Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: DigitalLogos on July 19, 2022, 11:24:38 PM
-
A short video, with the longer videos referenced below.
3 mins
https://youtu.be/c84mZepL1KQ
23 mins
https://youtu.be/6_D6uIgv144
8 mins
https://youtu.be/MAW4yMkXMpU
-
Are they sure that's not ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic controlled NASA's "Mars" and that Mars is not flat? It looks like Mars.
-
Are they sure that's not ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic controlled NASA's "Mars" and that Mars is not flat? It looks like Mars.
That is an infrared video of the Californian landscape taken at 25000 feet in a commercial jet. Not NASA.
-
Well, I'm also concerned about safety. If the Earth turns out to be flat, I don't want NASA to go too far with their tricks and fall off the edge one day.
-
To me, the real kickers from Dr. John D's work are ...
1) his video / pictures of the wind turbines, which follow exactly the line of perspective as they get farther away, since the refraction would have to be perfectly consistent over many miles
2) his two-way laser experiment. For the laser to follow the curvature of the earth due to refraction, there would have to be a consistently increasing density along the path of the laser. But that would mean consistently DEcreasing density in the other direction. Both are not possible at the same time with the lasers just being a couple yards apart and at the same elevation.
Tolan also had a terrific video using some sophisticated software that very accurately maps 2D images into 3D using photogrammetry, and he took a long series of his videos and mapped them with this software to a perfectly flat plane.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXqb9Qykq3k
-
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I watched the third video... I can't believe I'm going to be convinced of the flat earth...
My small brain thinks the evidence in the third video is impossible to disprove. Strongest evidence I've seen yet.
I guess I'll have to look into the Antarctica business and all that...
If anyone has favourite flat Earth video proofs, articles, etc. please send me the best you have.
-
Elcano circuмnavigated the globe by sailing West the whole way. Everywhere he went was another edge and just around the corner of "it", and he never fell off, because the Earth is a sphere ... and space is 3-D.
-
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I watched the third video... I can't believe I'm going to be convinced of the flat earth...
My small brain thinks the evidence in the third video is impossible to disprove. Strongest evidence I've seen yet.
I guess I'll have to look into the Antarctica business and all that...
If anyone has favourite fat Earth video proofs, articles, etc. please send me the best you have.
If you use the search box here on CI, you'll find lots of great info. Here's one of many:
Here's an easy do-it-yourself idea. Read the news story and then look at a flat earth map and the stop in Alaska makes perfect sense. Then look at a globe map and you will see the problem.
Amazing moment a woman gives birth to a premature baby girl at 30,000ft on a Taiwan to Los Angeles flight with crew and passengers helping out
A China Airlines flight landed in Alaska with an extra passenger after an expectant mother gave birth to a baby girl more than eight weeks early.
The Taiwan to Los Angeles flight was forced to make an emergency landing on Thursday after a Taiwanese passenger's waters broke six hours into the 19 hour journey.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3270382/Caught-camera-amazing-moment-woman-gives-birth-premature-baby-girl-30-000ft-Taiwan-Los-Angeles-flight-crew-passengers-helping-out.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3270382/Caught-camera-amazing-moment-woman-gives-birth-premature-baby-girl-30-000ft-Taiwan-Los-Angeles-flight-crew-passengers-helping-out.html)
-
Elcano circuмnavigated the globe by sailing West the whole way. Everywhere he went was another edge and just around the corner of "it", and he never fell off, because the Earth is a sphere ... and space is 3-D.
Sounds like you are supporting FE Theory, of which the edge is a significant part.
-
https://youtu.be/kajiKy06bu0
-
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I watched the third video... I can't believe I'm going to be convinced of the flat earth...
My small brain thinks the evidence in the third video is impossible to disprove. Strongest evidence I've seen yet.
I guess I'll have to look into the Antarctica business and all that...
If anyone has favourite flat Earth video proofs, articles, etc. please send me the best you have.
Thus far my two favorite are the channels of the Taboo Conspiracy III guy and Dr. John D. I'll try to find the links.
Google/Youtube, and big tech in general have been aggressively censoring flat earth. Some of them get their channels summarily deleted ... that's why Taboo Conspiracy is on version "III". Rest tend to get shadow-banned by appearing on page 50 in a search. If you search "Flat Earth" in the search engines, you'll ONLY get debunking stuff for the first 10 pages. That's also a sign that they're trying to hide something. When has "Big Tech" ever been out to serve mankind by suppressing falsehood? Also, if FE is so outlandish and there's nothing to it, why not just laugh it off as a kooky fringe conspiracy theory ... walk past the FE people making the proverbial circle motion beside your ear and move on. Why is the movement gaining traction? Because there's a lot of evidence that points in that direction, and people have been waking up that governments and the "authorities" are constantly lying to us ... about nearly everything.
-
As Lad points out, the censorship of FE theory in the past few years is astounding.
Even using Bravo, it's almost impossible to find anything other than orchestrated attacks on the theory. Hmmm. It's almost inadvertantly validating.
Here are some links for Servus and anyone else with an open mind.
https://www.flatearthresearch.com/
EricDubay.com (http://EricDubay.com)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0_CSKUIVVFlfocgezQEBDg (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0_CSKUIVVFlfocgezQEBDg)
http://ifers.123.st/ (http://ifers.123.st/)
-
Sounds like you are supporting FE Theory, of which the edge is a significant part.
No. I think Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and the others like them all had it right. The Earth is a sphere and space is 3-D.
In the spherical Earth, everywhere is another edge and just around the corner of it, since there are as many tangents to the sphere and corners around and around as there are points on the surface.
You should consider the equator and the great meridians. Each longitude around the Earth is part of a great circle around the Earth that intersects the equatorial plane at 90", and they all go through the North and South Poles. Also all the 24 hours of the day are around the Earth at once. It's always high noon and midnight around the Earth somewhere, with all 24 hours in appropriate sequence roundabout it, which shows that it is a sphere.
Do you reckon that the Moon is a sphere but the Earth is not?
-
Do you reckon that the Moon is a sphere but the Earth is not?
By the same logic that the lightbulb in my ceiling is spherical and my floor is not. Just because there are spherical objects above us does not mean we live on one.
The videos above literally show that either Earth curvature calculations are totally wrong and our "planet" is much larger than we are told; or, that the Earth is not spherical.
-
Do you reckon that the Moon is a sphere but the Earth is not?
We don't know its shape for certain. We don't even know that it's a solid object, vs. a plasma or something similar (astronomers have recorded stars being seen on the "darkened" part of the moon that should be hidden behind it).
But, as DL indicates, even if the moon were a sphere, that doesn't prove the shape of the earth.
You're continuing to press the false strawman caricature of FE that it's a flat disk revolving around the sun.
-
You're continuing to press the false strawman caricature of FE that it's a flat disk revolving around the sun.
Indeed. We need to break down the false cosmology of modern Scientism and realize that the earth IS the universe and the universe IS the earth. There are no other worlds "out there" because the only "out there" is Heaven above and Hell below.
-
I don't think the Earth revolves around the Sun. I think it's not moving and the Sun revolves around it.
Aristotle (De Coelo) says, "body (soma in Greek, by which he means 3-D space) alone among magnitudes can be complete. For it alone is determined by three dimensions, that is, is in 'all'." From this, one can surmise that it's fair to say that space, as in pure space, is always 3-D and complete.
So whether the Earth is "flat" or not, it is in 3-D space, as is the rest of the cosmos. For it to be flat like a pancake in space, which is spherical itself, does not look right or add up correctly for the calendar or navigation. Every great meridian intersects the equator at two distinct opposite points in 3-D space, so there are at least two perpendicular circles involved in the composition of the Earth, which shows that it's spherical.
St. Bonaventure thought the sphere was the most noble form in geometry, and the Earth should be as dignified in its creation as Bonaventure would prefer, etc.
-
I don't think the Earth revolves around the Sun. I think it's not moving and the Sun revolves around it.
Aristotle (De Coelo) says, "body (soma in Greek, by which he means 3-D space) alone among magnitudes can be complete. For it alone is determined by three dimensions, that is, is in 'all'." From this, one can surmise that it's fair to say that space, as in pure space, is always 3-D and complete.
So whether the Earth is "flat" or not, it is in 3-D space, as is the rest of the cosmos. For it to be flat like a pancake in space, which is spherical itself, does not look right or add up correctly for the calendar or navigation. Every great meridian intersects the equator at two distinct opposite points in 3-D space, so there are at least two perpendicular circles involved in the composition of the Earth, which shows that it's spherical.
St. Bonaventure thought the sphere was the most noble form in geometry, and the Earth should be as dignified in its creation as Bonaventure would prefer, etc.
Again, you're resting upon the presuppositions of modern cosmology that there is, in-fact, a "space" in which the earth-plane resides. I am saying that there isn't such a thing. There are the waters above and the waters below encapsulating what constitutes the earth. And beyond that is Heaven and the Realm of God. Not "infinite" space (a blasphemous idea, as only God is infinite).
Second, the earth could be a flat-plane within the sphere of the Firmament. It doesn't have to be some flat disc floating in the ether. And also, as much as I esteem St. Bonaventure, that's his opinion based upon the presuppositions and assumptions of Aristotle. What he says about the sphere is true, but it doesn't prove anything about the shape of the earth.
-
Space is a universal and immediate necessity for creation, since creation is finite. We have sufficient proof that finity or the finite exists, and then with logic we are able to further infer that there is also the infinite, which is quite different. So then we are to figure the relation between the two, the finite and the infinite.
The finite has sides, straight lines, curves, and divisions, whereas the infinite does not, but since it does have a relation to the finite it doe have a relation to these created things. Certain things from the finite would represent a relation to the infinite better than others. For instance, straight lines have an end and a beginning, and do not represent relation to the infinite as well as a circle, which does not have a beginning or ending, since the infinite is like a circle in that it does not have a beginning or ending.
So the Earth is at least a circle, and any circle that is also complete in 3-D becomes a sphere. Aristotle describes the very formation of the Earth as a spherical process, which I think reflects the Holy Trinity, which is also "3-D", yet in a very supernatural way. Therefore, I say that a flat Earth does less honor to the very sublime and supernatural nature of the Most Holy Trinity who are one in three ... even like a sphere.
-
Do you reckon that the Moon is a sphere but the Earth is not?
You raise an interesting question. If the Moon were a sphere, why do we see only one side of it? Does that seem logical to you? (I predict that you will go to your pal Google to assist with your "response" instead of using your own brain.)
-
Space is a universal and immediate necessity for creation, since creation is finite. We have sufficient proof that finity or the finite exists, and then with logic we are able to further infer that there is also the infinite, which is quite different. So then we are to figure the relation between the two, the finite and the infinite.
The finite has sides, straight lines, curves, and divisions, whereas the infinite does not, but since it does have a relation to the finite it doe have a relation to these created things. Certain things from the finite would represent a relation to the infinite better than others. For instance, straight lines have an end and a beginning, and do not represent relation to the infinite as well as a circle, which does not have a beginning or ending, since the infinite is like a circle in that it does not have a beginning or ending.
So the Earth is at least a circle, and any circle that is also complete in 3-D becomes a sphere. Aristotle describes the very formation of the Earth as a spherical process, which I think reflects the Holy Trinity, which is also "3-D", yet in a very supernatural way. Therefore, I say that a flat Earth does less honor to the very sublime and supernatural nature of the Most Holy Trinity who are one in three ... even like a sphere.
That's all well and good. But the argument here is not that things aren't in three dimensions. That is a given fact. The argument is whether or not there is an expanse beyond the confines of the Firmament and the "waters above" (Gen. 1:7-8) You need to stop thinking of the FE conception of earth as this:
(https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/1508883/flat-earth-soccor.jpg)
And start thinking of it more like this:
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iTqTrRFUEqk/V09IpQbXdyI/AAAAAAAABJQ/f_EfuNKEyWo_BbY7YA7iZDxRgJ7LTOKbwCLcB/s1600/enclosed2.jpg)
The Infinite exists in the latter model. It is God, and the finite is His creation. To state that there is an infinite creature is, again, preposterous and blasphemous.
Secondly, there is no denying that there is such a thing as a mathematical conception of the infinite. But, that doesn't mean anything in this regard as it is empirically unproven. You can "prove" a great many things through mathematical (e.g. geometrical) reasoning that don't actually exist in reality.
-
You raise an interesting question. If the Moon were a sphere, why do we see only one side of it? Does that seem logical to you? (I predict that you will go to your pal Google to assist with your "response" instead of using your own brain.)
Indeed, this (made up) notion that the reason we only see one side of the moon is because rotates EXACTLY (to the second) one time for every revolution around the earth. If it were even a second off each day, then over the years, decades, and centuries, the "face" that we see would have changed. Also, scientists claim that the moon is gradually moving away from the earth. In that case, it would have to speed up both its rotation and its revolution in order to keep this up. I find this utterly absurd.
Of course, the reason we have eclipses is because the sun is exactly 400x father away AND at the same time exactly 400x larger than the moon.
-
You can "prove" a great many things through mathematical (e.g. geometrical) reasoning that don't actually exist in reality.
Are you saying, for example, that we can observe the stars and galaxies, and how the planets are spinning globes with orbiting moons, and be wrong to assume that the earth shares such similar properties? I don't think the flat earth model does God's infiniteness any justice compared to the globe earth model, but I could see it doing justice to His almighty power to order things in a way that seems to defy the logic, math, and observable universe that we know. I would consider it a miracle for the sun to hover in a circular path over the flat earth with the moon, changing its position with the seasons.
Indeed, this (made up) notion that the reason we only see one side of the moon is because rotates EXACTLY (to the second) one time for every revolution around the earth. If it were even a second off each day, then over the years, decades, and centuries, the "face" that we see would have changed. Also, scientists claim that the moon is gradually moving away from the earth. In that case, it would have to speed up both its rotation and its revolution in order to keep this up. I find this utterly absurd.
Of course, the reason we have eclipses is because the sun is exactly 400x father away AND at the same time exactly 400x larger than the moon.
That is a good argument, but with what we know of the complexities found in nature, and even the strange coincidences, there may be something going on that we don't easily understand as being practically possible, or it is just another sign of an intelligent creator. A moon that spins may have negatively affected negatively the way ancient people thought of the world. I don't know God's reason for it. If it spun, there would be no continuous face (man in the moon) appearance.
Do flat earthers agree that the moon causes the tides? Can't then the earth, which is much greater, cause tides on the moon? If the moon flexed by the pull of earth's gravity, it would cause a sort of friction that could slow the rotation of the moon eventually stopping it. Still, you would think that even now the orbit of the moon causing tides would change the rotational speed of the globe earth. But consider how the earth is much larger and more massive. That larger diameter combined with more mass greatly increases the torque and energy required to change the earth's speed. It is simple rotational kinetic energy math that will show the easily exponential growth of energy storage with an increase in diameter and mass.
Also keep in mind how long mankind has existed on earth. I don't know how long creation took: was it days literally or ages? Either way, we haven't been around that long, so it is possible the moon at one time rotated, and will again begin to rotate in the distant future. It can take a while to get big things moving again.
-
Do flat earthers agree that the moon causes the tides?
No. That's debated even among mainstream scientists. Newton, who invented the theory, ended up rejecting it, saying that he was extremely dissatisfied with the theory.
-
Are you saying, for example, that we can observe the stars and galaxies, and how the planets are spinning globes with orbiting moons, and be wrong to assume that the earth shares such similar properties?
God specifically ordained that they have a function and a purpose, which is not necessarily shared with the earth itself. It's like I mentioned earlier about the lightbulb and the floor. Just because some stellar object in God's creation possesses certain properties, does not mean the earth possesses the same.
Who established the earth above the waters: for his mercy endureth for ever. Who made the great lights: for his mercy endureth for ever. The sun to rule over the day: for his mercy endureth for ever. The moon and the stars to rule the night: for his mercy endureth for ever. [Ps. 135:6-9]
And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: [15] To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done.
And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars. [17] And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth. [18] And to rule the day and the night, and to divide the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good. [Gen. 1:13-18]
Note how he doesn't say worlds, or planets, but lights for the purpose of time-keeping, the seasons, etc.
I don't think the flat earth model does God's infiniteness any justice compared to the globe earth model, but I could see it doing justice to His almighty power to order things in a way that seems to defy the logic, math, and observable universe that we know.
I would argue it does a tremendous justice to God's infinitude because it shows that the creature is finite in light of the Creator.
The funny thing about defying logic is that it actually affirms logic in God's creation to have a flat plane. The world we stand upon appears flat, because it most likely is flat. It's a simpler explanation, and therefore, more logical, than to say that we are on a spinning globe hurdling through space (as moderns claim).
In a FE we have a definitive direction for up, and down; rather than the illogical assertion that there is no true up or true down; or that water can curve around a spherical object; or that there's some mysterious "force" or "curving of space-time" that strongly affixes some objects to a surface, but fails to affix some weaker objects, etc.
I would consider it a miracle for the sun to hover in a circular path over the flat earth with the moon, changing its position with the seasons.
And not to deflect from the topic here, but since you mention miracles, I've pointed out that previously that, in a way, the miracle of the Sun in Fatima implicitly affirms the notion that the Sun is a local body that moves through the sky; rather than a massive object millions of times the size of our world, millions of miles away. It's an interesting thought, especially since it precedes the deception of NASA to follow only a few decades after the fact.
And the same can be said about the miracle of Josue where he prayed to stop the Sun. (Josue 10)
-
You raise an interesting question. If the Moon were a sphere, why do we see only one side of it? Does that seem logical to you? (I predict that you will go to your pal Google to assist with your "response" instead of using your own brain.)
You're projecting, which is not quite necessary, but I think that the Moon is a complete sphere. There are librations of the Moon that add to the evidence that it's a sphere. It has a spherical appearance to me and to just about everybody else. I'd say its sphericity is evidently true and universally acknowledged.
It does not rotate is why one side is seen from Earth. The Earth is spherical too and does not rotate either.
If you consider nature and sides, having seen one side, one could consider that the other side is similar to it, and fully spherical too. That would be most natural. So not having seen the other side, I assume that the other side is as spherical and similar to the side we see. If one has half an orange and the other is missing, he can assume that the missing half was similar. It would be unnatural for oranges and objects like the Moon or Earth or Jupiter to be in odd halves.
-
You're projecting, which is not quite necessary, but I think that the Moon is a complete sphere. There are librations of the Moon that add to the evidence that it's a sphere. It has a spherical appearance to me and to just about everybody else. I'd say its sphericity is evidently true and universally acknowledged.
It does not rotate is why one side is seen from Earth. The Earth is spherical too and does not rotate either.
If you consider nature and sides, having seen one side, one could consider that the other side is similar to it, and fully spherical too. That would be most natural. So not having seen the other side, I assume that the other side is as spherical and similar to the side we see. If one has half an orange and the other is missing, he can assume that the missing half was similar. It would be unnatural for oranges and objects like the Moon or Earth or Jupiter to be in odd halves.
This channel has some peculiar, but very interesting, theories about the moon
https://youtu.be/vOw_XL4iU5A
-
If you consider nature and sides, having seen one side, one could consider that the other side is similar to it, and fully spherical too. That would be most natural. So not having seen the other side, I assume that the other side is as spherical and similar to the side we see. If one has half an orange and the other is missing, he can assume that the missing half was similar. It would be unnatural for oranges and objects like the Moon or Earth or Jupiter to be in odd halves.
I respect that you are geocentric; sorry I missed that.
You say "having seen one side, one could consider that the other side is similar to it, and fully spherical too." On the other hand, having seen one side we cannot tell if it is a sphere or not. Although it goes against millenia of Egyptian/Freemasonic programming, it could be flat or it could be a sphere.
I make no assumption about the supposed "other side." It may be flat or it may be a sphere. Our unstated basic assumptions will cause us to lean toward either flat or sphere.
Somtimes we have to overcome our unstated basic assumptions about the world in which we live, considering the many lies we've been told. You know that because you are not heliocentric.
-
This channel has some peculiar, but very interesting, theories about the moon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy1Sz6jEz0s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oCNGcbwxWg
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy1Sz6jEz0s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oCNGcbwxWg
Transparent, or, perhaps the stars are actually far smaller than the moon and are passing in front of it?
-
Transparent, or, perhaps the stars are actually far smaller than the moon and are passing in front of it?
Right. I tend to lean toward it being some ball of plasma that can under some conditions become translucent. But who really knows?
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-73d501755ef2e498b42897f9ff8f9b53.webp)
-
I also don't quite get how the moon as so darn bright, when it (allegedly) looked dark and dingy when the astronauts were (allegedly) on the moon. Something in their narrative has to give.
(https://ychef.files.bbci.co.uk/976x549/p07d44p5.jpg)
-
I don't know how to make the image smaller so you have to click on it to see the right side. ;)
(https://i.imgur.com/NdkUp1j.png)
-
No. That's debated even among mainstream scientists. Newton, who invented the theory, ended up rejecting it, saying that he was extremely dissatisfied with the theory.
Does the timing of the moon not actually line up with the tides? I don't live by the ocean, so I wouldn't know.
Note how he doesn't say worlds, or planets, but lights for the purpose of time-keeping, the seasons, etc.
All good points made by you, but I have a few counter thoughts.
Here's some quotes from the MHFM article I posted a while ago.
Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus (#18), Nov. 18, 1893: “… the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost ‘Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable to salvation’ [St. Augustine]. Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly comes from the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers – as the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas Aquinas] reminds us – ‘went by what sensibly appeared,’ [Summa Theologica, Pt. I, q. 70, a. 1, ad. 3] or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.”
Moreover, Pope Leo XIII emphasizes (while quoting St. Thomas) that the sacred writers accurately expressed “what sensibly appeared.”
Josue 10:12-13 – “Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon. And the sun and the moon stood still, till the people revenged themselves of their enemies. Is not this written in the book of the just? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day.”
Everyone who was present at this miracle would have seen the same thing according to external appearances: the sun and the moon stood still and did not go down. But, as Pope Leo XIII emphasizes, in accurately reporting this miracle and what occurred according to external phenomena, they did not “seek to penetrate the secrets of nature”; that is to say, the sacred books didn’t seek or intend in this area to explain whether this external appearance was because the sun actually stood still or was created because the Earth actually did. Even today astronomers will speak of the sunrise at Philadelphia.
Thus, even if the geocentric view of the universe is not correct, these passages of the Bible do not in any way detract from the power, the historical truth, or the accuracy of Sacred Scripture in all aspects of its teaching; for what is recorded is exactly what was observed according to external phenomena (as a result of a miracle of God), without penetrating into the reasons for the creation of these external phenomena.
In a FE we have a definitive direction for up, and down; rather than the illogical assertion that there is no true up or true down; or that water can curve around a spherical object; or that there's some mysterious "force" or "curving of space-time" that strongly affixes some objects to a surface, but fails to affix some weaker objects, etc.
I don’t see how water curving around a giant sphere can be so hard to understand. And I don't think gravity's affect on air or whatever weaker objects is clicking in your mind. It makes a lot of sense to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy1Sz6jEz0s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oCNGcbwxWg
Interesting video, I’ll look for myself with my telescope. 2 possible explanations come to mind: 1)faulty pixels can show stars, though he said he was using film, and I’m not familiar with film defects, 2) remember that video I posted of a guy shining a laser through a solid ball? As strange as it seems, both the math and the actual experiment proved light can do such strange things. Maybe it does the same with stars behind the moon, which are too dim to see during a full moon. A very sensitive light sensor might be able to pick up the difference between what is moon and what is star. That is an experiment I’d like to see. Then the star pattern could be matched up with the real stars when the moon moves out of the way.
The brightness of the moon I would assume is due to our distance from it, making our angle to the reflected light such that it is dead on at us. I think it is just a common property of light that should be relatively easy to prove on a smaller scale. Remember, it looks bright at night, not when its relatively weak light is overpowered by a sunny sky and our adjusted day vision.
I don't know how to make the image smaller so you have to click on it to see the right side. ;)
(https://i.imgur.com/NdkUp1j.png)
The globe is glossy or polished smooth, the moon is far from smooth allowing it to scatter light much better. It's like how a light bulb filament or a candle flame is visible through clear glass or plastic, but the whole light fixture dome will light up if it is frosted glass or white plastic. Another example would be the silver reflective lines on road worker's safety vests vs how a mirror reflects light. I think it is just a common property of light that would allow a sphere moon to appear as it does.
-
Does the timing of the moon not actually line up with the tides? I don't live by the ocean, so I wouldn't know.
All good points made by you, but I have a few counter thoughts.
No, the timing doesn't really work ... and that's one of the problems with it. I'll have to dig up the information I found.
I'll get back to Pope Leo XIII, but that quote has been used to justify falsely all of the Modernist interpretations of Sacred Scripture, who just generally apply this to spin Sacred Scripture as ONLY intending to teach matters profitable to salvation. Nevertheless, this does not mean that WHEN Sacred Scripture is discussing historical events or even natural or scientific ones that there's a possibility of error. So the Holy Office under St. Pius X declared, for instance, that Sacred Scripture was to be understood a literally and historically except when it's clearly understood to be employing metaphor, simile, or allegory. So, no, you can't interpret Genesis as an allegory that's historically and scientifically inaccurate (i.e. in error) because, well, it was, as the Modernists allege, merely a story trying to communicate some "spiritually profitable" matter. That's a distortion of what Leo XIII actually taught and intended. So the determination of whether any given part of Sacred Scripture is to be interpreted literally rests on how the Fathers unanimously interpreted those passages. So it is that the Holy Office determined that the Church Fathers clearly understood various passages in Sacred Scripture to be historicaly/scientific/literal vs. being similes, metaphors, or figures of speech, and that the fact of a stationary earth was one of these matters. So Leo XIII's teaching does not justify throwing out everything except the spiritual meaning of Sacred Scripture, and alleging as the Modernists do that everything other than the "spiritual message" of the Scriptures is fair game to be tossed out.
-
With regard to stray pixels on the one man's pictures and photographs, yes, that is possible, but there have been reports of naked-eye observations of the same phenomenon by professional astronomers (as cited in the text overlaying parts of that video).
-
I don’t see how water curving around a giant sphere can be so hard to understand. And I don't think gravity's affect on air or whatever weaker objects is clicking in your mind. It makes a lot of sense to me.
It isn't "clicking" because the behavior of these things such as air or water is in accordance with the properties of density and buoyancy rather than some "force of gravity" (which, again, modern scientists no longer say is a force, but the "curving of space-time"). A balloon filled with air sinks to the floor, while one filled with helium rises to the ceiling. This is because helium is less dense than air, even if the mass is the same in both.
As for water curving around a sphere. Show me the practical experiment where this is replicated, and I'll accept it. No one has been able to replicate it outside of mathematical theory, because it isn't possible in reality due to the properties of water, which always finds its level.
On Sacred Scripture, it's as Lad states, and I take the literal meaning until it is obviously metaphor, simile, or allegory; as Leo XIII and Pius X teach. What FE has shown is that the literal reading of Scripture is not only logical, but is also the most practical as opposed to the fantasies of modern cosmology. MHFM does a good job in dogmatic arguments, but once they get outside of that they tend to falter. They believe the claims of modern cosmology and even think the moon landings were real.
-
On Sacred Scripture, it's as Lad states, and I take the literal meaning until it is obviously metaphor, simile, or allegory; as Leo XIII and Pius X teach. What FE has shown is that the literal reading of Scripture is not only logical, but is also the most practical as opposed to the fantasies of modern cosmology. MHFM does a good job in dogmatic arguments, but once they get outside of that they tend to falter. They believe the claims of modern cosmology and even think the moon landings were real.
PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS
15. But he must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires;
-
PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS
If dissension should arise between them, (flat earth vs globe, emphasis mine) here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: "Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so."
-
PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS
9. We must now, Venerable Brethren, as our purpose demands, impart to you such counsels as seem best suited for carrying on successfully the study of Biblical science.
10. But first it must be clearly understood whom we have to oppose and contend against, and what are their tactics and their arms. In earlier times the contest was chiefly with those who, relying on private judgment and repudiating the divine traditions and teaching office of the Church, held the Scriptures to be the one source of revelation and the final appeal in matters of Faith. Now, we have to meet the Rationalists, true children and inheritors of the older heretics, who, trusting in their turn to their own way of thinking, have rejected even the scraps and remnants of Christian belief which had been handed down to them. They deny that there is any such thing as revelation or inspiration, or Holy Scripture at all; they see, instead, only the forgeries and the falsehoods of men; they set down the Scripture narratives as stupid fables and lying stories: the prophecies and the oracles of God are to them either predictions made up after the event or forecasts formed by the light of nature; the miracles and the wonders of God's power are not what they are said to be, but the startling effects of natural law, or else mere tricks and myths; and the Apostolic Gospels and writings are not the work of the Apostles at all. These detestable errors, whereby they think they destroy the truth of the divine Books, are obtruded on the world as the peremptory pronouncements of a certain newly-invented "free science;" a science, however, which is so far from final that they are perpetually modifying and supplementing it. And there are some of them who, notwithstanding their impious opinions and utterances about God, and Christ, the Gospels and the rest of Holy Scripture, would faro be considered both theologians and Christians and men of the Gospel, and who attempt to disguise by such honourable names their rashness and their pride. To them we must add not a few professors of other sciences who approve their views and give them assistance, and are urged to attack the Bible by a similar intolerance of revelation. And it is deplorable to see these attacks growing every day more numerous and more severe. It is sometimes men of learning and judgment who are assailed; but these have little difficulty in defending themselves from evil consequences. The efforts and the arts of the enemy are chiefly directed against the more ignorant masses of the people. They diffuse their deadly poison by means of books, pamphlets, and newspapers; they spread it by addresses and by conversation; they are found everywhere; and they are in possession of numerous schools, taken by violence from the Church, in which, by ridicule and scurrilous jesting, they pervert the credulous and unformed minds of the young to the contempt of Holy Scripture. Should not these things, Venerable Brethren, stir up and set on fire the heart of every Pastor, so that to this "knowledge, falsely so called,"(28) may be opposed the ancient and true science which the Church, through the Apostles, has received from Christ, and that Holy Scripture may find the champions that are needed in so momentous a battle?
-
ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic controlled NASA can't get to the Moon with a rocket and neither can anybody else. Not communist Jew-pinched China either. Rockets don't have the velocity, the power, or the fuel capacity or design features to make it there. And there are no so-called "gravity-kicks". Newton's theory of "gravity" is garbage and so is Einstein's theory of relativity.
Averroes in Tahafut al-Tahafut, The Incoherence of the Incoherence, is at least based in Hellenistic geocentrism, and writes in passing, "Therefore the body with straight surfaces must end in the circuмscribing circular body, since this is the perfect body which is liable neither to increase nor to decrease. Therefore when the mind seeks to imagine that the circular body must end in another body (like some sort of flat Earth), it imagines the impossible. These are all matters of which the mutakallemim of the camel jockeys and those who do not start their inquiry in the proper scientific order are unaware."
Which means that in view of the infinity of God and the 3-D quality of space, a flat Earth does not make good sense for the sake of the relation which it evidently has to everything else.
-
ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic controlled NASA can't get to the Moon with a rocket and neither can anybody else. Not communist Jєω-pinched China either. Rockets don't have the velocity, the power, or the fuel capacity or design features to make it there. And there are no so-called "gravity-kicks". Newton's theory of "gravity" is garbage and so is Einstein's theory of relativity.
Averroes in Tahafut al-Tahafut, The Incoherence of the Incoherence, is at least based in Hellenistic geocentrism, and writes in passing, "Therefore the body with straight surfaces must end in the circuмscribing circular body, since this is the perfect body which is liable neither to increase nor to decrease. Therefore when the mind seeks to imagine that the circular body must end in another body (like some sort of flat Earth), it imagines the impossible. These are all matters of which the mutakallemim of the camel jockeys and those who do not start their inquiry in the proper scientific order are unaware."
Which means that in view of the infinity of God and the 3-D quality of space, a flat Earth does not make good sense for the sake of the relation which it evidently has to everything else.
One of the most ridiculous notions out there is people who think earth is a geocentric ball hanging stationary in space. All because some pagan says the perfect body must be a sphere? Out of what hole do people climb who adhere to drawing such a conclusion? Where are the pillars that infallible scripture describes support the earth if earth is a ball? Picture that anomaly. How is a dome able to cover a ball shaped earth as scripture describes? How can the earth have cardinal directions if it's a ball? Where does east or west or north or south even begin on a ball? Where do they end? Who says? Why does scripture describe the ends of the earth when in fact earth has no ends if earth is a ball? How does a hanging ball in space believer explain gravity without earth spin? Where does scripture ever describe a ball earth? How can the sun travel ridiculous numbers of miles in a mere 24 hour period while going around earth? The stars, even further out, travel faster and farther in the same amount of time? How does a ball have a face, as scripture describes? The incoherence of incoherence attempting to use the word "circuмscribing" to represent the shape of a ball is worst of all. Circuмscribing has nothing to do with outlining a ball, but rather, a circle, so even the statement itself is untenable.
-
Newton's theory of "gravity" is garbage and so is Einstein's theory of relativity.
Most of modern "science" is total garbage, made up in the service of the Judaeo-Masonic agenda. They come up with these theories, and then present them as established fact to the younger generations in grade school to program their minds.
-
Most of modern "science" is total garbage, made up in the service of the Judaeo-Masonic agenda. They come up with these theories, and then present them as established fact to the younger generations in grade school to program their minds.
It's philosophy, honestly. Once Einstein came along and kick-started "theoretical physics", we've been seeing philosophy through the language of mathematics being dressed up as cosmological "truth". Very little, if any of it, it proven through the scientific method.
In another way, it almost serves as a sort of naturalistic "theology" for the grand cult of Scientism
-
It's philosophy, honestly. Once Einstein came along and kick-started "theoretical physics", we've been seeing philosophy through the language of mathematics being dressed up as cosmological "truth". Very little, if any of it, it proven through the scientific method.
In another way, it almost serves as a sort of naturalistic "theology" for the grand cult of Scientism
There's some correspondence between Darwin and Lowell about evolution, and they both openly state that there are huge holes in their respective theories (Lowell was more focused on geology and proving old earth millions of years old), but they basically admitted that they didn't care, and that their intent was to gut Christianity.
In the higher-level academic circles (universities, etc.), MANY even-mainstream scholars are questioning evolution. But it's still presented as proven fact to school children, and other theories are largely forbidden to be taught. I even saw where one top scholars who is an atheist stated that he had no other options but to conclude Intelligent Design, but, when asked about whether he believed in God and stopped being an atheist, he said that he wouldn't go quite that far.
-
Here are a couple:
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2011/11/intelligent-design-atheists-to-the-rescue
https://www.christianpost.com/news/atheist-professor-intelligent-design-arguments-should-be-taken-seriously.html
https://www.amazon.com/Seeking-God-Science-Atheist-Intelligent/dp/1551118637
-
I even saw where one top scholars who is an atheist stated that he had no other options but to conclude Intelligent Design, but, when asked about whether he believed in God and stopped being an atheist, he said that he wouldn't go quite that far.
Yeah, they've been weaseling out of admitting God's existence by pushing the "Simulation" theory for the past decade or so. I first heard it through Sam hαɾɾιs. In my blindness as an Atheist, I thought it was "profound" and "mind-blowing" in college, ignorant of the fact that it's basically an admission of there being a Supreme Intelligence.