Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: Matthew on April 29, 2025, 02:28:27 PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WF1zvsGGKA
ChatGPT actually thinks that science is about consensus! What a joke!
Science is dead.
Science is supposed to be about EVIDENCE, FACTS, CONCRETE, REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTATION.
When did consensus -- dare I say "dogma" -- enter into it?
Here's the thing -- I have to give ChatGPT credit. It wasn't arguing any differently than a 1000 other globe defenders. If it was just ChatGPT, I would criticize it for being a stupid "AI" (large language model) without true rationality or intelligence. But the fact is, it DOES accurately repeat the argumentation of most globers. They (the humans) ACTUALLY bring up consensus as an argument, without blushing! As if that were how Science operates!
When it's actually the exact opposite. Science isn't supposed to operate on dogma, or consensus, peer pressure, threats, censorship, or any kind of bandwagon.
-
This is Dave's third installment in this series. I want to state for the record:
1. Dave is on to something here. These "AI models" accurately parrot based on their training data. These ARE the arguments you could have with any glober.
2. EXCEPT the LLM won't lose patience, get personally emotional and offended, devolve into name calling, rage quit, etc. Again, Dave is really onto something here.
3. These LLMs will throw ALL THE BEST ARGUMENTS from the Globe model at him. Viewers will see how Dave minces them all like a ninja wielding a katana sword. They will know who won.
4. In short, these LLM arguments are like debates, only better! All the downsides of debates (length, diversions, emotions getting involved, moderators needing to step in, etc. etc.) are done away with! This is debating in 2025, and it's a vast improvement in my opinion!
5. Dave might be Jєωιѕн, but he's no fool about this one topic. He obviously has a good brain in his head.
-
4. In short, these LLM arguments are like debates only better! All the downsides of debates (length, diversions, emotions getting involved, moderators needing to step in, etc. etc.) are done away with! This is debating in 2025, and it's a vast improvement in my opinion!
Like the old tv show, Dragnet...."Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts".
-
Yeah, this one is very well done.
This pressure gradient crap is totally made up to befuddle people that otherwise spot the problem.
Let's take the very top layer of said gradient. What's above it (according to globe model)? Vacuum. What's below it. Earth + some atmosphere. So somehow that atmosphere adds such an additional force of gravity vs. the earth alone that this top layer of the gradient is now bound whereas if it were down near the surface it's not bound? Gravity is related to mass, so the additional mass added by the atmosphere below the top layer of said gradient would be an incredibly small fraction of a percent vs. the gravity cause by earth's mass alone.
So the top layer of the gradient would instantly peel off.
Then the next layer becomes the top layer. It would peel off. Rinse repeat. Atmosphere is gone.
Dr. John D demontrated all this. He also demonstrated that the next thing that would happen is that any water at the bottom of this system (he put water on the bottom of the vacuum chamber) would similarly expand until it turned into gas, and then the gas expanded out also, resulting in the liquid also evaporating out due to the pressure differential.
This is 100% bunk, and they know it.
Now, again, I've even tried to help the globers out with ideas. Maybe you could claim that some atomic force is causing things to adhere, or an electromagnetic force, or perhaps there's a flow or pressure of ether causing a similar effect as a container. All of these may be posited as valid hypotheses and then can be confirmed or falsified by experimentation. THAT is the scientific method. But regurgitating an explanation that's easily falsifiable just out of desperation and because it's part of the scientific narrative, that's 100% ANTI-scientific method, and they have the temerity to accuse the FEs of being ouf of step with "science".
I've said something similar about other FE observations. Once you make the observation that things can be seen to far, don't make up BS that's been falsified, like "refraction" ... but come up with something else. Again I've given them suggestions. Hypothesize that the globe is at least 10x bigger than what modern science tells us. Hypothesize that electromagnetic fields around the earth (due to the earth's electromagnetic field) bend light exactly around the contours of the globe. Hypothesize that a flow of ether bends the light around the earth. Lots of things you can hypothesize but then pursue with experimentation either to confirm or to falsify. Once falsified, you either modify your hypothesis and experiment again or you come up with a new hypothesis. But stop regurgitation the "refraction" nonsense out of sheer desperation.
-
Solid. Anyone care to try to refute?
-
You don't see that Dave is being deceitful trying to set up a trap for his opponent? It's a common enough practice even among Christians debating the differences between their denominations. This may not be the best example, but I think you'll understand what I'm getting at. Someone may nail down the teaching of Romans Ch 13 that we must obey authority, and resisting it means we resist God and will go to hell. Then they say how can you resist such and such authority (Pope, diocesan clergy, civil authorities, ect) at all? Then you'll be like "but, but, but". No you said Scripture has such and such authority, and the Church teaches obedience just like Romans 13.
Dave is actually biasing himself against what may be the truth before asking the particular question, whether just to get views and praise from his audience or because his is of bad will, who knows. It's like he's trying to harden his heart before being confronted with the truth.
There are a variety of forces, some large, some very small. In any circuмstance we will normally encounter, the forces involved with gas pressure equalization is going to dominate since it is far greater than the effect of gravity.
1 liter (think a quart jar) of water weighs 6lbs, 1 liter of air weight 1.3 grams (the weight of a small paperclip). 1 liter of air in the size of a quart jar (excluding the weight of an actual quart jar) sitting in your hand will exert about 0.003 pounds per square inch of pressure on your hand. The air pressure around you is almost 14.7psi compared to a vacuum which is 0psi. What is 0.003psi compared to 14.7psi?
14.7psi at sea level, but why? Why does air pressure decrease with altitude? The air has mass. Anything with mass is affected by gravity. If you don't want to believe in gravity, call it what you like, but things with mass do fall towards the ground if no stronger force is pushing them away. Air does have mass, demonstrated by the fact that its movement affects other objects with mass, and that cold air (denser) can be observed to fall while warm air (less dense) rises. We know that when you stack things, the whole lot gets heavier. Stack ten 20lb weights, and the whole stack exerts 200lbs on whatever it is stacked on. The weight on top only presses down with 20lbs on the other nine weights below it. It's the same with air. The air above weighs down on the air below with the weight of the air increasing as the stack of air is taller.
How to imagine air sticking to a globe earth in the vacuum of space:
Imagine a big empty vacuum chamber. Then imagine a jar of air is opened in this vacuum chamber, and imagine this air is dyed yellow and somehow made to be attracted to a magnet like steel. So now it looks like a cloud of yellow smoke rushed out of the jar and evenly distributes itself in the vacuum chamber. What happens if you put a strong magnet in the middle of the vacuum chamber? The yellow magnetic air molecules would rush toward the magnet making a cloud of yellow around it.
If you have ever played with magnets, they will pick up many small nails or paperclips, but the nails furthest from the magnet are attracted weakly, while those touching the magnet are very strongly held there. The cloud of yellow air around the magnet would do something similar, collecting more densely immediately around, while less densely further away.
What makes air rush into a vacuum? Vacuums (low pressure) don't actually suck, rather things are always blown into a vacuum or a lower pressure zone by pressure. Air particles jiggle around and bump into each other pushing each other away. This is temperature. Absolute zero temperature would in theory mean that no atoms jiggle around at all, therefore no pressure caused by the gas trying to push itself to spread out.
Gas pressure is caused by gas particles colliding. If gas particles do not collide, like when they are spread out in a vacuum, then nothing is pushing them around, so gravity can attract them in a general direction. As gas particles congregate around a source of gravity, they will get so close to each other as to start colliding. Any particles that get bounced away from the gravity source by the other particles will either crash into many more air particles attracted by gravity, or none at all and eventually start falling back toward the source of gravity. With the majority of the particles trying to move toward the source of gravity, the sum of the forces will be in that direction, causing the particles closer to the source of gravity to be under the weight of those above. This makes for a very dense layer near the ground, and a very spread out low density layer above.
This is what we observe, because people have trouble breathing above 2-3 miles altitude, while airplanes can fly up to around 15 miles high, balloons up to 25 miles, and there's still air (though very little) extending more than triple that. Most of the air, the air of high pressure, is contained in a small fraction of the total altitude that the atmosphere extends above the surface. This demonstrates how weak gravity is compared to the force of air particles colliding with each other, and that with enough low density air held in by gravity, the air below it gets all the more concentrated and doesn't just rush out into a vacuum.
-
Yeah, yeah ... that's your (and the establishment's) exercise in creative writing about the pressure gradient.
Nor was he "trapping" the AI, but simply used the statements it made earlier as premises for the later discussion. At that point in an argument, you have two choices. You have to backtrack and make distinctions regarding the original premises or revise them, or explain how some other principles are at work that cause the final set of conclusions not to contradict the latter.
AI couldn't do it, but just kept regurgitating both the earlier conclusions and the latter conclusions without an ability to resolve the contradiction. You could just say the AI isn't smart enough yet to apply logic or whatnot, but there was nothing "deceitful" about his lines of questioning. It was quite valid.
-
There are a variety of forces, some large, some very small. In any circuмstance we will normally encounter, the forces involved with gas pressure equalization is going to dominate since it is far greater than the effect of gravity.
Just an exercise in creative writing, where because you've already decided that the scientific establishment is correct, and you launch into some narrative of sepculation about how/why this might work.
-
More hamster wheel rationalization of the belief you want to have so bad.
Once again, I have to remind you:
I was once a globe believer. I was content there. I looked into the claims/evidence for a globe, and found to my horror that it was all lies. I embraced the flat earth position. I was once a globe earther. You, St. Giles (and others) can't say the same thing about Flat Earth.
You have been a globe believer for as long as you can remember (I'll tell you why: massive propaganda starting at the tenderest of ages!) and you can't picture the earth not being a globe. You suffer great cognitive dissonance when faced with various evidences for Flat Earth. You haven't yet been able to swallow the (reality of the) flat earth position.
That is the fundamental difference between us.
Therefore, I have demonstrated a proven willingness and ability to change my position/opinion/views based on research and evidence. For you, the jury is still out AT BEST. At worst, you are stubbornly refusing to accept the truth.
I think that's why flat earth drives globers nuts. They know darn well that close to 100% of flat earthers have *rejected* the globe position, which they once held *just as strongly as globers do today*. If only flat earthers were stupid, or less educated, or from Appalachia, or inbred, it would be much easier to ignore and marginalize them. But they blended in perfectly with normal people as little as ONE DAY before they embraced Flat Earth. Oops.
In short, I have no reason NOT to accept Globe Earth if the evidence pointed that direction. I could enjoy sci-fi again. It was my "old home" from my youth. You know the power of nostalgia! I used to have a monopoly-like board game called solar quest, with all the planets and moons as properties. My best friend in grade school gave it to me for my birthday. I used to spend hours reading every book in the library on moons & planets. And then I spent even MORE hours imagining and fantasizing about being on different planets.
Some day you will have as a sigline, "I apologize for all my stupid posts before 2026. I was kicking against the goad. I was struggling with the truth. I was young and ignorant about ____ and ____. I make a full retraction of any heretical views I held about X and Y, I apologize for all the uncharitable posts I made, etc." And you'll write to me, begging to have your hundreds of posts scrubbed, that you are having scruples and/or making a new start in your spiritual life, about to go to general confession, etc.
If you did, you'd be about the 10th person -- this year. People write to me all the time begging to delete their posts. Sorry guys. The Internet is forever. Think before you post. Only fervently push what you *know* to be true, moderate your emotions during arguments, and you'll never have to apologize.
I get such requests about 20-30 times each year. Seems to be quite a pattern.
-
Years ago I clicked on some youtube videos featuring several of the top big brain astrophysicists.
They all seem to have an obsession with black holes and constantly regurgitate the same "facts" about
these objects that nobody can prove even exist. It's a field which is populated with probably the biggest
charlatans in the world.
They have some cushy job at a university and go on Joe Rogan regularly and talk about string theory and spaghettification and the multiverse and the big bang and the event horizon and if it weren't for the letters
behind their name they would be locked up in a madhouse. They make even the most ridiculous scientology
beliefs about Xenu sound reasonable.
Yet, they get grants, got to conferences around the world, book deals, speaking engagements
and it's nothing but theory.
-
Years ago I clicked on some youtube videos featuring several of the top big brain astrophysicists.
They all seem to have an obsession with black holes and constantly regurgitate the same "facts" about
these objects that nobody can prove even exist. It's a field which is populated with probably the biggest
charlatans in the world.
They have some cushy job at a university and go on Joe Rogan regularly and talk about string theory and spaghettification and the multiverse and the big bang and the event horizon and if it weren't for the letters
behind their name they would be locked up in a madhouse. They make even the most ridiculous scientology
beliefs about Xenu sound reasonable.
Yet, they get grants, got to conferences around the world, book deals, speaking engagements
and it's nothing but theory.
Even Kaku had to admit that there's never been in the history of science a bigger mistmatch between theory and observation than with the current state of cosmology. Why? Because they made up their cosmology to further their atheistic agenda. Latest thing is that they made up "dark matter" as a last gasp effort to salvage it.
-
Even Kaku had to admit that there's never been in the history of science a bigger mistmatch between theory and observation than with the current state of cosmology. Why? Because they made up their cosmology to further their atheistic agenda. Latest thing is that they made up "dark matter" as a last gasp effort to salvage it.
I forgot to add dark matter. The very idea that the Big Bang is taken as gospel truth is enough to know we live in clown world. First there was nothing then it exploded into everything. Then out of that formed a volcanic rocky planet that somewhat got covered with 2/3 of water which came from asteroids LOL
-
Even Kaku had to admit that there's never been in the history of science a bigger mistmatch between theory and observation than with the current state of cosmology. Why? Because they made up their cosmology to further their atheistic agenda. Latest thing is that they made up "dark matter" as a last gasp effort to salvage it.
Lad. Even if teh earth was 1000x bigger that doesn’t answer the fact that water is completely level, and if people want too say that there must be some point where the numbers fluctuate I’d like to remind them that earth cannot be so much bigger than they say it is because we compare the size of the earth relative to ours, the earth couldn’t be 1000x bigger because of its resistive size to us as can be obviously measured and how we can circuмnavigate. The earth must be flat
-
Lad. Even if teh earth was 1000x bigger that doesn’t answer the fact that water is completely level, and if people want too say that there must be some point where the numbers fluctuate I’d like to remind them that earth cannot be so much bigger than they say it is because we compare the size of the earth relative to ours, the earth couldn’t be 1000x bigger because of its resistive size to us as can be obviously measured and how we can circuмnavigate. The earth must be flat
Yes, Lad has repeated that many times. I understand what he's saying. He's saying "at least try; come up with an explanation that makes some sense". But immediately I keep shooting down his "larger earth" hypothesis, because where is all the extra land? We know how long it takes to go around the earth (which can be done on a flat earth BTW -- East to West is merely a circle on the plate. North is in the middle of the plate. Any of the edges is the south "pole". Incidentally, the disc-shape magnet is something we can actually observe in nature. Any speaker has such a magnet.)
Not to mention gravity would be ridiculous if earth was even 2X as big, in their paradigm. You do realize mass and gravity are closely related, in their system.
But yes, the fact that water is always flat, without the slightest measured curvature anywhere, not even over hundreds of miles, should really make you stop and think. Tests have been done over lakes with laser levels. Flat earth confirmed.
Water is incapable of curving or bending. And no, a single drop doesn't count. In a single drop, surface tension dominates. Talking about water drops when we're talking about bodies of water is the scientific equivalent of a sophism.
-
Years ago I clicked on some youtube videos featuring several of the top big brain astrophysicists.
They all seem to have an obsession with black holes and constantly regurgitate the same "facts" about
these objects that nobody can prove even exist. It's a field which is populated with probably the biggest
charlatans in the world.
They have some cushy job at a university and go on Joe Rogan regularly and talk about string theory and spaghettification and the multiverse and the big bang and the event horizon and if it weren't for the letters
behind their name they would be locked up in a madhouse. They make even the most ridiculous scientology
beliefs about Xenu sound reasonable.
Yet, they get grants, got to conferences around the world, book deals, speaking engagements
and it's nothing but theory.
Photos of the event horizons of black holes have been taken. Look up Messer 87 or Sagittarius A*
-
Lad. Even if teh earth was 1000x bigger that doesn’t answer the fact that water is completely level, and if people want too say that there must be some point where the numbers fluctuate I’d like to remind them that earth cannot be so much bigger than they say it is because we compare the size of the earth relative to ours, the earth couldn’t be 1000x bigger because of its resistive size to us as can be obviously measured and how we can circuмnavigate. The earth must be flat
It does fluctuate. It's called the tide.
-
It does fluctuate. It's called the tide.
I meant if you kept going further back into .00000000000 there may be a 1 or something after many zeros.
-
You could just say the AI isn't smart enough yet to apply logic or whatnot,
But you won't make that conclusion, because it might prove you wrong about FE.
but there was nothing "deceitful" about his lines of questioning. It was quite valid.
You'd have a problem with it if he was arguing against you.
Just an exercise in creative writing, where because you've already decided that the scientific establishment is correct, and you launch into some narrative of sepculation about how/why this might work.
Dave's just using an exercise in creative debate with disregard for the truth. Stop making empty excuses and refute what I explained. You speculate about FE and why this and that might work, but you can't explain the 24hr antarctic sun, and I'm the bad guy for speculating on if a globe is possible?
More hamster wheel rationalization of the belief you want to have so bad.
I could make the same claim about you FE's. Quit the rhetoric, and refute what I said. You guys expect me to believe in an earth that defies the physical laws of nature, and would be a perpetual miracle, because all things are possible with God, but it is impossible for God to make an earth and surrounding environment consistent with the laws of physics, the natural order of things.
...
Once again, I have to remind you:
I was once a globe believer. I was content there. I looked into the claims/evidence for a globe, and found to my horror that it was all lies. I embraced the flat earth position. I was once a globe earther. You, St. Giles (and others) can't say the same thing about Flat Earth.
You have been a globe believer for as long as you can remember (I'll tell you why: massive propaganda starting at the tenderest of ages!) and you can't picture the earth not being a globe. You suffer great cognitive dissonance when faced with various evidences for Flat Earth. You haven't yet been able to swallow the (reality of the) flat earth position.
That is the fundamental difference between us.
Therefore, I have demonstrated a proven willingness and ability to change my position/opinion/views based on research and evidence. For you, the jury is still out AT BEST. At worst, you are stubbornly refusing to accept the truth.
...
Once again, I'll remind you that once I ventured into the FE section of this forum, I thought it perhaps a joke at first that people were entertaining the idea that the earth was flat. Then I see that these traditional Catholics really believe it, and really believe that it is Church teaching. I'm like, " Wow! Really? I need to look into this, because I want to know the truth and the true faith."
Each time I'd start watching a YT video I'm expecting to become a FE. I unlocked the fact of the globe, which I had accepted as certainty, and exposed it to being completely thrown out, and that memory overwritten with a new understanding of the world. Once the videos get to where they explain their claim, it falls apart as I identify simple errors in their logic.
I was left uncertain for probably a good year or so as I both hoped to understand the logic of the FE believers and make observations of my own. Eventually, I realized the extreme unlikeliness of the earth being flat through observation and reason, and that a globe is apparently still quite compatible with Catholic teaching, but having arrived at this conclusion myself rather that just believing what the scientists say.
I often think of the small details, exactly how something works, to a greater extent than most people care to venture. I can never get too many details; every little bit of truth and how things work interests me. I was mocked by someone once because I said I didn't understand/agree with/believe Bernoulli's principle as taught out of the textbook in college, and for good reason. As used to explain airplane flight, it is insignificant, wrong, and often taught as practically a dogma of divine revelation rather than explained. A few basic experiments proved me right in that regard.
I may now quote
Therefore, I have demonstrated a proven willingness and ability to change my position/opinion/views based on research and evidence
...and to go against the flow of common opinion when it goes against reason.
A conspiracy theorist must be careful not to go too deep into all cօռspιʀαcιҽs. Just because scientists lie about some things doesn't mean it's all a lie. Just because space videos look CGI doesn't mean they are, and just because space programs use CGI, doesn't mean the whole operation is fake. I'm willing to agree its fake, but I don't have sufficient certainty. I will say that CGI simulations of what is happening in space based on telemetry makes it much easier for humans to monitor and make sense of many telemetry channels when they can't actually see what's happening up there.
Here are a couple easy experiments to try, I haven't tried them yet, but they can be used to detect the drop of the horizon as you increase in altitude, and are much more valuable than watching someone else on YT.
The first uses a speed square tool as a right angle with a weighted string attached to the corner so you know when the top is level. You look straight down the top edge at the horizon, and see what angle the string hangs. Speed squares are marked with degrees in the middle. The second is a water level. The further apart the two vertical tubes are, the more precise your measurement will be. It is one continuous tube with open ends. The water naturally levels itself, so you look through or beside it such that your eye level matches both water levels, then see if that matches the horizon level when you are very high above the ground.
(https://i.imgur.com/Zn6OB7M.png)
-
But you won't make that conclusion, because it might prove you wrong about FE.
You'd have a problem with it if he was arguing against you.
Dave's just using an exercise in creative debate with disregard for the truth. Stop making empty excuses and refute what I explained. You speculate about FE and why this and that might work, but you can't explain the 24hr antarctic sun, and I'm the bad guy for speculating on if a globe is possible?
I could make the same claim about you FE's. Quit the rhetoric, and refute what I said. You guys expect me to believe in an earth that defies the physical laws of nature, and would be a perpetual miracle, because all things are possible with God, but it is impossible for God to make an earth and surrounding environment consistent with the laws of physics, the natural order of things.
Once again, I'll remind you that once I ventured into the FE section of this forum, I thought it perhaps a joke at first that people were entertaining the idea that the earth was flat. Then I see that these traditional Catholics really believe it, and really believe that it is Church teaching. I'm like, " Wow! Really? I need to look into this, because I want to know the truth and the true faith."
Each time I'd start watching a YT video I'm expecting to become a FE. I unlocked the fact of the globe, which I had accepted as certainty, and exposed it to being completely thrown out, and that memory overwritten with a new understanding of the world. Once the videos get to where they explain their claim, it falls apart as I identify simple errors in their logic.
I was left uncertain for probably a good year or so as I both hoped to understand the logic of the FE believers and make observations of my own. Eventually, I realized the extreme unlikeliness of the earth being flat through observation and reason, and that a globe is apparently still quite compatible with Catholic teaching, but having arrived at this conclusion myself rather that just believing what the scientists say.
I often think of the small details, exactly how something works, to a greater extent than most people care to venture. I can never get too many details; every little bit of truth and how things work interests me. I was mocked by someone once because I said I didn't understand/agree with/believe Bernoulli's principle as taught out of the textbook in college, and for good reason. As used to explain airplane flight, it is insignificant, wrong, and often taught as practically a dogma of divine revelation rather than explained. A few basic experiments proved me right in that regard.
I may now quote ...and to go against the flow of common opinion when it goes against reason.
A conspiracy theorist must be careful not to go too deep into all cօռspιʀαcιҽs. Just because scientists lie about some things doesn't mean it's all a lie. Just because space videos look CGI doesn't mean they are, and just because space programs use CGI, doesn't mean the whole operation is fake. I'm willing to agree its fake, but I don't have sufficient certainty. I will say that CGI simulations of what is happening in space based on telemetry makes it much easier for humans to monitor and make sense of many telemetry channels when they can't actually see what's happening up there.
Here are a couple easy experiments to try, I haven't tried them yet, but they can be used to detect the drop of the horizon as you increase in altitude, and are much more valuable than watching someone else on YT.
The first uses a speed square tool as a right angle with a weighted string attached to the corner so you know when the top is level. You look straight down the top edge at the horizon, and see what angle the string hangs. Speed squares are marked with degrees in the middle. The second is a water level. The further apart the two vertical tubes are, the more precise your measurement will be. It is one continuous tube with open ends. The water naturally levels itself, so you look through or beside it such that your eye level matches both water levels, then see if that matches the horizon level when you are very high above the ground.
(https://i.imgur.com/Zn6OB7M.png)
Who says we can’t explain the 24 hour Antarctic sun
what about the fact that on the flat earth model the firmament meets earth at Antarctica, how do we know that the light does not reflect off of the firmament, how do you know there are not multiple suns.
-
Here are a couple easy experiments to try, I haven't tried them yet, but they can be used to detect the drop of the horizon as you increase in altitude, and are much more valuable than watching someone else on YT.
The first uses a speed square tool as a right angle with a weighted string attached to the corner so you know when the top is level. You look straight down the top edge at the horizon, and see what angle the string hangs. Speed squares are marked with degrees in the middle. The second is a water level. The further apart the two vertical tubes are, the more precise your measurement will be. It is one continuous tube with open ends. The water naturally levels itself, so you look through or beside it such that your eye level matches both water levels, then see if that matches the horizon level when you are very high above the ground.
(https://i.imgur.com/Zn6OB7M.png)
This is one of my top proofs of flat earth. The horizon is *always* at eye level, no matter how high you go. You never have to look down to see the horizon, like you ABSOLUTELY WOULD if you were on a ball, however large that ball was. That's the predicted behavior if we were living on a planar realm, rather than a big ball.
People say "I can see the curve from my airplane window" but there are 2 problems with that.
1. The windows are convex and so cause an artificial curve, even at ground level, and
2. If the earth really WERE a globe and curved, you wouldn't be able to see the horizon from the airplane window. The horizon wouldn't be conveniently at your window seat eye level. The windows on planes aren't 4 feet tall, nor is the plane wall/body transparent. If the horizon wasn't pretty much eye level, you wouldn't be able to see it from your plane window.
By the way, there have been several high profile cases demonstrating this always-present horizon at eye level -- most of which were NOT anxious to prove flat earth at all -- quite the contrary. The Red Bull jump for example. The video from inside the craft shows the horizon outside -- still at eye level, that high up! Wow, the earth must really be a plane, not a planet.
It isn't till he goes outside and switches to his GoPro with a fisheye lens that you see something globers can seize upon, "See! the curve! There's the curve! See!?"
-
Here are a couple easy experiments to try, I haven't tried them yet, but they can be used to detect the drop of the horizon as you increase in altitude, and are much more valuable than watching someone else on YT.
The first uses a speed square tool as a right angle with a weighted string attached to the corner so you know when the top is level. You look straight down the top edge at the horizon, and see what angle the string hangs. Speed squares are marked with degrees in the middle. The second is a water level. The further apart the two vertical tubes are, the more precise your measurement will be. It is one continuous tube with open ends. The water naturally levels itself, so you look through or beside it such that your eye level matches both water levels, then see if that matches the horizon level when you are very high above the ground.
(https://i.imgur.com/Zn6OB7M.png)
Seriously, St. Giles, if you could demonstrate the second item (having to look down at the horizon) that would 100% disprove flat earth, and would CONCLUSIVELY, EXPERIMENTALLY prove we're living on a ball.
Put me down ON THE RECORD for saying that.
If I could get that kind of evidence, I would be forced to return to the globe earth position. But that's the kind of evidence every Flat Earther sought -- in vain. They looked for actual proofs -- not NASA propaganda and fakery, not consensus and lies, not misdirection and strawmen, but actual scientific evidence. After their heads exploded, they all had to either lie to themselves, or embrace the truth, however unpopular. Being as the are "flat earthers", they obviously chose the latter.
I'm not holding my breath for such evidence to appear, however. I've seen too much other evidence for flat earth. As a matter of fact, I myself was looking for flat earth-disproving evidence for the past 4 years. Still haven't found any.
-
Synchronicity in action -- another great video just dropped.
Talking about Flat earthers vs Globers on a big picture level. An EXCELLENT 7 minute video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGCBUOUojy0
-
Who says we can’t explain the 24 hour Antarctic sun
what about the fact that on the flat earth model the firmament meets earth at Antarctica, how do we know that the light does not reflect off of the firmament, how do you know there are not multiple suns.
It can be observed. Think about it. You'd see a reflection of the sun break off from the sun at some point, or otherwise see the sun circling the south pole by itself and it's reflection elsewhere doing the same. If there were two suns or a reflection, you wouldn't just see the one sun constantly and unchanged as it circles the south pole for days at a time without setting.
Matthew's favorite FE/conspiracy theorist, who I admit does bring up some good conspiracy points, saw the 24hr sun and couldn't explain it. He may have hardened his heard, though.
Matthew, did you drop Witsit, or are you still with him?
This is one of my top proofs of flat earth. The horizon is *always* at eye level, no matter how high you go. You never have to look down to see the horizon, like you ABSOLUTELY WOULD if you were on a ball, however large that ball was. That's the predicted behavior if we were living on a planar realm, rather than a big ball.
People say "I can see the curve from my airplane window" but there are 2 problems with that.
1. The windows are convex and so cause an artificial curve, even at ground level, and
2. If the earth really WERE a globe and curved, you wouldn't be able to see the horizon from the airplane window. The horizon wouldn't be conveniently at your window seat eye level. The windows on planes aren't 4 feet tall, nor is the plane wall/body transparent. If the horizon wasn't pretty much eye level, you wouldn't be able to see it from your plane window.
By the way, there have been several high profile cases demonstrating this always-present horizon at eye level -- most of which were NOT anxious to prove flat earth at all -- quite the contrary. The Red Bull jump for example. The video from inside the craft shows the horizon outside -- still at eye level, that high up! Wow, the earth must really be a plane, not a planet.
It isn't till he goes outside and switches to his GoPro with a fisheye lens that you see something globers can seize upon, "See! the curve! There's the curve! See!?"
You mean, one of the top proofs for an infinitely large flat earth. At some point you will go so high as to have to start looking down, or you'd look past the edge of the finitely sized FE.
So you should have no fear of verifying the angle you look at with one of the tools I mentioned, just to make sure that it's not your natural tendency to look at the horizon no matter where it is. Go up in a tall building to try it out, or on a very high hill. A giant ferris wheel would be easy. Don't just take some video dude's word for it.
When's the last time you flew in a plane? Do you even try in the slightest to test and fool proof your answers? You can see way more than 4 ft vertically out of even a little airplane window. It depends on how close you are as to the width of viewing angle you have.
You trust a camera, which could have it's angle set or edited however someone wants, and is not precision checked against a water level or square like I mentioned before? You seem to admit you standard for discerning truth may be as simple as your own bias. If a youtube video says what you want to hear, it's true, no need to verify yourself by repeating their experiment or at least either seriously considering a video of opposing view or using reason to try to tear apart their FE presentation to sort through and find what is solid truth and what is weak and can be argued against, and what is false.
Seriously, St. Giles, if you could demonstrate the second item (having to look down at the horizon) that would 100% disprove flat earth, and would CONCLUSIVELY, EXPERIMENTALLY prove we're living on a ball.
Put me down ON THE RECORD for saying that.
If I could get that kind of evidence, I would be forced to return to the globe earth position. But that's the kind of evidence every Flat Earther sought -- in vain. They looked for actual proofs -- not NASA propaganda and fakery, not consensus and lies, not misdirection and strawmen, but actual scientific evidence. After their heads exploded, they all had to either lie to themselves, or embrace the truth, however unpopular. Being as the are "flat earthers", they obviously chose the latter.
I'm not holding my breath for such evidence to appear, however. I've seen too much other evidence for flat earth. As a matter of fact, I myself was looking for flat earth-disproving evidence for the past 4 years. Still haven't found any.
Actually, the only reason I drew the water level was because I couldn't find the video I saw it in, so you can try looking for it. I personally hate browsing YT. But considering your serious interest, we may both give some priority to trying it out in real life. I'll keep you updated.
-
Matthew's favorite FE/conspiracy theorist, who I admit does bring up some good conspiracy points, saw the 24hr sun and couldn't explain it. He may have hardened his heard, though.
Matthew, did you drop Witsit, or are you still with him?
You mean, one of the top proofs for an infinitely large flat earth. At some point you will go so high as to have to start looking down, or you'd look past the edge of the finitely sized FE.
I hit the limit here. I can only respond to so much nonsense at once.
1. "conspiracy theorist" is a CIA term coined to discredit people, shut down discussions, about anything real, fake or in between. But mostly anything real they don't want you talking about.
2. Witsit isn't my favorite. I'm not a fanboy of any of them, though they have all done good work to spread the truth about the shape of our earth. I've learned from all of them. But none of what I received from them is based on personal faith/trust. It doesn't matter if they turn out like Bill Cosby or Pee Wee Herman, ending their life in disgrace. Because: they pointed out facts and observations that resonated as true, that made sense, that I had never thought about or articulated before. And now I can't get those truths out of my head, or gainsay them.
3. Why would I "drop" Witsit? I'm not married to him. But even as far as liking his channel, videos, etc. why would I "drop" him now? What does that even mean? How am I "with" him now? I'm not a member of any inner circle of his, not even his Patreon. I'm not that close to him, because he's pretty aggressively heretical when it comes to Catholicism, organized religion, etc. But back to flat earth -- Witsit never quit the flat earth position or anything like that. He says he saw a 24 hour sun in Antarctica. So apparently there's a 24 hour sun in Antarctica. So what? That is how true science has operated for centuries. Scientific observation and facts are the foundation of all human knowledge. None of that requires the conclusion that the Earth is a spinning, wobbling ball hurtling through "outer space" at breakneck speed, with stars trillions of miles away (but still somehow visible), created by a Big Bang, etc.
4. As for the "size of the flat earth" issue, I can't believe you're bringing that up. I'm embarrassed for you. Do you really not know how perspective works? Do you really think the human eye can see infinitely far, if "curvature" or some solid object doesn't get in the way?
See across the Atlantic to Europe? You can't even see the end of a long hallway! Google "angular resolution of the human eye" or "distance limits of human vision"
5. As for "how big is the earth" or "what's on the other side of the dome", the mainstream scientists can't HONESTLY answer that question either. Oh they very boldly pull things straight out of their ass, but that doesn't count as a true ANSWER, that is mere BS. I'm not inclined or willing to do that. They don't know what is beyond the border of their proposed "outer space" universe either. People just don't press that issue, out of respect for those High Priests of Science. They don't give this same courtesy to flat earthers, however.
-
So even at a high enough altitude we can't see across the atlantic (about 3000 miles or so), but we can see a sun and moon that are a supposed 3000 miles above the FE? Lets say jupiter was flat, and still 450 million miles away, it would look like a dot. The eye would be able to see the whole circle of jupiter as an oversized star. You don't seem to understand how perspective works. We can see too far unless it's a small picture of a hallway, or a flat earth, or whatever limitation you randomly pick when you feel like it. We can see probably a good 500, maybe even 1000 miles from 80,000ft. Of course, if you just walked up to the edge of a flat earth, you'd have to look down to see the "horizon" which ends at your feet.
As for the water level experiment, I doubt my local geography would allow for undeniable results not affected by hills and major landscape altitude changes, unless I find a tall hill overlooking a long stretch of lake, so I'd probably have to get a plane ride for a thorough test.
-
As for the water level experiment, I doubt my local geography would allow for undeniable results not affected by hills and major landscape altitude changes, unless I find a tall hill overlooking a long stretch of lake, so I'd probably have to get a plane ride for a thorough test.
That is my reason as well. Getting a plane ticket just for this experiment would be an improper and unnecessary expense for my family, plus having to take off work.
I was just in a plane a couple years ago for a work trip.
I have built (am building) a mountain on my land with a tractor. It's not just an upside-down V of dirt either. It's quite broad on top, with several levels or "stories" as I call them. Each story is what my tractor can deposit at the highest setting: about 5 feet. There are currently 3 "stories" or levels. I can see over most rooftops already. It's a heck of a view. But although I call it a mountain, it's not really one, and I don't think I'll ever have one so tall I won't have to fly out to Colorado for a real mountain experience.
It's not that I'm lazy, fearing the truth, or looking for confirmation bias or an echo chamber. I was already a globe believer, remember? I could have just stayed there. No one forced me to leave. Unless you count the preponderance of evidence for flat earth. That was quite persuasive, compelling even. So there was some intellectual compulsion acting upon me, done by the facts themselves.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM82MR9tsm0
-
Are the stars not in the firmament, there we have our Antarctic light source
-
So even at a high enough altitude we can't see across the atlantic (about 3000 miles or so), but we can see a sun and moon that are a supposed 3000 miles above the FE? Lets say jupiter was flat, and still 450 million miles away, it would look like a dot. The eye would be able to see the whole circle of jupiter as an oversized star. You don't seem to understand how perspective works. We can see too far unless it's a small picture of a hallway, or a flat earth, or whatever limitation you randomly pick when you feel like it. We can see probably a good 500, maybe even 1000 miles from 80,000ft. Of course, if you just walked up to the edge of a flat earth, you'd have to look down to see the "horizon" which ends at your feet.
As for the water level experiment, I doubt my local geography would allow for undeniable results not affected by hills and major landscape altitude changes, unless I find a tall hill overlooking a long stretch of lake, so I'd probably have to get a plane ride for a thorough test.
You act like you're a neophyte with this debate and don't know that the atmosphere limits how far you can see. Even Dr. Sungenis admitted this.
JTolan, a former engineer for NASA programs, has used infrared filtering to see many thousands of miles away from altitude ... from planes. He's also taken all the photos from one long flight, loaded them into photogrammetry software, which is extremely accurate, and it tendered them as completely flat.
-
4. As for the "size of the flat earth" issue, I can't believe you're bringing that up. I'm embarrassed for you. Do you really not know how perspective works? Do you really think the human eye can see infinitely far, if "curvature" or some solid object doesn't get in the way?
See across the Atlantic to Europe? You can't even see the end of a long hallway! Google "angular resolution of the human eye" or "distance limits of human vision"
Commenting on the bold. Where on earth can you find a hallway that you can not see the end of? How long is this hallway?
-
Synchronicity in action -- another great video just dropped.
Talking about Flat earthers vs Globers on a big picture level. An EXCELLENT 7 minute video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGCBUOUojy0
I've been saying this for years ... that if FE were so crazy, why do globers like St. Giles (and before him Quo Vadis) spend untold hours debating the subject? If someone has a totally crackpot theory about any subject, I would never waste this kind of time on it. I would make the old circle-by-the-ear gesture as I walk on by. Also, I would feel sorry for the guy who believed it, not hostile, and I wouldn't mock him, but would feel pity.
On top of that, this kind of zeal for the globe suggests that there's a powerful attachment to it.
So, if either the theory were totally crackpot or it was about some matter where you weren't attached to a particular outcome, but were just objectively seeking the truth ... no one would ever spend this kind of effort and energy on it.
Perhaps globers that care this much as to spend hours defending the globe could do some introspection and ask themselves WHY they care so much?
I can come back later and offer an answer because I fought against accepting FE for nearly 2 years before coming around, and I did that introspection during the process.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM82MR9tsm0
Does some one have a telescope and are near one of the oceans? I want to see this experiment. At night go to a cliff overlooking an ocean and try to find things, like mountains or buildings on the other side. It should work because when it is dark there is less atmospheric interference. I briefly tried to see if this was done already, but came up with nothing. I'll keep looking over the internet, and let you know what I find.
-
I've been saying this for years ... that if FE were so crazy, why do globers like St. Giles (and before him Quo Vadis) spend untold hours debating the subject? If someone has a totally crackpot theory about any subject, I would never waste this kind of time on it. I would make the old circle-by-the-ear gesture as I walk on by. Also, I would feel sorry for the guy who believed it, not hostile, and I wouldn't mock him, but would feel pity.
This is why these debates happen. I bet you pity St. Giles and St. Giles pities you. Me I am boggled about the see too far scenario and am trying to find a better way to measure hence the telescope at night over a body of water idea. I just don't have a telescope or the time to do this experiment.
-
Commenting on the bold. Where on earth can you find a hallway that you can not see the end of? How long is this hallway?
Depends on the size of the target object. FEs have made a lot of video on small scale showing, say, a quarter disappearing from bottom up starting within a few feet on a perfectly flat surface like a table if you put the camera aperture low to the surface. And that's without the additional complication of atmosphere. Between perspective and atmosphere, there's no way you could see forever. Even the anti-FE Dr. Sungenis conceded this point. Now, even without atmosphere it's absurd that scientists claim they can see things from billions of light years away. I don't care how big the thing is. They rely on people not knowing how far those absurdly large numbers mean something is. Separate question though.
You can cut through some of this by using infrared, and JTolan has some amazing infrared photography from altitude where he can see mountains from many thousands of miles away ... though even there they look pretty small. Depending on the relative distances, something as small as a 10-foot-tall wall could block something that's 10,000 feet tall. In fact, 2 inches of my thumb can block a skyscraper ... all depending on the perspective math.
-
This is why these debates happen. I bet you pity St. Giles and St. Giles pities you. Me I am boggled about the see too far scenario and am trying to find a better way to measure hence the telescope at night over a body of water idea. I just don't have a telescope or the time to do this experiment.
No, I don't pity him because I don't consider globe theory to be a "crackpot" theory. Now, if St. Giles here WERE going around saying something crackpot, insane, etc. ... I would then feel sorry for him, and perhaps, at most, spend a bit of time out of charity helping to disabuse him of it. Take for instance the one chap who kept coming on here insisting that Our Lord had returned and that therefore there was no more hope for the forgiveness of sins, i.e. he was damned ... because Our Lord was now disguised as the sun. That's an example where, no, I don't feel threatened (since it's nuts, and contrary to Church teaching) nor do I believe that there's even a shred of credibility to it. I did make a few posts on the matter, hoping to disabuse the guy of it (citing unanimous teaching of Church Fathers on their interpretation of Sacred Scripture), but he kept ignoring everything and coming back insisting it was true. At that point most of us just thew up our hands because he clearly didn't want to think rationally about it. But those threads lasted maybe one or two pages, and then people gave up. For this guy, I did in fact feel sorry for him, and at no point was I inclined to ridicule him ... realizing that he had some kind of debilitating psychological issue that he couldn't see his way out of.
-
So, from my own perspective, and journey, if you will (though the Conciliars have polluted that term by overuse), I was a strong believer in the globe. In fact, it had taken me a fair bit of time even to open up to geocentrism.
At one point, a few FEs showed up here, some of whom belong to a group "Flat Earth Trads". So, I did think it was nuts (gut reaction), yet even then I had enough respect for them where I never mocked them, ridiculed them, used insults, smears, or emojis. In fact, having always been inclined to keep an open mind about almost everything, I was determined to have a look. Since I didn't think it was going to be particularly credible, I didn't spend a ton of time on it at first. Matthew had banished them to an "FE" sub-forum here, since Matthew too was against the whole idea, nor did you see the latest threads on that summary panel, so it was easy to forget about them, out of sight, out of mind. Every once in a while, though, I'd remember and so I'd hop in there to see what they were posting. I was determined to at least give them a fair shake. I figured that I'd at least have a look at what they had to say, not expecting anything of much substance and thinking that it wouldn't consume a great deal of my time, since I'd have a look and then run along.
Well, as I read their argument, I found that they actually made some solid points, and so i kept having to look deeper. I was wrong that there was "nothing to it". In fact, if you look at Dr. Sungenis' initial interview about his book on FE that had not yet come out but he was talking about ahead of time, he said exactly the same thing. He had been asked by Kolbe Center to refute FE, and he figured it would be a two-page article, since they've have nothing of substance ... but then it ended up as a book of several hundred pages ... because, as he admitted, they did have some solid arguments that needed to be addressed, and it wasn't just craziness. It was in fact during that interview that he also made the comment dismissing the argument that you can't see forever on the earth. I'll come back to his book later, but I did buy it, even though by that time I had become a convinced FE proponent ... respecting the intellectual honesty he appeared to show there in that one interview, and also based on his prior work for geocentrism, e.g. The Principle movie. Well, the book was exactly the opposite ... and so I was disappointed, but I won't side track here. I'm always open to being challenged, and so I figured that if my belief in FE could stand up against what I expected to be the strongest and most rational treatment of the subject out there from Dr. Sungenis, then it would only strengthen my convictions, or else I was open to being wrong and corrected on the matter. Sadly, it was filled with the same tired old nonsense, personal attacks, etc. ... something that was completely uncharacteristic for him.
In any case, so as not to get ahead of myself, I started looking at those posts by FE Trads, and so kept looking further and further. After about 6 months or so, I was almost incredulous to find myself "leaning Flat Earth", as I termed it. So I did the introspection there. WHY did this bother me so much? I realized that it was due to the psychological conditioning where this cosmology, this entire view of the created universe, had been ingrained in me since my earliest childhood, with my first school science project being that solar system model made of styrofoam balls ... and every teacher had a globe on their desk (just an accident?). Nor did I relish the thought of becoming an FE and being on the receiving end of extreme ridicule (contrary to popular belief, very few of us like being treated this way) ... ESPECIALLY if I was wrong. I continued to hold out the possibility that I was wrong, and it wasn't until I was over 99% convinced that the earth is flat that I came out in support of it, since even a 5% uncertainty would have caused sufficient trepidation in me where I'd never hear the end of it for the rest of my life ... if I were wrong about it.
See, a lot of people, if they have an inclination to believe something, might take the leap if they're over 50% sure, or maybe 75% sure, etc. It's a leap they WANT to take, so they'll bridge the gap in that degree of uncertainty with their wanting to believe that conclusion. For FEs, it's completely the OPPOSITE, where if there's a 5% gap of uncertainty, the leap is still "too risky". As a metaphor, pretend that you're jumping from one elevated object to another. If I'm jumping from one platform to another ... where both platforms are 2 feet off the ground, I'm willing to try it even if I think there's a good chance I won't make it, since the consequences of not making it are next-to-nothing. But, if the two platforms are 1,000 feet above the ground and the consequences of not making it are fatal, then you're going to be reluctant to take that leap until you're absolutely sure you're gonig to make it ... maybe from no more than 1-2 feet away at the most. That's the metaphor for FE. Since the consequences of being wrong (being ridiculed, discredited, etc.) are so severe, it took me 2 years before I felt that, yeah, I'm about 99% certain that the earth is Flat. Now, once I believe somthing to be the truth, I accept the ridicule ... if in fact I believe that the subject is worth promoting. If it was something stupid like whether Elvis was still alive ... I wouldn't accept ridicule for that, since it's relatively meaningless. But FE is incredibly important, since so many millions of souls have lost faith or at least natural belief in God on account of the lies of atheistic modern science. If the earth is flat and covered by a firmament ... atheism dies a quick death, and many souls have a huge obstacle to faith removed. Many prominent FEs were atheists or agnostics before being convinced of FE, and then they came to believe in God. Even though I know of few who became Catholics, it's definitely a step in that direction (were the Church not at the same time crippled by Vatican II and its aftermath).
Now, not all FE proponents were open to FE. Some in fact set out deliberately to debunk it, thinking it was a psy-op ... since some of them were advocates of the moon landing having been a hoax, and so they figured FE was a way to discred that. Well, some of them started to dig in and became convinced, despite starting out hostile to it and with the explicit intent of debunking. That actually lends additional credibility to the cause. I guess the one thing they had going for them is that they DID NOT BELIEVE or TRUST NASA, and at the end they found that the only actual "evidence" for FE comes from NASA, so it you can't trust them as far as you can throw them (and it's obvious that they're a pack of liars ... to say nothing of their occult and Masonic foundations) ... where does that leave the state of evidence for the globe? There's almost nothing left if you take NASA out of the equation.
So, about every issue except what has been taugth by the Church, I keep an open mind. I always test my own conclusions by pretending that I'm debating the subject as a proponent for the other side, and laying out the best arguments I can in favor of that position. That's very similar to the scholastic method, where you start with the strongest objections, and it's also like that old saying attributed to Sherlock Holmes where if you eliminate the impossible, what remains must be the truth. So if there are, say, 5 viable opinions, and you decisively eliminate and falsify 4 of them, that makes that last one standing the true one ... unless of course there's one out there that hasn't been thought of yet. I've done this with evolution, with old earth, with big bang cosmology, and now with globe vs. flat earth. This exercise isn't difficult for me, since I used to debate in High School and University, participating in various national collegiate debate tournaments, and very often you were required to be prepared to argue EITHER side of the debate topic for a particular season. You would randomly have to either be for or against the debate resolution / assertion. It's incredibly "sophistic" ... if done to win and to persuade people of something you don't even believe yourself (since you can't believe both sides), but there's also a good use for this approach, when you're tyring to seek truth (rather than convince someone else). In any case, I pretend I'm a glober debating flat earthers (here on CI or elsewhere). I find that I can't come up with anything convincing regardless of how hard I try ... and I have tried. NASA. Sorry, but I don't believe NASA is a valid argument, since they're a pack of liars, have an agenda, and are completely imbued with Masonry and the occult. Dr. Sungenis says that it's a fallacy to conclude they're lying about everything just because they lied about one thing (Sungenis admitted a couple of their lies). Well, he's actually committing a strawman fallacy. We don't say they're lying about everything. But if they lie about anything, they can't be trusted as telling the truth about everything, so you can't just take their word for it, but must evaluate each point on its own merits. That's actually a legal principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus "false in one thing, false in all", which doesn't mean it's certain in an absolute sense, just that you have to assume they MIGHT BE and therfore nothing they say can be used as evidence in the trial. For the "see too far" argument, I try throwing the word "refraction" out there like many of them do, but I don't believe it. Why? Because I can't convince MYSELF that refraction can explain it, especially from hundreds of miles away sometimes, and with the two-way laser experiments. It's just a word you throw out there out of desperation as a last-resort deus ex machina to "save the day" for the globe, if you're already pre-convinced. At best, all I can come up with are certain "Well, with FE, how about ...", where FE don't have a solid answer with proof or evidence, but that doesn't disprove FE, just because it currently doesn't have an answer for it. Finding some of these questions does not actually positively prove the globe ... except if you're operating under confirmation bias where you take anything as proof. Now, even IF one could disprove FE, that still doesn't actively PROVE the globe ... since that would rely on the false dichotomy fallacy. Perhaps the answer is something else, or the answer involves a modification of some pre-existing theory, etc. So, for instance, maybe the answer is that the earth is a globe but it's much larger than we're told. I can't refute that ... but then I haven't seen any evidence for this either (not that many people adhere to this). Or, the answer may be some new theory about how ether could bend light exactly around the countours of the globe. But I haven't seen that proposed or worked out. Refraction is utter absurdity, however, so you have to do better than that. But that's the scientific method, which the globe-proponents, while pretending to appeal to "science", actually ignore the principles of. What they really mean is an appeal to authority fallacy, an appeal to the mainstream scientific consensus, but not to the scientific method per se, which they merely assume to have already proven globularity.
-
That is my reason as well. Getting a plane ticket just for this experiment would be an improper and unnecessary expense for my family, plus having to take off work.
I was just in a plane a couple years ago for a work trip.
I have built (am building) a mountain on my land with a tractor. It's not just an upside-down V of dirt either. It's quite broad on top, with several levels or "stories" as I call them. Each story is what my tractor can deposit at the highest setting: about 5 feet. There are currently 3 "stories" or levels. I can see over most rooftops already. It's a heck of a view. But although I call it a mountain, it's not really one, and I don't think I'll ever have one so tall I won't have to fly out to Colorado for a real mountain experience.
It's not that I'm lazy, fearing the truth, or looking for confirmation bias or an echo chamber. I was already a globe believer, remember? I could have just stayed there. No one forced me to leave. Unless you count the preponderance of evidence for flat earth. That was quite persuasive, compelling even. So there was some intellectual compulsion acting upon me, done by the facts themselves.
I think a small plane ride up to 10,000ft would be enough. Probably costs $200. If I scrape up enough funds to do this, I'd be happy to let you have the video if you want to monetize it and get a share of YT shekels. It could be your very own FE destroyed or confirmed video. The only problem being views are only worth about $3 per 1000.