Sun descending beneath the surface in the West and rising above it in the East all the time? The only way that works in 3-D is if it's a sphere.
Im still reading this long thread and other posts, but where in bible did it mention a flat earth?http://www.testingtheglobe.com/bible#sthash.LxzalGch.dpuf
(https://i.imgur.com/zPcBSQ6.png)GE would say that tilt and wobble of the earth. But, if it were laid out on a FE map, it would be a concentric ring around the polar region.
I dont know if this can serve as a proof, but I was following the aurora since I was trying to find out if I can see it from where I live, but the aurora oval looks very weird to me... Why is it that wavy?
GE would say that tilt and wobble of the earth. But, if it were laid out on a FE map, it would be a concentric ring around the polar region.https://www.mezzacotta.net/100proofs/archives/204
Much like this comparison of the jet stream:
(https://imageproxy.ifunny.co/crop:x-20,resize:640x,quality:90x75/images/609ab61bbf14e8a9c53c0eb0c5a6624e79e55a45f2137bd798c5c54c34ca923f_1.jpg)
The flat Earth is like school in summer. No class.
Said with a noteworthy lack thereof. Stunning, or not.Put up the celestial almanac that'll show me one 24 hour day in the summer for the flat Earth. It'll be another Salvador Dali puppet show but I would like to see it. I value entertainment here as well as anywhere.
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..
Can you show me the hours of the day and the phases of the Moon around the Earth in complete accordance with an almanac based on this view?Were you the kid who always got someone else to do your homework?
Were you the kid who always got someone else to do your homework?Flat earthism can't do it. They don't have the illustration. It's like a flat hourglass but the hourglass needs the intersection of two planes at 90". Psalm 22 ends with the words "in longitudinem dierum", pour de longs jours. Let the Sun himself be the psalmist there, since he does have long days, and he's always descending and rising at the same time over the great circle of longitudes around the Earth. The Sun lights up the face of the Earth in 180" degrees of longitude for a side as it moves in close connection between longitude and time measurement around the globe.
I just learned today about many centuries old astrolabe, armillary sphere, and celestial globe devices. I have very little understanding so far as to how they work, but were they made assuming the earth is a globe?yes, since they assume the celestial and terrestrial equators as one plane and the celestial and terrestrial poles (the pillars of the Earth) as another intersecting plane. The Sun moves laterally through the constellations of the ecliptic and also at inclined angles to the poles.
(https://i.imgur.com/ht8v9C2.gif)